Andrada Mining acquisition elevates the miner to emerging mid-tier status. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
BV needs to check facts before joining into an actual conversation about the company. You actually haven't realized still that giving away 8% of revenues after the swap hedge finishes was part of the £12m loan arrangement?
Maybe spend less time thinking up insults, and more time reading company documents would help both yourself and everyone on this board?
Lol WG, point out where Angus give away 8% gross of " ALL THE SBY FIELD PRODUCTION" at the end of the loan. And tell us what percentage of SBY was purchased with the Mercuria loan just to be honest of course??????
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.
We also do not know what the total excess revenues after Mercuria equate too, + around £2m in condensate so far, they have been producing for around 10 months now, so for sure some of the excess has been utilized in various ways, including some servicing of other debts, the total excess is likely significant over the 10 months.
A lot of the talk seems to focus on future revenues but we should also ensure if we are doing that then also apply past too.
Fortunately HITS.........!
we have "George Lucan is an experienced finance professional with over thirty years’ behind him in debt and equity markets" as our Executive Chairman.........! :)
All the best (hmmm.......! :()
CITM, I would agree with you... except in all its borrowing to date, ANGS has only managed to negotiate eye-watering Wonga-esque rates (LIBOR + 12% on the main £12 million loan signed on 13th May 2021 and then SONIA + 15% on the £3 million bridging facility signed on 28th March 2023). That first rate seems to be around 13% and the second seems to be around 19.5% (!!!)
Perhaps now that consistently achievable production rates are becoming known, any refinancing needed by ANGS (if available) could be secured on less loan-sharky terms?
WG818, thanks for the response. It makes sense. Debts are debts however they are incurred. However, as I said to HITS it should not take a financial genius to refinance them with the current income stream, just sensible and prudent management.
HITS - I think that you are right when you say that the catch-up repayments for the missed hedge and the bridging loan are probably the issue for the company share-price at the moment. We have been looking for an explanation of the poor share-price performance and this seems like the most concrete reason for it so far. As you point out it is more of a cash-flow issue than a profitability issue and should be able to be refinanced at terms that are not too onerous considering the current production revenue. However, it does need sensible management . Some clarity on this would be welcomed. I will put a question up about this on the Angus Q&A section of the website and see what response we get at the end of the month.
X3 Buy orders on the regular Auctions for 1m.......!
priced @1.00p, 1.10p and 1.13p.........!
All the best (they may have to up the price now.......! :()
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?
The volumes tday seem to be gathering place as more and more people who have looked at the share and its prospects seem to be buying in as it is very much underpriced at the moment
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.
Don't treat me as any sort of guru on derivative contracts, CITM, but my understanding is that those hedge contracts are purely financial instruments (or literally, swap contracts) where only money and not gas changes hands. Therefore the amount owed by either side of any hedge gets paid out anyway, regardless of how much or how little gas has been produced. I therefore don't believe that part of WG's post is correct in terms of "missing the hedge", because the exchange on the swap contracts will be due anyway.
Perhaps best to put forward a hypothetical example (and feel free to correct this if necessary, anyone):-
Say for the month of June the spot price for gas is £0.80p a therm.
Say a company has hedged 1 million therms at £0.50p a therm in that month.
Say that same company has also hedged 100,000 therms at £1.50p per therm in that month.
Resolve those swap contracts. The company owes £300k on the first hedge, come what may (1 million x £0.50p-£0.80p), but is due £70k on the second hedge (100k x £1.50p-£0.80p). Net balance owed by the company once those monthly hedges are resolved? £230k... and that's owed, regardless of any amount of gas production.
Now say the company actually produces 500,000 therms that month. It sells those on the open market at £0.80p per therm and generates £400k of revenue...
The company then ends up with nett revenues of £170k for that month after all production and all hedges have been taken into account. This nett revenue position is what Gallder's frequent summary posts show.
Where WG is right however is mentioning that £4.1 million "catch-up" payment. This was mentioned for the first and only time in the Full Year report (released on Mar 7th) which states this:-
"It is also noted there is a catch-up derivative payment of £4,175k due in June 2023 which the group is forecast to meet however should therebe a timing difference between cash inflows and outflows then Further funding may be required. The Directors have therefore identified a material uncertainty which may cast doubt over the Group’s ability to
continue as a going concern." (page 50 in the last FY report).
