Member Info for CrustyPete

That said, the BoD were keen to emphasise that, as soon as they had income from Ntorya, (NT1,NT2 and CH1) they would be looking to revisit Kiliwani and finally complete their development obligations and, what is more, the TPDC is very keen for them to do so.

"profitable"? It was producing at about $1m per month but was so short lived it never repaid the investment cost. So it depends what you mean I suppose? I do recall the BoD saying at one of the AGM's that had not the TDPC "insisted" upon their attempts at bringing it back on line they would have chosen to plug it - so I doubt there is any likelihood of their "phoenixing" KN1. The shallow offshore prospects were likely to be most commercial but needed "connecting" to the GPP with new pipeline infrastructure. Plus of course were reliant on the 3D seismics that ORCA (M&P?)were doing before they were shelved.

And I will continue to do so roses, as I am sure you will too; whether or not it is accurate.....

I would agree with you roses and hope that our BoD do what is in the best interests of shareholders and not simply accede to our "Advisers" self-interested viewpoint and opinions.

Oh and, similarly roses, I can only hope that your interpretation of the company's situation and future is an awful lot better than your totally flawed and erroneous presumption of other peoples "motivations" and supposed "agendas". Maybe that is how you choose to operate but that does not mean that everybody is equally shallow and self serving. Some simply post what they think, without fear or favour.

Agreed EE and, for similar reasons, with such a disparity between market price and the analysts valuation of circa 37p, asking the shareholders to support a heavy and costly dilution to "go it alone".....

Well as production can start as soon as NT2 is "re-opened" and can "plumb in" to the pipeline I think that is a minimal risk and, more importantly if that dilution is a trivial and incidental as the last one (5.9% at a minimal discount) so what, who cares? And fwiw if there were a need to do so it is likely to be significantly smaller than the last one as any "bridge" that might be necessary would be far shorter in duration and AEX won't have an outstanding loan to pay off.....

So frankly, so what? Another triviality.

"Bear case stall tactic"?! Lol! No, nonsense. But hey you have your opinion and I have mine.

Time will tell.

Practically irrelevant? I disagree McNol. It is those missing pieces that we will require independent corroboration of and I suggest that without them the rNAV is incalculable and therefore not likely to move the dial significantly. Indeed their supposed basin model has not yet even been independently validated and so without it cannot be used to support Reserve Estimates.

And NO I was not suggesting that they need third parties to validate Helium flows BUT they will need third parties to opine on Resource Estimates and that is the material news - flow rates on their own do not prove "commerciality"; that requires flow rates to be added to resource estimates, usability and duration.

So yes, issue the flow rates - so what? We have had those in the past, they may (should) improve but, they provide little insight on their own.

Perhaps McNol BUT there have been and continue to be countless examples of just that in the release, or lack of it, of test results; as often as not those "results" are held back before being independently corroborated or validated and will continue to do so.

You may be right and I hope you are BUT I would not be at all surprised, indeed, expect to have to wait.

Well that would be true I think as they have "on-site" facilities but whether they announce them in advance of that independent corroboration will very much depend upon their level of confidence and the potential impact on the CPR and Resource estimates.... potentially very good, or indeed, very bad figures are likely to require third party validation methinks. Moreover, the results, without the CPR and resource estimates, in and of themselves they would not be particularly revealing and may lead to a host of wild speculation and uncertainty.

I would expect both news from Rukwa regarding the completion of the ESP programme, though not yet the "results as I believe they will need independent corroboration, and from Galactica that our first shipment /payment has been delivered next week sometime.

Yes EE, I too was more than a little concerned at the seeming emphasis on personalised vaccine solutions. Particularly so considering the lobbying power of the likes of Moderna and the "delicate" state of negotiations between UK & US regarding the cost of US pharma products and the seeming proclivity of this govt to cow tow to the US administration - I am sure that the orange one and his acolytes would have something to say about the Moderna vaccines being sidelined for a UK alternative - not that they need necessarily be mutually exclusive.

And I have expressed mine.

Probably a reaction to all of today's hyperbolic posts about a "buyout" RJ. How many times and for how many years have we raked over these same coals eh? It is a total irrelevance.

Ha! I thought that would prompt somebody into action!! And it ended up being you RJ Lol! Well it seems to be true, a leopard, they say never changes his spots.

And "no" RJ I have sold none recently; indeed only topped up again in December and happy that I did.

Anyone still think that ARA will be drilling CH1 in Q1 2026?!EE perhaps? Unfortunately the "turn of the year" has now long since passed. Any money on Q2?

Even Q3 now looking at risk (not impossible) with the delays on the M&P drill programme.... maybe time to look for an alternative option?

Hence the once oft quoted statement that ARA see AEX as their East African O&G exploration vehicle/partner.

ARA do not want to Buy Out AEX cheaply that would destroy their essential Modus Operandi - that is by having a controlling interest in a quoted vehicle like AEX, ARA ensure that once the shareholders and the market have taken 70% of the risk and funded 70% of the exploration and appraisal costs they have no option but to sell the assets to ARA (for a song) to fund the ongoing development and eventual monetisation of the asset.

Ben, you say "With a contract you may achieve a lower price, but without the price will vary more." moreover as the "producer" you carry no costs or risks associated with the transportation, distribution or delivery of the product and your off-take agreement will (typically) be for a fixed term, so no issues finding a market and hence no sales and marketing, CRM and similar overheads and no FX exposure.