Savannah Energy Dividends SAVE

Dividends

No Dividend Data for SAVE

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 23/4/2024 16:02 by ashkv If Sudan deal implodes - and no Accugas refinance / SAVE back to 10p or worse Andrew Knott has to go!!! It has been a heads I win tails you lose leadership for SAVE shareholders with this character... All over the place - fanciful dreams of Hydroelectric Dams and such nonsense - while not delivering a single item!!! Even the Accugas deal can be considered not fully complete as refinancing lacking!!! WHAT AN ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL SHAMBLES / INEPT / MUPPET CEO!!! IF SUDAN FAILS HE HAS TO GO!!! AND HOPEFULLY SALE OF NIGERIAN AND NIGER ASSETS WILL SALVAGE SOME VALUE FOR SHAREHOLDERS!!! Read Full Thread Reply
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. AIMHO/DYOR Read Full Thread Reply
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!!! Read Full Thread Reply
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. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 20/3/2024 17:19 by gisjob2 What have SAVE got themselves and us into in SS. Such a shame when great smaller deals like the Stubb Creek one can be done. To be honest I'm surprised the SS Government haven't snapped SAVE's hands off if they want to invest in SS via the Petronas assets. A willing junior wanting to invest in the assets rather than a major not so willing. Maybe the SS Government are inadvertently doing SAVE a favour by seemingly not supporting the deal. It could be the best thing in the long run, albeit with some short term pain to the share price no doubt!. The main benefit of a successful acquisition in SS is the effective date of the deal. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 15/3/2024 12:50 by gisjob2 Zengas, I'm not saying I agree with the SS Government regarding SAVE, just it seems to be their perception, that SAVE are not large enough or experienced enough, of course this may just be an excuse but the result is the same - no dice. We've seen SAVE are capable with the Accugas project, but for whatever reason countries like SS need more convincing. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 01/3/2024 12:39 by zengas RR 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.' Read Full Thread Reply
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... Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 01/10/2023 15:18 by zengas FinnCap gave some costings on the renewables last year. (Page 4-5 July 22) For the mix of solar & wind and 750 MW they had a 13p valuation which was unrisked until in development and up and running. They estimated 75% would come from debt financing such as specialist infrastructure funds suggested by AK - the remaining 25% provided by SAVE. For wind the cost was estimated at $0.7m MW. For solar $0.5m MW - an average of $600m GW on a 50-50 wind/solar basis ?. SAVE were aiming for 1 GW in motion by this year end and 2 GW end of next. It was to be mid -late next year before the up to 250 MW Niger will be sanctioned with 1st revenues in 2026. On the basis of the F/Cap estimates - that would mean a cost of around $175m of which SAVE would need to find around $44m of their own money but likely spread over 2 years. Overall on the F/Cap estimate for the 2 GW to be in motion by the end of next year - the cost could be around $1.2 billion with $300m needed from Save although the first 1 GW up and running is likely to self finance a proportion of that with maybe $200-$250m needed to reach 2 GW ?. Save is aiming for 2 GW by end of next year so it wouldn't surprise me to see projects for 4-5 GW by the end of the decade given the massive target market of an estimated 240 GW across Africa by 2030 from memory. FinnCap are using about 13p for 750 MW for the mix of wind and solar last year net to SAVE. That would suggest that a 50/50 mix of wind/solar could be about 17.3p per GW - so if they build out to 2 GW maybe over 34p and if long term there's something like 5 GW about 86p - if reasonably close this would indicate why AK sees it as once in a lifetime opportunity on top of the value from Accugas and the separate hydrocarbon acquisitions and Niger. On project financing and an average cost of $600m per GW (50/50 Wind/Solar) - we'd need about $150m of our cash per GW. Obviously a proportion of that becomes self financing when the earlier projects are up and running to help fund later projects. The net debt profile on Nigeria should still be on track to be cleared in around 2 years (taking into account the added ownership of COTCo interest) - so you'd think should provide a significant level of freed up cash. Over the next 2 years id be disappointed if they haven't increased gas sales by another 25-50% or another $50-$100m sales. If they can land that crucial and sizeable oil acquisition that can throw off $2-$300m FCF such as Petronas S.S which must be already significantly discounted since the effective deal date - this i would think will be able to build future cash reserves and cover our contribution to grow the renewables. Most of these divestments have a pay back time of 3-4 years from effective date and earlier at much higher oil prices and why i think they're crucial to the entire game plan. Read Full Thread Reply
Posted at 27/9/2023 14:12 by gisjob2 Captain, I know what you're saying but how can SAVE continue while the Government have gone behind SAVE's back and had their head turned. Not long ago the SS Government were glad-handing with SAVE on the African Oil Conference Stage and now see the Petronas assets as something they would like to own. How much can SAVE seriously invest in a asset they're never 100% sure they'll even own in a years time should the Government renationalise a year down the road. The Government are completely untrustworthy. It's not like they've even stated that if CalTech can't produce the money they would gladly accept SAVE as an alternative investor. It's like SAVE never existed. If AK wants to proceed now I would suggest he's lost his marbles. It's OVER ! It's a Dead Parrot ! It has ceased to be ! Read Full Thread Reply