Aminex Then and Now: Why CH-1 Is Not the Same Comparison as NT-2

The Resource Comparison

Before the NT-2 appraisal well, the quoted target was around 153 BCF. Aminex held a 75% working interest in the Ruvuma PSA at that time, meaning the company’s notional share of that figure was approximately 115 BCF, or 0.116 TCF.

The latest mapped picture is far larger. APT’s 2024 revised resource work identified a most-likely estimate of 3.45 TCF of gas initially in place potentially connected to the reservoir sandstones encountered in NT-1 and NT-2. It also identified an upside aggregated GIIP volume for the Ntorya accumulation of up to 7.95 TCF in a CH-1 success case involving multiple stacked sands, and a wider Mtwara Licence unrisked GIIP potential of approximately 16.38 TCF.

Using the broad Mtwara Licence figure of 16.4 TCF, Aminex’s current 25% interest gives a notional in-place gas exposure of around 4.1 TCF. Compared with the pre-NT-2 notional 0.116 TCF exposure, that is approximately 35 times larger before adjusting for the increased share count.

The share count has also changed. Aminex had approximately 3.476 billion shares in issue at the end of 2016, compared with approximately 4.475 billion today. After adjusting for that dilution, the notional in-place gas exposure per share remains approximately 27 times larger on this broad comparison.

That does not mean each share is backed by booked reserves, or that all of the gas will be recovered, produced or valued equally. It does mean that the scale of the mapped gas opportunity now associated with Aminex’s carried interest is far larger than it was before NT-2.

Why This Is Not a Simple Reserve Comparison

The caveat matters. The 2016 NT-2 figure and the 2024/2026 figures are not all the same category of resource. The NT-2 figure was an appraisal target. The later numbers include GIIP, or gas initially in place, and some of the larger figures are unrisked estimates across the wider licence rather than booked reserves.

GIIP is not the same as recoverable reserves. It does not automatically translate into production volumes, revenue or share price value. Recovery factors, reservoir performance, drilling success, development costs, commercial terms, market access and timing all matter.

That is why the numbers should be read as a scale comparison, not as a valuation model. The point is not that Aminex should be valued 27 times higher than before NT-2. The point is that the company’s retained interest now sits within a much larger mapped gas system than the one being appraised in 2016.

For investors, that distinction is important. The figures are speculative, but they are not meaningless. They show how much the geological and development context has changed.

CH-1 Is a Larger Prize Than NT-2

The CH-1 comparison is even more focused. In 2016, NT-2 was described as a low-risk appraisal well targeting resources of 153 BCF. It was an important well, but it was being drilled into a much smaller mapped opportunity than the one now being discussed around CH-1.

The 2024 seismic update changed that context. APT’s work suggested that 3.45 TCF of GIIP may be connected to the reservoir sandstones encountered in NT-1 and NT-2. It also set out an upside aggregated GIIP estimate for Ntorya of up to 7.95 TCF in a CH-1 success case based on multiple stacked sands.

The difference between 3.45 TCF and 7.95 TCF is 4.5 TCF. Compared with the old NT-2 153 BCF target, that implied upside increment is around 29 times larger on a gross basis. After allowing for Aminex’s lower percentage interest and higher share count, the notional per-share comparison is still around 7.6 times larger.

Again, this is not a reserve statement and not a valuation forecast. But it does explain why CH-1 is so important. The well is not simply repeating the NT-2 moment. It is testing a much larger post-3D seismic opportunity with potentially far greater implications for the shape and scale of Ntorya.

The Farm-Out Changed the Company

Some investors look at the move from 75% to 25% and see only dilution of ownership. That is too narrow. The farm-out reduced Aminex’s percentage interest, but it also brought in ARA Petroleum Tanzania as operator and provided a carry designed to take Aminex through to commercial gas production without bearing its proportional development costs up to the agreed carry level.

That changed the risk profile of the company. Aminex gave up a larger percentage of the asset in return for funding support, operational depth and a development partner capable of moving Ntorya forward. For a small company, that trade-off matters.

The result is that Aminex now owns less of Ntorya than it did before NT-2, but it owns that smaller stake in a project that is much closer to commercialisation. The company is not trying to carry the field alone. It is carried through the key development phase, while ARA Petroleum Tanzania leads the operational execution.

That is why the percentage interest should not be judged in isolation. A carried 25% interest in a larger, better defined and funded development may be more valuable than a larger interest in a smaller project still waiting for the pieces to come together.

The Development Position Is Completely Different

The difference between 2016 and today is not just geological. It is also commercial and operational.

Before NT-2, Aminex was still trying to prove more of the field. Today, Ntorya has a signed Gas Sales Agreement, a 25-year Development Licence, a clear initial development pathway, and the Ntorya–Madimba pipeline under construction. NT-2 is expected to be brought into production once the pipeline is completed and commissioned, with CH-1 and NT-1 forming part of the early production build-out.

That is a major change. In 2016, the market was looking at appraisal potential. In 2026, the market is looking at appraisal, development and production timing together. The asset has moved from a discovery-led investment case into a route-to-market investment case.

The coming milestones are therefore more layered. CH-1 matters geologically. Pipeline completion matters operationally. NT-2 hook-up matters commercially. First gas matters psychologically and financially. NT-1 workover and further drilling matter for production scale.

That combination did not exist in the same form before NT-2.

The Production Path Now Matters

Aminex’s latest reporting sets out a staged production path that is more specific than a general hope of future growth. The current plan starts with an initial phase targeting production of up to 60 MMcfd from NT-2, NT-1 and CH-1. It then envisages a first phase involving three additional wells to increase production to 140 MMcfd, matching the full capacity of the Ntorya–Madimba pipeline. Beyond that, a second phase would involve further development drilling to increase production up to 280 MMcfd, with later in-field compression and additional wells intended to maintain a 280 MMcfd plateau.

That is important because this pathway is based on the current field development planning before CH-1 has been drilled. In other words, the existing plan already points to a staged move from 60 MMcfd to 140 MMcfd and then 280 MMcfd, based on the present understanding of the field and the results of the 3D seismic work. CH-1 may then provide further confirmation, refinement or additional upside, but the phased production concept is not waiting to be invented after the well.

This is one of the key differences from the earlier period. Ntorya is no longer just a drilling story. It is becoming a production-sequencing story. Investors are watching not only whether CH-1 succeeds, but how quickly any success can be tied into a development plan that already has a pipeline route, a processing destination and a staged production pathway.

That gives the next drill a different market context. A successful CH-1 result would not sit in isolation. It would feed into a field development plan that already envisages initial production, expansion to pipeline capacity and a longer-term route toward materially higher output if demand, infrastructure and drilling results support that growth.

That is why the comparison with NT-2 needs to be adjusted. NT-2 was a major appraisal moment. CH-1 could be an appraisal, scale and development catalyst inside a much more advanced production framework.