Member Info for Drewky

This may help our own situation by knock on effect as Tanesco should now be able to pay its bills

"Zanzibar — Zanzibar Electricity Corporation (Zeco) has paid Sh45 billion of the Sh65 it owes Tanzania Electric Supply Company (Tanesco).
Zeco public relations officer Salum Abdallah said on Saturday that the firm was working closely with the Zanzibar government to ensure that the debt was cleared as soon as possible.
"The outstanding debt is currently Sh20 billion, which we plan to clear by June 2019," he said."

https://allafrica.com/stories/201811190502.html

Have to admit I thought Solo had arranged the meeting in anticipation of news beforehand! Three more chances for that I suppose but not exactly holding my breath.

I think todays sellers are playing a risky game if they intend to buy back in though, because the news could drop at any hour of day, let alone any day.

Perhaps trying to hoover a few cheap ones up ready for news to drop.

Hold them shares make them pay!

Without research I can't remember the exact figures but I believe you are right BG. Not only that but of the total amount disputed Aminex were only accountable for an element of it with Solo and the recently departed Australian responsible % wise for the remainder.

The company seemed pretty confident we would get that released and we've heard nothing else to the contrary since. In fact I seem to recall someone saying that "It was WRLs turn to be paid" and as they took a brave step in making their dispute public they have been receiving regular payments since around the same time. When push comes to shove later on and Aminex gets into full production that pressure applied may or may not end up biting them in the ass when they need something more from the government. Hopefully not because we should all be paid correctly for the work we do.

Well, in that comment you are assuming Kilwani remediation will be a failure but nothing has been put forward to make me feel that way tbh so I'm still looking towards success which you will agree would be a good thing.

Time will tell Pete. How much time is the question ;0))

Must go get some work preparation done now. Nice to have a decent discussion on here for once. Laters

Personally I don't agree it is the only option even at this late stage, but I do feel it is still the most sensible option.

Foolish to ever take anything for granted, I agree

Pete I can only say I remember you saying after the announcement that you thought we should borrow or raise rather than farm-out.

With any form of exploration there is never a guarantee of return or repayment of loans that is what makes them high risk high rewards.

As a startup that situation is far harder to get going but I think in our position we would have a case to get funding even if at a high price. I suppose one question could be asked is would that price be higher or lower than the price we will pay for accepting the farm-out?

If it wasn't an option at all, then the Farm-Out is the only option.

Certainly was some confusion over who gets to vote, that's a fact but as for the licence, when he announced it at the EGM they had only completed the deal during middle of the night so I don't believe there was an attempt to mislead there. I also think they expected the licence to be sorted well before now hence the initial September ambition. If I recall correctly it was in that late August RNS that they revealed it was a requirement hence giving (me at least) reason to no longer expect completion in September which I stressed & was ridiculed for throughout the month.

As you points show, we always have to be aware of potential for errors and omissions but I couldn't go as far as saying I disbelieve them as a whole.

John I agree with your thought process and that is why I made an approach but I tackled it in a different way and met with some limited success.

My comments were not meant to offend you or others but imo method of approach is important.

There has been some serious animosity spoken on here in past months that have included personal abusive comments towards the CEO about both his race and personal appearance. I'm sure you would agree being abusive is not the way to endear anybody into a conversation.

I don't tend to disbelieve for that would be giving out false information, but I do agree to an extent on the monetary situation.

Credit worthiness I think we could borrow or raise but it would probably be at a premium without KW producing at this moment

Yes, I had forgot that but if I were Aminex CEO, I would still go through the process to ensure I get best value for the farm-out money spent. I would think that a sensible action that shareholders would agree on.

Criticisms I would say no. I don't think they have to justify themselves to some of the outrageous things that have been said on here but I do agree that we should have more information and I did request some form of update.

He took on a particular point I made and hopefully we will see something following on from that in the next day or so but as said, regulation & confidentiality has him between devil and deep blue sea right now limiting what he can say, so I'll not be clamouring for his head anytime soon.

Pete, you are not daft, you know how to approach people ;0))

Exactly right Pete and as you say if the supplier is one and the same, it wouldn't be an issue and the tendering process would be more of an exercise to ensure that the Zubairs would be putting a fair price on their supply and not over inflating the price.

Aminex have to be aware of that otherwise that $40m would be swallowed too quickly

That was the point of my response to John earlier MJ and good luck with your approach too.

We all have a different approach but by talking to them, rather than at them, I got a response. Let's be honest, who wants to respond to somebody who is shouting in our ear?

It is clear to me reading on the BBs that many people expect things they simply cannot give because of regulation and if that is the main gist of their approach to the management, I doubt they would get an answer because nothing said would ever satisfy them.

I'd be very surprised if they hadn't selected the rig by now having announced a month ago that they were negotiating with a final choice of two suppliers.

As has been said though, I doubt a contract could be signed until the licence has been agreed but in saying that, it could be argued we still have the right to drill CH1 anyway.

My concern would be if the delay is extended for a serious amount of time would these two rigs still be available? Rig suppliers wont want rigs sitting idle waiting on a maybe contract.

As said Sambo, no material information was given. I am still hopeful as ever, but that is my own thoughts

Perhaps you might try a different approach John, you may get better results

What is happening now?
When will the EGM take place?
Why have you not communicated with your shareholders?
Do you have any respect for them taking into account the contribution to the companies success they have made in terms of funding to date?

Put yourself in the seat of any CEO and try and answer those questions yourself. Bear in mind regulations will not allow you to give anything material away in your answers and the people you are negotiating with are all working under a non disclosure arrangement.

I would say the answers to the first two are quite obvious and the answers I could give to the second two would be deemed bullshit by the 1/3rd bashers & 1/3rd angry. The sensible 1/3rd would not be happy but would accept the situation for what it is and look forward.

Basically I'm saying the bloke is in a no win situation and in football terms he is better to let he ball to do the talking. Personally I doubt you would get a direct response to such a sharp sounding letter but good luck.

I have had my reply as I stated on Friday. My mail was to start a conversation and was not presented as a criticism or challenge! I have received no material information whatsoever but I am extremely reassured by the mail exchanges we had between us and as such I can look forward. There will be 2/3rds who would rip my report of his response to my conversation to pieces and so that is why I have not posted it. Suffice to say the 1/3rd will understand.

I agree Pete. We know that Nyuni would still require a farm-out of some kind but I would like to think given the income generation by that time would give us a much stronger hand in negotiation.

I think we all would like to see some diversification outside of the country but as you say it has to done wisely and not just for the sake of.