London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
US to remove Uganda and three other African countries from Agoa trade deal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-67236251
Komakino - I am just assuming that is it a fools game by Petronas and Savannah or are their background assurances we will never know until official one way or another..................
It wouldn't surprise me one bit what the government say in public and what they agree in private are 2 different things.
Which is one of the very reason's why I believe the Caltech saga was designed to do as there is greater pressure in the political realms in South Sudan to either nationalise the asset or achieve the best possible deal possible, we know that they don't have the capabilities to run operations and nationalise the asset, so the only remaining option being a deal but is there a genuine party willing to match or better our deal only time will tell. Putting out press releases such as Caltech saga allows the government to at least say that they explored viable alternatives and none bearing fruit they progressed with the only deal on table etc...................
I think Chad was different in that there was a one month time limit by which, if approval wasn't explicitly denied by the govt., then approval was deemed to have been given, so Save and Exxon could complete the purchase legally (obviously to be decided by the arbitration panel).
This is obviously not the case here and so I think what TiL is saying is plausible, though obviously with the Caltech affair, there are probably no certainties with the SS govt. either. Still, Save and Petronas are still pursuing this so you would like to think they still believe there is a good chance of completing.
“It would be illogical to think that for 10 months Petronas and Savannah have been completing those milestones on pure word of mouth basis and the South Sudan government have just being a spectator for the last 10 months only to hinge on a yes or no for them…….In summary the point I am making is are Petronas and Savannah foolish to do all this work for 10 months without any tangible progress and continue to do so….”
But isn’t that exactly what happened with Chad ?
I hope SS will be different but until we hear from SAVE or there is a leak we can only second guess because we (investors) are always kept in the dark due to the processes involved.
Soder - One would think after the whole Caltech saga which was about 5 to 6 weeks ago the Savannah, Petronas and Government of South Sudan would have had a frank conversation to say are all parties still in or out, and considering we haven't heard anything since and Rocky's update seems like everyone is still working as if the deal is still on.
In terms of the deal progress and approvals, it's hard to tell as every deal is bespoke and works differently. But one would imagine at each stage there are progress, milestones and checkpoints for all parties Petronas, Savannah, and government of South Sudan. We know that Petronas and Savannah being the sellers and buyers would be hitting those however one would imagine that the government of South Sudan must being also hitting those checkpoints or completion tasks from their side as well to still keep Petronas and Savannah still at the table.
It would be illogical to think that for 10 months Petronas and Savannah have been completing those milestones on pure word of mouth basis and the South Sudan government have just being a spectator for the last 10 months only to hinge on a yes or no for them, one would hope that no deal is structured in such a way.
In summary the point I am making is are Petronas and Savannah foolish to do all this work for 10 months without any tangible progress and continue to do so or have they started to get binding assurance at each stage of the deal over the last 10 months thus allowing them to progress to the next stage each time. Obviously we know the final approval is always the main approval from the government.
World Bank warns oil prices could reach $150 a barrel https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67267719
Given we announced signing of the South Sudan SPA on 12 December I would think the 15 December date given in the last update represents the official termination/long stop date under the SPA.
The long stop date is a hard date in the SPA which I would think they estimated 12 months for regulatory and govermnent approval. If the transaction is not completed within 12 months then both parties can walk away without penalty. Obviously that date can be extended if both parties agree but at some point we would need to agree with Petronas if there is any point going on. We can’t just sit and wait forever. And neither can they.
I wonder why we started to try and buy it at n Jan 21 if the SS Gov announced in 2020 that they intended to nationalise their oil in 2027?
Anyway, good that the Gov have been over to China / CNPC to discuss their backtracking on Nationalising and PSC extensions beyond 2027.
Great that we have CNPC fighting for extension for themselves and by default for ourselves.
Am not certain but I think Arrow have to wait until February 24 (which gets them into the 4 year window of current PSC ending) before they can extend their PSC in Columbia beyond 2028.
Maybe it’s different country by country but we are now within the 4 year window of CNPC’s PSC ending in SS in 2027.
God knows how long these things can take but am sure we will find out in due course.
At least SS seem determined to increase production beyond 250kboed and if that’s to happen they need to extend PSC’s and keep CNPC, the other company and ourselves onside.
*it's, not *its.
The longer this goes on, the more I suspect that extension of the operating licences beyond the remain three-ish years (I believe) is likely to be a key outstanding issue.
Do any oil-industry people on here have experience in the remaining timeframes at the point when these things are extended? Operators are hardly likely to push the financial envelope on capex if they believe its the end of their tour of duty.
