Savannah Energy Share Chat (SAVE)

Getting the resolution approved is one thing, but the Courts have to ultimately approve it. And they are mindful to defend creditors ranking above equity holders. So why bother doing this if a court blocks

it. Some people on this board speak about SAVE’s liabilities with Exxon as the reason for this. The courts would see thru this. So why try in the first place?

I will scan the new Articles of Association to see if anything ties in with Res 14.

Thank you MP. Yes, I agree, plus the fact that he is dealing in divestitures in tricky jurisdiction that major oil companies dislike for obvious reasons.

I was writing whilst the kids were talking to me.

Chad has already admitted they are liable. There is an element of infrastructure carve out in SAVE’s favour. And AK’s legal team closed the deal based on 60 day timeframe in which CHAD ** decided to remain silent during 60 day period ** hence running the clock down for an explicit block**. Simply said, an inaction by Chad caused the approval action. Chad did not publish a reasoned opposition ** And then Chad tried to run over the Long Stop date with various delaying tactics, and in combo to gaining a simple majority stake in Cotco and booting out the SAVE directors off the board (the preemption rights over the Petronas 29.7% stake)

WM, thanks for posting this detail. Like you, I tend to think SAVE have a strong case at the ICC, and I see multiple ways an award can be structured. This is not priced in at 7p so we should see an upward move. But I think that will still leave a problem at the company, namely AK. He appears to have come off the o&G desk at Merrill, where I don't doubt he was a good stock picker, thinking he would clean up at the sharp end of the business. It appears to me his relationships were with the majors who wanted to shed holdings, and has no insight or contacts in the host governments. Time and again he seems to have been ill-informed and then wrong-footed. I assume he didn't expect the Chad nationalisation, seemed to waste a long time and a lot of money finding out S Sudan were not serious about a deal, is taking a long time to sort out the Nigeria issues ( not to mention the accounting issues ), and is now floundering in Niger. Some checkmates you might put down to bad luck. But when you're a consistent loser, you have to ask yourself if you're in the right game. The shareprice tells you what the market thinks.

Chad’s own documentary record before the ICC arbitrator includes an admission that compensation is owed under its own nationalisation law.

Savannah’s position is good because the jurisdiction arises from a hard commercial arbitration clause embedded in the COTCO Bylaws (Article 50), which all shareholders signed. The Emergency Arbitrator confirmed jurisdiction over Chad and SHT within days. There is no “is this investment-protected?” argument to run. The gateway is already open. Like hard coded commercial trade agreements.

The Venezuela nationalisation and country bankruptcy with numerous claimants in the balance sheet waterfall (pitting against each other for a better result) is not the same as Chad and SAVE. Vz had OFAC and US sanctions. Foreign assets are ring fenced (eg Citgo and BOE holding Vz Gold). Vz refused the international legal system.

Post ICC ruling, SAVE can seize pipeline revenues flowing through correspondent banking in Paris or New York, or pursuing COTCO distributions via Cameroon. The pipeline tariff revenues are a target. And other avenues. I say a 50% haircut is possible and multiple years to recover + interest. Anything above then great.

Chad has already admitted they are liable. There is an element of infrastructure carve out in SAVE’s favour. And AK’s legal team closed the deal based on 60 day timeframe in which decided to remain silent during hence running the clock down for a block. Simply an inaction caused the approval action. Chad did not published a reasoned opposition. Chad tried to run over the Long Stop date with various tactics and in combo to gaining a majority stake in Cotco and booting out SAVE directors off the board (the preemption rights over the Petronas 29.7% stake)

ICC documents 2023: See section 38 & 39

-38. Under the terms of Convention 1 and "in accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum Code," the rights and obligations resulting from Convention 1 could not be assigned, in part or in whole, except in the case of assignments to affiliated companies, "without the prior approval of the Chad Ministry." In the absence of a "reasoned opposition" by the Ministry within 60 days of notification of the draft assignment accompanied by the draft certificate of assignment, the assignment "will be deemed to have been approved by the Ministry" (Article 30-1 of Convention 1 – Exhibit R-2).

