Member Info for Prospero26

There’s been a lot of noise lately — people claiming nothing’s really happening, that we’re still stuck in some vague “EOI phase,” and trying to downplay the entire process.

Let’s deal in facts.

ARA Petroleum has issued 34 procurement notices across Dar and Mtwara for:

• Civil works, trenching, site clearance

• API-certified machining

• Emergency medevac and safety services

• Logistics, power supply, field vehicles

• Flowmeters, soil sampling, accommodation, communications

• Even printing, catering, and event management

This is not early-stage flakey theory.

This is field mobilisation in motion.

And here’s what the doubters refuse to acknowledge:

Yes — the EOIs are public. But they’re public because they have to be. It’s a box-ticking formality to meet local content rules and transparency obligations. Anyone who’s worked in this industry knows:

• The shortlist is the goal

• The real tenders go direct to selected contractors

• From there, it’s off-market, fast, and quiet

If you’re still shouting “nothing’s happening” because you haven’t seen a tender award RNS, then either:

1. You’ve never worked a real infrastructure project, or

2. You’re hoping the board hasn’t

Anyone with even basic industry experience knows exactly what this is.

Still unsure? Look at real-world precedent:

Tilenga Project (TotalEnergies, Uganda)

Public EOIs were issued for logistics, construction, and camp services to meet regulatory requirements. But the actual tenders and awards were issued privately to shortlisted vendors, with contract announcements only made after execution.

EACOP (East African Crude Oil Pipeline)

EOIs went out publicly for trenching, transport, and support services. Once closed, tenders were issued directly to prequalified vendors, with no public access. CPP’s EPC award was only announced after internal selection.

Same process. Same silence. Same playbook.

We’ve got:

ARA actively procuring across two regions; A full suite of upstream and support services being sourced; Pipeline capacity confirmed at 140 MMcfd; and Aminex stating the EPC contract is “anticipated shortly”

This isn’t the beginning. It’s the final calm before construction.

Ignore the process if you want.

Twist it if you must.

But the only part the public was ever meant to see — already happened.

You won’t hear the starting gun. But those paying attention are already moving…

They told us Tanzania was slow.

They told us nothing would ever happen.

They told us to give up.

Then yesterday, the Tanzanian government did what it always eventually does: They moved.

Helium One just secured a JV on their Rukwa licence.

Eighty-three percent private, seventeen percent state.

And what happened next?

The share price rose twenty percent. Straight line. Sentiment flipped.

Why? Because when the Tanzanian government puts pen to paper, the market wakes up.

And here’s the kicker — Helium One doesn’t even have production infrastructure, proven flow rates, a route to market, or full funding. Aminex does.

• The Ntorya field is discovered, tested, and booked

• NT-2 flowed seventeen million cubic feet per day, at restricted rates

• CH-1 is fully funded, fully carried, and ready to spud - it has the potential to be truly transformational

• The pipeline is real, with 140 million cubic feet per day capacity

• And the EPC contract is about to be signed

So if Helium One runs on a JV announcement, what happens when Aminex hits:

• EPC signed

• Pipeline mobilisation

• Rig awarded

• CH-1 prepped

• First gas countdown triggered

You don’t need a wild imagination.

You just need to look at Helium One — and extrapolate. All eyes are on Tanzania!

We are next.

Let them keep doubting. Let them keep suppressing. Let them keep posting with professional regularity.

But when the Tanzanian government moves, they move in clusters — and once they do, the silence ends in a roar !!

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you spud.” - Prospero

Https://tanzaniapetroleum.com/2025/06/06/tanzanias-ambition-to-become-a-regional-powerhouse-has-well-and-truly-begun

“Additionally, Eng. Lumato highlighted  key projects on the horizon, including the Ntorya Gas Field project—operated by the joint venture partners ARA Petroleum Tanzania and Aminex Plc….. These projects underscore Tanzania’s expanding footprint in the regional energy landscape and its commitment to sustainable development.“

Morning all…

Last week, at the Africa Technology Conference in Dar es Salaam, PURA stepped up in front of over 500 industry leaders, investors, and government officials and laid out Tanzania’s upstream vision.

Ntorya was proudly named.

“Key projects on the horizon include the Ntorya Gas Field project – operated by ARA Petroleum Tanzania and Aminex Plc…”

This wasn’t just some throwaway line. This was part of a formal presentation in part launching Tanzania’s Fifth Offshore Licensing Round, a key part of the government’s pitch to global investors.

