Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
WG818 - I do not mean to be rude but it is clear from your post that you have no experience running a business as there is no way than anyone in any industry would do as you suggest. Angus are not going to stop production when gas prices are at their highest in order to drill a sidetrack that will mean that they come back online in summer when prices are much lower. By doing this they will lose money twice.
The obvious business decision is simply to produce from the existing gas while prices are high and then drill the sidetrack after the prices drop down again in summer. Basically the company will make as much money as they can while prices are high and worry about the sidetrack afterwards. Only an idiot would do otherwise.
As I said below - with gas prices as they are then as long as Angus can start production in mid February (as per the 11th August RNS) then they can make £15 million in revenues before the hedge even comes into play. This will pay off all of the debt less than 5 months after commencing production.
Saltfleetby is a goldmine.
I have been looking at the affect of today’s gas prices on Saltfleetby’s potential value this morning. For once, it makes very good reading whatever way you look at it. I’ll come back in more detail later but my quick calculations based on the ICE gas futures average price of 183.6p for Q2 2022 say that Angus can potentially deliver £15 million in clear profit between February and June 2022 assuming that they are able to get to first gas by halfway through February.
This may sound crazy, but you need to remember that , the CPR price per therm was estimated to be 39p and it is now looking like it will be almost five times higher than that when we commence production.
Dan - No, this is not a standard reply at all. All they would have to do is confirm that “as per the RNS of March 23rd NHNL is a wholly owned subsidiary of KOHN which is majority owned by ADM. Under no circumstances would we allow our subsidiary to enter into negotiations with another company that would in any way affect our holding in the RSA”.
However, they have not done this. They have just avoided answering the questions on the basis that they know nothing about Zeniths negotiations with their own subsidiary.
They have still not replied to my follow up email.
This stinks.
We are going to lose Barracuda and any claim we have to any of the rest of OML141. Mark my words…
I was extremely unhappy wit the last reply as I cannot believe that ADM as the 51% owner of KOHN would not have an idea about the negotiations that their own subsidiary is carry out with a rival AIM listed company. Something is very fishy here.
I have sent them back the following email:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your reply. However, I am confused as to how you cannot be a party to Zenith's discussions with NHNL. You have stated a number of times in your RNS releases and in your emails to me that NHNL is a subsidiary of KOHN UK Ltd. Since ADM has been announced as owning 51% of KOHN then it is your own subsidiary that Zenith are negotiating with.
How on earth can you be allowing NHNL to negotiate with Zenith without your knowledge if you are the the majority owner of the company via your stake in KOHN? Surely as company owners you could revoke this exclusivity deal in a second if you were not happy with it?
With this in mind, please could you have another go at answering my questions?
1. Can you confirm that in the event of any sale of the RSC to Zenith Energy AMD Energy will still maintain their 70% indirect interest in the rights, benefits and obligations under the RSA relating to the Barracuda area of OML 141?
2. Can you confirm that it is the KONH UK Ltd subsidiary of NHNL (the company who own 100% of the RSC) that Zenith are in negotiations with?
3. At what point and under what transaction did NHNL end up being a subsidiary of KONH UK Ltd as it’s website still maintains that it is 100% Nigerian owned
4. please could you confirm what percentage of ownership KOHN UK Ltd has in NHNL?
Kind Regards,
xxxx
I will let you all know as and when I hear a response from my latest email. However, my concerns have been increased rather than decreased by the correspondence I have had. I am every more convinced that we are about to lose all of our Nigerian assets.
Please would somebody else also email the company and see if you can get any more clarity than I have received please?
I have now written to the company a number of times by email. In the first email I said
“As an investor in ADM Energy, I am extremely concerned that Zenith Energy is claiming that they have an exclusivity agreement to purchase an asset that ADM have previously informed the market that they own. Both of these announcements cannot be correct and I think that it is important for ADM to issue an RNS clarifying what is happening.”
