Angus counts on production at Saltfleetby and Balcombe

saltfleetby site

Current facilities at Saltfleetby site B. Image: Angus Energy

Production at Angus Energy’s Saltfleetby gasfield and oil flow at Balcombe would “mark a turnaround in the group’s fortunes” and bring “material cash flow for the first time”, the company said today.

It described Saltfleetby in Lincolnshire as “a gem of an asset” after gas reserves were estimated at a midpoint of 16 billion cubic feet, worth just over £25 million to the company.

Angus also said Balcombe, taken over from Cuadrilla in West Sussex, “looks to have great potential as a producing asset”.

Shares rose sharply on news of the Saltfleetby reserves. At one point they were up 50% and closed at 0.98, up15.59%.

Saltfleetby was the UK’s largest onshore gas field. It has been shut-in since 2017 following the closure of the Theddlethorpe gas terminal.

Non-executive chairman, Patrick Clanwilliam, said Saltfleetby would replace “even some of the more optimistic revenue expectations” that shareholders had in the Kimmeridge sidetrack well drilled at the Brockham oil site in Surrey in 2017. That turned out to be non-commercial without fracking.

The company said it envisaged spending £1.5m to bring the Saltfleetby gas onstream in 2020 and to drill a horizontal sidetrack to well No. 5 in the first half of 2021 to accelerate recovery.

Managing director, George Lucan, said:

“This is clearly a gem of an asset and a just reward to loyal shareholders.  We look forward to converting these reserves into clear cash and positive cashflows whilst keeping open the possibility of further substantial upside from the contingent resources.”

He said with Saltfleetby the group was “ready to transition from predominantly exploration led company to one which focuses on safe operations, measured production and quantifiable cash flow”.

Weald sites

At Balcombe, Angus has applied for planning permission to remove what it believes to be brine drilling fluid from the well and then carry out a three-year extended well test.

The next available meeting of West Sussex County Council’s planning committee is 24 March 2020.

181216 Brockham Brockham Protectors

Angus Energy site at Brockham, Surrey, on 16 December 2018. Photo: Brockham Protectors

At Brockham, Angus is seeking permission from the Environment Agency to resume water injection. It was also considering recompleting the Kimmeridge BRX4z sidetrack as a Portland producer. Disposing of the site and licence was still an option, along with decommissioning all three wells, the company said.

Production at the Lidsey in West Sussex was restricted by the relatively high cost of water injection, Angus said. The new horizontal sidetrack was disappointing and revealed that the current structural mapping was incorrect. Another sidetrack was being considered. Permission had been submitted for oil pumping at Lidsey 24-hours a day, seven days a week.

Revenue and losses up

The company’s accounts described the year to September 2019 as “difficult”.

There were increases in revenue and production, mainly from Lidsey, the accounts revealed.

There were also increased losses over the previous year. This was mainly because of higher administrative expenses from impairment of the carrying value of interests at Brockham and Lidsey.

The year also saw a boardroom coup, ending with the departure of Paul Vonk on a £300,000 pay-off.

Well testing at Balcombe was delayed for a year and conventional oil flow at Brockham was found to be non-commercial.

The company described the regulatory environment as “steadily more challenging”. It also said the UK’s onshore oil and gas industry was “bedevilled” by the sustainability question.

Key figures

Oil and gas production revenue: £0.2m (2018: £0.066m)

Gross production: 5,346 barrels (5,056 from Lidsey); (2018: 1,678 barrels)

Loss for the year: £5.043m (2018: £2.790m)

Cash balance £3.419m (2018: 0.846m)

Admin expenses: £3.976m (2018: £2.230m)

Total non-current assets: £12.308m (2018: £10.463m)

Total current assets: £4.213m (2018: £1.637m)

Total current liabilities: £1.031m (2018: £1,440m)

Total liabilities: £4.083m (2018)

Angus holdings

Saltfleetby (PEDL005) 51%

Brockham (PL235) 65% (operator)

Lidsey (PL241) 80% (operator)

Balcombe (PEDL244) 25% (operator)

A24 (PEDL143) 12.5%


Annual report and accounts

Saltfleetby gas field competent persons report

32 replies »

  1. There you go Jack!

    All that money mug punters have lost recently on Tesla, and they could have pocketed around 50% profit yesterday from Angus!

