Member Info for CrustyPete

Forget OIL Drewky the fact that we are drilling into previously un-drilled deeper rock formations (Triassic and Jurassic) makes this an Exploration well; whether we are drilling for Oil or NOT! That might not be a technicians answer but it is certainly the TPDC and Tanzanian Govt viewpoint. Anyone that is trying to suggest that we must be targeting Oil at C1 because that is the only justification for classifying it as an Exploration Well is just grasping at straws. It is an Exploration well because these rock formations have never been drilled before in this basin.

Is today "Groundhog day"? At the risk of repeating myself whatever we may determine the C1 drill to be, whether that be Appraisal or Exploration, the Tanzanian Government classifies it as an Exploration Well on the basis that the lower Jurassic and Triassic levels have never been drilled before for either Gas or Oil (certainly not in Ruvuma). This was given as the explanation of the name change from Ntorya 1, 2 and beyond to Chikumbi 1; to differentiate this "Exploration Well" from the two previous Appraisal Wells. Whether this was necessary or purely a convenient device for subsequent manipulation by the TPDC (discussed yesterday) remains to be seen. As regards "targeting oil", as far as I am concerned the AEX BoD have never changed their long standing OFFICIAL position that the NT3 drill is fundamentally targeting Gas but with the chance of an Oil find. This even to the point of suggesting that whilst the Cretaceous levels have huge Gas potential these could be dwarfed by the lower Jurassic and Triassic basins. Neil Ritson though in unguarded comments has been a little more forthright and has suggested that AEX are "targeting" Oil but how much store do you put on NR's ejaculations? Personally, not a lot.....

The LSE is having to create a whole new "category" to accommodate the ARAMCO proposal and much against the better instincts of the majority of market participants, commentators and regulators; and precisely because of the compromises in Governance.... Show me an LSE precedent.

I would agree FL on that score, I am not expecting anything from the Zubairs for quite some time but I do believe it will come eventually. It would take a very large company to compete with them and they will always be able to block any advances from any smaller entities....

feelinglucky, sorry to correct you but whilst ARA are investment specialists, the Zubairs have a vast range of interests including large O&G operational and service companies

So the Zubairs increase their stake to above 29.9% but choose not to make a "bid" for the company? So how is that in any meaningful sense a "Public Company"? I am not sure how that would be considered by the LSE. I know it has been done before but ownership outside of the UK in a fully listed UK company.....? I would like to see a precedent for that.

But Aminex would no longer have a public listing, so the sp would never be known and there would be no liquidity in the shares, vike1....? How would that be attractive to any private investors? Moreover the offer would definitely be a low ball one.

But trrime how many shareholders will have the balls to reject an offer from the Zubairs? Not many methinks; Can you imagine the effect on the sp (of both companies) if they did....? They would be cutting their own throats and what would be the "plan B"? - a dilution of course! What would happen to the Development License? And what would happen to Solo's 25% ? Do you think that the Zubairs would buy Solo's share if they cannot get any of Aminex's? It would open the door for other actors but it would put things back considerably... They would be cutting their own throats and what would be the "plan B"? - a dilution of course!

Moreover, if the end game for the Zubairs is to buy Aminex out lock stock and barrel, by investing large sums now, contributing to the development of assets and income all they are doing is increasing the price they will pay for it when they eventually make their bid..... :0)

The Zubair's ownership of Aminex should be an irrelevance as the underlying ownership of AEX is, in theory at least, unknown to the TPDC or Govt..... Do they know that you and I have a holding? No? This however is somewhat undermined by the suggestion that the Zubairs and the Omani's are meant to be lobbying the Tanzanian Govt to speed up proceedings on AEX's behalf. If this is true it could end up being counterproductive as the Tanzanian authorities will have quickly worked out who pulls the strings at Aminex. With the Zubairs buying a direct holding in Ruvuma who will the TPDC perceive as being the de facto "operator" of the Ruvuma concession? I think we all know the answer. Another consideration to add in to the "complex" discussions is the possibility of the TPDC 15% back in rights. I suggest that these will be part of the current conversation as the Zubairs will hardly want to buy, say, 25% of Ruvuma if they then, almost immediately, have to give up a pro rata %age to a TPDC back-in? Though I think a 15% back in is unlikely, maybe 5%....

But all with "plausible deniability" BG that's the point...... *http://politicaldictionary.com/words/plausible-deniability/

But Drewky by filtering the message through Malcy they are not responsible for the ambiguity and any misinterpretation. They will say that we shouldn't listen to people like Malcy, we should only listen to the "operator" as is their mantra everytime we point out that NR has put his foot in it again. It does the job without their being seen to be responsible for any of the fall out - whether that be from shareholders or from the TPDC.

Well that may depend on which side of the table you are sitting. "Complex"? May just be a way of dressing it up? Anyway they would say that wouldn't they? ;0)

I would largely concur vike1 but for the timing of income from EPS; I think the demand curve for 2019 will ensure earlier development, Q3/4 2019.

FWIW HY, I am expecting income from Ntorya no later than Q3 2019 but this assumes the successful completion of the C1 drill before the end of the year; and whilst that is by no means a certainty I am confident that should occur. Brave words eh?

It was covered in that recent NR interview. It was given a name change because it was considered "different" to NT1 and NT2; different in so far as they were both Appraisal Wells and yet the TPDC/ Tanzanian Government considered NT3 an Exploration Well as it was "exploring" as yet un-drilled Jurassic and Triassic zones. Chikumbi was the name of the local village closest to the drill site.

NT1 and NT2? Yes indeed BG that is my understanding.... Because they were in the cretaceous zone they were considered Appraisal Wells , because C1 in drilling into the Jurassic it is considered not to be (so we have been advised anyway).

Though apologies BG, I do agree with you on the TPDC treatment of C1 - an exploration well and not an appraisal well; they may well be able to get out of paying for past cost on this basis. If so then the outcome of C1 is even less material to the Development License approval; on your own logic they wont have to pay to "back in" to it anyway....

Similarly Drewky I do not expect anything to be released before the AGM. Many people (including me initially) have put the late AGM date down to allowing the BoD time to conclude the Farm-Out and include a vote on the AGM agenda. I now think that less likely as I believe that timing of the Farm-Out is not within their control (I am not going to reprise that argument). It is more likely that the deferral allows other things to materialise such as the License Extensions, Development License approval, KN1 work programme sign off and C1 rig tender conclusion. If and only if some or all of these things materialise might we see some progress on the farm-out but surely even the AEX BoD cannot be totally confident of that?

So Blackgold same old speculative twaddle I see..... the TPDC are now insisting on C1 drill because of 15% back-in. As I illustrated the other day the TDPC do not even approve the Development License and they have already given thoier approval by forwarding the application to the Energy Minister for signing. If there is any material reason to see the C1 drill before approval it is far more relevant for the Commercial justification of the EPS project; if C1 doesn't come up trumps the TPDC can simply decide NOT to exercise their back in or at least simply to defer it until a subsequent well is successful and supports the commercial case for the EPS. If C1 fails there is NO EPS so "backing -in" becomes irrelevant. Your suggestion is pure speculation and totally illogical; you can dig out as many quotes as you like but they still don't support your half baked theory.