Member Info for CrustyPete

Apologies one and all, actually I must withdraw that remark, I now see that we have had this discussion previously and BG corrected me at the time... (July 2018)

http://admin.aminex-plc.com/uploadfiles/Aminex%20AGM%20-%20May%202017.pdf

I think you will find that Namisange was part of the Lindi license which we gave up some years ago to concentrate on Ntorya. I may be wrong but is certainly my recollection.

Well yes Cybertron but one note of caution; the options may be as we stand Helium shows are not "commercial" and re-entry is necessary to make it commercial; in which case nothing is known until the outcome of that re-entry and another 100m or so of drilling.... with the risk and uncertainty that it inevitably involves.

It may be months away but whatever the outcome those independent wireline tests were always on the cards, awaiting the results must surely have been factored into any "project plan" and should not hold up any short to medium term activity and hence no additional cash burn. It will surely be a question of the order in which they execute the "plan" but there should be no hold up simply, at the very worst, a reallocation of planned expenditure. As Blubay suggested earlier another drill in the short term or an focus on appraisal drill.

From memory they were looking at Four targets in all.

Next week? Yes, maybe. It will to a certain extent depend upon the length of time it takes to extract the drill and LB has already stated that they will be doing this very slowly and carefully; better to be late than take unnecessary risks - particularly if they are anticipating a subsequent re-entry.

Thanks again Blubay.

Thanks Blubay, though I am still not sure I know the answer. If it is too risky today, surely it will be even more risky in two weeks time after re-entering the well? Well integrity compromised and a risk of getting the drill stuck. So why would they do that? And the wireline logging will only go to current D, so unlikely to tell us much more about what they will encounter further down - or will it? If not then surely there is only one scenario that would justify the risk of re-entry; but I will keep that to myself.

So Blubay maybe you would kindly attempt an answer to the question I posed earlier as no-one else seems to be willing or able to do so.

"So they already decided to stop drilling deeper because they did not wish to compromise the integrity of the well, so what will decide them to drill deeper? Surely pulling the drill out and then re-inserting it before drilling deeper would increase that risk? So would the wireline readings give them sufficient confidence that integrity would not be compromised or would it be because only by drilling deeper would they make the well "economic".... In short, if the well is economic at the current depth why risk drilling deeper....? If it isn't, why expend more money with the increased risk of failure?

And:

"What might they find in the wireline logging would change their mind? Reduced risk or greater reward or a combination of the two? And what might those determinants be?"

Anyway Skipsy I did not state that data as fact, it was in quotes, attributable to the Dhaka Express or similar.... that is what I was and why I was asking others to comment.

Skipsy I understand that which is why I did not ask about that again - my question was about the merits and validation of re-entering the well bearing in mind the stated reasons for pulling out now? What might they find in the wireline logging would change their mind? Reduced risk or greater reward or a combination of the two? And what might those determinants be?

So they already decided to stop drilling deeper because they did not wish to compromise the integrity of the well, so what will decide them to drill deeper? Surely pulling the drill out and then re-inserting it before drilling deeper would increase that risk? So would the wireline readings give them sufficient confidence that integrity would not be compromised or would it be because only by drilling deeper would they make the well "economic"....

In short, if the well is economic at the current depth why risk drilling deeper....? If not, why expend more money with the increased risk of failure?

As per the Dhaka article "Background helium levels are in the 3 to 5ppm range. 6x that is 30 ppm - which is decidedly non-economic."

So we now have this confirmed - albeit at many levels. So how do those far more technically proficient than me respond to this?

So SP since you use that earlier document as "evidence" of your case I will highlight one significant variable that would have a large impact on valuation.

"Mining projects have a minimum 16% free carry for the Government but can increase up to 50% depending on tax incentives."

So a difference of 34%! Do you not think that this might have an impact of valuation and share price? Do you not think this needs to be determined?

For Aminex (also referenced in the document and a company whose shares I own) this figure is likely to be 25%.

Anyway enough of this, life is too short.

GLA :0)

So just to remind you SP the whole point of the original thread was not whether these things will happen or not but simply that until and unless these things do happen or the outstanding questions around them answered one way or another, it will not be possible to value the underlying assets.... have you got it now?

I agree that it is not Petroleum, so what? Nor are we talking about Tax, we are talking about the necessary authorisations, approvals and agreements that enable He1 to recover the Helium, distribute it and the payments that surround this. It has NOT been agreed anywhere whether He1 will be able to sell this direct to market, will be required to sell to the Tanzanian Authorities for onward distribution, or at what price, whether those authorities have got "back-in" rights to He1 as a JV or any other details. And until these are clarified it will not be possible to "value" the asset under the ground.

And you seriously think that the Tanzanian Authorities will not treat it as a Gas?! Well maybe you are right SP and then again maybe not? Moreover if it is treated as a mineral the rules and regulations are even more draconian and involve another level of "red tape", so personally I rather hope that they do.

Time will tell.

Even putting it in tankers will require a "take-off" facility at well-head.... and even that will require a GSA and development agreement with the Tanzanian Authorities.

And, Aminex have (or did have) a host of Tanzanian based executives, some of them Tanzanian and it has made no difference....

Yes I saw that reference to production in 2025 and I hope they are in a position to deliver on that expectation. All I can say is that past experience is that any and all previous target expectations from Tanzanian Gas producers have been dramatically overshot, through little or no fault of their own. And yes, I know we have a new administration now but that administration has been in situ for 2 1/2 years now and whilst we have some very brave words, little has changed in the delivery on the ground.

Maybe He1 will break that paradigm but they will have to.....