Member Info for WG818

Actually. This and the Brockham production were the only non predictable part of that RNS.

SF4 is the problem well that produces the water. The question is why have they chosen not to work over?

B7 is the new well and is a surprise!

Brockham is doing well just. The rest was totally predictable from the figures we all can see.

It’s still a declining field and in a years time following the decline curve it’s still terminal.

Very interesting Ocelot……not as interesting as Summer 28 which is only 54.500

*senior debt holders. Aleph and Traffi rank equally.

Ask chat GPT money Raiser (you obviously used it for that last post of yours) what it thinks the likely outcome. Then ask it why it thinks Angus haven’t appointed a new CEO!

Lol…. You really have to laugh and wonder just how thick this Telegram group is/individual is. Their first post barely readable, and the second slick and eloquent. Followed by multiple recommends for a truly awful post.

It doesn’t matter how many times you polish the unpalatable, this is the ant debt holders Trafi and Aleph choosing the best worse option for THEM! We are at the very bottom of the pile and whatever happens (barring a UKOG type unjustified pump and dump) ( I have a suspicion this is why all these return lady of aim mentioning posters have descended here) nothing positive is in our futures. If they do resist get out as soon as you can, because this lot certainly will!

But always turned out to be wrong!!

Ps MacBook. If you get AI to write a response for you, I suggest you tell us this is what AI thinks!! Quite clearly not you looking at your previous style.

MacBook Pro……so that makes number 6 or 7 of you who have referenced lady of aim in there first page of posts on LSE. You win with yours as the very first though.

Are you the infamous Telegram group? Or just a single poster with multiple accounts?

Moneyraiser…….another one who mentioned lady of aim in one of their first posts. Is that 5 or 6 of you now?

Are you all in that Telegram group?…..must try harder guys.

HITS

No ORRI is included in the figures.

And that’s why there’s no point in arguing with Stupid.

I bet you still use an Abacus….cant trust those newfangled calculators can you!!

O yes sorry, and the national gas.com daily production figures and the ice natural gas future pricing website…..is that good enough?

Well in this case, Angus accounts, full and half yearly, the CPR, and all RNS, relating to financial information, production and double checked by asking it to confirm two or three times. Then asking it what it needs to confirm its findings….all open in the background before you ask!

Yes it can be very frustrating as it contradicts itself but if you stick at it you get there in the end.

Just ask it about the last quarterly and the hedging profit you couldn’t understand and how they got to that figure if you don’t believe!

While your asking it your questions, ask it why it thinks Aleph are 99% in the frame for taking Angus out for pennies in the pound, and how long and how they have been lining it up!

You can’t argue with Stupid onetomany! Take it up with chat gpt….and yes it’s all correct!

Finally the figures have been calculated directly from daily production figures the same ones Galder used. Only galders figures are correct apart from the fact he doesn’t use the hedge component. This is what you couldn’t get your head round from the last production RNS.

The swap requires the Group to pay the floating price and receive the fixed price on the sale of gas. If the floating (spot) price is higher than the fixed price, the Group pays the net difference to the hedge counterparty — that creates a cash/MTM liability for Angus.

Those swap obligations were novated and restructured into the Trafigura facility, so Trafigura now manages the hedge profile and the Group’s swap exposure remains in force (the counterparty changed but the Group’s obligation did not disappear).

Where hedges have been crystallised (unwound), the Group has a settlement obligation for those volumes; the facility allows the Company to defer settlement up to 11 months but any deferral bears interest at SONIA + 10%, so deferral converts an immediate cash call into a deferred, interest‑bearing liability.

The Group has recognised the gross swap liability in the accounts (the note records the net swap loss and the Group recognised the liability at 100% following the SEL acquisition), so the accounting and the commercial exposure both show Angus is on the hook.

Practical implications

Hedged volumes: for any production covered by a fixed hedge, Angus will not benefit from spot upside — instead it must pay the difference when spot > fixed.

Unhedged volumes: any production not covered by a hedge is sold at spot and is not subject to swap settlement.

Trafigura role: Trafigura’s novation/physical offtake may change cash collection mechanics (they can collect receipts and enforce sweep/security), but it does not remove Angus’s contractual swap liability unless the swap is terminated or settled.

If Angus defers crystallised settlements: expect additional interest cost (SONIA + 10%) and a growing cash obligation that Trafigura can enforce under the facility security.

Bottom line is what they owe(including what’s they have produced since the half yearly it’s not £29 million, it somewhere between £37 and £41,742

Onetomany /James

This is the exact situation the company are in as of today. Including money generated since the half yearly. Three separate options as we don’t have all the information to narrow it down exactly.

A — Using interim derivative MTM £6,481,000 (31‑Mar‑2025) — interest capitalised

Line Amount (£)

Subtotal (confirmed lines) 41,463,924

+ 20% hedge uplift 408,185

Subtotal with uplift 41,872,109

+ Trafigura interest (SONIA+8% annualised) 2,637,500

+ Forum interest (blended on £1.59m) 196,474

Total liabilities (capitalised interest) 44,706,083

Less cash generated £7,375,000 –7,375,000

Net owed today (A, capitalised) £37,331,083

If Forum interest is applied to the full £1.88m instead of £1.59m: Forum interest ≈ £232,200, total liabilities ≈ £44,741,809, net ≈ £37,366,809.

B — Using annual derivative MTM £10,892,000 (30‑Sep‑2024) — interest capitalised

Line Amount (£)

Subtotal (confirmed lines, annual MTM) 45,874,924

+ 20% hedge uplift 408,185

Subtotal with uplift 46,283,109

+ Trafigura interest (SONIA+8% annualised) 2,637,500

+ Forum interest (blended on £1.59m) 196,474

Total liabilities (capitalised interest) 49,117,083

Less cash generated £7,375,000 –7,375,000

Net owed today (B, capitalised) £41,742,083

If Forum interest is applied to the full £1.88m instead of £1.59m: Forum interest ≈ £232,200, total liabilities ≈ £49,152,809, net ≈ £41,777,809.

C — If interest is NOT capitalised (i.e., serviced from cashflow) — immediate owed position

Scenario Total liabilities (with uplift) Less cash £7.375m Net owed today

Interim derivative (£6.481m) £41,872,109 –7,375,000 £34,497,109

Annual derivative (£10.892m) £46,283,109 –7,375,000 £38,908,109

“Exactly James, these folk just have no clue about the corporate world."

Wasn’t he was referring to Lord Melton Mowbray Lucan when he set up that kamikaze deal through Aleph!

Ok onetomany.

I’ve have asked chat gpt to make it as easy as possible for you to understand. It’s changed its mind slightly regarding the £29 million being negotiated, but the figures are still the same however.

⭐ THE SIMPLE TRUTH

The £29m in the new RNS is NOT the total debt.

It is the total overdue debt currently being renegotiated.

The full debt is still £44m+.

The senior loan is still £29m.

But the overdue portions of all debts combined = £29m.

That’s why they used the phrase “in aggregate”.

Which bit are you confused about onetomany?

The fact they actually are on the for £44 million, or the £29 million only relates to the £20 loan original which has now grown to £29 million due to them “Technically” defaulting.

Your argument is with chat GPT not myself by the way!