And they put Ntorya on it! Why? Because it sells.

You don’t put weak assets on your pitch deck. You put winners. Fully licensed. Carried. Tenders out. Infrastructure coming.

This is now one of Tanzania’s showcase projects.

Ntorya has gone from footnote to flagship. From quiet potential to national endorsement.

Aminex isn’t in the wings anymore. We’re on the main stage.

And all it needs is an EPC drop and this will ignite ! Tick-tock..

Well said RogerJolly.

Always a bit of a giveaway when the odd new name pops up swinging. Seen it all before and usually means we’re heading in the right direction.

Nice to have your steady voice on here tho, as always.

Hydro replacing gas? That’s total nonsense.

JNHPP might’ve come online, but it’s grid-limited and doesn’t touch gas core markets.

Gas in Tanzania isn’t just for power generation — it’s critical for industrial use (urea, cement, textiles, etc etc), CNG for transport (Dar corridor is growing fast), clean cooking drive, backup baseload during dry seasons and of course export and regional grid expansion !

The recent 3% drop Orca reported was due to Songas maintenance, not structural demand decline.

TPDC is literally building new gas infrastructure (Ntorya to Madimba) because demand is rising and set to continue to rise as the population doubles in the near future !

Hydro’s part of the mix, but gas is the growth engine.

And there it is — the post, like clockwork. Predictable. Like a true AI chatbot churning out the same recycled doubt week after week.

Let’s just take one of your laughable “gotchas” and put it to bed.

“25% of 17 MMscfd = $0.0009/share. A pittance.”

That’s not the project.

That’s one well. The entire Ntorya development is being built for 140 MMscfd (and potentially much much higher still) — eight times that figure. And that’s just the start.

You’re also ignoring:

• Condensate uplift

• NT-1 tie-in

• CH-1 upside

• And most hilariously — tax-free carry to production

Apply your own maths to the actual project scale and you get ~$89 million annual gross to AEX. That’s not “a pittance” — that’s transformational for a £50m company.

But keep grasping. The harder you reach, the clearer it becomes.

You’re not here to debate. You’re here to distract…

It’s Wednesday, so I’m guessing the usual post is coming:

• “Where’s the CPR?”

• “What if the structure’s not connected?”

• “Aminex is going bust!”

• “Do shareholders even know what they’ve bought?”

Same routine every week — honestly, it’s quite possibly AI-generated at this point…

You know the playbook by now:

• Throw a bit of technical-sounding doubt out there

• Dress it up as concern

• Repeat it enough that people start second guessing

Meanwhile:

• Ntorya is drilled, flowed, and 3D mapped

• TPDC is the buyer, EPC contract expected this quarter

• Aminex is carried — no capex exposure, just upside

They can post the same thing every Wednesday if they want. Doesn’t make it true. Just makes it predictable. And pathetic.

Hi Pete — appreciate the thoughtful response. A few quick reflections from my side:

On the 3p base case:

You’re absolutely right that production itself is the true turning point — but I’d suggest the share price will re-rate well before first gas if the pipeline contract is awarded and construction is visibly underway. At that stage, with a carried NT and a clear monetisation path, the market starts pricing in cash flow — even if NT-2 completion is still pending.

On CH-1 and the 6.5p–8p range:

Fair challenge. “Success” is indeed a spectrum, and I agree there’s a wide possible outcome band.

My view is that if CH-1:

• Confirms the presence and reservoir quality of Unit 3, the shallower unit identified in the 3D but not yet drilled

• Validates the seismic model and continuous reservoir mapping across the high-confidence 75 km² inversion area

• Supports the interpretation of a single, laterally extensive gas column with limited compartmentalisation, as suggested by the 600m column and strong inversion amplitudes tied to Ntorya-1 and Ntorya-2

…then we’re not just proving more gas — we’re de-risking the full 3.45 TCF GIIP case. That’s when I see the retail response potentially revisiting 2018 highs.

If results are solid but not transformational, a range of 4–6p may be more realistic. So yes — a wider spectrum post-drill absolutely makes sense.

On 10p+ for full-field development:

Agreed. If 8p is reached on CH-1 success alone, that pricing is largely expectation-based. Delivering that potential — with further wells, revenues, and reserves conversion — should, in theory, take us further. But you’re right to point out that time, risk, and discounting will weigh on how much higher.

