Member Info for ocelot

"And ANGS have to find the cost of an EWT and then convince their partners to participate. Not going to happen"

As the operator, Angus sought and obtained the agreement of its partners to contest the appeal, which has now found in their favour.

Article in the Times on page 33 by Simon French, Panmure Liberum's MD and chief economist

"... when marketing these islands as an investment destination, many investors struggle to square the government's primary mission for economic growth with a penal 78% tax rate on energy profits and a commitment to no new licences for the UK's North Sea continental shelf. It is an impediment to economic growth hiding in plain sight ...

At 79kg of carbon per barrel of oil equivalent (BOE), this (imported LNG from the US and Qatar) has almost four times the carbon intensity of UK production at just 21kg/BOE. Liquefaction and sea transportation are both carbon-intensive ..."

For a long time, one of the reasons UKOG held on to BB was to learn of Angus's results at Balcombe.

But Balcombe has, in turn, suffered from years of procedural delays.

It was last Thursday the Appeal court unanimously found in favour of Angus's extended well test at Balcombe.

https://drillordrop.com/2025/04/17/balcombe-loses-appeal-over-angus-energy-oil-test/

Expecting a good amount of red ink, especially given the appointment of the new auditors.

But, at the present time, it is cash that matters more than the income statement.

If Trump seeks to evict Jerome Powell from the Fed, that should raise further doubts about the $ and make gold appear still more attractive.

Https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/investing/article-14627603/MIDAS-SHARE-TIPS-Unearth-beat-firms-set-profit-new-GOLD-RUSH.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-14627623/Households-face-higher-bills-row-gas-storage-hub.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

At $68, 300-500 bopd = $7.45m-12.41m of revenue of which Angus's share is currently 25%.

Just re-read Bubblepoint's Parts 1-3 on Balcombe on 2nd March: a sustainable 300-500 bopd would be most welcome.

Balcombe's (admittedly) initial flow indications were encouraging, it may possess the potential to become a valuable asset within Angus's portfolio.

A reminder that, before the most recent procedural delay, the company was "in discussions with the 75% majority partner regarding that interest (its own interest of 25%) and the work programme with regard to the project's various stages". (RNS of 17/10/23)

03/02: RNS - booster compressor safely delivered on site at the end of January

26/03: Surrey CC's planning committee votes 9-1 in favour of Angus's Brockham application to import wastewater

11/04: booster compressor successfully commissioned

17/04: Appeal court unanimously finds in favour of Angus re Balcombe's extended well test

It may not yet be reflected in the share price but it has been a good start to the year in operational and procedural terms.

Well done, management and all involved!

The appointment of new auditors provides the opportunity to wipe the slate clean - the question is why has SS chosen to do this now.

Decommissioning provisions of £1.451m at 30/09/23

Mirasol,

I'm not at all sure you have understood the point of my posts. I am using UKOG's market cap (the last available to us prior to the suspension of trading in its shares) to get at the market's valuation of UKEn, which is what interests me.

"... That's not an entry in the asset column - it's a nailed on, legal liability" .

Nobody is suggesting a liability is an asset.

But UKOG's market cap reflects its liabilities so, since UKOG's market cap is positive and its principal asset is now UKEn, clearly the market's valuation of UKEn is also positive and is equivalent to UKOG's market cap + its liabilities.

Mirasol,

If I may be permitted to correct you, I am not aware of desperately trying to avoid recognising anything.

If you think you know what will happen next at HH, please say because, personally, I have absolutely no idea.

My post below solely concerns HH, not BB.

The original production licence was quashed by the Supreme court, agreed, Mirasol.

What happens next remains unclear, UKOG having said it will seek to rectify the situation created by the judgment, "either via an amendment to the original 2018 planning application’s EIA or via a new retrospective planning submission".

Agreed, Roadhouse!

"All three judges at the Court of Appeal dismissed the case by Frack Free Balcombe Residents’ Association (FFBRA)".

ZYX098,

Re your comment concerning the BB liability: noted.

Re HH: the situation is not at all clear which is why I have not taken note of any potential liability. A Drill or Drop article dated 26/02/25 states:

"Sian Saadeh, the council’s planning development manager, said:

“I have set out what I think is necessary to be included in a revised environmental statement to address the decision of the Supreme Court, as well as other matters that have changed, as guidance has changed over the years since the original determination ..."

You wrote: "If you claim that the P&A liability of BB should be added to the Market Cap, ..."

What I thought I said is that, in order to deduce the current market valuation of UKEn (and, for the sake of simplicity, ignoring the "known unknown", HH), one can add the estimated BB liability to UKOG's market cap, that is, market cap + BB liability = UKEn market valuation.