Angus Energy shares rise on Saltfleetby gas processing

Shares in Angus Energy rose 28% today on news that the company had begun processing wellhead gas from its B2 well at Saltfleetby in Lincolnshire.

Current facilities at Saltfleetby site B. Image: Angus Energy

In a statement to investors, Angus said the well had delivered the equivalent of 5 million standard cubic feet of gas per day, higher than the company’s expectations.

It said the gas had passed through the process plant and gas analysis. Gas from the A4 well would be introduced shortly, Angus added.

It said it would make nominations for gas sales when it was satisfied of stable, uninterrupted flow for an extended period of time. Angus said “We strongly believe [this] will occur before the end of August”.

This would meet the current deadline under revised hedge arrangements, the company said.

Shares closed at 1.60p, up 0.35p.

10 replies »

  1. More gas for the inevitable cold winter…
    Gas is a transition fuel, (unless your gonna use fire and manure)!
    Well Done Angus Energy

  2. Ahh, E-G, you need to remember somewhere in the world someone who is not going to supply some LNG is busy venting gas into the air, as the nonsense has to be justified that this is “increased” production.

    Funny really, as I understand there is a whacking great gas platform in Australia which has been largely idle for some time due to an industrial dispute. Perhaps they cornered the market in valves?

    Meanwhile, as I stated just a few hours ago, it is a small journey from mug to smug. A few Angus shareholders will be able to afford their winter energy bills now, and a bottle or two to celebrate.

    • The immortal ‘Only Fools and Horses’ line springs to mind when reading Martin’s first paragraph, attempting to argue against Prof. MacKay’s caution to the effect that emissions pollution would increase if displaced gas was used elsewhere – “What a plonker!”
      A few Angus shareholders can continue looking the other way.

  3. There you go, E-G.
    The architect of “how can I discredit the anti cause” has responded. Once again, the one trick pony looks more like a Trojan Horse, plonked out there for the antis to cavort around, whilst the undermining takes place. Seems though, that there are not too many who are drawn to drag him/her into their encampment.

    No, I was arguing that the displaced gas might just stay in the ground, 1720. If you think the demand for gas is such that it will not, even at such current high prices, then you are suggesting the alternatives are not there, or not sufficient or have some other problem. Shame on you. Wash your plastic keyboard with disinfectant!

    Meanwhile, quoting another line:

    “This time next year, Rodney etc. etc.”

    Of course, they might need to be millionaires to pay for their energy!

  4. “No, I was arguing that the displaced gas might just stay in the ground, 1720. If you think the demand for gas is such that it will not, even at such current high prices, then you are suggesting the alternatives are not there, or not sufficient or have some other problem.”
    No you were not so arguing. This is mendacious.
    I am not suggesting anything.Your supply and demand makes it clear that either supply or demand will find a new buyer. We know alternatives are not there on a level playing field or in sufficient quantity: you and yours have seen to that!
    I do not need to suggest.
    I do, however, “ have some other problem” – engaging with increasingly and astonishingly crass arguments like this.

  5. [Edited by moderator]

    Well, as you state alternatives are not in sufficient quantity, and speak on behalf of the “we’s”, then there is a need for gas. So, good for Angus then. Would now appear even supported by the antis.

    You indeed have a problem. Mind you, by association, the rest of the antis have a bigger one, with their self appointed leader taking them out on another limb.

    By the way, 1720, you are not obliged to engage. If you feel you have to, try to understand the differences between supply and demand. It may solve your problem. Until then, another of your withdrawals may be beneficial. That is normally what is required after you try to engage.

  6. [Edited by moderator]

    To suggest that the lack of sufficient quantities of alternatives to gas proves there is a need for gas is another non-sequitur. Why not ramp up the quantity of alternatives by investment not hamstrung by the diversion of funds to what is causing the problem. EVs are not yet there in sufficient quantity to replace the traditional vehicle. So do I fall back on production of the traditional polluting vehicle? I think not. I put more resources into the cleaner vehicle and the necessary infrastructure.
    By the way, Martin, this is a parallel for purposes of illustration and comparison, not an attempt to divert you from the argument.

    I note the attempt to demean with your “self appointed (sic) leader” (of the antis) gibe. Ditto with (you) “speak on behalf of the”we’s””. Whether I do or don’t in your esteemed opinion, hardly proves “there is a need for gas”. Language matters, Martin. See what a convoluted mess one gets oneself into when one ignores this.

    I know I am not obliged to engage, Martin, and will of course opt out when anyone has driven the argument into the unbearable lower reaches of puerility.

    [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

  7. [Edited by moderator]

    Why not ramp up alternatives? Ermm, they are being ramped up, 1720. I have provided you with plenty of examples as you can’t be bothered to do any research yourself.. But, it takes 20-30 years to bring a nuclear power station from start to production. (£160B of money there not being diverted.) Meanwhile, without that back-up, when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow all that is there are stranded, useless assets.

    Argument without taking account of facts is indeed puerile, 1720. You have been following that pattern since you decided to engage. You obviously feel you can achieve something without knowledge of facts, but I suspect what you achieve is just an image of antis that many would prefer was not created. So, fill your boots. Meanwhile, Angus will do their bit to help people heat and eat this winter, whilst children in UK are being recommended to wear more clothes.

  8. I saw some concerned looking ducks in the park. They were worried about their bills. Aren’t we all. Let’s get quacking.

  9. I noted with interest this am a report from Reuters, that stated:

    “Oil prices rose 1% on Monday, as expectations that OPEC would CUT output if needed to support prices.”

    Strange! After all “we” have been told that any new oil production facility in UK would be adding to world production, where it is this fantasy that oil output is at a constant level, so one extra UK well adds to that level.

    The reality is that OPEC have been adjusting output for decades to manage price. There are these things called valves that are set within the system to enable that.

    Just a shame there are not similar to reduce the output of those who feel it helps discussion to put forward such ludicrous “concepts”.

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 )

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