MontyI am sure that your methodology has credibility, and it is...

Monty

I am sure that your methodology has credibility, and it is possibly the case that most would view the valuation in the way you have, however:

1. I was at the AGM in October, and one of the presentations was by TNT Engineering who look after all production for AMU (I think I am correct in saying that) The presenter (Dwayne Travelstead) clearly said he thought the value of the US assets was a gross of $264mUS (I wrote it down)prior to paying off the loan (which now stands at about $65m?)....so net about $200mUS or $220mA or $1.22/share. That was in October. AMU has since had some drilling success etc . Hermes, eg which they are equating to hoffer#1, and which produces $50kUS revenue per day.(That being the case, with a 40% interest, AMU's share of Hermes is possibly worth $5m net/annum, or about 25c/share in value)

2. Any attributed value on a /barrel or /cf of gas, ignores the circumstances of production. Last quarter they produced $12mUS in revenue and $10mUS of operating surplus. That's an operatin margin of 83%. I think a more valid valuation model in these circumstances is to look at maintainable cash flow. This is probably where AMU is totally misunderstood. They have spent years getting these processes in place so that excellent margins can be achieved, and they are clearly not being avaluated on that.

I think your analysis highlights perhaps why this stock is languishing. The traditional valuation methodolgies perhaps need to be viewed slightly differently with AMU. Who knows?

My post on the weekend regarding future dividends is valid I think. This company will be awash with cash if their drilling success continues, and to the degree that their operations (being high margin) allow them to pay out high rates of dividends, their model will be valued quite differently to the average producer.

I guess Monty, even your 90c value would be nice at the moment !!