Given the decidedly odd performance of the ANGS SP over the last month, as I've mentioned before, I'm now wondering if the market is jittery about a potential short-term cashflow issue for ANGS? That £4.1 million mentioned above seems due, and then there's the £3 million bridging loan also falling due at the same time (unless extended by 3 months).
Seen over a 2 year view, ANGS repaying its current levels of debt and liabilities should not prove any issue at all. However the timing of required repayments may be the current spanner in the works of the SP.
AIMO.
First Tweet for a while, nothing significant though:
https://twitter.com/angusenergyplc/status/1666371602697601024?s=20
Morning Peeps.........!
ya right Crocqman re: Vol, however it's just jumped from c.2.5m to c.7.5m in a short space of time........!
All the best (noticed the c.5m £60k delayed trade this morning also......! :()
HITS , sorry to bombard you with questions, but is WG818 correct that the company has missed the hedges in Jan March and April. How far are they behind, how much do they cost, and can they be made up with additional supplies now? Or is all of this just information that is not public knowledge?
Look at the daily volume.
This has only broken 1% of shares in issue around 9 times in the last 3 months. That is very low.
Yesterday's volume was less than 0.1% of shares in issue and most days volume is not great, especially for a share with so many shares in issue..
There is no real indication that anyone is stockpiling shares, just like there is no real indication that anyone is offloading. This may change in due course, but it will need something to trigger a change.
Also, imo, there are no 'games' going on as many like to suggest.
The majority seem to be sitting tight, most unable to believe that this is getting close to 1p again when 2p plus and considerably higher was predicted after the 2nd side track.
I was conservatively hoping for 1.90 to 2p for a modest profit on a successful side track, but feel it could be 3 months plus (into Q4) now before getting back to my break-even with the permanent connection hopefully leading to a further rise in production, coupled with an increase in gas prices. Unless something major happens before then, of course.
I would certainly take a buy out at this stage and look to reinvest elsewhere
gla
Loads of buys however not moving the share price,looks like a bit of stockpiling,maybe we will get an offer soon but hopefully at the right price for lth
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.
No Maddog, not in the least? No clue where you got that idea from? Hedge 2 in particular is wildly profitable for ANGS, albeit for a relatively small number of therms.
If you want to see the effect of both hedges on daily/monthly revenues, just check out Gallder's regulat updates showing this.
Hits/ so you are saying we are losing money hand over fist
Mercuria are a energy derivatives trading company just like a mm that trades shares. They would have
had another client to take the other side of the trade. In August and September JAN and FEB futures were
trading at over £5 a therm.
The two hedges concurrently running from Jan-Jun this year, that's what.
U still don't understand quite why Mercuria agreed to that second hedge, but the fact as stated is that it did.
Whats confusing?
The hedges are a little confusing right at the moment, because as mentioned by others, between Jan to Jun this year, two sets of hedges apply. The second set that was negotiated in Sep 22 concludes at the end of this month. This was revealed in the Annual Report released on 7th March. It looks like this:-
Jan-Mar 23 Hedge 1 5,250,000 therms @ £0.5205 per therm
Jan-Mar 23 Hedge 2 843,750 therms @ £4.38 per therm (yes, really)
Apr-Jun 23 Hedge 1 5,250,000 therms @ £0.3755 per therm
Apr-Jun 23 Hedge 2 843,750 therms @ £3.15 per therm (yes, really)
Jul-Sep 23 Hedge 1 4,500,000 therms @ £0.3755 per therm
Oct-Mar 24 Hedge 1 9,000,000 therms @ £0.4655 per therm
Apr-Jun 24 Hedge 1 4,500,000 therms @ £0.3560 per therm
Jul-Sep 24 Hedge 1 3,750,000 therms @ £0.3560 per therm
Oct-Mar 25 Hedge 1 7,500,000 therms @ £0.4500 per therm
Apr-Jun 25 Hedge 1 3,750,000 therms @ £0.3525 per therm