Member Info for CrustyPete

It has been to 10p before TBTB indeed but since then we have had a 70% dilution! So today's equivalent is 3p....

I'll take a look edgar, I have a bit of pocket money burning a whole in my pocket as it seems that my reserve for a He1 post raise buy back is unlikely to get used.

That said, if I turn up to a GWMO AGM Brain Hall might well strike me!! ;0)

91joyo - ah hello joyo I see you are back. You told us the sp would be 1p by tomorrow - it seems that you have not got a clue what you are talking about - why oh why should anyone have any faith in a word you have got to say?

Prosciutto, you are making yourself look like a total fool. Your allusions to catastrophe are totally flawed and hold no water - a bit like the barrel that you have scaped through - if you cannot find something considerably better than your last pathetic effort you ought to do yourself a favour and give up. You really are now a real world manifestation of the old Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale of The Emporer's New Clothes.

Equity raise my ar5e, who on earth do you think you will fool with that tripe?! Laughable.

Oh sorry BG "(or what it eventually proves to be in the CPR) " - should have read - (or what it eventually proves to be in any future CPR)

Bye for now.

Yes I would agree with you BG they will be ascribed an increased value to those areas that have been appraised and yes I would expect to get the value for the full 3.45TCF. Will NT1, NT2 and, eventually, CH1 be considered sufficient to have "proven up" the whole Ntorya area and the new possible figure of 8TCF? I don't know to be honest but I would be surprised if so. Will we get any more clarity from the CPR? I doubt it as the CPR was initiated before the coming drill for CH1 and hence cannot include any of the new data.

My point though being, to counter stockcheque's assertion, is that having a GIPP estimate, in and off itself, does not immediately add value to the NAV; only through appraisal of the resource can those estimates be proven and thereby attributed a value. Look at the process that AEX has been through with Ntorya to get to where it is today. And even now that "proving up" has not been fully completed (though close, thankfully). The completion of each incremental stage adds "value" - initially minimal value and eventually optimum value but then ,a s we know even that does not translate 100% into the NAV because of various risks involved in getting those assets out of the ground. Risked NAV versus unrisked NAV.

So to suggest that our NAV is about to balloon because of the 16TCF attributed to the wider Ruvuma acreage, is more than just a little premature methinks. Will we soon see the "value" of the supposed 8TCF (or what it eventually proves to be in the CPR) attributed to the Ntorya basin in our reported NAV - yes very likely but what will the unrisked figure be and will that figure be for the whole of the Ntorya basin without further appraisal or will that figure only be fully reflected after further appraisal drills (certainly for those new "sand layers"). I would expect it to be a gradual process and I doubt the CH1 drill will be sufficient on its own.

Must dash BG - I have a call to make and then a train to catch.

Sorry..... Until the 8TCF for Ntorya and the subsequent increase to 16TCF for the wider area has been appraised it will never contribute much by way of value to the perceived NAV.

So mctripe you are correct, the "assets" in the ground do not need to be appraised to contribute to the NAV but, until they have been their value and hence their contribution to the NAV will be next to nothing.

"Current market value has nothing to do with appraisal or proving up anything."

Except in so far as those assets will have next to no value until they have been proven to have a value. Ity is fully known that the recent estimate in GIIP for the Ntorya region might now be 8TCF and that the wioder Ruvuma area might be 16TCF, so why does the Interactive Investor NAV you referred to earlier only quote a figure of 2.8p? Well because the estimates above are currently estimates and as such have minimal if any value, whereas the 1.8TCF referred to has already been appraised and therefore has been assessed as having a value. Until the 8TCF and the subse

Now more often than not, when we see a UT trade in the trade figures the daily sp movement defers to the price of the UT trade. Why not now? Anyone understand the rationale? I thought I did but evidently not.

Yes edgar, 8TCF far more reasonable but still need appraising..... lot's of drilling to be done to tick that box.

25.48p?! Well maybe one day, when the assets first get "proved up" and then, later, once de-risked; timescale? 5 - 10 years plus maybe.

Yes Tanz our dear friend prosciutto will need to find a new barrel, he will have scraped right through the bottom of his current vessel if he cannot find something more original or more relevant....

"Very interesting"? Really? Same old, same old. Predictable, repetitive, irrelevant, out of date, out of context, and totally discredited. He has been telling us since 0.5p that a sale at a 30% premium is the best that we could expect. Well so much for that nonsense.

I won't even be bothering to read it. Indeed I may well filter it as irrelevant drivel.

91joyo, you promised us all that the sp would be 1p by this coming Friday - come get deramping, you are not doing your job!! We are all relying on you - we are all waiting to buy more at 1p! Come on man, get this sp down or bugger off - totally useless.

What a joker.

Wouldn't argue with that Skippys - I just cannot wait for that EWT to start! The the small matters of the timing and size of any fund raise are totally incidental to my mid.

I would expect them to return to the one or more investment partner that funded the 7th Feb cap raise. You may recall that the Company fronted this, hence circumventing their brokers and Nomads and thereby saving a considerable sum in costs and other expenses. Since then the Itumbula drill has significantly de-risked the next stage of operations and consequently I would expect those same ".... long term supportive investors....." to be happy to stump up additional capital. Yes there are an awful lot of shares in issue but what's another 10 - 15%? It may presage a share consolidation at some future point but I do not think it should be a problem in the short term.

Any form of "investment" with the exception of an out and out loan (death spiral loan excepted), which of course by definition is not an investment anyway, will involve dilution of one form or another, even a JV or farm out; we will effectively be diluting future income streams and revenues from the production of our Helium either directly or indirectly.

I understand why you think the Study is already complete and that you may be right - I still do not know why, in contrast to your previous stance, you now think the BoD are not reporting accurately? For what reason do you think they are misreporting in their recent RNS? What justification is there for stating that the Study is in the process of completion if, as you say, it is in fact already complete? And, if it is complete why would the TPDC state that it is not?

I did question your reasoning RJ, the reason that you did not trust the Boards version of events? Why do you think they would say what they said in the RNS if the Study was, as you claim, complete?

I guess we will never know.

RJ, you say - "In private you agreed with me that it is just a process. "

Actually not just "in private" (that's a laugh eh?) - I said as much in my posts on this board but, yet again conveniently overlooked.

I have questioned the board constantly I freely admit it and will continue to do so, no hypocrisy there RJ. However, you are the one that has continually rallied to their defence - until now.

Anyway I have better things to do.

Goodnight all.