-39. Furthermore, if a member of the Consortium were to change ownership, i.e., the company member of the Consortium changes or its control changes as a result of a change in its shareholding, said member was required to submit this change or any draft change to "the prior approval of the Ministry" (Articles 30-3 and 36-5 of Convention 1 – R-2). If no "reasoned opposition" has been notified within 60 days of notification of any proposed change to the Ministry, the change will be deemed to be approved (ibid.).

At the July 4, 2023 COTCO board meeting convened by Chad itself, the board passed a resolution stating: “The shares held by EPIL in COTCO therefore fall within the scope of nationalization. It is appropriate to transfer to [TPC SA], at the request of Chad, the shares held by EPIL in COTCO, subject to Chad paying any compensation due to EEPCI and/or EPIL in accordance with the nationalization law.”

Chad’s nationalization law (Law No. 003/PT/2023 of 31 March 2023) itself contains compensation language — and the board resolution explicitly cross-references it.

Hi MudPump,

my guess would be that when an ICC ruling drops Exxon are going to want closure on the "Chad affair". Their loan repayment terms/dates certainly suggest this. If there is a "Justice for Savannah" campaign in months/years ahead I don't think that they are going to be interested in tagging along.

The possibility that Chad might be willing to shuffle assets around in some sort of quid pro quo arrangement to achieve their goals with whomever their preferred partners are is a good point.

The big question would then be "Do Savannah feature in those plans". If not their massive indebtedness to Exxon with a looming deadline means they could be squeezed until the pips squeak along the way to bringing the arbitration to a close.

The only way that they could regain some agency would be take out a loan to pay off the Exxon loan. Is this connected with the proposal to cancel the "Share Premium Reserve"?

Hxu, you're assuming that Chad want to keep 100% of Doba. That isn't a requirement of the 'Algerian Resource Nationalism' model that Chad have been inspired by, it requires they invest money they don't have, and we know that they approached Sonagol, and possibly Sonatrach, to offer some sort of participation. Other players don't want to get involved with arbitration ruling hanging over the asset, but some percentage of Doba could satisfy any ruling payout demand, either with Savannah getting the Doba share, or receiving payment from a third party for the share. No need for that arrangement to take long following the ruling.

Re the Chad arbitration my guess would be that best case SAVE end up with little or nothing, worst case they lose and/or Exxon trigger an end game.

In 2022 Savannah paid $407m to Exxon for the Chad assets partially funded by a $170m loan from Exxon. There was early and vocal opposition from Chad but in a high risk maneuver probably premised on the idea "possession is nine-tenths of the law" AK swashbuckled the deal through to a forced conclusion. The Chadians responded by nationalising the assets at gun point.

My guess would be that the ICC will not be sympathetic to Chad nationalisation of the assets but also not be sympathetic to SAVE for disregarding national concerns and imposing themselves 'persona non grata' on Chad. I'd guess that the ICC would require Chad to refund to SAVE with interest what they paid say $450-500m.

I know some fantasize that asset seizures could be used to coerce a settlement of awards (there have been unusual instances where this has worked). Asset seizures though should they come to pass are years away and take years to play out. For context in 2007 the Venezuelan Chávez regime nationalised foreign oil interests. Subsequently $50bn was claimed. International courts awarded $15bn. Two decades later about $2.3bn has been recovered. If companies with the resources of USA multinationals can't recover awards from a counterparty on their own door step I'm sceptical that a cash strapped SAVE faced with a counterparty that is the country equivalent of a vagrant living in an underpass would have much luck going down that route.

So does Chad file the ICC ruling in the "Projects that don't matter" drawer?