All in all, I think we’re in broad agreement. I’m just aiming to offer a structured value map tied to development milestones and peer benchmarks.

Always appreciate the challenge — and your measured take.

Sorry, should say

If CH1 successfully confirms the thicker pay zones and additional reservoir units in addition to the existing Ntorya discovery…

Hi Jamtart — great question.

Let me lay out a realistic but valuation-grounded range, that I consider to be fair.

Base Case – 3p per share

This is the first major re-rate point, triggered by the EPC contract being signed and construction starting on the pipeline to Madimba.

At that stage, Aminex becomes a carried, monetised producer-in-waiting — not an explorer.

3p reflects this shift, and still significantly undervalues our resource base.

CH-1 Success Case – 6.5p to 8p

If Chikumbi-1 successfully confirms the deeper, high-pressure zones identified below NT-2, we’re no longer just proving gas — we’re expanding the volume, increasing pressure assumptions, and validating a multi-TCF commercial reservoir.

At that point, a price range between 6.5p and 8p is achievable — matching the levels we reached in 2018 on NT-2 results, but now backed by:

• A signed GSA

• A funded pipeline

• A full carry

• And significantly improved seismic data

Full-Field Development Case – 10p+

If Ntorya moves into full development with production online, additional wells drilled, and further reserves mapped — 10p+ becomes justified. The possible upside is enormous.

This aligns with valuations seen at Savannah’s Uquo and Orca’s Songo Songo, both of which operate in East Africa with similar scale and structure.

At that stage, the market is valuing free cash flow, not just resources.

Add in the wildcard of an oil discovery, at which point all bets are off !

In short:

• 3p = when the pipeline is real and we’re no longer pre-development

• 6.5p–8p = if CH-1 succeeds and validates scale

• 10p+ = full monetisation and field buildout

These aren’t hype targets — they’re based on field progress, fundamentals, and what the market has already shown it’s willing to pay.

When sentiment is shaken, we return to the truth.

Let’s take a scalpel to the noise — and lay out exactly what Aminex could be worth, based on market benchmarks.

The Base Case – 3.45 TCF GIIP

As per ARA Petroleum’s 2024 seismic release, the currently mapped gas fairway at Ntorya contains:

• 3.45 TCF GIIP

• Aminex holds 25% = 863 BCF net GIIP

• @ 80% recovery = 690 BCF net recoverable

Comparable 1 – Panoro Energy

• Market cap: ~£215 million

• 2P reserve base: 42.27 million barrels of oil (net WI, YE 2024)

• Gas equivalent: ~245 BCF (using 5.8 Mcf/boe)

• Valuation: ~£0.88 per mcf equivalent

£0.88 × 690 BCF = £607m

50% pre-prod discount = £304m

→ 7.9p/share (÷ ~3.85bn shares)

Comparable 2 – Savannah Energy (Uquo CPR Benchmark)

• Asset: Uquo gas field, Nigeria (456 Bscf 2P reserves)

• Savannah’s working interest: 80%

• March 2024 CPR valuation:

• Uquo upstream (NPV10 full-field): $411.75 million

• = £0.70 per mcf

• Comment: A producing, CPR-backed valuation benchmark in sub-Saharan Africa. Uquo is the closest real-world analogue to Ntorya in scale and structure.

£0.70 × 690 BCF = £483m

50% pre-prod discount = £241.5m

→ 6.3p/share (÷ ~3.85bn shares)

Aminex Today

• Market cap: ~£48 million

• Share price: ~1.2p

• Implied valuation: just £0.07 per mcf

CH-1 Success Case – 7.95 TCF GIIP

According to ARA Petroleum’s February 29, 2024 update:

“Ntorya gas in place… could be as high as 7.95 TCF within multiple stacked channel sands, many of which are currently undrilled.”

This gives Aminex:

• 1.99 TCF GIIP net

• 1.59 TCF recoverable (at 80%)

Applying comps to 1,590 BCF net recoverable:

• Panoro: £0.88/mcf → £1.4 billion → 36.9p/share

• Savannah (Uquo CPR): £0.70/mcf → £1.11 billion → 29.2p/share

The Bigger Picture – Licence-Wide Potential

ARA’s wider 3D seismic also confirmed:

• Pmean unrisked GIIP: 16.4 TCF

• Risked Pmean GIIP: 6.9 TCF

Aminex holds 25% throughout.