Rockyride - Personally we have come to the end of October already and on the surface it looks like we are probably in the same position as end of June, July and September deadlines. I don't believe the final 2 weeks i.e the first 2 weeks of the December deadline will see meaningful progress so if we don't have news either via the company or we don't start to hear via publicly available news sources in the next 4 weeks i.e by the end of November than it would be safe to assume we are in the same position. With every chance of the deal going into next year.
Although saying this i hope the company keeps us appraised on debt restructure and Niger and everything else amongst the deal extensions........
Rocky - I am sure if you send an email you may get an out of office with an alternative contact that you could link into in any case let's hope we are in the realms of completion or edging ever closer towards it...............
As ever do keep us appraised as and when you manage to link in or get updates from IR.....
TiL - great post and even more exciting for us if we close the deal. Only 6 weeks on Friday until the “on or before 15th December 2023” date. But being brutally honest I think the dates put out by SAVE are best guess dates and not specifically tied in to work streams ‘completed dates’. You never know what’s going on in the background with the SS Gov and Calltech / Russia or other. Was hoping for catch up on a call with my contact at IR but they’re on extended leave until 27th November.
Interesting comments and production update by Nilepet MD on current production
Dar Petroleum Operating Company (DPOC) Block 3/7 - 40% Petronas Share = Current Production = 104,000 * 40% = Petronas Net Share = 41,600 bopd
Greater Pioneer Operating Company (GPOC) Block 1, 2 and 4 - 30% Petronas Share = Current Production = 50,000 * 30% = Petronas Net Share = 15,000 bopd
Sudd Petroleum Operating Company (SPOC) Block 5A - 67.9% Petronas Share = Current Production = 10,000 - 16,000 * 67.9% = Petronas Net Share = 6,790 - 10,185 bopd
If these figures are as the NIlepet MD says than our net share of total production for these assets on Completion could be in the range of 63,390 - 66,785 BOPD likely production profile on completion of 60-70K Bopd. The average for the year may be lower in 2022 and 2023. Due to periodic interruption in production and operational challenges but not a bad if on completion we continue to produce at the said levels and material enhance the production post acquisition if or when we take operatorship.
Production Profile of the company post acquisition in the next 12 months if things go our way:
1) Current Production 25,000 BOPD, we can easily add 10,000 bopd once the CPF facility completes next year and bring accugas closer to 35,000 Bopd.
2) Petronas South Sudan Acquisition - 63,390 - 66,785 BOPD, easily get to 90K+ post acquisition
3) Niger start up production circa 5,000 Bopd
4) Unlikely but if we reach a settlement on DOBA oil fields and get our 40% share of the 30,000 bopd that DOBA field produces adds another 12,000 BOPD
Granted we need a lot of things to go our way but it's easy to see why we are not willing to walk away from the Petronas South Sudan deal easily until the government formally reject our deal and hence we are happy to continue the stalemate. As the success case is probably worth the wait if the South Sudan deal does come through than it catapults the company overnight into being a 100,000 bopd company.
Seems to me that South Sudan is not ready for nationalisation so the only option would be to extend the PSC beyond 2027.
CNPC, ONGC, Petronas or Savannah would never commit to investment in licences until government formally and legally grant an extension through a revised production sharing agreements and not just word of mouth.
Interesting interview from Nilepet MD on eye radio. Watch from 3 mins onwards he touches on nationalisation and says that they are not ready etc……
https://fb.watch/nZVNEPIP1q/
https://www.eyeradio.org/amuor-urges-parliament-to-ensure-nilepet-independence/?fbclid=IwAR02ZfGlzQKr1qPbhFqYZiEljBvPwP9qkpffZhos_-wp9qraOlx6Lnyk9sQ_aem_AXdAZHI4BhHORj8cr98KBfUZyvXaSApLJA5-BiMJvoh6g6l_5sUy53Ynkzi_araqVY8
Yes, sorry, just saw that it was registered at the same address with Savannah in the name, but looking at the officers it's obviously not. Unless Ak has branched out into care work ;-)
The company has got nothing to do with savannah energy
Can we be certain that this latest company is related to SAVE. The two names listed for this company, one is listed as a care worker and the other is a business owner.
My understanding is that 40 bank Street is a sky scraper with numerous companies based there.
Could this just be merely a coincidence ? Obviously I hope not but I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/15228140/officers
K - I wonder if something REALLY big is going on (AK does not do small things) and SAVE could possibly spring a really nice surprise on us. Maybe I’m dreaming and wishful thinking but you never know.