At this point SAVE probably owe Exxon $150m+ on the $170m financing loan. The loan maturity is Jan 2027. There were provisions where it could be brought forward to June 2026. Exxon have charges on the entities that would be in receipt of any awards. SAVE aren't going to be paid a CENT until Exxon are paid in FULL. In addition Exxon have partial recourse to the loan from SAVE ( $37m, see AR 2024 pg. 84). If Exxon called it in it would simply be deducted from whatever is eventually recovered by the entities in receipt of any award proceeds.

In the normal course of events Chad can't afford to pay anything let alone making themselves a target for litigation with a full and prompt payment. So although the ICC decision is final and can't be appealed (at the ICC) the normal play would be to kick the can down the road/keep Savannah tied up in other court proceedings for years to come.

HOWEVER if Chad had any desire to be seen as 'good citizens' they have been GIFTED the perfect opportunity to weaponize the precautions taken by Exxon to protect their own interests. If I was Chad I'd offer SAVE a haircut that equated to making Exxon whole. If the choice is not get paid or throw SAVE under a bus I guess Exxon would take the bus option.

Ingalls and Snyder are included under the now 68% insider held shares (not in public hands) on company website rather than within the II’s numbers . Anyone know who the beneficiary is there? They have been quietly absorbing c.10-20mn shares per month for last 6 months or so?

I expect there will be a broad update RNS from save.l soon enough. And I believe staying patiently calm until the contents of that has been absorbed remains a reasonable idea.

PS: Towards balance to sundry negativity here - and I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but also offer that it's currently guess work whether such negative sentiment is save.l future valid - I can see plenty of potential bottom line improvement drivers thru 2026 that might underpin a meaningful s/p upswing here from soon enough forward.......

imho & dyor

Yes, it is an absolute shocker. Might be worth getting a consortium together and approach it from a different angle. Get a larger SH on board and call an EGM. Thinking about possibilities right now. Will speak to a corporate lawyer.

Shows all the signs of a 'strategic review' ie break up of the random conglomerate. Nipco/Accugas, with Nipco majority ownership, would emerge as a focused company with potential. The rest sold off, and AK ( who seems to have been the mug in every deal) out of active management. I can't see any other logical path, with the exception of a deal with Chad - regaining 40% of Doba might turn things around.

WelshMusk,

I emailed them a number of times with specific questions that i asked initially back in February this year. I got no reply and followed up via Camarco in early March who did reply but found it totally unsatisfactory and to date i am none the wiser. Between Feb and early March the investor presentation from Q1 2025 was taken off the website yet all the other bumpfh remains (United Nations goals, climate statement, sustainability taskforce review, accounting standards report review) so there's little to go on for new investors or even existing ones that didn't keep a copy of the presentation.

I tell you one thing they don't like being told what a bunch of inept areosols they are on getting their priorities straight !

Thank you, will take a look at the links you provided. Hard to know what is going on.

PKF can approve the 2025 accounts with a qualified statement on the 2025 opening balances (which relies on 2024). Or approve them outright with a clean opinion if they are satisfied with the new internal controls and evidence provided. Under audit ISA 510 PKF will request BDO’s paperwork with SAVE’s consent and perhaps did an exhaustive opening balance check on main points like receivables, cash at hand etc. They can qualify 2025 and work towards a clean sign off. This still allows SAVE to remain listed. The opening balance 2025 va closing balance of 2024.

WM

I don't know. I feel the receivables negotiations may be part of the accounts issue but seriously idk.

Save set up 3 subsidiary companies towards the end of 2025 and whatever else is going on has a strategic investment from NIPCO. There's been no indication what that translates to but NIPCO is expanding Nationwide so undoubtedly would mean they take more gas (from either us or others). Their owner was focussed on expanding their energy interests across Africa (Does that include power plants indirectly in Nigeria ? given SAVE has to complete on the 3 Hydros belonging to the Norwegian fund and 3 other plants in a separate deal that were under negotiation).

