Asteroider, my investment philosophy is to never assume I am...

Asteroider, my investment philosophy is to never assume I am correct and always try to prove myself wrong and in this respect I greatly appreciate your contrarian views.

I cannot answer your question, re. Directors history but I am comfortable with the quantity of shares held by the Directors and the financial impact that a poor outcome will have on them.

If we look at other barometers of competency and the opportunities currently at hand we have:

1. Tanzania:

KEY have a 20% stake and are not the operator so I find it a stretch to blame KEY's Directors for the lengthy lead up to fruition (not saying that you are either).

2. Italy:

KEY cannot move forward until approval is in place and by all accounts this will be very soon (FYI, Ken is well aware of the articles referenced here re, Puma).

I have no experience within this industry but considerable experience with Government approval processes and I can tell you that you just don't walk into a ministry department and demand your approval. It is a slow, methodical process which requires all boxes to be ticked.

I am personally comfortable with where KEY are at with this.

3. UK acquisition:

Works progressing on schedule and currently beating 85 bopd as forecast. Existing cash will be used to extract maximum value as previously announced.

Well, not a lot that you can fault there!

If all goes to plan (as per the geologist research) than this will be an extremely fast payback which will provide a strong foundation for growth and GROSS cash flows circa $14m per annum at current prices, less operating costs.

Give me two of these acquisitions per year and i will be extremely happy. KEY management have demonstrated here that when they are in control and IF opportunity knocks than they will jump at it.

4: Potential placement:

I do agree with your statement:

"Of course the way they hit the market and any assets that are obtained in that process might assuage that doubt."

IMO, (IF this occurs) this simply comes down to your view on how KEY will utilise the funds.

a) Will they just milk it and dilute value to existing shareholders (including themselves) so they can extract a wage for the sake of it.

b) Will they use the funds to extract value from existing opportunities, or;

c) For further high quality acquisitions.

Who knows what preliminary discussions may be taking place. It is possible that KEN had other business to attend to on his overseas travels other than Wimbledon.

I personally have spent a LOT of air time analysing acquisition opportunities (have also attended the odd Grand Slam match during my work travels). They usually don't fall into your lap. You have to get out there and search for the good ones.

Of course we all know that you don't necessarily need a placement to fund an acquisition. One can take the investment leverage approach and search for high quality companies with strong cash flows and no debt then leverage the crap out of it by borrowing against the cash flows.

I personally don't like this approach as once you head down this path the banks own you. You have cash flow sweeps and all types of covenants to deal with.

There are numerous examples of ASX listed entities which have fallen victim to this model.

In conclusion:

I will agree with you on the poor level and quality of communication from management. This seems to be a matter of personal style and quite different from my own belief on the issue.

I have always believed that a lack of communication breads paranoia which I think is clearly visible in this circumstance.

Does that mean that the company value is being destroyed? I don't believe so but like all investments only time will tell.

Thanks again for your contrarian views!