We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for discussion Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.

SAVE Savannah Energy Plc

0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 01:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Savannah Energy Plc SAVE London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
0.00 0.00% 26.25 01:00:00
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
more quote information »
Industry Sector

Savannah Energy SAVE Dividends History

No dividends issued between 23 Jul 2014 and 23 Jul 2024

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 04/7/2024 18:27 by porschefund
If SAVE does acquire Calabar Generation Company Limited (the owners of the Calabar power station), SAVE’s balance sheet could be further enhanced by the possible write-off of Contract Liabilities of circa $365m. The majority of which (as the largest TOP customer) relates to Calabar IFRS 15 take or pay gas not taken. If the value of Contract Liabilities is not written off by both Calabar and SAVE it would seem likely that the figure would at least disappear on consolidation.
Posted at 04/7/2024 15:02 by zengas
Going back to TrustILies post on 27th June (LSE) re the set up of 3 new power companies and the possibility of buying Calabar power plant (or others) as not being that far fectched. I have a feeling something may in the bag here. It could be very interesting to our balance sheet.

From memory we were owed a very substantial amount of legacy debt that was parked up even pre Accugas acquisition accrued to SAVE.

One point struck me from that post - " there are a few teething problems such as the bid quotes and payment mode and other issues which are already being resolved".

I don't think it's far fetched at all given the companies are already formed by Savannah.

In tandem to the power plant sales, the government is paying down this legacy debt gradually which currently stands at about $1.3b to the sector.

From 6 weeks ago - "The payment for legacy debt is actually going to be made but from future royalties and exchange of incomes in the gas sub sector which is quite satisfactory to the gas supply companies."

"Furthermore, the Minister explained that the ministry has received presedential approval to proceed with payments, contingent upon the reconcilliation of outstanding debts bewteen the government and the power generating companies."

I see the government is going to pay some of the historical legacy debt in cash and the rest in a guaranteed debt instrument (surely if applicable, we can sell this debt instrument onwards ?).

The legacy debt and the current debts (current debts 3+ months) - from the same article above - "According to the minister, the President has endorsed the proposal which is to clear the outstanding debts owed to gas suppiers by the power sector. He explained that the payments would be divided into two categories: the legacy debts and the current debts".
Posted at 13/6/2024 13:22 by zengas
If you go back to FinnCaps valuation of 4th Jan 2022 using $60/b Brent and fully diluted.

They had the NET valuation as
1. 3 TOP cases/ Accugas = $570.7m.
2. 80% Net Uquo 74.2 mmboe 2P @ $4.40/boe. = $326.4m.
3. 51% Net Stubb Creek 7.1 mmboe 2P @ $9.1/boe = $64.6m.

Above $961.7m/£740m net to Save.

They also had Saves net share of the contingent resource valued at $25.6m for Uquo + $21.7m for Stubb Creek = $47.3m which value Saves net share of Nigera operations for $1.009 billion or £776m.

My own workings are considerably less in places -
Gas contracts have risen since 4/1/22 but i've left Accugas valuation as then = $570m.
Reduced the Uquo price per 2P boe X 20% to $3.50/boe = $261m.
Reduced the Stubb Creek price per 2P/b x 50% to $4.50/b = $32.3m.
(This totals $863.3m versus FinnCaps $1009m).
Added the value of the Sipec acquisition (S/Creek) at $60m.

I've added the 2C Uquo/S/Creek and Sipec 2C value in at 50% discount to at least $30m.

For me this represents a more sensible achievable sales valuation at $953m/£733m now for the Nigerian assets. (using £1=$1.30 exch rate)

That's gives a fully diluted share price of 51.8p.

FinnCap have $163m for the Niger 2C which will convert to 2P later this year and AK says this is worth $150m. I've discounted this to $100m/£77m = 5.4p

Current net debt with the late payment and Sipec factored in (see my 7/6/24 post 2903) $430.9m/£331m) = 23.5p.

I get a valuation of at least 57p net debt free or 33.5p with debt for Nigeria and Niger which i believe i have significantly discounted.

If you use the same $3 per 2P barrel that FinnCap used for Doba and apply that to South Sudan - basing it on 300 mmbls (this was on the AI reported figure) that's $900m base value (The headline price was $1250m).

Using $900m/£692m = 49p/share fully diluted for South Sudan - how much will be debt idk.

My base case is 49p S.Sudan, 51.8p Nigeria, 5.4p Niger = 106p on a net debt free basis.

Current Net debt is around 23.5p. If South Sudan was left with $300m net debt then that would equate to another 16p or 40p net debt in total that will come down even if only selling 15,000 bopd in S.Sudan ie 30%.

Like i say i've discounted this way below the analyst figures, haven't included anything for the expected additional resources/exploration/Niger upside, haven't included the $32.1m cash for the warrants in additional value. Still $10m+ in installments longer term to come from Fenisko not included. There's also been $40m non recurrent spent on superior compression facilities with each train capable of 160 mmcf/d out (320 mmcf/d) as well as other infrastructure. Nothing included for the additional gas sales contracts since early Jan 2022.