I got the following response:
“Thank you for your enquiry. To clarify matters the Zenith Energy announcement with Nobile Hill-Network Ltd (“NHNL”) does not conflict with our announcement. We are not ‘asset owners’ but we hold an indirect interest in the RSC by way of our interest in NHNL via K.O.N.H UK ltd as per our announcement on 28th April we have a “70% indirect interest in the rights, benefits and obligations under the RSA relating to the Barracuda area of OML 141”
I then replied with the following additional questions:
Can you confirm that in the event of any sale to the RSA to Zenith Energy AMD Energy will still maintain their 70% indirect interest in the rights, benefits and obligations under the RSA relating to the Barracuda area of OML 141?
Zenith Energy RNS stated that they were in negotiations “with Noble Hill-Network Limited ("NHNL"). Can you confirm that it is the KONH UK Ltd subsidiary that Zenith are in negotiations with?
I also have a query about KONH UK Ltd. Since this company was only set up on February 19th 2021 I am confused as to how the Nigerian company NHNL can be it’s subsidiary especially since NHNL describes itself as being “100% Nigerian owned”. Please could you advise me of how this is the case?
Also please could you confirm what percentage of ownership KOHN UK Ltd has in NHNL? We have already paid KOHN £575,000 for our 51% stake in them but it is very unclear as to exactly what this has bought us. Will the money be refundable if it turns out that there are issues?
I received the following reply:
In respect of your queries below, I hope you can appreciate that, as ADME is not party to Zenith’s discussions, we are unable to comment on the contents of their announcements in so far as it relates to their activities. We would suggest that you contact Zenith directly should you need further information on any statements they have made.
AGEOS has clearly explained the difference between a “Risk Service Contract” and a “Risk Sharing Agreement” however there are still a number of issues that do not add up to me.
It is clear from the Zenith RNS and the Noble Hill Network website that NHNL own 100% of the Risk Service Contract for NW OML 141. The Zenith RNS of August 31st explicitly states this in describing NHNL as “ a private Nigerian oil and gas company, that holds 100% of the Risk Service Contract ("RSC") for the development of the North-West Corner of OML 141 ("NW OML 141"). The Noble Hill website describes “Our first acquisition is a Risked Service Contract in Bayelsa State Nigeria, OML 141. It extends across 105 square kilometres of the Northwest Quadrant of OML 141”
However, what is unclear is what ADM’s Risk Sharing Agreement refers to and, more importantly, who this RSA is with, because none of it really makes sense.
In the RNS of the 23rd March, ADM explain that they are acquiring a 51% interest in K.O.N.H. UK Limited, and describes KONH as the parent company of NHNL (by explaining that NHNL is a subsidiary of KOHN).
However, if NHNL is a subsidiary of KOHN and KOHN is now 51% owned by ADM, then how on earth do ADM not know about the deal done with between Zenith and NHNL – as it would have been them doing the deal, as the subsidiary could not have signed off on such a deal without the parent company also approving it.
It is also interesting that the 23rd March RNS announced that “The RSA also grants the RSA Consortium an option to acquire a participating interest in the OML 141 Licence” but then on 8th June ADM were forced to put out a new RNS correcting this by saying: “The investment in the Field was made by way of an acquisition of a 51 per cent. interest in K.O.N.H. UK Limited ("KONH"), which holds a 70 per cent. interest in a Risk Sharing Agreement ("RSA"). In the announcement, the Company advised that the RSA grants investors in the RSA an option to acquire a participating interest in the OML 141 licence, however, there are no option rights attached to the RSA and, accordingly, to the benefit of ADM.”
I have made a number of email enquiries to the company about this but they have not replied with any satisfactory answers. Has anybody else had a response to their queries?
As things stand, I feel that it is very unlikely that we are still going to own Barracuda at the end of this process and this worries me because it is the company’s major asset.
