Member Info for jointhedots

It really is frustrating that we are still languishing at a SP that suggests the company is a no-hoper. Bad as the BoD are and I've given them some severe (more than deserved) criticism lately, the company is still an excellent proposition, hopefully this SP is due for boost simple by looking so cheap. All we really need is for the BoD to deliver something, anything instead of releasing disappointing RNS's. If they can't excel with the drill bit then go and buy a new field - I'm sure there must be some company worse than Amerisur and in distress.

Can anyone confirm what the target for annualised bpd is for 2018, I don't think they have produced one, looked at reports and recent presentation. With a starting point of near 7000bpd and exit 17000bpd, one might expect something in excess of 10000bpd I would have thought, now looks near impossible.

More can kicking. The saving grace is that the oil price is performing brilliantly and the delays mean Amerisur should have an excellent balances increasing with every day's production. Some consolation for a poor on-going performance fro management IMO. They can't take credit for the rising oil price, else I suspect they would.

One bit of bright news this morning is that (according to the linked article) GC is likely going to lose his job at the ECB, well "step down" at a meeting on Wednesday. If he doesn't take another job (allegedly the Chairman job at the ICC has recently been snatched away) we may get more input from him, clearly he is very competent and capable of making great improvements if his time is applied liberally. He's apparently had 14 years there and seen off many challengers, he's hard to shake and seems to make a lot of waves in the cricket world, I wish he'd make a few with Amerisur. Starting with a Boll***ing for the CEO. https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/clarke-step-down-ecb-chair

Yorkshirelife - I agree that the SP is ridiculously low, but there are reasons which we debate periodically in frustration at the lack of upward movement. But todays problem is not down to any shareholder of BB poster, its entirely and has been for some while down to the BoD letting the market down - that does not mean the company is not doing well, simply we are missing a huge opportunity to do so much more. What I don't agree with is your analysis that " the SP realistically has only one direction of travel from these silly lows." I wish that was true, and it will most likely occur - but you a staying into dangerous ground telling potential investors the SP can only go up. It may be highly likely and sensible but the market makes no sense year in year out. Always consider the famous quotation from Keynes: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"

Doc - that simplistic assessment makes a few assumptions about my motivation that are not wholly true. Yes I would like to see the FD ousted, but my expectation is not that he will be removed, it's unlikely. Simply put, my I hope is to give them a warning as RH did, he didn't sell up before putting up a fight, sometimes you have to man up even if it hurts. I'm not selling until I decide to suit the agenda of anyone, if shareholders sold up every time they were unhappy with the BoD's performance I doubt there would be many Pi's left. If you think RH had no impact, you're sorely mistaken - allegedly the BoD moderated behaviour, including advising of share allocation pre-AGM, RH apparently complained they previously did it after the AGM! We will never know how many share options the inner three would have allocated to themselves last/this year had RH not intervened. It is also my understanding the GC ordered a review as a result and the company embarked of making (or at least appearing to) the BoD more democratic/fair. Perhaps without RH (an activist) we would never have got the appearances for Malcy interviews - we'll never know. Your suggestion I should sell, assume I see no future with this BoD, I have never said that, I want them to be challenged and hopefully moderate their approach to the advantage of shareholders - a bloody nose this year may make them think that without success in 2018 their futures could genuinely be under threat. There'll be more AGM's and perhaps the odd EGM For some while now I have been stating that the BoD have the potential to make Amerisur a fantastic investment - so why are we still in the AIM unloved dog house along with the rest of the basket cases. Just rolling over and passing your right to vote is effectively telling them - "We're all happy, carry on guys and fill your boots" - why would they then make any changes. I posted the benefits of voting against previously, but you stick to your view and I'll stick to mine, I can't share your contentment with a SP that is trashed - incidentally what do you think will happen if the oil price drops? Seriously, the BoD need to start strengthening the company efficiently - expanding production with costs tracking sales is a poor effort IMO, because if the oil price falls this year it could simply lead to bigger losses - what happened to economies of scale, G&A costs have soared. IR has been hopeless IMO

Irrespective of your position, isn't getting to the truth, getting a feel for sentiment and teasing out strengths and weaknesses important. Without a healthy debate we could all miss opportunities and threats (SWOT) Laptop15 - you seem to only want the positives discussed and don't wish to really understand to company - that may be fine for you but is very stupid approach for those that intend to hold the shares beyond the first spike upwards. Doc - you also seen to want other posters to pipe down, but your analysis is simply wrong, most if not all those that post about negatives also give the company credit for success and applaud progress, whilst your suggestion that there is a hope in some of shifting the BoD by grumbling on the BB is not true. I have urged shareholder to take positive action on voting on the AGM resolutions an given clear reasons for voting against the FD My negative comments do have a purpose, not just grumbling, many times I write posts and then scrap them if I feel they are unfair or likely to be provocative (escalating costs!!!) .

