We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| 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 | 00:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.25 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| OIL & GAS PRODUCERS |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 20/12/2024 14:45 by rockyride Sent to:- aimregulation AT lseg DOT com earlier today:-Hi - to whom it may concern. Savannah Energy (SAVE) is listed on AIM and regulated by Strand Hanson. In December 2022 they signed a SPA and suspended from trading as the deal was deemed to be a RTO. The SPA was cancelled some months ago but SAVE have continued to be suspended on the basis of what seems to be a very flaky basis. Shareholders have been given next to no information on how they can remain suspended and the NOMAD now refuse to have contact with private investors. After over 2 years of being suspended, I personally find this situation absolutely unacceptable and would kindly ask that you look in to this situation and get back to me ASAP? If you agree that SAVE are in the right to remain suspended, surely PI's should be given more information as to how this is allowed and what is going on. If you deem the current situation to be unacceptable, maybe you should be forcing the NOMAD and the company to resume trading forthwith. Kind regards |
Posted at 18/11/2024 11:05 by gooseman1979 I realise that one of the major planned activities for SAVE over recent years that has not materialised has been progress in Niger. However, given what is currently happening to mining companies in Mali (and what happened to SAVE in Chad), is Niger really investable now for a UK-based company going it alone?On the renewables side, maybe it works if it is a project with guarantees heavily backed by the likes of the WB / IFC, AfDB? However, on the oil side, unless any investment pays back ultra quickly, I just don't see that major investment is feasible unless we are partnered in our blocks with the Chinese - there would be too much risk of expropriation / forced renegotiation and then SAVE's only recourse would be to more international arbitration. |
Posted at 04/11/2024 22:37 by zengas Pldazzle your guess is as good as mine and are they all or some of them ? On the Petronas asset deal, i can only wait to see what's presented for shareholder approval to make that decision whether i'd like it or not (if it gets that far).Niger - Only have the present regimes statement that contracts etc with investors will be honoured. Last valuation for the assets was $153m. I don't doubt that there is anti western sentiment but if you read up on the present situation the juntas in all 3 countries have lost major support and matters now seen worse under their rule after the initial and early support for throwing out western military etc. Chad - just wonder why you assess it at between 5-10p which would be $85m to $170m at current exc rates versus $1220m claimed. If as recognised the assets were ours - then we have to start with their valuation to us. The oil field assets were $245.4m. The pipeline $288.3m. Total $533.7m There was a 9 year baseline return at $60/b oil of an average $39.1m/yr = $351.9m. There was a 9 year baseline return from the pipeline of an average $37.4m/yr = $336.6m. That's from the relisting document presentation in 2022. Add all the above and you get $1222m - the same figure that SAVE is now claiming. We will need to see what or if the capitalistion rate is/used on the expected profits over a recognised timeline the company would have expected to make and/or the discounted future earnings method. I personally expect close to the individual valuations for the oil fields and pipeline interests as two seperate asset entities = $533m which would make up the bulk of the claim as how far down can it really be discounted if one thinks about it carefully. Rather than 9 - perhaps 2.25 years miminum of the expected baseline yearly returns or $172m. Maybe as high as $700m which would be significantly ahead (if awarded) of my hoped for 25-33% of the overall $1220m figure. That's how i arrive at it from the info available and trawling through many other claims online. I'd expect an interest rate award to be applied to hinder and penalise the longer it goes unpaid. Ways and means to recover it and there's always a potential sale as discussed before on here. With that looming, there's always a chance that it may not go the full distance given Chads acknowledgement and saves willingness to discuss with them. If anyone else wants to have a stab at the compensation case - by all means but those figures appear to match the 2022 presentation and i can't see how the pipeline and oil fields could be materially undervalued from those 2 individual asset figures. Yes i beleive the 9 year expected baseline return figures could be materially reduced but then we've also had oil at nearly $75-$80+ this past 2 years. We saw how Save turned a $1m investment into a $16m loan with $4m recovered at Fenikso/Lekoil so i would expect them to be equally determined to get maximum fair value for the damage it did to us in throwing us off course not to mention shareholder sentiment with PIs especially. |
Posted at 04/11/2024 14:54 by zengas Yes we can agree to disagree.My point is there was no deal until the government got what it wanted from Petronas ie increased costs (clean up/environment charges etc). That doesn't mean there was no support for SAVE as a company. They could well have supported SAVE if Petronas had forked out $??? millions on these cost demands. Petronas weren't paying so how could the govt support a deal if they wanted more cash from Petronas with Petronas not caving in and then handing the assets back on 9th Aug still leaving the govt to try and raise cash with the new found position it was in. That's why i see SAVE as still having support to bid/make a deal proposal otherwise why would they still be there. (Come on RR man up - withdraw your comment or is anyone here potentially liable to become a target for a similar allegation over time ?) |
Posted at 04/11/2024 14:47 by gisjob2 We disagree on how much support SAVE have from the Government.I believe they have very little due to no minister whatsoever posting any sort of support for SAVE's acquisition of the project over the 2 years and the Government seeking US funding from Caltech to acquire the projects themselves, trying to pull the rug from under the SAVE-Petronas deal when it was still live. They've demonstrated their true intentions. I've seen no counter proof of any positive comments, decision or actions by the Government to support SAVE I believe there's no chance of AK getting a decent deal in South Sudan and would be happier if that is the result. I just wish he'd stop wasting his time there. As far as I'm concerned any deal there is a bad deal. Even AK managed to get something in SS, recent history has shown he could never move it on in the future without yet another arbitration where the Government try to milk the company. A 'Hotel California' situation. |
Posted at 04/11/2024 14:36 by zengas No i don't think it's down to SAVE not having support from the govt. It's the new situation since Aug 9th.They are likely in a process. Saves deal is possibly presented as other deals in the ring. It's what's the best deal for the Govt ? Save can only go so far as to the best deal as to what AK could put to shareholders as acceptable to a majority. Has he the ears of the IIs (ie top 20 shareholders who hold 80% supposedly) as to what deal he can hope to win. He's not stupid but as PIs in the dark we're the last to know other than being possible insiders to it which is impossible ??? The govt mighn't have wanted them to go but that's the reality, they were going and now they're gone despite any deemed unfair tactics to get more out of Petronas and their determination to go anyway (as they have now done). In effect Petronas is saying we've done all we can do - so do what you now like with the assets as we've handed them back, we're not staying as advised but recompense will be sought via arbitration. |
Posted at 04/11/2024 14:13 by gisjob2 Zen,If Petronas wanted to 'just leave' they would never have agreed a deal with SAVE in the first place. They only left as they did because the SS Government wouldn't agree to the deal with SAVE so had no option.. Hence my point about the SS Government not showing any support for SAVE in the last 2 years, which is why it's a dead duck for AK to carry on this charade. Your point seems to confirm what I'm saying. |
Posted at 04/11/2024 13:45 by gisjob2 It isn't that Petronas chose to leave South Sudan, that was known as an objective.It's the desperation and manner in which they left that tells you all you need to know about the SS Government and why SAVE shouldn't touch the country with a bargepole. AK should have walked away from the deal when the SS Government sought finance from the US company Caltech to acquire the assets for themselves, pulling the rug from under the SAVE-Petronas deal. This was over a year ago and highlighted the duplicitous nature of the Government and their lack of support for SAVE Why AK continues this charade is anyone's guess. |
Posted at 03/8/2024 20:21 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 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