The company has always been terrible about communicating but this is beyond a joke. At the moment there is no clarity on whether the company still owns any right to Barracuda or not and all it would take is one announcement to clarify this but they simply won’t do it. I have to say though that I am surprised that Cairn (the nomad) have not forced them to take action – it is very poor form IMO.
I have just sent an email to AIM Regulation complaining about both the company and the nomad and requesting that they look into this situation. I have been told to expect a response in the next 48 hours.
I have to say I now believe that we no longer own any of the asset. Too much time has passed with the company remaining completely radio-silent when they could clear it up with a one-line statement. With any small-cap company, whenever this happens it means that bad news is on the way…
As Robert have said, if Noble Hill-Network Ltd are 70% owned by KOHN (who were only formed in Feb 2021) then why does their website say that the company (Noble Hill-Network Ltd) are 100% Nigerian owned? http://www.noblehillnetwork.com/Noblehill-Network/About.html
I was expecting an RNS from the company this morning clarifying what on earth is going on. If the situation is as described by the optimists here it would only take 5 minute to clarify that Zenith are buying into our subsidiary. However, the fact that nothing has been announced at all makes me think that the situation is rather more serious than most on here hope.
The fact that there is no clarification on whether we still own Barracuda or not is an absolute disgrace and if it does turn out that we no longer own it then the board should be reported to the FCA for fraud and deception along with the nomad and all who have conspired in this farce.
I am still hoping that it is Zenith who are wrong in their RNS but the longer the silence goes on from our board the more concerned that I am that this is not the case.
I think that this is a nice assumption but is actually wrong. There is a very worrying post on the Zenith forum by a poster called AGEOS who suggests that Karra Oil Noble Hill Ltd has been struck off in the Isle of Man less than three weeks ago. If this is the case then ADM's share of anything that it owns has disappeared with it. AGEOS claims that the Noble Hill-Network Limited that Zenith refers to is a Nigerian company and is entirely unconnected to the identically named subsidiary of Karr Oil Noble-Hill. If he is correct then we are left with absolutely nothing.
This is a total mess and needs clarification from the company by RNS immediately.
Zenith Energy have just issued an RNS this morning that claims that they have entered into an exclusivity agreement to acquire 100% of the Risk Service Contract for OML 141 from a company called Noble-Hill-Network Limited.
How is it possible that they can enter into this agreement if we already own the license? I know that management have failed to deliver by updating us on the marginal fields and also failed to deliver on the Barracuda CPR but please tell me they haven't just lost the most valuable asset in our portfolio. I can't believe that this is possible but I also cannot understand why Zenith have made their announcement today either.
Does anyone have direct contact with the company so they can ask? Surely they must release an RNS to clear up this confusion. Please say that we are watertight on our ownership!
HeadInTheSand - Nah, judging by the quality of your posts, your head is definitely stuck somewhere significantly more intimate.
Still, it saves money on a proctologist I guess.
gkb can't let it go. he and his little AAAG gang are still going to sue the company and recover all of their investors losses and are fully funded to do so - you know, like they promised us all over a year ago.
None of them have a clue what they are talking about - remember gkb's claim that Rupert Labrum was in league with JTP and Know properties to take Angus private? This is why their "absolutely 100% guaranteed winning case" has got absolutely nowhere.
Like I said back in July last year:
"The lawyers love it when these naïve bumpkins arrive. I've seen it dozens of times. They come in with their made-up ideas of how they have been robbed and of course the lawyers tell them that they have such a great case that they are going to do the job on a no-win-no-fee basis. But this is just salesmanship. Fast forward a month or two and the same lawyers that promised that the case was cast-iron and wouldn't cost them a penny suddenly start demanding a small retainer for their work, just to cover costs. The bumpkins cough up as the retainer is only small and it is divided between many people. Fast forward another month or two and a further request for money arrives, this time bigger. If they pay it a third arrives etc etc. And all this is before they even come to the killer - that should it ever go to court the barristers are going to want another large chunk payable up front and with no guarantee of winning. I can remember reading dozens of times about shareholder action groups being formed when the shareholders have lost money on their investments but I cannot think of a single time that they have been successful . It is just another way that the foolish are parted from their money."
