We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.25 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| OIL & GAS PRODUCERS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 11/10/2024 11:59 by affc21 SAVE post via X ( twitter):Savannah is delighted to share our latest technical paper, "A consistent and integrated high-resolution stratigraphic framework for the Sokor Alternances in the R3 East Area, Agadem Basin, Niger", which focuses on our hydrocarbon discoveries within the Agadem Rift Basin in Niger, where our licence interests cover 13,655 km2 or c. 50% of the basin. The paper was recently published in First Break, a monthly European publication serving the E&P geoscience and engineering community and follows our Technical Team's presentation at the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) conference in 2022.Following the findings of a comprehensive study, the paper details an updated stratigraphic framework for the Sokor Alternances, the prolific oil formation within the Agadem Rift Basin where Savannah's Niger oil discoveries were found. The new framework is expected to significantly enhance the geological correlation between fields and help Savannah to predict reservoir presence and understanding across our portfolio of 146 exploration targets across the Agadem Rift Basin.This project was a true team effort, and we could not be prouder of the hard work and dedication of our Technical Team, Dr. Temistocles ("Simon") Rojas, Raul Bastante, Ed Robinson, Dr. Tim Wright and Dr. Christophe Ribeiro.To read the article on page 35 (actually it's page 37), click here bit.ly/47ZQhl6 |
Posted at 07/10/2024 15:03 by kinkell Given that prior to his demise the original leader in Chad was reported as supportive. The subsequent change of policy was not predictable especially as SAVE was promising to invest to increase production reduce fuel poverty and bring new employement through renewables. It looks as if SS followed Chad's lead. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had the plans bsucceeded SAVE would be swimming in cash. Lets give some recognition to our Ceo's efforts to make us all rich. |
Posted at 07/10/2024 09:02 by zengas Report in today’s AI that Tullow is working behind the scenes on a maiden venture to take a stake in Nigerias oil producing Niger Delta, the first time in its 40 year history.There must be other opportunities out there that Save are eyeing. The previous 2years annual reports they appear to have screened some 40 opportunities so I couldn’t see that just suddenly having ended since South Sudan was announced. Sipec came in the midst of that so who knows what else is still being worked on. |
Posted at 01/10/2024 18:45 by interzone Thommie, this from ScotPak on LSE:Was looking at the accounts this morning again. Here are some of my notes: > Money was spent on following where revenues are not yet flowing in : >> $61.5m for Stubb creek acqn >> $45m related to gas compression project >>> Both initiatives are positive developments which will materially increase EBITDA/ freeCF > EBITDA was $91.6m for the 6 months period However including Other operating income it rises to $201.5. The extra amount comes from the "true -up Mechanism" including in the gas contracts of the largest customers that makes the customers make a payment to account for the FX losses > The Naira hit on cash was $60m, thus fairly material. But as I said before, the Huge FX adjustment is mostly behind us. A local bank facility is now in place which is paying down the Accugas USD debt, and this local facility is expected to be replaced by the local currency bond > $127m of the Debt on balance sheet relates to the CHAD acqn of which only $37m is recourse to SAVE. Thus you would ideally strip the non-recourse portion out when calculating net leverage which SAVE have not done. CONCLUSION: Loads of one offs related to acqn debt, FX losses and projects where CF is expected to flow in. Given all the various initiatives, doesnt look to bad to me. Even if you dont include CHAD, SS, NIGER, and the various Solar projects (where CF is expected in a few yrs time) |
Posted at 28/8/2024 12:11 by captain james t kirk Following on from my post 3081, as far as I'm aware there's a 60 day clause in these PSA contracts for pre-emption rights.I don't know if SAVE proceeded with Chad and SS on the basis of verbal agreements from the respective governments but we now know they did not have government approvals in black and white. In the case of Chad the government failed to trigger their pre-emption rights and hence the legal action, following the nationalisation of the assets. The same scenario would appear to apply to SS but Petronas/Save have chosen to take a different route. I can only surmise that a further ICC case for SAVE would have been a bridge too far ? If any lessons can be learned from these previous two experiences then surely if after the 60 day period has elapsed, and written government approval is not forthcoming, then one has to bite the bullet and walk away. |