The scale is exceptional.

Conclusion

Panoro shows what upstream African gas is worth in the open market.

Savannah gives us a real CPR-backed benchmark, field by field.

And Aminex?

• Fully carried

• On the verge of production

• Partnered with ARA

• And close to unlocking a stacked, multi-TCF gas field

The market hasn’t priced in any of it.

But the comps tell the story.

And when CH-1 hits, we don’t look down — we look up.

Because comp by comp, this is no longer about potential. It’s about value.

Thanks Roger — very constructive, and I appreciate that.

You’re absolutely right that pipeline construction includes more than just laying pipe — there’s right-of-way clearance, trenching, welding, hydrotesting, and commissioning. And yes, weather windows in Tanzania play a key role, which is why this moment matters so much.

That’s exactly why the timing of these May tenders is so significant.

ARA has issued 30+ work packages in Q2 — including site security, civil works, logistics, housing, fencing, and metering — all in time for the dry season. That aligns with a mobilise-now strategy, not a delayed Q4/Q1 start.

The idea that the pipeline might only begin build later this year doesn’t stack up when:

• The EPC award is due “shortly” (ARA, April 2025)

• Dozens of tenders are already in flight

• And the stated goal is first gas by mid-2026

That target implies backwards planning — and suggests a build commencing within weeks to months, not at year-end. A 12-month complete execution timeline (which is consistent with similar African midstream projects) fits that window.

In short: yes, construction is a multi-phase effort — but everything we’re seeing now suggests the phasing is already underway.

We’ve waited a long time for this moment — but there’s a quiet shift happening here, and it’s supported by evidence on the ground.

StockCheque — always appreciate a well-structured post, but I think the conclusion here stretches further than the actual evidence allows.

Let’s start with the Annual Report. The phrase:

“NT-2 will be ready in time for the completion of the pipeline” is a project coordination line — not a construction schedule. It simply means NT-2 won’t be stranded. That doesn’t pin the pipeline to mid-2026 — it just aligns the outputs.

More importantly, the report clearly states:

“First gas is expected by mid-2026.”

By mid-2026 implies a ceiling, not a fixed date — leaving full scope for earlier delivery if execution proceeds efficiently.

Your logic chain assumes that NT-2’s readiness equals the latest possible pipeline finish, then back-calculates a late-2025 construction start. But that view ignores what we’re seeing on the ground:

• ARA’s April statement: “EPC contract signing anticipated shortly”

• 30+ operational tenders released in May: covering earthworks, civils, logistics, accommodation, site security, metering, etc.

These are field mobilisation packages — not planning-stage admin.

• And they’re being issued heading into Tanzania’s dry season. You don’t tender for earthworks and civils in Q2 unless you’re preparing to mobilise within the same year.

So while I agree it’s fair to be cautious until we have fixed RNS dates — I don’t agree that a single line in the AR overrides the wider context.

“Ready in time” just means NT-2 will be producing when it’s needed.

It doesn’t mean the pipeline finishes at the last possible moment — and it certainly doesn’t mean it can’t finish earlier.

Winalot — appreciate your experience and challenge.

I’m not disputing that a 35km pipeline can be done in 4–6 months under optimal conditions. But when I mention a 10–12 month window (my estimate), it’s not because I think they’ll be digging for a year — it’s because full project timelines often include:

• Mobilisation and site prep delays

• Phased trenching, welding, backfill, and testing

• Permits, quality assurance, hydrotests, commissioning

Even in fast-paced African infrastructure projects, it’s rare that physical build time equals commercial readiness. Many recent midstream projects — even in gas-hungry markets — cite 9–12 month horizons for full delivery from first dig to final gas for similar sized pipeline projects.

Could it move faster? Definitely — especially if CNPC is executing. But for valuation modelling, I’d rather be conservative and be pleasantly surprised than model 3 months and get caught out.

Hi StockCheque,

I think you’ve misunderstood the timeline outlined in the Annual Report.

The mid-2026 date refers to first production from NT-2, not completion of the pipeline itself. Production can only begin after the pipeline is built and commissioned — so logically, construction must begin very soon if they’re going to hit that date.

Let’s do the maths:

• Mid-2026 is just 13 months away.

• Pipeline construction + commissioning estimated to take 10–12 months.