Save were owed about $12.5m here (Akwa Ibom) at the end of 2023 and i wonder if this worsened or improved but it was only a small fraction relative to the wider legacy debt. Could we become a partner to the state ie part ownership re the following 3 stories ?

This story re the sacking of the Ibom Power plant CEO and features a lot re Savannah/Accugas.

https://businessday.ng/opinion/article/the-untold-story-of-the-sacking-of-ibom-powers-chief-executive/

19th March 2026.

The Akwa Ibom State Government has denied reports that it plans to sell Ibom Power Company.

The government says the administration of Governor Umo Eno is instead focused on repaying legacy debts and repositioning the firm through power sector reforms.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/865250-akwa-ibom-denies-plan-to-sell-its-power-plant.html

Savannah carried out an audit on Akwa Ibom Power plant ( maybe an audit for a potential state sale ?)

Published on April 17, 2026

https://dailypost.ng/2026/04/17/akwa-iboms-power-sector-in-crisis-as-audit-dispute-deepens/

Separately, there's been about 10 companies this year (including Chinese and a couple of steelworks moving off grid) obtaining licences to generate their own power. Accugas obtained a licence (perhaps for the plant at Uquo ? or more ?).

Meanwhile, 7th May 2026 Aliko Dangote has announced -

https://businessday.ng/energy/article/dangote-unveils-ambitious-plan-for-20000mw-power-project/

Again in Nigeria are we in for any oil/gas assets from the NUPRC licence round (50 blocks) and the numerous divestment assets on offer from NNPC with reportedly a minimum 25% stake. NIPCOs goal was also to acquire oil/gas assets for its previously set up E&P arm or will this now be satisfied with its current 30% stake in SAVE ?

As regards an operational update and two things that were indicated in the last mention - have we moved the SC oil production significantly higher from circa 3/3.2k bopd last quarter which was the aim in a faster facility upgrade (although not to fully reach the targeted 4.7k bopd). Status of Uqo dev drill and explo well leading to reserves if any ?

I'm still looking for $200m of receivables settlement in due course and the positive outcome of the Chad arbitration.

Beyond that - Niger - yes or no or what ?

Despite managements well worn (and based on experience - highly unreliable) caveat "The company CURRENTLY EXPECTS to release its 2025 annual report and accounts in June" IMO it is clear that they perceive a distinct possibility that this will not happen (or if it does it depends on passing resolution 14).

Holding an AGM without presenting audited accounts is HIGHLY unusual and SAVE are now doing it two years in a row.

There are two problems for those who fancifully hope that resolution 14 is there to facilitate a payout. 1) the company have said "The Share Premium Cancellation will not, of itself, involve any distribution or return of capital to any Shareholder" and 2) a cancellation can be done at any time so there is no point in counting chickens before they hatch.

The big question is what does resolution 14 enable in the short term / the month of June?

Do PKF have a preconditon to endorsing the 2025 accounts that in a post year event the balance sheet is in a position to take a large impairment ?

I don't know but it seems highly unusual possibly verging on desperate.

Frankly if I presided over a court where SAVE applied to have their 'Share Premium Reserve' cancelled I'd chase them if the last auditor approved accounts they could produce were for the period ending Dec 2023 (I suspect this is what the "The Directors reserve the right to abandon or discontinue any application to the Court for confirmation of the Share Premium Cancellation" is there for ). Maybe with PKF's assistance and an oath written blood from the directors they can cobble together something that will fly.

The RNS on the 8th of May stated “The Company currently expects to release its 2025 annual report and accounts in June 2026. Approval of the 2025 annual report and accounts will, therefore, take place at a separate general meeting which will be held in Q3 2026.” For AIM listing purposes, can we safely assume that presenting the 2025 accounts and their subsequent approval in a Q3 GM is enough to override the 2024 accounts? PKF has been on the case since late last year and they have Nigerian presence (as in retained to do the audit work). For the internal controls SAVE has 2 key hires and both ex auditors (one has a non compete ending now in June). And PKF will be formally voted in as their Auditor in this GM in a few days. What are your general thoughts Zengas? Sally Marshak if you are reading this, can you tell us when the last arbitration hearing is? Is this being done over Zoom or is the team traveling to say Paris for these? Any dates we could know about?

