Member Info for CrustyPete

Ho hum.

Good god BG, how many feckin times do I have to repeat that same answer....? Sorry but not again - if you cannot remeber go boil your head.

So LW I was one that whilst a fund raise was definitely on tha cards at some point disagreed with you and suggested that we would not see a fund raise until after the drill. I was wrong and your suggestion that we may see one before the drill was correct. My principle reservation about a "pre-spud" drill was that it would indicate a lack of confidence in the drill outcome. I stand by this statement and suggest that it definitely does! It will now limit the ammount of "hot money" that tehe spud will attract and will ensure that most of it will exit before the conclusion of the drill....

Disappointing in my view but shapes my tactics on my short term position.

Roger, you say "Chris you are not posting the official line from the company are you?"

Well maybe and maybe not but even so and as you yourself as a VERY LTH must admit anyone relying on the "Company line" as anything close to a realistic version of the "truth" (particularly when it comes to timelines) will have been and is likely to be be sorely dissapointed...

Thankfully, for me, as a shareholder of over 13 years it no longer matters... but for new entrants it remains a major issue.

Incidentally POC what happened to those seismic results that you told us we should expect before April?

"symtompatic of a negative bias" POC? No, actually the benefit of previous AEX experience; experienc of previous AEX trading patterns. But even then, I did not say this was the herald of a delay, simply that it might be.... based on that past experience. Nothing more nothing less.

FWIW I too expect news and developments over the near to medium term but would not be surprised to see further delays as you yourself seem to agree seem to agree may happen.

And just for your information I am not trapped here and never have been - I am in profit and could leave at any moment if I felt the need.

And your point is BG?! "Ntorya project is moving ever closer to fruition".... so what? So was it 6 / 7 years ago but look how long it has taken to get here. Your assumption that the fall over the last 2/3 days is down to "traders" is a very convenient and simplistic one and symptomatic of the complacency that characterises the rts brigade.

Even if I accept your point BG, is does absolutely nothing to negate my suggestion that the recent share price movement could be the herald another unwanted delay..... and that has absolutely nothing to do with the "rear view mirror", indeed quite the opposite - but of course it would not suit your argument to accept it as such. ;0)

Good night all.

Rear view mirror BG? Really? No, actually just at today's trading... or perhaps have you missed the fact that the sp has lost 15-20% in just a couple of days? No actually far more likely that you have conveniently chosen to ignore it and pretend it hasn't happened - ostrich mode as always eh BG?

I am fearful (though not in the least bit surprised) that the total lack of news has led some to conclude that, yet again, we are likely to suffer further delays. Indeed maybe they already know that to be true and hence the significant sell volume over recent days.....

I hope that is not the case the the share price and trade pattern is worryingly familiar.

LW whilst you are right about the rules in BVI being different to those in London, you will find that the Governance rules for a Publicly quoted company relating to such things as the AGM, funding, shareholder involvement, notificationa etc are dictated by the LSE for any company listing in London; so AIM rules will dictate these things not BVI Mem's and Art's - those are the obligations imposed on any company choosing to list in London, no matter where they are based - unless of course you are Aramco, in which case the Lse will change the rukes just for you!

To find the chance of at least one of the four events succeeding you have to multiply the chance of success of each event failing and then subtract that number from 1.... so if the COS of each event was 20% the chance of each failing would be 80% hence: 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.41. Subtract 0.41 from 1 leaves 0.59...

Hence in the above example the likelihood of at least one of those four events happening would be 59%.

Oh sorry and subtract that resultant number from 1 - this assumes that all of the four events that you refer to are unrealted and that the outcome of one does not impact the liklelihood of another.

So KeithOz you say "Adding those gcos's gives an overall figure of 52%."... so a statistician you are not then Keith? A statistician would multiply them together for the COS not add them....

There might also be a JV for sharing of production costs and facilities but that presupposes that both companies are fortunate in finding a commercially viable resource. I hope so but I know which horse I would be backing - oh look I am!!

Sorry COS would not be lower not higher - the risk would be higher! DOH!!

Sinequanon following on from Skittish's post you say "...sensible risk spread in a way". Is it? Really? Not if He1 COS is considerably higher than NHE's COS - the combined COS for He1 would be higher than it was independently. Why would that be in my interests as an He1 shareholder?

The only people that strategy favours is NHE and their shareholders.

I agree wyndrum, however I cannot see that a merger is in He1 interests; I repeat, I believe that the COS and potential scale of He1 "assets" are so much greater than NHE's and He1 now owns their own drill. Why would you want to dilute that? And for what? What does an NHE merger offer He1 shareholders? Not a lot that I can see.

Sinequanon, I could not agree with you more; any idea that He1 might co-ordinate our spud date with NHE's seems totally fanciful to me. Surely He1 would want to spud as soon as possible and have neither obligation nor anything to gain from a "joint launch" with NHE. Indeed it could be argued that "linking" the two has negative connotations as failure by one might have negative impact on the other and I have far greater confidence about He1 COS than I do of NHE's, for reasons that have been covered here many times.

As it happens BG, so do I....

100%, no nothing in Tanzania is EVER 100% but 99%? Yes. They would not have enough time to execute on a transaction - if the 31st August deadline lapses ARA would call in their IOU PDQ....

Winalot it would not be a 50:50 split but pro rata the current holdings, that is 66% ARA 33% AEX.