Samroy/Laptop - good links to same article, this bit is really interested: "�This joint venture is now progressing after ONGC found hydrocarbon reserves in its Mariposa-1 well in Colombia. ONGC Videsh is the operator of the block and holds 70% participating interest and Amerisur Resources of UK holds the remaining 30%." How does Mariposa fit into the progression of the JV? It struck me when ONGC re-issued the drilling tender for CPO-5 that they may be taking advice from Geo Park or recognised tendering for every damn thing was daft - I believe Geo are very efficient/successful in drilling fast so maybe ONGC have realised it's better to drill as a job lot. Amerisur claim to be experts but I'm not convinced, I believe at one stage Amersur where going to take on the drilling. Then again Sol should have been drilled ages ago but was quietly dropped. I suppose Geo Park could also provide good guidance on drilling locations, share information and sales options, a win for everyone really, Amerisur riding nicely in the slipstream.

By coincidence (I only post on LSE so nothing to do with me) they are discussions IR on the ADVFN BB, apparently some are now getting responses but it would appear simply directing to RNS's. Not really what I'm looking for, I've read them all already

Been there, done that, I have phoned and used the company website for a written submission, no response was the response - never experienced that before. As the FD is allegedly responsible for IR, head office based and surely responsible for cost control, you think he's going to deal with concerns about himself after the BoD allegedly disregarded a major shareholder and PI's alike, you really believe that's sensible?

It's always hard to make realistic company comparisons, but I decided to just do a simple check share price performance of a couple of other out of favour (Malcy bucket list) companies that have also had a torrid time (arguably much worse than Amerisur) but have dealt with the problems in very different ways. SP % Gain/loss 3months 1yr 3yr 5yr Ameisur -9.43 -29.47 -20.2 -19.7 Bowleven 14.64 11.04 6.27 -13.31 Premier Oil 19.33 60.00 18.88 - 22.28 Doesn't read well in comparison or even as a standalone performance does it? It's not my calculations it's directly from my brokers statistics None of the companies has completely screwed up but what is really disappointing is that a company like Bowleven that essentially failed and management were ousted has done significantly better than Amerisur over all periods from 3 months to 5 years. IMO that is very telling for a company that has decided to exit operations and is turning into a shell company to beat Amerisur. Bowleven management were despised by many shareholders for failing to take timely action, allegedly sat drawing nice salaries and making promises that were never delivered on, much to the frustration of loyal shareholders- sounds familiar? It certainly wasn't and still isn't a must have in any portfolio The inference could be is it is better to wind up or change the BoD than continue with management that can't/won't deliver, we should not be frightened of upsetting our board, IMO they need a bullet up their **** to get this company finally sorted out.

Missed the last bit of last post: BB comment xtra, March 2018: "... I will never ever invest in a Giles Clarke company again though, to me the man is not trustworthy to look after investors' monies, if LJ wasnt in control I would take the hit and leave. I hope this doesn't offend anyone (except GC haha!)..." The holding and appointment RNS for GC and NH with Kennedy is particularly telling as is related their achievements at Amerisur and as positives in appointing them, bearing in mind Kennedy suspended and has had to adopt a new strategy and Amerisur! Make your own mind up from the statement: "Following the appointment of Giles Clarke as Chairman, Peter Redmond will remain a Director of the Company. "Both Amerisur Resources plc and Ironveld plc have performed with great success in the natural resources sector since Giles Clarke and Nick Harrison were appointed as directors. The market capitalisation of Amerisur Resources plc has increased from approximately �25 million in 2007, when they were appointed, to in excess of �650 million at the current time. Ironveld plc is currently trading at a significant premium to the share price in August 2012, when the company was re-admitted to trading on AIM." �650m to �200m - wow Ironveld Roughly 10p/share to 2.22p Kennedy(Kazera) - jury out having just relisted with optimism, I suspect it will do well for a few years whilst investors pour money in. Just a thought but as our CEO is apparently investing in Kennedy, could he be likely to switch to CEO of that company in a year or two perhaps? Dana C is a ready replacement and very competent. Our current CEO is actually a mining engineer if I recall correctly. How old is he? He may be getting jungle fatigue. https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/kennedy_ventures/news/rns/story/xjk05or

