Member Info for WG818

I’m not saying you’re wrong as. The figures show what the figures show. It’s just where they are put and the assumptions made with them.

When mr Forrest took over from the Russian federation de-com costs were £12.8 million. Given the Angus management’s history with costs and timescales being out by a factor of 10 I would suggest that the Russian federation where closer in their estimation…..That’s why I maintain Mr Forrest got a very sweet deal offloading the de-com costs. Anyone looking at a buy out, and those 5 companies that had a look when Angus was up for sale, would also be asking the same question regarding the huge £8 million difference in de-comm in the accounts!

Ab76

Angus bypassed the original threadnedlethorpe refinery by installing a 700metre pipeline straight into the national grid terminal. The 8 mile pipeline hasn’t gone anywhere or the eventual de-commissioning. It just has another 700 metres at the other end now.

Yes. But that was because the pipeline and sites were moved from a liability to an asset. Once the gas falls back to uncommercial levels they will be moved back into the liability column.

The cost of de-comm is available from companies house in Saltfleetby Energy Ltd Accounts. The year in question gave a figure of £12.5 million for abandonment.

Agreed that there are many puzzling questions surrounding why a one man band with £ 80k in the company at the time was even allowed to take over from the Russian federation? Then the fact that Wingas (formerly Saltfleetby Energy Ltd) and Angus shared the same address. Finally the joint directorships in other companies.

The one you gave a link for.

“ Saltfleeby Energy has agreed to retain the liability for all abandonment costs surrounding the subsurface pipelines from the two sites to the Theddlethorpe Gas Facility together with certain redundancy costs which would otherwise fall to be treated as expenses under the JOA.”

Correct up to a point ab. The first deal was when Angus took 51% and that excluded £12.5million the gas pipeline de-com costs (see the relevant RNS).

Taking over Saltfleetby Energy Ltd, puts that cost onto Angus now when the field becomes uncommercial. So yes he did offload it I’m afraid.

The existing pipeline is not suitable for gas storage and a new one would be required with an estimated cost of £200 Million 15 years ago.

He also managed to offload the £12.5 million de-comm costs listed in the Saltfleetby Energy accounts for the 8 mile pipeline onto Angus shareholders. A very sweet deal for him!

Lol….it wasn’t a prediction Donk …it was a fact!

And a warning that the sidetrack wasn’t going to be as easy as his lordship suggested!

My warning turned out spot on. After all it took six earth months. Let alone 16 Mars weeks that GL suggested was unheard of! (See Q&A) now that six months cost them millions in lost revenue, and millions more than budgeted for, and just for good measure put another Billion plus shares on the register and another 10% plus shares in issue warrants available to insiders?

You really should have taken a look at the links I supplied!

Gallders figures would look encouraging apart from the fact that they are just hopes.

Note 25. Derivative Liability in the annual accounts gives details on this.

The first paragraph “METS will pay AWB3 the fixed price on the sale of gas from the field.”

Well they didn’t produce the gas for the secondary hedge in January, February, March and April!

The last paragraph

“In the event that the group does not meet its production timetable, the swaps will crystallise as a liability at the dates proposed of gas production in the swap agreements”

The guy who signed the contract has been selling all he can, They took the £3 million credit card rate loan out (why would they have needed too if this money was available) and we have the evidence from the £3 million mega placing payback and the £4.1 million derivative catch up due this month that the 1st missed hedge was crystallised as a liability.

I guess we will see in the half yearly at the end of the month?

Octane

The unbalanced one is on filter for me as it offers absolutely nothing…..apart from insults. I take it he was questioning the 8% gross figure? Not like it’s not mentioned anywhere is it!! Several RNS’s, CPR,s, annual accounts…….and it’s the fact that it’s a gross figure that’s the kick in the teeth. And yes the CPR confirmed it kicks in after 85% of the loan is paid before the unbalanced one starts again!

Canary

If only it wasn’t for the restrictions placed on them by Mercuria in the debentures placed on them they probably could negotiate a better deal.

See company’s house web site for the charge placed on them and the restrictions applied.

I will add to that following HITS post that if what he suggested is correct and the swaps are “purely financial instruments “ why have Angus had and got to pay the £3 million from the mega placing and the £4.1 million derivative catch up this month on the original missed hedge?

Canary.

The production numbers are easily verifiable from RNS,s Singhie and Gallders links and probably most accurately here.

https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data-centre/nsta-open-data/production/

Some will try and tell you this is a normal hedge, well it’s not! It’s a catch up hedge from a previous missed production timeline when gas prices were at an all time high, with a cutthroat hard nosed company that lent them £12 million at credit card rates!