• That means the EPC contract must be awarded imminently, with mobilisation to follow immediately after.

And that’s exactly what we’re seeing:

• ARA has released 34 tenders in May alone — from civil works to flare stacks to site security.

• Flowmeter commissioning tenders went live the same week — the final step before gas sales.

• Aminex confirmed in the RNS: “the Ntorya development is on the verge of construction,” with only the EPC contract award remaining.

So respectfully, your take that they could delay another five months without impacting delivery is not consistent with the schedule they’ve laid out — or with basic infrastructure timelines.

The pipeline contract is urgent. And everything happening behind the scenes suggests it’s almost here.

“You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

— Daniel Patrick Moynihan

This week, it was claimed ARA’s 34 recently announced service requests weren’t “real tenders,” but vague admin notices. That’s a bold claim. Let’s break it down.

What was actually published?

ARA Petroleum Tanzania issued a structured, public call for 34 service categories, spanning:

• Dar es Salaam – Office operations: maintenance, media, IT, insurance, consultancy

• Mtwara – Field operations: cranes, porta cabins, diesel generators, soil sampling, security, medical evacuation, potable water, manpower, logistics, API-certified machinery and more

The language?

“APT shall be issuing enquiries or tenders from time to time to procure the goods and services… to support its office operations in Dar es Salaam and field operations in Mtwara.”

So are these “not tenders”?

Wrong.

This is a standard Expression of Interest (EOI) / pre-qualification tender wave — widely used in African oil and gas development. It’s stage one mobilisation. It allows operators to:

• Satisfy TPDC compliance

• Fulfil local content obligations

• Prepare field contractor rosters

• Demonstrate public transparency while advancing privately

You don’t issue 34 targeted service listings unless execution is underway.

Why now? Why Mtwara?

Because this is Ntorya mobilisation.

• It began with ARA’s 34 tender categories for field and office operations

• It was followed by TPDC’s pipeline flowmeter commissioning tender

• It matches the development rhythm seen before NT-2 — quiet groundwork, followed by sudden operational ramp-up

• It directly supports rig ops, early production, and the buildout of gas handling infrastructure

This isn’t admin. This is live development.

Here’s the truth:

Yes, ARA likely already knows the contractors.

Yes, this is partly regulatory theatre.

But that’s the point. You don’t stage the theatre unless the curtain’s rising.

These aren’t hypotheticals. They’re logistical signposts. And if someone is going to such lengths to convince you they’re meaningless, maybe it’s because they’re far more meaningful than they want you to believe.

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you…

…then you spud.”

— Prospero

Hi Hardnose - I don’t think I can post a link as it’s a subscription site, but these are the details:

Tanzania Tenders » ARA Petroleum Tanzania Ltd 34 Tender Opportunities in May 2025

Global expression of interest / pre-qualification for provision of security and site management services

ARA Petroleum Tanzania Ltd. (APT), a Tanzanian oil and gas company, is the operator of the Ruvuma concession with operations in and around Mtwara. APT’s corporate office is in Dar es Salaam.

APT shall be issuing enquiries or tenders from time to time to procure the goods and services including but not limited to the following to support its office operations in Dar es Salaam and field operations in Mtwara:

A) List of goods and services required in Dar es Salaam:

Office maintenance services (cleaning, housekeeping, supply of office consumables)

Office stationery

Supply, installation, and maintenance of IT equipment

Car rental services

Hotels

Travel agency services (air ticket bookings, hotel booking, etc.)

Printing and media services (advertisement publications, media coverage, etc.)

Event management services

Insurance services (medical coverage, office assets, field operations, etc.)

Finance, accounting, and taxation consultancy services

Legal consultancy services

Environment consultancy services

Safety equipment supplies and services

Supply of IT equipment like printers, laptops, mobile phones, etc.

Internet services

Technical consultancy services for oilfield operations

Manpower services

Office furniture

Miscellaneous office works

Freight forwarding, customs clearing, and logistics services

B) List of goods and services required in Mtwara:

Hotels

4×4 field vehicles (cars, buses, etc.)

Car rental services

Site security services

Field logistics services including cranes, forklifts, trucks, trailers, JCBs, and other material lifting equipment

Miscellaneous equipment on rental basis like porta cabins, diesel generators, compressors, etc.