Kennedy Ventures (renamed Kazera in March), GC is Chairman, NH is Financial Director. First thing is that when appointed in 2014, the RNS for both contained an interesting list of other interests, much larger than I have seen disclosed wrt AMER, illustrates just how much they are juggling: John Nicholas Harrison (March 2014) Holding in Kennedy 4,800,000 Ordinary shares, representing 7.2% of the Company's issued share capital In addition, Westleigh Investments Holdings Limited, a company in which Mr Harrison holds a beneficial interest of 26.72%, holds 7,600,000 Ordinary shares, representing 11.5% of the Company. Current Directorships (March 2014) � Amerisur Resources plc � Ironveld plc � ATL Telecom Limited � M J Associates Limited � Westleigh Investments Limited � Westleigh Investments Holdings Limited � Makura Sport Limited � Abattia Group Limited � Trufflenet Limited � West Country Business Systems Limited � West Country Business Systems (Holdings) Limited � Fanvil (UK) Limited � Edvectus Limited GC has a similar list but even longer, they are amazing, to work as 100% committed executives for Amerisur and manage all the rest of their duties. Incidentally, shares magazine, indicates the NH is an executive directorv of Kennedy Resources is respect to recent shares purchases, I don't know if that is correct as specification of any time commitment to anything is hazy. Interesting that both GC and NH haven't dipped in the buy any shares in Amerisur after the annuals yet both recently bought cheap ones in Kennedy, there's commitment. NH appears only to accept a no risk options. You will see that NH also owned shares via Westleigh Investments, it's worth noting that GH's notification indicates he owns the rest of Westleigh. Interesting as to the best of my knowledge(?) Westleigh have never been notified as having an interest in Amer, yet Amer is listed as affiliated on their website, in what way? Surely if they own shares the directors should acknowledge it? Furthermore, I believe many of the companies listed share the same office address as Amerisur - who is paying for what and how is conflict of interest avoided, needs clarification? I raise this because as I have pointed out previously the G&A appears to have grown disproportionately and are we simply there to make NH's job doable in respect to other companies? Finally, it's worth noting that the investment vehicle of our CEO has been taking a position in, last notified 7.14% - so I reckon between the three of them they have at least 20% of the company, they've only just relisted so I doubt they are increasing to mount a bid. On the subject of relisting, financial competence is often cited as a reason to support NH, so what happened to Kennedy, unable to get the results out oops, not happy shareholders there BB comment xtra "

Farmertally - I agree there is no value in simply voting against directors to cause uproar or out of spite, but I have a purpose and good reason to do it, some other shareholders will certainly jump through hoops to avoid contention and see me as a trouble maker. You will notice I have not suggested voting against any other resolution including the election of other directors. Giving the inner circle a bloody nose at the AGM may make them sit up and question their roles and redouble efforts, other directors could be emboldened to challenge actions, predators maybe chance their arm, maybe IR will improve if he recognises he's letting us down and expect more, perhaps they'll put more effort into meeting targets and all executive graded directors will realise that shareholders see their role as a demanding full time job for the huge salaries they receive. Lots of upside in a challenge without actually even winning a vote, they simply shouldn't be able to take us for granted. The down side is that we upset the some BoD members who bear a grudge - let them be upset we still get at least what we would have got over the coming year I believe the FD brings little commitment , at least no discernible level of commitment beyond the basics. No recent open market share buys (I can't recall any) , but his multiple other directorships competing for his time is not conducive with a growing Amerisur.

pickedpeck - you're missing the point, no one is saying prospects are not great going forward but you and some others are crediting the BoD with things that they have not done - it is almost exclusively the oil price that has paved the way for a sniff at success, the BoD have been too damn slow to capitalise on it. That's why I have posted on numerous occasions about our peers progressing at a pace - not to tout their shares but highlight what we're missing out on. The debate isn't really if Amerisur will be a success, if the oil price holds they'll have to try very hard to even prevent it. It's about if we should be getting more performance from our Directors, optimum returns. Some of us (I) feel we have been short changed for too long. If I owned the company outright 2 of the three central directors would be sacked instantly and I would not be worried in the slightest about my money so I have no problem criticising as a small shareholder. For instance, the target last year was to be producing from 3 fields (and I think the previous year also), we didn't even manage 2 unless you count one we bought - failed and now restated as this years aspiration. Should we just pretend it never happened or expect them to take responsibility? Production and pipeline throughput targets have also been consistently missed.