Posted at 03/8/2024 21:21 by thommie Both of us know that this actions from corrupt autocrats are not planned for long term prosperity for their country or their people. It's all about personal short time profits. And who says that save overtaking the assets will lead to more investments? They wont be operator and I doubt that SS will be the priority for CNPC. They have far more new fields to develope than to invest into land locked stranded assets that need a country at war with a damaged pipeline for transporting of the oil. Ofc save can try to switch their mindset, but if Cnpc thought that it's more profitable for them to invest their money into SS they would have taken over petronas stake directly with pre emption rights when save announced the deal. But they were not interested. It's a super mature asset, its psc under the current terms runs out in 4 years. It's obvious that if the deal goes over the line save will be buying cnpcs interest as well next to prolong the field life under extended licence terms. If SS steals it from save nothing will happen, cnpc wont invest anything into it and will just run it down till its economics pass a treshhold where the field will be abandoned. Thats game over for the SS state finances in about 4 years. The problem is, corrupt regimes just dont care about that, they dont think longterm. Giving save the asset is their only way of a chance to profit from oil in the future. And only of war in sudan ends soon. |
Posted at 03/8/2024 12:54 by thommie Upwego, as outlined by some posters on here that spoke with save management at the agm it's not saves decision to not relist. It's said that nomad said they wont be able to relist if the deal isnt approved or instead terminated. So to say even if save wish to do so, they cant.And as I said before, and thats exactly what Mount teides article said... Salva Kiir planned to copy the chad situation with petronas, to just take over the asset for free by claiming the exact same deal with the same backdated production since 1/1/2022 and it's asset price reductions to not need any financing and to just take over the asset for free by waiting long enough. His problem now is that since the pipeline disruption the effective price isnt reducing anymore. So time might be on our side, as he may lose elections in november because of the financial situation in SS due to the sudan war and the related pipeline damage. Ofc it's a dream to think any new leader wont be corrupt, but maybe it's possible to find alternative ways with him that werent possible with Kiir. If he gets reelected I dont see any approval coming anytime, then it might be good to just terminate the deal, as even with the effective date we would need to serve the interest for a loan for the final payment for the asset. Even if its just 300-400m we would need to find 40-50m$ in interest rates per year, as it's possible that the pipeline wont get operational anymore till the sudan war ends. And that could take years or decades from now on... It might be frustrating to just terminate the deal, as we all expected to be rich after the closing of this Super deal (it was before sudan war started...), we could end up loosing around 30-50% of the share price after relisting without SS. But we were at 30p before that without any deal on top of accugas. Since then our core business developed well and will improve as well in the future to be worth that 30p and even more in my opinion. So I guess after some time the share price will be back to 30-40p even on accugas alone. And Im sure we will get something out of the ICC case Re chad nationalisation that might just double or triple the share price on its own. So whatever happens maybe even if its frustrating after such a long wait, it's best to hope for a ternination of the SS deal just to get out of that war mess and corruption lot of SS... |
Posted at 02/8/2024 08:50 by thommie Im not sure why you are so angry about this rns. SAVE made it clear on the agm, that they are only waiting for government approval. It's totally out of their hand. Thats nothing new and nothing that will change till it's given. If Salva Kiir maybe gets enough money through various workstreams for him personally and might finally give his signature we will see a rns out of nowhere, nothing planned after a 6 weeks timeline... Im not sure if waiting for the presidential sign off really is the right strategy here, but who am I? In the end waiting seems beneficial for SS, as it opens up a way for them to do the same what chad did with the petronas interest. Just say no and then go to the seller yourself and just take over the part of save on the same terms with the same effective date as save had, not needing big financial backings to take it over anymore, if you delayed it long enough. Petronas wont care, as they didnt in chad, they just want to get rid off their stake and dont care who will carry on, if the terms are the same. Sad, but there is a high probability thats true, as otherwise they cant get rid off it. |
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 01/3/2024 12:39 by zengas RRI 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.' |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