Fantastic news from GL this morning on the Angus debt funding commitments. We have:
a) The conditional mandate letter for £8-9 million
b) The Aleph Loan facility for £11 million
So at the moment we have £20 million down in total from two different sources when we only need to raise £12 million. This is all happening now and for a company of Angus’ size to be raising £12 million in debt funding it shows just what a big deal Saltfleetby is really going to be.
Ignore the AAAG, they are long proven to be absolute idiots.
Yes, they have done a fantastic job and I think that we can look forward to a fantastic 2021 here. Have a great Christmas everybody.
Well on the one hand we have Aleph who have directors who have worked at: Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Macquarie, Engelhart, Koch Industries, Vantage Capital, Credit Suisse, and American Express.
On the other hand we have gkb47, ratsuss and the rest of the AAAG who have lost so much money on the stock market that they couldn't even rustle up a few thousand pounds to pay a lawyer to take on their "100% guaranteed case"!
Who to believe, the professionals or the forum trolls?
I think that members of the AAAG are the last people on this board that anyone should be taking investment advice from.
Just saying.
Rastuss yourself and the rest of the AAAG spent a lot of time criticising Angus for not having enough expertise on the team and now you are criticising them for having too much.
Anyone would think that you care nothing for the truth and simply have an anti-Angus agenda...
And certainly not from an individual who is ranked 8th in the all-time Angus rampers list yet has lost a fortune on the stock through poorly timed investments and whose greatest pearl of wisdom from September was "The loan company are just in to make money on interest payments".
Congratulations pal, you have just invented banks. ROTFPML
The AAAG remain invested in this share in very very small quantities, solely so that they can reply when they are asked that they are investors. They do not believe in the company or it’s future but instead believe that they are owed something by the company an it’s management.
A large quantity of the AAAG were very significant rampers of Angus in the past and it is a hilarious irony that they started to believe their own ramping and did not acknowledge the possibility that oil exploration could also be unsuccessful. I will not comment here on who the rampers are but if you follow the google link here it should be easy enough for you to find out. I suggest paying special attention to positions 2, 3 and 8 https://www.google.com/search?q=top+rampers&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB781GB781&oq=top+rampers&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i13i457j0i13l6.7087j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
They used these boards to recruit other investors to join their club and promised that they had been told that they had a case that was so good that they would be able to get third party funding for it and none of them would have to pay a penny. They made a big fuss about how they were going to bring Angus to account and yet the company never heard from them in a formal sense and instead they just turned up on this forum deramping day and night.
I imagine that what finally happened was that when they actually went to a lawyer they found out that legal advice is not free after all, no matter what they had previously been told. The lawyers love it when these naïve bumpkins arrive. I've seen it dozens of times. They come in with their made-up ideas of how they have been robbed and of course the lawyers tell them that they have such a great case that they are going to do the job on a no-win-no-fee basis. But this is just salesmanship. Fast forward a month or two and the same lawyers that promised that the case was cast-iron and wouldn't cost them a penny suddenly start demanding a small retainer for their work, just to cover costs. The bumpkins cough up as the retainer is only small and it is divided between many people. Fast forward another month or two and a further request for money arrives, this time bigger. If they pay it a third arrives etc etc. And all this is before they even come to the killer - that should it ever go to court the barristers are going to want another large chunk payable up front and with no guarantee of winning. I can remember reading dozens of times about shareholder action groups being formed when the shareholders have lost money on their investments but I cannot think of a single time that they have been successful . It is just another way that the foolish are parted from their money.
So they remain here deramping the share because the only thing that can make them feel worse about their losses is if the company recovers and becomes successful with them no longer invested.