The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
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.
There are currently 2 arbitration cases in play that I have come across:
1) Savannah Midstream Investment Limited v. Republic of Chad
Nature of the proceedings: International
Type of case: Commercial Arbitration
Industry: Energy - Oil & Gas Exploration, extraction and production (upstream)
Date of introduction: 24 July 2023
Status of the case: Pending
Institution: ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)
Rules of arbitration: ICC Arbitration Rules 2021
Seat of arbitration: Paris
Applicable law: Cameroon
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-savannah-midstream-investment-limited-v-republic-of-chad-introduction-of-the-case-monday-24th-july-2023?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dsavannah%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den
2) SHT Overseas Petroleum Limited v. Savannah Chad Inc.
Nature of the proceedings: International
Type of case: Commercial Arbitration
Industry: Energy - Oil & Gas
Date of introduction: 2023
Status of the case: Unknown
Claimant’s country of origin: Bermuda
Respondent's country of origin: Bahamas
Institution: Data not available
Seat of arbitration: London
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-sht-overseas-petroleum-limited-v-savannah-chad-inc-introduction-of-the-case-sunday-1st-january-2023?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dsavannah%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den
I'm not sure but isn't the ICC COTCo issue maybe seperate from the ICC Doba fields/TOTCo assets ie 2 ICC cases rather than the first one back in January 2023 ?.
Either way i just accept it as part and parcel of SAVE keeping track of where all the oil goes never mind any government assets owned outside Chad (if any) that can be intercepted. It was Cairn who were able to seize India airlines outside the country in their dispute. Not saying Chad has that but there may be other assets to go for and not just oil payments/transportation fees down the road.
Anyway with only another 7 days approx to go for interims, we'll get some indication of how South Sudan will be progressing given the expected adm date was also the end of the month.
Out of interest - Q1 2023 Nigeria performance was $71m up 29% on Q1 2022 - so will be interesting to see if an overall improvement to end of June (Q2 ). This would have covered all the gas contracts bar the Amocon contract for 3rd party gas that started around 31st May 2023 or barely 1month if included in invoiced sales.
Just smeddyo sharing another of his original posts on Save, lol.
🤔
Thanks noix. Would be surprised if there was any reason for that date to be incorrect but if AK does a Q&A at the interims he might share that with us if asked, even though they'll probably be pressing the 'No Chad questions' line.
Having seen that 2025 date for the ICC decision, I gave the ICC a call this morning to try and get some news but unfortunately the case is not in the public domain and hence the only two parties privy to information are Savannah and the Republic of Chad.
What is interesting is the way the tone of the Chad press and the comments on sociall media including the Ministry of Petroleum FaceBook page are growing increasingly questioning and critical. When they announced the Nationalisation the press and social media were very much positive and congratulatory. Will be interesting to see how things progress from here.
Yes, agree TiL, that would be the ideal scenario. Don't know if anyone has any knowledge of that, Zengas maybe?
It's hard to tell as we don't know how which accounts the doba oil field revenues are credited into. We know all of pipeline revenue for all shareholders go into the citi bank account in gabon more or less. The reason this ruling might aggravate the chad politicians is because we could have locked them out of even the pipeline share they bought from Petronas so effectively they only have access to the revenues generated by the actual oil being sold.
But it wouldn't surprise me if the doba oil revenues are also paid into this citi bank gabon account in which case if the freeze on cotco account stands than they are truly screwed until a decision at ICC as the account is only going to process salaries and payment to suppliers, but the dividend / profits they were looking to loot could be locked for now until Arbitration is complete.
The grand question is what is the banking structure for doba oil field revenue is it conjoined into the pipeline accounts or is it separate if it's the same account as the pipeline than that's an even bigger bonus and can see a grand panic amongst the chad politicians and piles the pressure on them as this will cause a major uproar in the chad media amongst the public
Under normal circumstances I agree, but remember these are basically a bunch of crooks belonging to the military junta. My thinking is that they'll try and squirrel as much money as possible into personal bank accounts and string the arbitration out for as long as they can. There are elections in the next couple of years so wouldn't be surprised for them to diasppear into the night with as much cash as they can muster some time before then.
Good to see Savannah Doing positive things in host communities, hopefully there is plenty of good will in Nigeria to pick up other assets
https://punchng.com/group-unveils-internship-programme/
Komakino - a settlement is the only sensible outcome for all parties here
1) they accept our ownership and let us be operators
2) they buyout out stake with some compensation on top for loss of earning during the nationalisation period.
3) if they lose and they get locked out of Cotco funds than it will be a damning asset of chad political regime.