Supply of potable water

Machining services by American Petroleum Institute (API)-certified suppliers

Emergency medical evacuation and support services

Field manpower services

Air, water, and soil sampling services

Site cleaning and fumigation services

Printing and media services (advertisement publications, media coverage, etc.)

Event management services

It’s not about the noise. It’s about the numbers.

3.45 TCF GIIP – ARA Petroleum’s 3D seismic reinterpretation nearly doubles the original field estimate.

600 metre gas column – Modelling shows 1,500 to 1,800 psi overpressure in Units 1 and 2. That’s not fractured gas. That’s a continuous, high-pressure reservoir.

Up to 80 percent recovery – APT’s dynamic simulation suggests potential recoverable volumes of up to 2.75 TCF from Units 1 and 2 alone.

Condensate upside – Modelled condensate presence adds further high-value revenue potential on top of dry gas.

Rafts of tenders including ARA’s 34 tenders issued – Civil works, flowmeters, site prep, fencing, communications. You don’t tender that unless development is moving.

So while some still debate tone, syntax, or what’s “missing”…

The subsurface speaks.

The procurement confirms.

And the pressure — both geological and narrative — is rising.

Ntorya isn’t speculation. It’s a fully carried, government-backed, development-phase gas asset with scale, support, and now undeniable momentum.

Ignore the noise.

Watch the pressure.

Because when it breaks — there’s no holding it back.

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

— Mahatma Gandhi

Thanks BG. You’re absolutely right re: Unit 3 — CH-1 is indeed targeting a shallower, previously undrilled sand in the Cretaceous, which is actually one of the most exciting parts. While I mentioned “deeper plays” in the post, that was more in the structural sense (i.e. larger connected volume, crest of the feature) rather than stratigraphically deeper. So totally fair clarification.

Also agree that recovery factors could be higher than the conservative 40–45% I used. Some analogues in the region show 60%+, and with good reservoir continuity and pressure support, Ntorya could surprise to the upside. I kept it conservative for public framing, but you’re right to flag it — it could be a lot bigger than 1.6 TCF recoverable in success case.

And yes — the Feb 2024 RNS is a bombshell most haven’t clocked yet. That 7.95 TCF P10 GIIP upside is enormous. The fact that CH-1 could unlock stacked pay across Units 1, 2, and 3 puts Ntorya in a completely different league.

For years, Tanzania’s gas story has been shaped by two names: Songo Songo and Mnazi Bay.

But those fields are mature. Their best days are behind them.

The future?

It belongs to Ntorya.

Let’s talk scale:

Songo Songo originally held ~1.1 TCF GIIP with ~0.8 TCF recoverable.

By end-2023, it had produced over 640 BCF — more than 80% depleted. It’s still producing, but operator Orca is in dispute with TPDC over unpaid invoices. The plant shut down in 2023, later restarted, but no expansion is planned. Arbitration is ongoing.

Mnazi Bay holds ~1.5–2.0 TCF GIIP with ~1.0 TCF recoverable.

As of end-2023, it had produced ~325 BCF — roughly one-third gone. It’s steady, but limited.

Now look at Ntorya.

The 2018 CPR (based on 2D) gave 1.87 TCF GIIP and 1.13 TCF recoverable.

After 3D seismic, Aminex and ARA revised GIIP to 3.45 TCF (just the Cretaceous reservoir). Apply a 40–45% recovery factor and you’re looking at 1.4–1.6 TCF recoverable — already bigger than Songo or Mnazi.

And that’s before Chikumbi-1 (CH-1) — targeting deeper zones and larger structures. A successful CH-1 could double GIIP to 6–7 TCF, with 2–3 TCF recoverable.

Let’s talk strategy:

All three fields feed into Tanzania’s national gas pipeline.

But only Ntorya is:

• Fully undeveloped

• Government-backed

• Tied to new industry: fertilizer, CNG, regional growth

In the past 3 months, 34 development tenders have been issued — for flare stacks, flowmeters, logistics, rigs, and more.

This isn’t prep. It’s execution.

Let’s talk investment:

Aminex owns 25% of Ntorya.

It is fully carried by ARA — no capex, no debt, no dilution.

CH-1 is funded.

The 30km pipeline is in motion.

The market cap? Still under £50 million.

Songo Songo brought Tanzania to the table.

Mnazi Bay steadied the grid.

But Ntorya is the crown field — bigger, deeper, younger, and built to power the next generation of Tanzanian industry.

And the best part?

The market hasn’t priced it in.