We had a spike to 10p ish at the end of February and just afterwards Zengas informed us that Ingalls and Snyder had increased their holding.

The price has declined to this 7p ish range for some time and I believe it possible that failing a big seller they are matching trades for them in this 7p area.

But I suppose in the final analysis it matters not, we are still awaiting an update and more particularly news on receivables and arbitration.

Shouldn't demand for 15 million put the price up? - supply must be huge!

Possibly more to do with NIPCO acquiring their final 15 million shares.

Che7win

The delayed accounts of 2024 and resignation of BDO were tied to the Nigerian operations. Here's an AI summary:

"According to disclosures from BDO, the breakdown in internal financial controls is heavily concentrated within Savannah's Nigerian business operations (which include its midstream asset Accugas and various oil/gas fields). The specific control failures identified include:Management Override of Controls: Upper-level management actively bypassed standard authorization and governance mechanisms.Policy Breaches: Discovered breaches of internal guidelines concerning contract management and how corporate payments were officially recorded.Supplier Onboarding Inconsistencies: Processes used to vet, approve, and onboard new operational suppliers were applied inconsistently.Foreign Exchange Transactions: Controls surrounding cross-border currency exchanges were flawed and inconsistently executed."

Even though the Chad resolution will be material I don't see why it would delay the accounts, it simply has to be noted.

The delay around the accounts is largely tied to the ongoing Chad arbitration, which is a major issue for the company and something the auditors can’t ignore. Because the potential outcome could materially change Savannah’s financial position, the auditors need clarity before they can sign anything off. It’s not ideal, but it’s also not automatically negative — if anything, it reflects how significant the case could be for Savannah if the ruling goes in their favour. Once that’s resolved, the accounts can be finalised properly and the picture should become much clearer.

I dout it

(.. Ahead of the 1st June AGM..)

I'll GUESS we get one mid ish this week.. and I very much hope said update will provide the basis for a decent summer s/p rally here....

Bid / ask spread for this stock is truly ridiculous - and if you put in an order somewhere in between many platforms don't seem to enter it because it is deemed too far away from the posted bid or offer levels... how can this be?

B cause U, like the rest of us, are a serious risk taker?

Sometimes such BETS come in... sometimes they go -very even - badly.... The loss/gain only realised after the position is sold down/out...

This still has a sporting chance of rising from the ashes thru 2026 - eg bagging to 14 p+ -...so here's hoping..

(Of course it may not, I also understand.. such is the nature of betting)

imho & dyor

Y did i put my money here

With Chad settlement due anytime and shareprice at 7p, must be a compelling risk/reward. Nipco and others are in at 7p so must be a solid backstop....

My point was that, due to the total lack of newsflow, we're back at the price that they made the previous buy-back. Assuming there is no hideous disaster they haven't bothered to tell us about, hopefully they'll take advantage of the weak price ( having partly caused it, including by failing to dispel fear of yet another suspension related to the accounts) to at least take some shares out of circulation, using the authority they were previously granted.

MudPump

I don't want to turn this into a tennis match but surely it all depends on the Company's financial situation.

If they are suddenly cash rich then all bets are off, or is it on :)

Noix,

Coming out of suspension at 26p, SAVE made a significant placing at 7p - the justification being that it wanted to get Nipco on board with the implication that would have business benefits ( not so far apparent). Generally speaking I suspect most holders expected the re-listing price to be higher than this. To soften the blow the company said it would also buy back shares at 7p, thereby keeping dilution at this level to a minimum. Subsequently the company cancelled that buyback. Later, the company made a smaller buyback at 6.8p.