Now let’s get this bloody debt refinanced as a starter for 10…
Must be confident of continued growth if they are setting their own company up for this
SAVANNAH STAFFING SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Private limited company
15228140 - Incorporated on 23 October 2023
40 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom E14 5NR
SIC codes - 78109, 78200
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/15228140
Definitely see this reaching a conclusion much sooner than the icc arbitration. where it’s currently at seems like no one is winner with funds frozen. So I would think a resolution will have to be reached pretty soon.
Have feeling we end up with Chad assets now
Savannah+ SS + CHAD!! Can we start dreaming big again?? Fingers crossed. I know its been a pretty brutal market for all regardless of whether you are in bonds, equities, property etc so we could all do with some good news.
I find the below quote interesting in the article ‘ but also a nationalisation of Chadian oil that would not go as well as he had promised.’
Clearly the chad nationalisation is not going as hoped and clearly there are issues:
1) is it because they are likely to lose at icc arbitration ?
2) is it because there is a real risk of long term asset seizures and frozen funds has led to nervousness ?
3) are they having operational issues at DOBA fields affecting production it is not easy to become an operator overnight without experience of operating oil fields?
I believe over the next few days, weeks and months will be interesting to see how this unfolds……..
It is clear that the current stance around all the icc arbitration and nationalisation of assets is not going to be sustainable to continue and if it was there was no need to sack the last minister.
So the question is what is the new plan ? Will it be positive for savannah ? Surely it can’t be any more against than it currently is as they have nationalised the asset already which is the worst case scenario so it can only move towards a more positive outcome ?
Definitely on the new minister agenda…..
https://www.rfi.fr/fr/afrique/20231027-tchad-les-dessous-du-limogeage-du-ministre-des-hydrocarbures-et-de-l-énergie?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=x&utm_source=user
Chad: the underside of the dismissal of the Minister of Hydrocarbons and Energy
The Chadian transitional president, Mahamat Idriss Déby, appointed, on Friday, October 27, a new Minister of Hydrocarbons and Energy: Alixe Naïmbaye Ndolenodji, several times minister already at the time of Idriss Déby. She replaces Djerassem Le Bemadjiel in this position. Back to the underside of his dismissal.
The transitional president had promised, on the day of his inauguration on October 10, 2022, that "y by January 2023, energy production capacity will be tripled in the city of Ndjamena", under the perks of his public, before making it known that this "will make it possible to meet current, but also future needs".
The promise was not kept, on the contrary: electricity production has fallen sharply since then, because of technical problems, to the great displeasure of the Ndjaménois. Enough to make Mahamat Idriss Déby look red, who threatened, during the Council of Ministers on Friday, October 27, to "take all his responsibilities" in the face of these "repetitive shortcomings on the eternal energy issue", according to the official report of the government spokesman.
The cleaver fell a few hours later, with the signing of a decree dismissing Djerassem Le Bemadjiel in the early evening. "The president felt it was his fault and he thanked him," explains a high-ranking source. "But that's not the only reason," she adds. She mentions in particular problems of embezzlement, very bad relations with the big boss of the National Electricity Company (SNE), but also a nationalisation of Chadian oil that would no
I personally feel the chad government were willing to back the old minister in nationalising perhaps believing it was the right call at the time and would probably bear fruit, with the risk of losing ICC cases and potential frozen asset until the case is resolved which could still be 18 months away and a case which would like go in Savannah favour. Could they now be willing to come to some sort of an arrangement much sooner, let's see......................
I think in the first instance they may be willing to accept Savannah shareholding in the midstream business and pipeline as that was always considered a stretch to far and plus they don't have total jurisdiction over pipeline, that may be the first point to sort out so at least all partners are able to access the dividends / funds generated by the pipeline equivalent to their shareholding which I believe are frozen at the moment apart from paying salaries and suppliers........
Whether they are than willing to come to the negotiation table on the nationalised doba oil fields in chad or perhaps a settlement in terms of a payment to Exxon / Savannah or the unlikely scenario of accepting savannah as operators of the doba oil field.
I believe 2 separate issues but both would be on the new minister agenda especially with the backdrop of pending ICC cases.
I for one still believe that out of court settlement is the best way out for chad, either they pay up and officially takeover the doba oil field giving savannah and exxon a clean break or they handover operatorship to savannah. Judging by the fact that the hydrocarbon minister was sacked this week deliberations on the topic are definitely happening in the background and clearly there must be views amongst the political elite in chad in regards to what their next step is one which avoids a potential ruling against them well before ICC hands it's official verdict. Perhaps through their lawyers they must have already gauged probability of success in their favour and the advice they must have received isthat it's strongly weighted in the favour of savannah, let's hope whatever the outcome it bears fruit for savannah which ever way the dart lands.
Chad definitely looks like it's back in play in terms of news front and we perhaps may not need to wait 18 months for an ICC outcome....... ..........