Member Info for OofyProsser

A good try, Ocelot, but factually incorrect. A default is a failure to meet a financial obligation when it’s due. We know the size and the value of the financial obligations due in March and June. Angus has defaulted on both. It’s future is in the hands of its lenders.

Re the suspension, it’s hard to see how it’s in the interests of retail shareholders. Sooner of later the shares will either be de-listed or trading re-instated. Why stop the shares being traded just because a rumour has just been proven to be true?

..and what is external growth?

Furthermore, Trafigura will be taking a view on likely political and economic developments. It seems to me that with the labour government in hook to its 200-odd socialist backbenchers, taxes will have to rise. Rachel from Accounts will have to go. There will probably be a full-scale Sterling crisis and a sharp reversal (upwards) in interest rates.

Big hitters? I don’t think so, big hitters in the Little League, possibly.

I doubt these appointments are of any interest to Trafigura. They’ve got their slide rules out. M

A few months ago, Mirasol kindly posted an analysis of production from Saltfleetby, monthly, over a couple of years. Below is an extract with data round the dates of the 2024 annual maintenance shutdown:

Jun-24 4711.55 6.2805

Jul-24 3785.05 5.0455

Aug-24 4880.70 6.5060

Sep-24 4737.90 6.3156

Oct-24 4361.35 5.8137

The monthly reduction in production continued from August onwards and by October was already substantially below the pre-maintenance flow.

I think we need to watch the data over the next few weeks before reaching conclusions on the medium term trend in production.

Try to keep up, Ocelot.

Creditors, Mirasol, I agree with you though, there’s unlikely to be anything left in this for shareholders.

Dear oh dear..

Thanks, Mirasol. We’ll have to see if this is more than a bounce following the annual service (rather than workover).

HITS: as far as I can remember, he only mentioned the £20 million bank loan offer once. I think that was in a Q&A following the September 2020 surprise announcement that they had appointed Gneiss to find someone to lend them £12 million. I think the reference was rather casual, which is why I thought it was probably truthful. I thought those monthly Q&A sessions were a good idea, though I can understand his frustration with the sometimes ribald reaction they elicited from certain sceptics on this site.

Mirasol: yes, though they would have got away with the cost of new kit if they’d taken the bank loan. No hedge contracts, no royalty, just interest. And all 17 months earlier.

It could have been so different, though. If Lord Lucan had accepted the £20 million bank loan that he claimed he was offered, 17 months before he had to accept the usurious terms of the Mercuria loan. Then, if the drill which followed had been completed three months earlier than it was, they would have been able to profit from the massive rise in the gas price, rather than suffer massive losses as a result of failing to meet the terms of the forward contracts Which were part of the Mercuria Loan terms. Poor Lord Lucan was a bit upset, if I recall rightly, at being lampooned rather by one or two posters at the time. His protestations were in vain, they. His critics were proved entirely correct. As the poet Whittier puts it: “for all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these - “it might have been”…if I’ve quoted him before in this context, I make no apology.

WG818: not to mention the terms on which the publicly-quoted Angus Energy plc bought out the 49% share of Poundland owned by Mr. Forrest’s private company.

I’m no lawyer but the charge in Trafigura’s favour seems to suggest they can seize the assets if Angus fails to meet the terms of the charge. If they’re making more money from the hedges than from the interest on their loan, they may be willing to leave things as they are for now. But this is a heavily depleted field which is performing way below expectations in the two recent CPRs. However you cut it, it’s hard to see anything left for shareholders.

Yes, Ocelot, but such a deal makes no sense to anyone but Angus and its henchpeople. And with the gas price rising close to the hedge price, Angus will be anxious to produce at least the volumes required by the hedge contracts.

Yes, Mirasol, I can see that Trafigura must be examining all their options. I can’t see any advantage to Aleph or Kemexon in doing a deal such as you suggest. Anyone who takes it over would be on the hook for eventual restoration of the oil/gas sites.

I don’t understand what any of Angus’s creditors would have to gain by this. Angus would still be in default and subject to Trafigura’s direction. Angus is a basket case.

I’m quite sure, however, that the major shareholders are casting about for a way out that saves part of their and their investors’ money.

Thanks, Bubblepoint. Trafigura has some thinking to do. I imagine they’ve incorporated the hedges in some more complex arrangement that guarantees them a profit - provided that Angus meets the production schedule.

Bubblepoint: how long would it take to install velocity string(s) and what would the cost be? Would the higher velocity fully compensate in flow terns for the narrower pipe? I ask because the gas price is getting (rising) very close to the July-September hedge price. They’ll need to ensure they meet the volume requirement or it may get expensive. In any case, Trafigura will have to decide whether this might be merely throwing good money after bad, what?

So, Onetomany has chucked in the towel, has he? I hope it wasn’t anything I said..,