That all suggests to me that the company would be happy to be able to buy back more shares below 7p, but would struggle to justify the issue at 7p if buying back above that level.

Here's one I made earlier:)

https://investors.fever-tree.com/regulatory-news/422

Re " It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to give them a massive cheque in the short term "

On the contrary, we do have Nigerian receivables due and an arbitration decision pending.

Whilst a favourable arbitration award would unlikely bring an immediate payment, who knows what is being negotiated outside of the courtroom.

We could indeed receive a large cheque from our Nigerian friends.

I get the impression that you would be disappointed if the above two scenarios materialised.

The cancellation of the Share premium reserve might be good or it might be bad. I don't know which. Two things that I'm definitely baffled about.

1) Why ?

Given that Savannah has large distributable reserves such as retained earnings (whatever about liquidity/cash) why does it need to bolster them with a canceled share premium reserve ?

- Speculating that it was because a massive cheque was about to land on their doorstep would seem like nonsense. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to give them a massive cheque in the short term and even if they did why not wait until there was an evident need?

- are the existing distributable reserves likely to be hit by some upcoming impairment or asset transfer ?

2) Why now?

A cancellation of a share premium reserve can be done at any time. Why it is being done before the publication of audited acccounts which would be best practice? Why is it being done in advance of a potential suspension ?

The timing smacks of a 'get something done before the shutters come down' event.

With the distrust I now have for the company, I’d rather have a GM called for the share premium resolution if, at the same time, they propose some sort of distribution back to shareholders.

I also agree that holding it in Scotland only adds to my distrust.

At 30th June 2025 distributable reserves amounted to $244m, assuming breakeven in the year ended 30th June 2026 the total distributable reserves will amount to $420m after cancellation of the $176m share premium. A significant sum for dividends/buyback.

A pessimistic view is that negative retained earnings in the year ended 30th June 2026 has significantly eroded the $244m, and future dividends/buybacks will rely on the cancellation of the share premium.

Zengas is alluding to the more optimistic possibility of a significant dividend/buyback using cash generated from extraordinary events.

The timing may be a coincidence, but the resolution requires 75% plus support so the AGM is the logical time to propose the resolution.

As all Directors must sign a solvency statement declaring the company is solvent and able to pay its debts, I am more optimistic than pessimistic on the reasons for including the resolution.

I guess it's possibly linked Zengas but it's not explicitly connected. Savannah wanting to increase distributable reserves so it has more flexibility for dividends, buybacks, or broader corporate purposes is a standard capital-structure move, and of course they have mentioned buybacks and dividends in the past. If there is a link though then it would be welcome for sure!

Any thoughts on this as we near the Chad outcome and possible receivables resolution.

'Resolution 14 – To approve the cancellation of the Share Premium Account

As at 7 May 2026, being the latest practicable date prior to publication of this Notice, the Company’s Share Premium Account

showed a balance of approximately US$176,797,318. This account represents the excess amount received over the nominal value

of the Company’s Ordinary Shares, which is £0.001 per share. The Share Premium Account is a non-distributable reserve for the

purposes of the Act, meaning that it has limited applications and cannot, for example, be used to fund share buybacks or pay

dividends. The Company may only fund share buybacks (subject to limited exceptions) or pay dividends out of distributable reserves.

Accordingly, the Company is proposing to cancel the entirety of the Share Premium Account in order to create further

distributable reserves to support: (i) future share buybacks; (ii) the future payment by the Company of dividends to its

Shareholders (in each case should circumstances decide it appropriate or desirable to do so); and (iii) other corporate purposes

of the Company.

The Share Premium Cancellation will not, of itself, involve any distribution or return of capital to any Shareholder and will not

reduce the Company’s underlying assets.

On completion of the Share Premium Cancellation, the Company’s Share Premium Account will be cancelled and, subject to the

Court being satisfied with the Company’s approach to creditors as outlined below, the entire amount resulting from such

cancellation will be applied to the Company’s distributable reserves.