Normal PI,s don’t have any idea what terms have been agreed.

I could speculate that Mercuria have taken the view that Angus missed the production schedule and now have to pay the full amount on the secondary hedges for example? That’s several million more to find. But it would just be a guess, just as Gallders daily figures combining the two hedges are. We just don’t know.

Mmmm. So Gallder

“Mercuria are an energy derivatives trading company just like a mm that trades shares.”

I suggest you take a look at their website if you think that’s the case. If that’s all they did can you explain why they are the party on the other side of the £12 million loan, hold the debentures over all Angus assets and get that very sweet 8% gross on all Saltfleetby production once 85% of the loan is repaid?

Again you are presenting the secondary hedges as fact, despite not knowing what agreement Mercuria Angus and Mr Forrest came to when they negotiated the deal when they missed the original hedge costing many millions.

All we know for sure is that they failed to supply enough gas for the Jan -March secondary hedge at £4.38, and also failed in April to supply the gas on the secondary hedge at £3.15.

Now why would Mercuria sign a deal at those mind boggling prices if there was any way they could make more money or lose on them? They literally held all the cards. Let’s not forget they wouldn’t have known if the sidetrack was even going to be successful at that stage to supply enough gas to fulfill them ( which of course they didn’t for 4 months)

Then we have the Annual accounts that tell us that the hedges are for gas only supplied from Saltfleetby and that if they miss the production target the hedge would be crystalised as a liability. Well as far as I can see they failed on both secondary hedges on that account and would have been crystalised possibly saving Mercuria millions if they were a half decent business.

This company has a two tier shareholder base. Its probably worth considering why the guy who signed a contract on those hedges has been selling all the shares that he can?

£7 million plus is due this month and it will be a tall order without your hopped windfall.

HITs

A sensible rundown as ever.

Option F

In the short term however (this month) we have the £4.1 Derivative catch up to pay and the £3 million bridge loan to settle or extend. Then you need to consider how they intend to pay Mr Forrest his next tranche? Another £1 million paid by way of shares? That’s not going to help.

In relation to your most likely scenario. Well C, is the obvious choice. However the Annual accounts (see the 7th March RNS) actually give you a fairly good idea on that score. See note 11. Oil and gas production assets. At your “80p a therm “they are teetering on Saltfleetby becoming an impairment. At 54p a therm (yesterdays closing price) we are well below that figure.

Bubble.

The figures are from March. (NSTA reports the figure s 3 months later) That means they will only represent well SF4 (the well producing the liquids)at that point as they were still drilling the sidetrack (for the 12th time DONK) it’s up around 55% from a previous month with comparable condensate and gas figures! We also know that the bottle neck is……liquid storage “condensate and water”, so anything extra SF7 is now produces could be a major problem, especially if SF4 is increasing water as it seems to be.

But you actually know all this don’t you bush/bubble………how’s your guarantee that gas wouldn’t fall below a £1 going?

Apologies that link didn’t work.

https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data-centre/nsta-open-data/production/

Brockham still not producing anything.

Some interesting figures at Saltfleetby.

Gas to pipeline figures actually down from February at 4.29 mmscf/d but condensate up considerably at 573 Ksm3…..unfortunately the water cut has again risen dramatically.

https://www.NSTAauthority.co.uk/data-centre/NSTA-open-data/production/

Tom

They need to clear out all the dross, Johnathan Tidswell Pretorious, Lord Lucan, Lord Clanwiliam, Carlos De Santos and Paul Forrest. Come clean on the legacy assets and invest in them (unlikely) or move them back into the liabilities column in the accounts. Drop the fairly tale Geothermal pipe dream, and focus on Saltfleetby as those 2 Billion plus extra shares in issue have already paid for half the costs!……..then just hope that gas prices don’t slip any further and they might actually achieve something.

Richard Herbert is the best thing to happen here in years! I very much doubt he was bought in by the Angus team however. I suspect at the insistence of some unhappy loan partners!

Tomhuk

Why on earth ask me a question and finish by saying it’s pointless?

If you watch the interview again, you’ll find that mr Herbert actually confirmed all I have been saying for in the past, it was never going to be easy as GL assured, he obviously doesn’t consider the legacy sites as assets, and as for your 12MMSCF. Watch it again! That’s another GL fairly tale! The plant is designed for 10! Have a look into the condensate and water bottle neck problem!

George obviously didn’t listen to the over promising and under delivering, Aka porkie telling and utter incompetence, RH spoke of as he still mentioned hoped for sidtrack figures and 2 further sidetracks despite the pullback on expectations RH had just given.

As for next month Donk……well they have to find that £4.1 million payment due from somewhere don’t they?