There's some minor value that i haven't considered in laying the ground etc for the Solar/Wind/Hydro projects being in motion.

Finally $1.22b claimed in damages from Chad Doba, Totco,Cotco etc. $400m on success factoring in the loss/dilution to the company/shareholders at the time would be worth just shy of 22p.

Imo no matter how you look at it, it's worth much more than the current 26.25p depending on what combination assets we have or gain and supposedly more in the pipeline.
Posted at 17/5/2024 10:41 by mount teide
'Also I have been wondering if any of the delay is due to the damaged pipeline. Would you as a CEO want to sign on the dotted line for $1.25bn of oil assets with no current route to market. There would have to be some serious T&C’s build in to any final sign off.'

Only if SAVE were getting the assets for a small fraction of the headline price, due to the amount of cash-flow accrued to SAVE from the effective economic date of the is likely.

Plus, assuming the deal receives the expected Government approvals and consents, it would be a smart and not unreasonable move from SAVE to secure some form of 'insurance policy' from Petronas, to cover/share the ongoing financial impact of the damaged pipeline, should it continue beyond the completion date of the deal.

The South Sudan Government's $13bn 'cash for oil' deal signed with the Qatari firm is potentially a strong positive development in this connection - as it offers a very high incentive for the Government to secure the early repair/remediation of the export pipeline and, and to upgrade the level of security deployed to protect the staff and operational infrastructure in the producing fields and, the export pipeline.
Posted at 17/5/2024 08:56 by rockyride
Buffy - I started to invest soon after IPO and my timeline was always Dec 2024, I have quoted that date for years. And although I still to conduct to quite serious restructuring of finances, I've put plans in place now to give myself some leeway. If everything worked out perfectly for me, I conduct my finance stuff outside selling any SAVE and then SAVE comes good and pays a strong dividend moving forward. That would be a serious stroke of luck for myself and if all goes well I can honestly see SAVE distributing a minimum of $100m pa which fully diluted at fx 1.27 = 5.6p per share.
Posted at 16/4/2024 12:12 by mount teide
Interesting to have confirmation from Savannah's website that the Cameroon Export Transportation System includes both the export pipeline from Chad together with ownership of the offloading FSO(Kome Kribi 1) and related port infrastructure at Kribi in the Gulf of Guinea. This should provide SAVE with a very strong position to secure payment of any financial compensation awarded by the ICC Tribunal, should(as is likely IMO) they find in SAVE's favour with respect to the Chad Government's illegal Nationalisation of SAVE's Doba assets bought from Exxon.

'Cameroon Export Transportation System - comprises the Cameroon export pipeline, the Kome Kribi 1 floating storage and offloading unit (“FSO”) and related infrastructure. The Cameroon ETS, combined with the export pipeline in Chad, is the only international export route for oil production in Chad, which is used by the Doba Consortium and other third-party shippers including CNPC, Perenco and OPIC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CPC Corporation and Taiwan.

The Cameroon pipeline has a diameter of 30” and a total length of 903 km with a nameplate capacity of 250,000 bopd which can transport relatively heavy crude. It includes two pumping stations, a small pressure reduction station, as well as three maintenance areas and is equipped with a leak detection system. The pumping stations are located at 215 km and 880 km along the pipeline.'

Construction of the pipeline, which is buried below the ground, started in 2000 and was completed in 2003, a year ahead of schedule. The total cost of the pipeline project was US$2.2 billion and several US and European Export/Import Credit agencies and the World Bank supported the construction and implementation of this major infrastructure project.

The Kome Kribi 1 is the offshore moored FSO vessel and is part of the ETS infrastructure. The FSO is a converted crude tanker with a nameplate storage capacity of 2.5 MMbbl and is connected to a single-point mooring system. The Kome Kribi 1 FSO is able to accommodate tandem-berthed export tankers up to 320,000 tonnes deadweight.

Posted at 08/4/2024 16:46 by ashkv
AK is the worst CEO - enriches himself and penuries share holders.

SAVE appears to be a scam - permanently suspended.

AK / SAVE need to be investigated by FCA / Authorities - SAVE appears to be a scam.

What about the Accugas/Nigerian refinance!!!

Absolute shambles - Friday evening RNS

Third rate corporate governance - and absolute basket case / self serving / self dealing incompetent CEO!!!

Hopefully SAVE doesn't go belly up with our money!!!
Posted at 06/4/2024 06:19 by upwego
Not even one news clipping of AK meeting the Government, shaking hands and the usual there pally pally with Save etc. something is odd here, looks like all work done with Petronas and was always going to be the case, but not even anything verbally in the media to suggest the government are going to accept it or for that matter even acknowledged Save..

What does this tell me that all is well with SAVE and PETRONAS and AK is just knocking on S.S door to try talk to them about taking over the fields and having no answer or there never in..