Laptop15 and associates, it is clear you are not interested in facts, glorifying the BoD in the hope of pushing up the SP, ignoring deficiencies and claiming performance is likely that their history, THAT'S THE BoD's HISTORY, suggests has little chance to realisation. You are clearly ramping from BB to BB, wall to wall coverage, with no interest in addressing problems, as a long term shareholder I have an interest in the company becoming the best it can be and your assertion that: "There are too many moaning old share holders that do themselves no favours but de-ramping those own investment. How stupid is that." Apart from being rude, misses the point that some of us are interested in the long term so criticising the BoD when appropriate is helpful if it leads to improved performance or change for the better down the line- of course it might not fit with your agenda or that of others who are looking for an exit. Tough, but you won't shut posters up on this BB! I stand by what I said yesterday, the BoD are under-performing IMO and PI's should vote against the re-appointment to the FD as I believe he and the BoD needs their feathers ruffling.

Samroy - read the scope of work I did, the date (earliest), drilling durations and expected mobilisation/transfer durations - all in there. It's for drilling 3 holes starting with Indico and the tender doesn't even close until the end of May so how can it spud in May - looks distinctly like someone is telling porkies

Jux - I saw that at the Weekend and was extremely angry, but didn't want to start grumbling, give the BoD the chance to RNS the new schedule - did my best but now you've mentioned it. You may not have noticed (or just wearing your rosy coloured specs) the other tender for a drilling rig, it has the start date for Indico in June (late June absolute earliest IMO by the time tender process is complete and awarded/mobilisation arranged). That is in complete contrast to the May date touted in the recent Amerisur update - I cannot believe they didn't know about the tender, they must have agreed it (as I said previously the third well appears to have been tagged on but not acknowledged as a change by Amer) - so did they just deceive shareholders? Looks like ONGC have retendered in order to include the third well - most previous tenders were for 1 well with the possibility of a second. IMO they will be pushed to drill 3 wells this year with the rig moves and drilling times notified - it's a tall order for them. The is nothing wrong with any of this had our BoD been open with the information - we are now behind on our drilling schedule barely one week it - IMO there is not a snowball in hells chance of drilling the wells the BoD have touted this year were already probably too late the way out BoD progress. Not unless they perform at a much faster pace than they have ever achieved - they don't appear to have any sense of urgency, perhaps if there was a chance one or more of them might lose their ticket on the grave train things might change So I urge everyone to vote against the reappointment of the FD at the AGM, I believe he is responsible for IR (terrible service), financial discipline (G&A cost appear out of control, soaring, no one has commented on it but they were up sharply), commitment poor (too many other jobs to give 100% IMO etc. If we vote against him (I believe he will still get elected as there are too many sheep like shareholders) and give the BoD a warning that their actions are being scrutinised I believe we might start to get better service, it's all too cosy (come a day go a day) for some of our executives. Vote against the resolution - show them we are watching!!

pickedpeck - don't confuse profit and profitability. Profit should be a lot higher in 2018 (if not it will be a disgrace) but profitability will certainly not be off the scale as you suggest and may even be down. Certainly in respect to alternatives (our peers in Colombia for instance) and IMO our management have been woeful, 4 months into the year have simply "tread water" if considered against the high expectations they raised yet again. Definition: "Definition of a Company's Profitability "Profitability is closely related to profit, but it is the metric used to determine the scope of a company's profit in relation to the size of the business. Profitability is a measurement of efficiency � and ultimately its success or failure. It is expressed as a relative, not an absolute, amount. Profitability can further be defined as the ability of a business to produce a return on an investment based on its resources in comparison with an alternative investment. Although a company can realize a profit, this does not necessarily mean that the company is profitable." Read more: What is the difference between profitability and profit? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012715/what-difference-between-profitability-and-profit.asp#ixzz5DsEoKHJt

The development campaign for 2018 was supposed to be fully funded at an oil price of $45/barrel. However this statement from the 2017 annuals: " At $60 oil, with cash costs of production and transportation of below $20, cash netback in excess of $40 per barrel" would suggest that figure should now be much lower (IMO the BoD will not want to admit this as it reduces their wriggle room if they screw up and the oil price drops), but it's currently being used to give the BoD comfort rather than reassure shareholders. It is difficult to be definitive on the current financial position but suffice to say that the additional receipts for the 4 months oil should mean that the ongoing average has dropped significantly - interpolation of costs suggests to me that oil price necessary to fund development should now be under $40/barrel for the remainder of the year In theory, we have banked up to an additional $15/barrel above minimum required for funding. So everything looks great, based upon what we know to date.