    Mind you, I understand those who avoided Jack’s recommendation (obviously not read the links, LOL), and bet that Tesla shares would fall, pocketed over $1 BILLION in a few days.

    Into that Hall of Fame now Jack, where statements made are quickly shown to be incorrect, by events, a few days later. Congratulations.

    • MARTIN,

      WOW your bitterness runs DEEP, you must really have some heavy losses.

      For fear of endlessly repeating myself let me say this to you once again …… TESLA up 274 % in 7 months.

      I know how you hate the electric car industry , but shall we talk about ALL the other leading , well known car manufacturers who are now embracing the electric car industry like , Ford, VW, Toyota , Citroen and Peugeot to name but a few ???????

      Even Rolls Royce are talking electric.

      Oh , I forgot, you like to close your eyes to what the real big players are doing.

      Remember ladies and gentleman , some of these Oil and Gas companies that MARTIN fights so hard to talk up, have crashed so LOW , they now have a lower SINGLE share price value than your average SINGLE sheet of toilet paper…..

  2. I think you will find Jack, investment is about what will happen GOING FORWARD! You decided to ignore that, and ended up exposed.

    Have you invested into electric vehicles, Jack? Some of us have, who are supposed to hate them, and found them to be little more than glorified milk carts. Did not lose money by doing so, and thus no need to hate them, (ironically, Angus enabled me to do so!) but certainly no need to embrace them-yet. If you want to convert someone, maybe try reaction, but he does seem wedded to his 3 litre BMW diesel to facilitate his protesting. A long while ago there was a comment about waiting for funding to support such a conversion, and looking at the current reluctance in UK to embrace current electric vehicles, that is probably a wise stance, as a carrot could be required on top of the stick.

    Can you please explain your strange problem regarding SINGLE share price value? Is there some sort of restriction on the numbers one can buy in your neck of the woods? Or, you can just wait and see if there is share consolidation. LOL

    The reality, ladies and gentlemen:

    Tesla share price on 19/2/20: $917.42
    Tesla share price on 28/2/20: $626.15

    (since, recovered to $724.54)

    You can check back to when Jack was claiming how Tesla was such a strong bet (yes, around the $900 mark) and who warned against such reckless behaviour (Martin) AND SUPPLIED THE FOLLOWING INDEPENDENT ADVICE:

    “There are several good reasons to think Tesla should be more valuable today than it was six months ago. But there aren’t ANY that justify its shares more than tripling in price since then.”

    I hope any investors were wary of Jack’s endorsement. But, those watching the REALITY a bit closer did make a lot of money betting on the share price FALLING, and will be happy bunnies. If someone wants to avoid the REALITY, then Mystic Meg could still offer an “alternative” that might be closer than Jack. Or, there are always the tea leaves.

    You probably missed it Jack, but interesting interviews yesterday with some steel workers in US who were being advised to support Sanders by Union officials, but their new well paid jobs, created due to US fracking, were their concern and they had no intention of following such advice. Seems REALITY is never far from the surface. So, a hard job for you Jack, but someone has to do it.

    • MARTIN,

      HOW MANY times do I need to show you the official evidence ??????

      Fracking is a debt ridden Ponzi Scheme , FACT

      Any FOOL could make a company look good and employ thousands of people in well paid jobs, IF they were spending their investors, banks or government cash ……

      FRACKING is just like the dot-com scam.

      It would make much better sense all round , to pay these workers to stay at home and enjoy themselves.

      If there is anything that you dispute, please say . I will be more than happy to show you the evidence which supports what I have endlessly tried to help you understand , that is ………..

      Fracking is nothing more than a toxic , environmentally damaging , dangerous to human and animal health , debt ridden Ponzi scheme .

      [Text amended at poster’s request]

      • That is rather unkind towards Mr. Musk, Jack!! You have described Tesla very well there, but I do expect he will continue to spend investors money for some while to come, until he can actually make a sustained profit. Some even recommended Tesla as an investment when the share price was around $900. Shame on them, eh Jack? They should hang their heads in shame instead of trying to deflect from their irresponsible actions.

