Member Info for Drewky

Dunder my challenge to you was to show genuine questions to this bb because of your constant sniping of management which you said you would do. I'm not on any other bbs so I'll liaise with Pete but you may as well have put them on here anyway because the intension is mail the list to them to give them some sort of chance because we have dozens of questions and there will only be limited time at the AGM for them to deal with them. I now have 34 with Petes still to be added along with perhaps more. If Pete is happy, I will discuss the priorities with him and put the whole thing forward and there will be enough of us at the AGM to try and ensure some of these questions are answered

Pete I have collected them in a word document and intend to let you have a copy so we can chew the fat over prioritising the most relevant issues. I haven't got your own specifics and though I did challenge dunder to make his public I've just seen he has sent them direct to you. As I said before, I'm quite happy to forward the questions to the Bod and or Camarco and I agree sending on behalf of a group is likely to receive a better response than from an individual especially if they are made aware that the group will be fairly well represented at the AGM itself. As time is moving on If anyone has any more questions to ask, I suggest they add them to this thread and then I can set the ball rolling to Pete. I think we should be aiming to get a letter off to them by Monday 11th June

Like you CP I found the first couple of sentences interesting until it reverted to typecast! Of course the management were blind and they walked into a perfectly laid trap is the inference there but he tends to forget the unforseen. I believe this current farm out is only being considered at this stage because of the issues at KW without which we would have been fully funded for NT3 Now CH1. As others had suggested long before this fella arrived casting management dispersions, a farm out was on the cards if we wanted to develop the field at a reasonable pace. Management did intially expect it to be self funding and in my opinion there was no reason not to think that way but the size of this find and the obvious complexities that it has brought with it means it needed to be done and KW has forced that to be sooner. But never mind a little management bashing with the inevitable tongue in cheek lol every time makes him happy. Still waiting dunder

Before you start saying years Max you should look at how quickly this moved only just over a year ago. When CH1 is completed and assuming success for gas alone we will have put ourselves in the position of commercial viability for the pipeline construction to follow which brings with it the route to market and income. On that basis alone without other possibilities I see us surpassing 7.5 fairly quickly

My comments were not solely aimed at you Pete either. I was looking for a one word answer. There were three possibilities. The fact that the lower level target was to be ignored in the question rules out the automatic inference to it being an exploration well. Now it still maybe the case but all references to lower levels or potential of oil I had made quite clear numerous times are not to be considered. But no matter now there is little point as said the next stage is not worth the bother when the simplest part causes this amount of friction. Got to go. Work to be done

Manic for yours and every ones benefit I told you all that OIL DOES NOT EXIST in the question I was asking OIL IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to my question and has nothing to do with where I wished to take the conversation. Hell fire this question could be about any gas drilling company but you just don't get chance to develop anything different on here. Forget I've done!

from your point of view Pete "Appraisal" that's all I wanted thank you. It was a simple question which required one of a possible three answers I don't want the crap and condemnation that goes with it from people when they have no idea about the reason for the question! Why oh why can we not develop a conversation without people making assumptions about things. Because I haven't got answers and my question has got people uptight yet again I'll just give up and forget it because to develop it will just have you all falling out even more. Can't believe it, Jeez

Forget the groundhog Pete for this question we are assuming there is no oil target! Unfortunately I won't be able to pursue this tonight because of commitments. I'm not trying to force specific answers but just an answer to the scenario I have laid out, to develop it further I'm just trying to get a feel for how people would read it and I don't care who is right or wrong that really doesn't matter.

The oil is irrelevant to my question BG and if I can't get people to understand that, then I haven't got a hope of developing the conversation to the next stage. I will totally rephrase and stress that the lower levels do not exist, they are a figment of the imagination and the scenario is that Ch1 will be drilling to a known target level that is a known pocket of gas. Would that be classed as Exploration? Development? (because I understand we can only take it to market once it has been drilled) or we can add to the mix CPs suggestion Appraisal? The question is open to anybody

Are you just trying to be awkward BG or am I not being clear enough? Forget the targeted oil level We are going for a gas pocket that we know is there

Try again BG "I accept there is an element of exploration in the oil target but for the sake of argument can answers be given on the basis that we are drilling only for gas."

A straight question and let's ignore the technicalities of the recent name change of NT3 to CH1 Would our drilling for gas at CH1 be classed as a development drill or an exploration? I accept there is an element of exploration in the oil target but for the sake of arguement can answers be given on the basis that we are drilling only for gas.

You could be right Dunder if you think that all six sellers perhaps post on this board? If I weren't in the same boat with my others I'd be snapping these up and laughing all the way? Lack of volume is causing this joke price which in itself is caused by lack of comms. Those who understand what's happening are not happy about that but I doubt you will find many of those selling out and certainly not because of the snipers

I've got three shares in the same position at the moment all awaiting the big news but sliding slowly on the complete lack of volume. Not even 3 million shares traded between them after five hours trading tells the story. Contrary to the old saying... No news is NOT good news in the case of the markets because the market wants profit yesterday!

Everybody seems to have forgotten about the strength of the words used by the chairman of io consulting when he expressed how keen he was to leverage GE & Baker Hughes. In all the farm out discussions this hasn't really been mentioned but it would not surprise me at all if they are still involved and a part of these complexities.

Max, go steady old lad, don't want you choking ;0))

You may have BG and I certainly do but tbh until recently I haven't seen you on this bb so you may have missed the fact that there are a fair few on here recently who have lost trust. I'm not happy when people sell millions of shares because of it because that ultimately contributes to the slide so when simple communication can prevent this, it has to be worthwhile doing. Anyway, said my piece now have a good night!

It looks like somebody got stung earlier selling at 4 and having to rebuy at 4.2 full ask. Probably flipping into isa but looking at the previous buys it looks like a pee take

I buy into a share because I look into it and I put my trust in them BG. I trust this board and have shown my support all along despite the flak I have taken for it at times. I would answer firstly, if we don't trust the board then we don't buy in or else bigger fool us! Secondly it is communication that keeps trust alive! I am sure that most on here have and had trust in the bod but the lack of communication has been a problem for a long time here and the reality of events over the last year has caused many to lose their trust! People would not doubt an open honest board because they are being kept in the loop. Treating staff like mushrooms is a common and annoying trait of boards these days but shareholders are not staff they are the ones who have put their hard earned cash on the line and they should respecting that! I will add, I have not lost trust and I stll have full trust in them to do what is required but I am pointing out that this is a major area where our bod shoot themsleves in the foot.

Yes I know but it doesn't wash in this case How much fall out can there be from explaining to your shareholders that.... "The complexities of negotiations are such that it is not possible to release further details at this stage due to confidentiality agreements and non disclosure agreement that have been made to enable the talks to take place, however you can be assured that we are working in the best interests of Aminex and its shareholders" Followed by.... "A note to keep you informed that we are making progress although still not in a position the reveal further information, further details will be released asap" Followed by.... "Some silly arse has decided to book his holiday when the meeting was due to take place so we apologise for a further months delay" :0)) The content is not the important thing! The important thing is the CONTACT! Simply by keeping communication going, you can keep the trust of your shareholders. If they had not paid off this loan when they did, I'm sure they would be having to tell the bankers.