A follow up article in Ialtchad. It's quite lomng and covers a lot of the same ground but has an interesting bit about what they see would happen in the unlikely event of Savannah losing the arbitration:
'Four, if Savannah loses the COTCO trial, Chad will not win it. Indeed, if the arbitration chamber accedes to the argument developed by Chad of non-compliance by ESSO and Savannah with the procedure for purging the right of pre-emption of the other members of the Consortium (probably plausible hypothesis), the unenforceability of the status of shareholder of Savannah cannot have the consequence of vesting Chad with the right of ownership over the disputed fraction representing 41.06% of the capital of COTCO. Indeed, a “Chadian domestic law (law on the nationalization of petroleum assets)” cannot have “foreign effect to authorize an application to property falling under the jurisdiction of another State, in this case that of Cameroon in this regard. which concerns the rights in the capital of COTCO? ". The pre-arbitral award of July 28 clearly states this. The unenforceability or pure and simple cancellation of the Esso/Savannah transfer of COTCO assets will have the effect of restoring the parties to the state they were in before the contested transaction. The possible rejection of Savannah's status as a shareholder will result in the automatic reattribution of ownership of the shares to ESSO, which was supposed to have never sold them. What can Chad and its entire “task force” do against ESSO on the capital shares of a company governed by Cameroonian law? Nothing, except to obtain that Paul BIYA orders their nationalization for the benefit of Cameroon followed by a transfer agreement by Cameroon for the benefit of Chad. It is not forbidden to dream, but reality remains implacable.
Five, reason would advise, better, would like the Chadian sovereign and the eminence of his “task force” to put their pride, pride and flag in their pockets in order to negotiate a transaction with Savannah and/or Esso, relating to global compensation for settlement of all accounts, subject to voluntary withdrawal of all proceedings in progress and likely to arise for the same facts between the same parties. This is to avoid adding to the financial torment, that of a soap opera of humiliation of the country. There are circumstances where, as Honoré de Balzac said, “a bad settlement is better than a good trial”. The strategic, legal and financial quagmire into which the “task force” has plunged the country demands and imposes it.'
https://ialtchad-com.translate.goog/index.php/details/item/2970-la-saga-cotco-le-tchad-au-supplice?fbclid=IwAR3ORyHH4QTfEi_c6AnT5E7NIAZknMSGt0zKDRe5-EdXS4V3AV5fkpaaaEc&_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Olderwiser - highly doubt it it’s not like Exxon have been paid in full for the asset
I wonder if certain well connected people inside Exxon knew what was likely to come in Chad down the road and were more than willing to set up Save as a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter, so to speak. Funny how Exxon got out just in time.
But before then a bit of boring background reading:-
Sudan army chief warns war could spill over into neighbours https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66885859
Love these nails being knocked into their own coffin. Sally’s team are all over this stuff like a rash and feeding to all relevant attorneys. Never known a team to score as many own goals.
There will be a long way to go here but all this stuff can only help in the long run.
Was a bit surprised to read about the June 2025 date but having said that, my last call with IR inferred that it was going to take a bit longer than the original 12 to 18 months we were told from March 2023.
Lol, how gullible to they think the chadian people are?
PRESS RELEASE The Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Energy wishes to inform national and international opinion that contrary to the false allegations. devoid of any basis and distilled on social networks concerning the decision of the American judge who would have frozen the COTCO court. However, it is not. No assets have been frozen and this alleged decision will have no impact on COTCO Chad's account.
The Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Energy reassures national and international opinion that it is Chad which rather blocked the sharing of the June 2022 dividends by leaving a margin for salary pay.
In or., what Savannah does not know, Citibank-Gabon is a subsidiary of Citigroup and not a branch of Citibank. Consequently, its relations with its clients are subject to Gabonese laws, courts and tribunals.
Moreover, the misuse of the procedure before the American judge employed by Savannah to win her case did not obtain the expected result.
From all of the above, the Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Energy considers that this decision by the American judge in no way begins the process of nationalization of the assets of the Doba oil fields previously held by ESSO Chad.
Done in N'Djamena on 21 Sfir M23
The Press Officer
Djegolbe KODE
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=222952527457018&set=a.147110481707890
President of SS in New York this week for UN. Giving his address. Interesting speech
https://x.com/southsudangov/status/1704902013924815195?s=46&t=bdVeLrGB139mDog1SFRNlw
Also It could be mean that Savannah may have found a gap in the interpretation of what a subsidiary is and have got citi bank back peddling as it may also expose how they trade in other countries................
Indeed noix, and Savannah put forward a number of pieces of evidence that showed Gabon was indeed linked and controlled by Citibank, which the judge obviously agreed with. I'm only guessing that this is their bone of contention, hence the appeal, as the notification of appeal does not include the reasoning behind it. Presumably that will be published at some point in the future.
Https://www.citigroup.com/global
Scroll down to the bottom and click on "Global presence."
Scroll down half way and click on "F -K"
Click on "F-K" and then click on Gabon.
Konakino - agreed I believe they don’t want to the Gabon branch to be viewed as a subsidiary and this ruling could open a can of worms if they have similar corporate structures in other countries. If litigation and binding ruling comes for entities in similar structures then citi bank May feel that it could leave them over exposed where they have similar structure when operating in other countries. They don’t want the ruling to set a dangerous precedent that decision made by courts and entities that trade under citi bank name in such territories are tied to the group.
It could also open up a wider pool of questions on how banks have trading entities in countries and how are they classified are there subsidiaries of the group or are they under under some complicated corporate structure why protects the group from liability
Well it could be they have had some pressure put on them by COTCO or, more likely in my opinion, they take exception to the ruling which has in effect linked the Gabon subsidiary to Citibank NA. They argued that Gabon was set up as a public limited company and was a separate legal entity to Citibank NA. I imagine they have all sorts of reasons for setting it up in that way so the ruling probably causes them other issues other than those directly related to this case.