        Meanwhile, whilst Mr. Buffett invests some of his $ BILLIONS into US fracking, my friend Jack with his partial access to information, comes to a different “conclusion”. Just like some would suggest Blackpool FC are on course to win the Champions League. All quite feasible if REALITY is left out of the equation, but why bother with reality when the cosy blanket of delusion can be utilised? The Internet is built upon delusion, so a great place for the Jacks to prosper, and multiply.

        Happily, there are the Eddy Stones to shine a helpful, friendly, beam through the fog.

        (That is a reference Jack, to a famous lighthouse off the coast of the UK. You can Giggle “lighthouse”! You will find they were a great aid preventing wreckers from luring lost souls onto the rocks. But there is always the Dark Web!)

  3. Who do you think you are talking to ? It’s always the same people making comments on this site. Those that are FOR fracking [edited by moderator] spewing out the same pathetic nonsense or those against, that obviously have enough time on their hands to bother responding to these idiots , there is no argument here ! The science proves that fracking is a KILLER for all of us . [Edited by moderator]I don’t normally post comments on these sites but for years now I have seen this ridiculous conversation take place and have had enough of this crap , do something productive instead . Joe Corre

    • Fracking? One would have thought that by now you would have figured out that not all wells are fracked Joe? Including those being discussed on this post. Perhaps we should discuss the hypocrisy of the fashion industry? Do something productive? Those with money are generally more dependent on oil and gas than those without. Making lawyers richer ……. is that productive?

      • What are you trying to say ? Fracked or not the carbons have to stay in the ground if we want any kind of living future ! Of course the fashion industry as a whole is ridiculously wasteful/ polluting etc, we have been trying to change it with mixed success for years and are still trying. Of course it’s worth making lawyers richer if we get results, like we have , that make the situation better for people and the environment. So far it’s been extremely productive [edited by moderator]

        • If the carbons need to stay in the ground, why have you not stopped using manmade fibres sourced from these carbons?
          What lead or role are you taking for switching the fashion industry to use only ‘natural’ or environmentally friendly fibres?

          • Actually I haven’t used man made fibres in any of my production for over ten years now and if you want to know what we have been doing about changing the industry there is plenty we have done and are still doing. You won’t find it hard to research

    • To say that science proves that fracking is a killer is absolute nonsense. The number of scientists who are against fracking is extremely small. Most who have in-depth knowledge of the subject know that intrinsically it is the safest way to get gas out of the ground. The intrinsic safety comes directly from the properties of the rock (i.e. ultra low permeability and extremely low compressibility. Scientists also overwhelmingly agree that we need to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, everyone acknowledges this cannot be done over night. In addition, even the committee for climate change, which has members who helped write the IPCC report, argues that natural gas will be coupled with CCS to produce blue hydrogen that will be used for transport, heating and industrial applications. Importing gas using long-distrance pipelines or LNG creates 30% more GHG emissions that home grown gas. The people who are against fracking tend to have far less understanding of science than those who are for fracking; they also tend to be against vaccinations, fluoride in water, GM foods etc. Indeed, it’s quite remarkable that quite a reasonable number are also climate change deniers. So don’t try and kid yourself or others that science is against fracking.

      Indeed, if you bothered to read about the energy sources that we will be using during and after out transition to NetZero you’ll find that technology developed by the fracking industry will play a significant role.

  4. Educated and informative reply Joe. Stick to fashion, after all it’s hugely relevant to the future of our planet.

  5. Hmm. I see the DoD moderating radar is stuck on 180 degrees again. So much for technology.

    There have been many who want to shut down discussion that they disagree with, usually showing a degree of anger to gather the angry crowd. Some gather many of likewise “thinking” around them, others don’t.

    However, in the UK we STILL have freedom of thought and speech. To exercise it takes a lot less time and effort than prancing around at demonstrations and instructing lawyers. But, each to their own.

  6. Ladies and Gentlemen , please if you have time, take a moment to observe in the above post, the extreme bitterness MARTIN has towards the great strides forward the Electric Car Industry is making.

    We must all rejoice at the great multi billion £ investments that ALL the worlds leading car manufacturers are making in electric vehicles .

    Even TESLA are up 274 % in 7 months .

    Now please refrain from laughing , but MARTIN has for a number of years, been advising people on this website to invest their hard earned money in the likes of Fracking…..

    OH DEAR , if you had listened to him , some of you would of been 1000s % down on your investment.