I don`t know just something not right and don`t smell right,I think when we do eventually here from S.S Government it will probably be from another company wanting to buy the assets, like what happened with Chad and some big fat Juicy Envelopes from the other party and that`s just for starters.
Posted at 01/3/2024 12:39 by zengas

I posted the below post exactly 10 months ago when some were saying they should pull out of the deal then. That time period should have shaved a further $300m imo off the settlement figure not counting the original effective start date. What is any different now in the last 10 months that imo would not have been considered after all this time since.

Why would Save imo suddendly flip flop now so unprofessionally at any sudden blip especially when they've continued this far into an 11 month neighbouring war and pull out when repairs/maintenance could be resolved at any time as well as significant efforts being made to resolve the war. As i said in the following post, i'd be absolutely surprised if they had not factored in the potential for exports being offline for 3-6-12 months at any point in the risk mitigation.

' ZENGAS - 01 May 2023 - 14:05:30 - 1367 of 2622

Re should or shouldn't SAVE walk away from the S.Sudan deal.
That depends how you look at it.

First of all i believe any deal has to be non recourse to the parent group/other asset holdings just like Chad, Cameroon and Accugas Nigeria. Therefore i don't see it as putting the group at risk and no one would be that reckless least of all AK without ring-fenced financing.

If anyone is likely to pull the deal it could be the actual entity that is/was there to finance it and not so much Save.
It could be Petronas themselves who finance it - do or will they offer a financing agreement like Exxon and on what terms. They may be even keener to leave more than ever now especially as they also operate in Sudan where their complex/office in Sudan has been damaged in recent days with people unable to leave.
Any opportunist will see the potential in S.Sudan. Perenco themselves were reported as interested. Things continue as normal so far and the main worry is going to be relying on one export route - so yes i see now as the time for S.Sudan to address and develop an alternative route faster than ever. They have land bought at Djibouti for this purpose.

Can any deal be structured in a way that Save can continue say if oil exports were offline for 3-6-12 months at any point ? and it might not happen - totally unknown but i'm sure that risk has been considered.

AI reports Save will predominantly only be a partner in S.Sudan - they won't have too many to pay as they need little staff, it all comes down to the loan financing and perhaps length of it. Seplat managed to survive in a one country jurisdiction with its oil exports severely constrained for a number of times over many months while alternatives were found and the original export route re-instated.

What about the breaking story back on 18/1/22 when AI reported that it was a grand plan by the Vitol - Savannah duo for S.Sudan. Vitol is awash with serious cash and more so this past few years of high oil prices, and somebody like them could be more than willing to see this through with Save as they gain access to marketing the oil.

I may be wrong but to leave S.Sudan high and dry because of what's going on with it's neighbour would be a big blow for the South Sudanese (not their fault) and anyone thinking of investing in S.Sudan pre June if the Savannah Petronas deal collapsed - so again i'd be surprised if Save decided to pull the deal on neighbouring instability. Yes they could delay it or suspend it but i think that would open the deal to other potential buyers.

I do not want to see the deal collapse and i don't think Save will either but it will be more so in the hands of the right financing terms relative to the above.'
Posted at 21/2/2024 09:35 by thommie
Thx inter for posting it on advfn. Good info. But isnt another part of the problem that save isnt able to exchange the naira into dollars directly after getting paid due to an illiquid exchange market and thus is forced to hold big parts of the revenue in naira? So if thats still the case I expect another big fx loss in q1 as the received revenue in Naira will have lost most part of its value due to another big devaluation throughout this timeframe.The reason they dont close the refinancing is the big devaluation of the Naira. Just imagine they close the refinancing in Naira now at an exchange rate of 1:1500. That would mean they roll over their current Dollar liability into a Naira liability on the terms of 1:1500. Their revenue is based on a fixed dollar gas price that is paid in the Naira exchange rate. So just imagine following scenario: save closes refinancing of the Dollar debt into a Naira debt now at an exchange rate of 1:1500. At 100$ debt as an example that would translate into a future debt of 150000 Naira. So we would need toll sell gas worth 100$ to pay the debt. If then in the following years the Naira gets much stronger and returns to sth like 1:750 we are getting paid only half of the Naira amount. So we would need to sell gas worth 200$ to pay down this naira debt. That means our real debt would double just on this. It would be very stupid to close such a deal now. On the other hand it would have been fantastic if save would have been able to do the refinancing a year ago when the Naira exchange rate was around 1:450? (I only guess). That would have meant, that they would only need 1/3 of time to pay it back as they are currently getting 3 times the amount of naira for their Dollar fixed contracts. Sadly that didnt happen. So in my opinion it would be the best not to do any refinancing now as long as we expect that the nigerian economy improves over the years to come and the exchange rate would then drop dramatically. Just let it be in dollars and pay it down, in the best case the earnings from a sucessful South Sudan deal will pay this dollar based debt down ... So to say a big failure of save mgmt not to refinance into a naira based debt before the big naira devaluation happened, as they planned to the do that since nearly 3 years? Refinancing now could just turn into an even bigger nightmare if there exchange rate drops inthe future and the naira getting strong er again...

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock