Member Info for CrustyPete

Moreover CP a "loan" would not dilute the Zubair's interest and through any open offer or placing they could easily maintain their 29.9%. This is not about "maintaining" a 29.9% interest this is about "owning" and not AEX but the asset. Anyway CP despite what our illustrious leaders told us (about " inquiries "), do you really think that this farm-out was instigated by the Zubairs? I seem to remember you telling us that it was a tactic to stave off an unwanted predator? I think that we can now confidently consign that idea to the trash can.

All that may or may not be true CP but it doesn't negate kenrun's quite correct statement that but for the bloody predicament that we find ourselves we ought really not to be selling off our principle asset before it has reached it's optimal value and that would be post C1 drill and not before..... We could easily raise the funds to drill C1 (and Nyuni 3D seismics) and come back for a farm-in before we develope Kiliwani South, Nyuni et al. After all if we can waste 14 months prevaricating over KN1 remediation I am sure we could find time to drill C1 and implement EPS before we need to drill Nyuni or Kiliwani south. After all CP when do you remember a time when AEX BoD have ever drilled more than one well in a calendar year?! Even when they are planning "back to back" drills it takes them two years..... ;0)

"if AEX don't have enough money to drill, and that has not been confirmed" kenrun have you actually looked at the end of year figures? If not I suggest you do. There is more than enough evidence there to conclude that the BoD do NOT have enough money to drill NT3. Certainly not all the time that KN1 is producing at the current level...... " Overall, the decrease in net cash and cash equivalents for the year ended 31 December 2017 was $13.34 million compared with an increase of $17.44 million for the comparative period. After a foreign exchange loss of $0.55 million (31 December 2016: $nil), the balance of net cash and cash equivalents at 31 December 2017 was $6.23 million (31 December 2016: $19.57 million)" I have long questioned whether the BoD could commit to a spud date for NT3 until and unless they had managed to successfully remediate KN1. I now think the answer is fairly obvious and having allowed 14 months to elapse and with no immediate sign of that happening they now can wait no longer - hence the farm-out. The failure to remediate KN1 in 2017 must have cost circa $6 million in lost earnings and that position has continued for another 5 months into 2018. That $6 million is the difference between being funded for NT3 drill and not and without the income being restored they do not have the ability of paying for it "on the drip" either. You can guarantee that the TPDC/ Tanzanian Govt are pushing for C1 to be drilled (the Development License may be contingent on it) and neither party can afford to wait any longer for KN1 remediation to fund it. Placing? Loan? Maybe - but are these options that have been investigated or even considered? Let's ask the BoD at the AGM.

Sorry, I should have made clear that the term "fully funded" we will probably find (or never will) was an assumption made with KN1 revenues coming in at the previous $900,000 per month. As we saw with NT2, the costs of a drill can be spread over almost a year after the actual drill begins. Therefore KN1 incomes by themselves would have once upon a time gone a long way to cover AEX's drill commitments. It is also the reason that I suggested that if we had managed to remediate KN1 earlier we might well have got away without the need for additional funding. But now, over 14 months since the original issues with KN1 were identified, we are no closer to solving those operational and income issues and the cash has just about run out.....

Apache, I am sure it was once true; at the time that the BoD were looking for a back to back drill and before the major issues with KN1 (summer 2018) but since then the situation will have deteriorated along with the cash flows and at the same time as the wag bill skyrocketed. The question is when did that "fully funded" line get crossed and pass into the negative....? Another question to put on the AGM list.....

Moreover Drewky if you do not learn from past mistakes it is highly likely that the same mistakes will be made over and over again.... And we seem to be here yet again. Diluting assets prematurely because of delays in delivery. And all without proper accountability due to the smoke screen of the sensitivity of the TPDC relationship. As discussed previously to my mind it is essential that at this AGM we need to ensure that the BoD become accountable. I will remind you of this extract from the EOY report: The Directors consider that Aminex PLC has complied throughout the year with the provisions of the Code and the Irish Annex except for the following matters: � The terms and conditions of appointment of Non-Executive Directors were not publicly available during the year. � 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. � The Company does not have at least two independent non-executive directors as defined by provision B1.2 of the Code. However, given the small size of the Board and the calibre and experience of the six Non-Executive Directors, the Board views these Non-Executive Directors as sufficiently independent of management and as being capable of exercising independent judgment. Well this last omission is now put into stark relief when two of our Non executive Directors are operating on behalf of a "related party". And all the while the cloak of silence goes on due to the TPDC sensitivity. ALL OF THE ABOVE NEEDS ADDRESSING AT THIS AGM.

But Drewky it is only because of our recent past that we find ourselves in this predicament.....? Whilst I fully accept that we were always going to have to raise money for Nyuni 3D seismics and drilling we were supposedly "fully funded" for NT3 drill (and "self funded" thereafter for Ntorya) and if we still were, we would not be in the vulnerable position that we now find ourselves..... KN1, our "Achilles heel", unaddressed for well over 12 months and only recently have we changed tack on that - now abandoning compression for re-entry. **** ups and breweries come to mind.

Oh and sorry Drewky but, as you have probably worked out I don't think they will - have the balls that is.

I am not saying that a farm-out is our only option I am stating that irrespective of what the options might be (increase to 20% in share issuance?) will shareholders have the balls to vote it out? It is likely to mean a sharp retraction in sp..... I think this is one of the questions that we should be asking at the AGM - assuming that the farm out isn't announced before then; "What are our alternative funding options BoD and what have you done to investigate them?"

So I would tend to agree that "We expect to conclude this agreement"...... does mean signed sealed and delivered but "early in the second half of 2018." Sounds like anything before the end of September.... And moreover "We expect to conclude this agreement, which is subject among other conditions to shareholder approval" infers that they think the offer will be acceptable to shareholders. I would be interested to know what they think the shareholders would consider an acceptable figure. I suspect their figure and ours will be some way apart. But will shareholders risk rejecting an offer from the Zubairs? No cash, no chance of drilling NT3 or developing Nyuni and a risk that TPDC/ Tanzanian govt might withhold Licences....? Hence we need that Development License before the Farm-Out and probably the reason we won't get it... Over a barrel or what? I seem to remember that this BoD got us here once before.....?

I agree with much of what LT has suggested but would like to point out that I do NOT consider myself a "disgruntled" shareholder. Not yet at least. There are a multitude of questions, some of them very pointed, that I would like the answers to but I will delay passing judgement until we get those answers. If we do not get them, or if the answers are inadequate I will then be "disgruntled".... And at the bottom of that is why is is that the BoD have left the remediation of KN1 for so long that we now have to farm-out Ruvuma prematurely to fund ongoing development and, of course, whether by deferring the NT3 drill that has exacerbated the issue? And to say that they cannot divulge that information because of the sensitivity of TPDC will just NOT cut it.

And yes vike it is self evident that all will be revealed when it is ALL ready to be revealed and any isolated announcements regarding individual details about Drill Pads et al would be counter-productive; creating more questions than answers

This is what I was referring to below vike - it is issues like these that need to be discussed and revealed at the AGM and will not be unless we provide Camarco with a list of all that we want covered that it will be answered. There will be insufficient time to address all of these from "the floor" after the presentation....

I do not think it necessary to have a "spokesman" at teh AGM - as I have suggested previously we ought to create a list of questions and send them to Camarco in advance of the meeting requesting that each issue is addressed as a matter of priority at the meeting. Whether this is done as part of the presentation (best option as it would subsequently be recorded on the website) or in a Q&A session at the end I would not have a issue with. If our questions are not addressed we would simply need someone to offer to raise them at the Q&A session - or even afterwards in the "face to face" opportunities afterwards

Do you really think it is necessary or even relevant to announce to the market that the BoD may now be thinking of moving the drill pad a few yards in one direction or another when we haven't got a drill to drill the bloody thing? Nor even the funds to pay for it? Even the most demanding of shareholders would surely realise why the BoD might not have thought it appropriate to reveal such trivialiies....

Oh and why Drewky was it that it took until January to do the analysis that proved that it was are-working of Kiliwani that was required and not Compression? Do you not think it would have been a bloody good idea to have worked that out somewhat sooner? Was that the fault of the TPDC? Gas inlet pressures? Well I asked about the possibility of their being an issue in about September of last year, so I would hope that, if so, the AEX BoD had identified it somewhat sooner and come up with an alternative?

Delay Drewky? Delay in what? If you mean the NT3 drill - that was purely down to a management choice. You cannot blame the TPDC or Tanzanian authorities for that decision and, as I have rhetorically asked previously - given what we now know would they have chosen to defer that "back-to-back" drill plan...? I doubt it. Would we now be running cap in hand to the Zubairs for cash? Was it absolutely necessary to apply for the 25 yr Dev License? Pure conjecture I know but these were decision that the BoD cannot avoid total responsibility for. And, NO, I am not the blind one. Not even "one eyed"......

Oh and just one other thing - if there is to be a fund raise via a dilution I seriously doubt that much if any of it will be via an open offer and certainly not a rights issue; the vast majority will surely come via a placing

CP the Ntorya development area and the 8 wells is "SELF-FUNDING", supposedly.... why would they need additional funding once NT1,2 & 3 are in production? So as some have mentioned earlier the increase to 20% is surely the Plan B, lest the Farm-Out doesn't happen OR doesn't happen soon enough to fund NT3 drill..... Or it does happen but that the funds raised through the farm-out are by themselves insufficient for both for NT3 drill and development of Nyuni and South Kiliwani?

I apologise trrime my supposition was that being over �100k down you must have invested over �200k. I stand corrected.