texas tea party, page-7

ok MJS yes the cashflow has increased from what itr was a couple of years back before the bought a lot of new acreage. But AMU has not been able to produce more oil steadily on a quarterly basis since they brought ont the books the additional areas they purchased a year or so ago. Their gas production in the March Qtr 05 was less than Mar 06 and oil production is the same as Dec 05.

Oil and gas prices aren't bad, but unfortunately AMU's gross revenue for Dec 06 and Mar 07 was about 9.1 to 9.1 million which is no better than Dec 05 of 9.4 million. They did get to 11.5 million in Mar 06. Costs have also risen. I think the market will continue to rate AMU on good or average quarterly results and hopefully we'll get some better numbers soon.

The loan rate was very good, and well done to management, but I think debt is another reason holding AMU back. AMU doesn't appear to have sufficient cash to both explore and develop and recently indicated they'd draw more on loan if they do have good exploration success this year. Of course I'd like that problem to arise!

AR Fuels won't be making a lot of money soon. I hope it'll go very well and the current management look to have the capacity to make it work given time, but there's obvoiusly a lot of work to do still.

I totally agree about the share buy back, it was a key strategy for AMU who must have imagined it would put a shelf under the share price of about $1 when AMU was above that. But it has come very unstuck. In the O&G market 'company-making' drilling and production/revenue are the drivers and neither have been exciting enought for this market to latch on to. Management have a different background and maybe therefore have or had a different perspective on the merits of a buy back. Yes dividends would be better than share buy back in my view.

I also think that if AMU were drilling in Australia they'd get much better treatment from local punters.