Member Info for CrustyPete

I do not belive there is much that will be changed on communications for reasons discussed endlessly in the past. My priority would be for the BoD to implement an element of performance related pay as has been alluded to previously. And for that performance to be assessed relative to a list of annual objectives. See below page 17 from the Company's end of year report. _ A performance evaluation of the Board, its Committees and its Directors was not undertaken during the year. _ As noted in the Directors� Remuneration Report, the Board intends to put in place a scheme during 2018 to enable part of the Executive Directors� remuneration to be performance related Well going forward these things must be implemented so I will be pressing to understand what this looks like.

Moreover BG it is not the TPDC that grant the Development license approval it is the Minister of Energy; do you really think he will consider the TPDC's back-in rights when making that decision? No! Because they will remain unaffected. Don't sweat the small stuff BG. Aminex cannot drill a bloody thing without funds.

BG that comment does not pass scrutiny, the TPDC can exercise their back in rights at any time; they could easily approve the Development License, await the C1 drill and then exercise their back in rights subsequently. Moreover whilst they have 5% of Kiliwani (through back in rights) they have never yet, to my knowledge, made any contribution towards past costs and they are not enforceable under Tanzanian Law. So, in effect whether the C1 drill is before or after the Development License approval it makes absolutely ZERO difference to their choice, or obligations, under their back in rights. Moreover, the pertinent issue is the costs of the pipeline spur, back-in rights are an irrelevance.

Kimosabi, I won't argue, maybe it is one of those things that a particular company can override with a special resolution but see point 14 https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-613-3685?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 And as regards a quarterly update - actually that BoD typically already does issue a Quarterly Operational update so I cannot see that would dramatically affect the current perception of lack of news.

I thought the limit for getting a resolution adopted was 5% or a minimum of 100 shareholders (with more than 100 shares)

Good spot BG, I was actually at that AGM and yet evidently it had failed to make a lasting impression. And yes that will be for the AGM because an EGM only requires 14 days in the first place - though both require that same "grace" period to allow for communication and do not include the day the notice is sent or the day of the meeting. So, in short even a 14 day period would have to be a minimum of 19 plus.

Well my view is that the BoD allowed themselves as long as realistically possible to hold the AGM in the hope that all the dominoes would fall in time for that to happen but as most of the cards are held by the TPDC and Tanzanian Govt there is NO guarantee or even, in my view, likelihood of that happening in time for the AGM. It would also allow BoD to implement the "Plan B" after the 20% increase in issued share capital has been approved! It WILL also allow the BoD to, at least, advise shareholders news on the NT3 drill rig tender and hopefully sign off on the KN1 work programme. Though if we haven't had news on farm-out before then it might well have to come with news of a placing or open offer to fund them both. I would love to be proven wrong

Sorry that should have been BG of course ;0)

NG a 14 day notice period is only allowable if previously agreed by shareholders - otherwise a minimum period of 21 days is required plus and number of days "grace" to assure that ALL shareholders have a clear 21 day notice period. So unless we have agreed at a previous AGM to a reduction from 21 days, that is the requirement. From a practical perspective that is usually accepted as 28 days for the "grace" period

Yes, I more than realise that dunder.... but thanks for your patronising tone none the less.

WhatChiel, whilst I do understand the sentiments and cynicism expressed in your post below I do not exactly share it. Indeed you seem to suggest that there is a deliberate strategy on behalf of the AEX BoD to extract value from PI's pockets and transfer it into the hands of our "cornerstone" investor? This, I suggest, attributes them with far more strategic and managerial acumen than their past performance actually merits. No, the truth is probably far less Machiavellian. The reality is that the BoD are not in control of anything, it is the TPDC that control events and timescales in Tanzania. Do you think that the AEX BoD would knowingly have left KN1 over 14 months without remediation if they had control over the assets? Would the BoD have stated that they were "fully funded" for NT3 drill if they had known that we would have next to no income from KN1 for nearly a year? Would they have left the drill of NT3 to until after the Mtwara and Lindi Licences had expired if it was going to take this length of time to get them extended and KN1 remediated? IF these issues had been a deliberate act on the part of the AEX BoD then I suspect that their relationship with the TPDC and the Tanzanian Govt would have broken down irrevocably since the AGM last year. So maybe yes but I think not. The only reason that they can still be in negotiations with the TPDC et al is due to the fact that it is not because of what the AEX BoD has done to resolve these issues but despite it Their failing is the total lack of foresight and their seeming inability to have implemented a "plan B" - and the prevarication that they have deployed in answering shareholders concerns and questions over that period.

BG, check your email.

Good God BG how many more times -- what ever you may "believe" is up to you but I do not need to reminded of your belief every time I post - I do not have dementia, I do have a memory. I also have good reason to believe that it is and therefore will continue to say so. As I have attempted to explain many times there is very good reason for both AEX and the Zubairs to wait for the Development License before agreeing to a farm out.

Officially "Ntorya 3 is not dependent on a 25 year development licence ". Though if the "Farm-Out" is dependent on the Development License and the NT3 drill is dependent on a Farm - Out, then it certainly becomes dependent on it. So from a Zubair and AEX perspective whilst officially it cannot be "dependent" on Development License to all practical purposes it may have become so...... And from the Tanzanian Govt perspective the Development License may be dependent on the outcome of the NT3 drill - officially maybe not but politically maybe so.

You may be proven correct but until anything has been confirmed it would be senseless to make assumptions about valuations or the assets covered in the farm-out. Initially the Ntorya Development area was to be "carved out" of the original Mtwara Appraisal area which would suggest that this would be a separate license and I am sure that Zubairs will want a piece of this; moreover the old "Exploration area" was expected to be re-negotiated to be tied in with the Mtwara Appraisal area. So yet again, if so, I suspect that the Zubairs would want into all three areas. What is more, every time in the past that Aminex have negotiated extensions they have lost a significant percentage of the area and the extension has added to AEX's development obligations. So what ever may end up being the case you can guarantee that the existing Mtwara license will have been materially altered. So Drewky, whilst a superficial reading of the Company's RNS could be interpreted that way the devil will be in the detail. There are a number of options available to Zubairs a) Ntorya Development area only b) Mtwara Appraisal area including Ntorya Development area c) Ntorya, Mtwara and Lindi. And whichever of these options they decide upon will have a material difference in the value of the farm-out.... except maybe the Lindi area which has next to no value before further drilling and proving-up of resources.

The 25 year Development license will make the circa $800 million Ntorya area Development assets 2P or, at the very least, the NT1,2 &3 assets so a post approval farm-out would be a better outcome for Shareholders. Agreed on the Tanzanian ownership - plus, of course, right now we have absolutely NO licences on any of these underlying assets so their value is very questionable. Moreover those license extensions have yet to be negotiated and quite how they will be cut and which of these the Zubaiirs will be farming in to has yet to be determined - at least as far as we shareholders have been made aware of. Until such time as these discussions have been concluded there will be no farm-in.

or "pecan nut sack"....?

What JB values the assets at and what the Zubairs are prepared to offer and the BoD to recommend may be two totally different things.... The most important valuation is that of the collective PI shareholder list; what is the minimum that you would accept? I suggest that 90% of that shareholder base will not have a clue, and even if they do they won't have the balls to rebuff the Zubair's offer because the alternative is too uncertain..... And that is what the BoD and the Zubairs are relying on.

Patience required John; they need some stock....

And how many of our fellow PI's who hold the 58% of issued shares have the same fortitude? Will they have the nerve to rebuff the Zubair's advances? It is likely to be ugly......