Member Info for vike1

Aramco is an extreme example - just shows how loose the rules actually are. Anyway, if you trust the 'City Code on Takeovers and Mergers', a shareholder can increase their holding up from 30% if they receive approval of more than 50% of shareholders (excluding related party votes). With approval (which AEX have already said will be asked), Zubairs can offer to buy up as much as they want, up to 90% (which then kicks off add'l set of rules). Not saying this is likely, just that it would be a good, feasible option for Zubairs to up their stake (with s/h consent) yet let s/h hold onto their stake if they choose. Keep in mind, the offer would have to be good to get 50% of the remaining 70% shareholder base.

I'll take a look, hopefully later today. UK has one of the most lenient takeover regimes in the world (to a fault many say), so I don't think this country's regulations would be the holdup

The bid is for the whole company, ie, they have to be willing to buy up all the shares. They can make it voluntary though so that s/h aren't forced to sell. The precedent is M&P, assuming the Euronext has the same broad rules as LSE. Even Aramco is considering LSE for its listing and it's only floating 5% - a different example but shows that you can have a dominant shareholder and still be 'public'.

They keep their listing, just as M&P have theirs in France, even though the Indonesians own about 73% of the company. Governance would be eroded, but puts a floor on sp, and shareholders who wish to stay can do so to partake in future upside. Would be likely that the proposal would be alongside a placing that Zubairs would take up, similar to 2016. Under that scenario, AEX gets its funding, Zubairs up their holding, and s/h are given option to stick around for future upside

The Maurel et Prom model is one that could work for them, whereby Zubairs make a 'voluntary tender offer' to shareholders at a specified price. E.g. 5p per share whereby s/h could sell at that price to them, or elect to keep them and remain a shareholder, knowing that Zubairs will be a dominant shareholder. As with M&P, would require TZ antitrust approval. Personally, I think this would he a good solution.

Over the longer-term yes, but no business would want to pay something for nothing, which is what what they lose by buying a stake in the same asset twice. Maybe they view it as a relatively minor cost of doing business, all for the greater good? Perhaps, but prob not. Could be part of the 'complexity' of the deal.

It does seem odd that the Zubairs are buying a piece of Ntorya from...themselves. IE, if they buy 25% of Ntorya from AEX, that's essentially buying 8% of the asset from their own holding. They're essentially just pumping money into the business and paying a 33% premium on top of any price they pay. The mind boggles.

Well, the resulting ownership structure alone makes it a bit complex. Otherwise, it�s just a simple exchange of cash for deed, the price of which was probably agreed over a cup of tea months ago.

We can only hope! I'm yet to see an example of the company exceeding my expectations though. Q319 starts in 13 months

It may well be 2020 until NT cash flow starts rolling in, but ftly, that's only 19 months away. When during that year is anyone's guess. No one on this Board needs to be reminded of the need to wait in TZ. We've been through drill delays, GSA delays, and now PSA pain. Not quite comparable to yesteryear though as the country is in a different place than in it was in 2012, with gas infrastructure in place and news factories getting hooked up to it almost daily. There's definitely a standoff between parties right now, which is frustrating. We know the TPDC are supportive of the deal, and the Min of Energy have hinted they're supportive of the development, so it should go through, hopefully sooner than later. Our s/t issue is that the country is not desperate for add'l supply as of TODAY. Therefore, I'm sure they feel no rush to sign anything, at least until CH1 is drilled. Except that we need runway to get the gas flowing. And our cornerstone investor owns businesses throughout the country. That helps, as I have no faith that JB could force it through, but a sovereign to sovereign def'ly can. My base case estimate is still a signature by July, drill in Q4, and EPS by H1 2020.

Well, PT dumped a bunch of shares at 2.25p and wasn't looking too clever when the sp hit 7p+. And to my point earlier today, as JB and BH were buying shares post NT2 they clearly didn't think we'd drop this far either so I doubt PT would have received any good intel from them.

Fair enough, none of my business anyway. Just curious to see why holders are selling at these depths with so much news around the corner. On that note though, at this low price, it makes you wonder why Zubairs would p!ss around buying a piece of Ntorya when they could have the whole thing for a song. Becomes stranger each day. Imagine if you're Zubair and have a shedload of businesses across TZ and East Africa, and for c.£100m-ish you could have energy security +++ for decades for your businesses and for those of your friends and kingdom. That's very compelling for them, though the upside for us is much more limited. If I ran ARA/Eclipse, I know what I'd be trying to do

At 8.2m holding, that�s 800k fewer than last time you said you were done selling. With greener pastures elsewhere, in your mind, perhaps I should hold off topping up until you�re truly done?

LT, if you were really clever, you'd flip your nuog profits and buy back here at a much lower price.

Even Jay and Brian jumped in at 4p! Clearly they didn't think we'd be wading in the 2.40s by now either. FWIW, I think some bigger investors will jump in when there's clear LOS of cash flow generation. If CH1 is a success (large or moderate) and the Dev Licence is signed and EPS plan initiated, I expect mgmt to be doing a full on marketing show to bring in more IIs and solidify the shareholder base. This is still my base case expectation, and also completely reject the notion that AEX's best days are behind it.

As the only real NED on the Board, let's hope Fitzpatrick has the wherewithal to force out other Board members, and introduce a new Chairperson, as was done with CERP (formerly LGO). Similar situations in a way, whereby both have excellent assets, but not the managerial ability to generate positive s/h returns. It would take some pretty big rocks for him to force out the Board, but I think he'd find the shareholder base pretty supportive of the move.

This was presented today by Min of Energy to TZ parliament, which is what those tweets were referring to earlier. A few references to Ruvuma and Kiliwani. Was hoping to see something along the lines of 'approved development licence', but it simply references ongoing dev plan discussions that will support energy supply. Another reference to 3D seismic in Kiliwani during the year. No knockout reference, but certainly in line with expected future activity. Perhaps the budget needed to pass before any formal signing could occur?? One can only hope this was a hurdle for the ministry to get through first. Requires a lot of Google Translate to make sense of it: https://www.nishati.go.tz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Hotuba-ya-Bajeti-ya-Wizara-ya-Nishati-kwa-mwaka-2018-2019.pdf

B4Now, I think those hestitations are reasonable given today's state of play. As always, I hope these issues are clarified shortly. You do raise an issue about Comms that is often kicked around here, but which often I feel is misdirected. As a shareholder over the last 6+ years, I've rarely felt less clear about the company's vision and strategy as I do now. Are we still aiming to become a regional EA gas producer? Are we tidying up our assets in order to sell? It seemed option 1 was the clear path a few years ago, but I'm less sure now. And TBH, I'm not convinced the BoD knows either. With a clear vision and strategy, we can develop a clear operational plan, as most companies do. Aside from the CH1 drill (sometime? who knows when), the company has not published anything on where we want to be or corporate roadmap to get there. This lack of accountability aligns perfectly with the shortcomings on the BoD's lack of accountability as reported in the Ann Report, and written about here often by CrustyP. We are a rudderless ship right now at a time when so much should be clear. These are all points that should and will be raised at the AGM. To me, however, they are the primary issues that need to be addressed before we can get to secondary issues of communication.

It's fitting it should all be kicking off just as the share is hitting its all-time lows.

Regarding WRL, it's great news for them getting more industrial customers on board, and the trendline with great news with us over the medium term, as we're just ramping up, along with even more customers starting to build in TZ. To be clear re WRL though, important to remember that the 130 mmscf/d is for the Mnazi Bay JV, for which WRL's share is 31.94%, or capping out at 41mmscf/d. Don't get me wrong, I wish we were producing that today, but we'l be looking to produce at much higher rates.