    I suggest you stick to knitting socks and making sandcastles on the beach MARTIN.

    • Now MARTIN ,

      I’m getting tired of repeating the same things to you.

      PLEASE, PLEASE can you stop with your endless diversionary tactics and get back to the topics in question on DOD and please start backing up your comments with evidence .

  7. Well, Jack, maybe not repeat and just stick to a single post and your life would be much easier!

    Then, remove the errors eg. Tesla are now around $600-so much for evidence. There’s some from me, ignored by you.

    I have no money flushing down the toilet. I have invested in the past in UK on shore oil and gas and have NOT made a loss. I have NOT advised anyone else to make such investments, BUT I have pointed out that money has been made, and will be in the future because you continue to try and produce an illusion that everyone loses by simply looking at prices over a particular period that fits. Shock/horror Jack, there will be people who bought Tesla at $900 and will be seeing a huge loss, there will be others who bought at under $400 and will be happy bunnies-especially if they then sold at $900! So, absolutely no difference. The market fundamentals do not change from stock to stock. For AIM stocks, where traders are far more evident than LTIs, it is simply more of the same thing, with loads more individuals like yourself trying to manipulate via fiction.

    I have NO bitterness towards electric vehicles Jack. I have more invested in that market than oil/gas, but I do not have your illusions.

    Yep, it must be tiring to have to keep trotting out the same stuff and trying to make it look sensible. But, you have taken on the role so a bit late in the day to moan about it. Carry on Jack-that was a comedy also-and I will continue to point out REALITY. You have an unenviable job trying to complete a jigsaw that you only have half the parts for, but you have obviously decided this is an audience that doesn’t see that as a big issue, especially if you deny the other parts exist. Sorry, the other parts are a big section of the picture and some actually have an interest in that.

    Diversionary tactics and evidence???

    Well, look at my first post on 6th March Jack! Supplied you the EVIDENCE around the DoD subject (Angus) and who was it who jumped in with what?? Oh, it was someone called Jack with NO evidence on the subject matter but just diversionary tactics! Oops. That’s what tiredness brings Jack.

    • MARTIN ,

      I’m truly having my doubts about your authenticity. You act like a poorly programmed computer BOT.

      Correct me if I’m wrong , have you EVER supplied a LINK to back up anything you’ve ever said on this website ??????

      OR is it true that you are just , Mr Oppinion only ???????

      Now remember MARTIN , all the forum members are reading this .

      Now Jack on the other hand backs all he says up with evidence .

      Like when he says this………. Fracking has been shown to be a toxic, enviournmentaly damaging, climate changing, danger to human and animal health , debt ridden Ponzi scheme .

      Now as we are all here to discuss this industry, is there any part of the above statement you disagree with, please let Jack know.

      AND MARTIN let’s talk about the topics in question and refrain from your endless diversionary tactics that you so elequently employ when you are backed in to a corner. .

      Jack’s waiting

    • MARTIN,

      One last thing, Ihad cut and pasted the same post a second time because it had been put in the wrong place …

      I hope that aliviates your concern on the matter .

  8. Ermm, oh yes, Jack!

    50% rise in Angus share price-info supplied by Ruth at the top of this item, and repeated to you, by me, on March 6th at 8.15am.

    (That didn’t take long, and not far to look!)


    Then what happened, Jack? Oh, someone tried diversionary tactics-including “1000s%” down! I suppose a 1000% down is much bigger that a 100%?? Ermm, no it isn’t-it is not EVIDENCE, it is not REALITY-just FANTASY!

    I have no concern about your repeat postings and many corrections. Right First Time seems to be another of your missing links, but you could Giggle it and enjoy masses of info on the subject.

    If you do, just think of me as your Cost of Non Conformance.

  9. MARTIN,



    OH DEAR , for anyone who wants to Google , Angus Energy share price they will see that the company has dropped from a height of Mount Everest and is now experiencing very small occasional dead cat bounces along the floor . Just look, it’s doing NOTHING .

    Take a look at the share price ladies and gentleman , see for yourselves.

    Listen to MARTIN = Lose Your Cash .

    Now please Mr Oppinion only , again I ask, can we please have less off your diversionary tactics and get back to the topics that matter ???????

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s