The completion of the Share Premium Cancellation will not affect the rights attaching to the Ordinary Shares and will not result

in any change to the number of Ordinary Shares in issue (or their nominal value).

In addition to the approval by the Shareholders of resolution 14, the Share Premium Cancellation requires the approval of the

Court. Accordingly, following the AGM, an application will be made to the Court in order to confirm and seek approval for the

Share Premium Cancellation. The Court will be concerned to ensure that the interests of the Company’s creditors as at the

Effective Date are not prejudiced.

The Directors reserve the right to abandon or discontinue any application to the Court for confirmation of the Share Premium

Cancellation if the Directors believe that the terms required to obtain approval are unsatisfactory to the Company or if, as the

result of a material unforeseen event, the Directors consider that to continue with the Share Premium Cancellation would be

inappropriate or inadvisable.

The Company will in due course advise Shareholders of the anticipated timetable for the Share Premium Cancellation'

Hxul. Good point. Why hold the AGM at the start of June - if you expect to have the accounts ready to approve by the end of June which could be included in the AGM ? Seen it before. Get the capital raise business approved at the AGM while avoiding a ruck by promising shareholders accounts by the normal due date a month later - only for them not to appear - but at least you've sorted the other business. Usual spivy behaviour we've come to expect.

Hi Komakino,

I would have said that given last years 2024 YE accounts DEBACLE (the auditor resigned having disclaimed the results) it was more important than ever that shareholders be provided with reassurance in the form of timely accounts endorsed by an auditor that the company is a going concern.

As is it looks like management are laying the groundwork for at least the possibility of the non appearance of the accounts.

If a suspension is on the horizon in the later half of June this leaves shareholders with a dilemma. Post a suspension at that time if the company fails to file accounts by the end of year they will probably be de listed. Subsequent to that, whether or when SAVE shareholders will be able to access their investment funds will become an unknown. If a window of opportunity is closing do they stay or do they go?

Long suffering shareholders don't deserve this. If it comes about of all the factors that management could or could not control this one was 100% within their domain and if it does I might think that there was method to the madness.

I also note that where all recent previous AGM's have been held in London the next one is at the offices of Burness Paull LLP, Edinburgh ?

Disappointing the AGM is in Edinburgh. I was hoping to attend but it's not even an option.

Well they haven't been suspended so far for late reporting Hx ;-)

With the exception of 2019 accounts all of the other years were published by 7th July so not quite the shambolic situation you infer. Of course I'm sure you will argue that this is pattern is consistent with a broader operational, governance, or reporting-control weakness etc. which is a fair enough argument to make.

In any normal company the first item on an AGM agenda is the proposed acceptance of the annual accounts.

In a repeat of last year this will not happen at SAVE "The Company currently EXPECTS to release its 2025 annual report and accounts in June 2026. Approval of the 2025 annual report and accounts will, therefore, take place at a separate general meeting which will be held in Q3 2026" (last year the separate meeting never happened AFAIK).

Pathetically SAVE haven't met the regulatory 6 month YE accounts deadline since those for YE 2018. Maybe shareholders take comfort from the fact that this is lamentably par for the course at SAVE. However this year management are totally devoid of all fig leafs and have ZERO excuse for not producing timely accounts.

Are they going to miss the end of June deadline and be suspended ?

I should have clarified that Savannah should have a DLP when it comes to market making. A contractual agreement to provide liquidity and reduce the average spread.

PS Such a RNS being issued well into Q2 should allow him offer - if he wants to - a pretty accurate forward view on trading in q2 too.. and maybe a bit beyond that as well ..

I expect he'll bundle the 'job lot' into a trading update and that RNS will - hopefully - be issued sometime in May.

I note that there was a Q1 trading update on May 19th last year

Off the back of that Trading Update RNS, I would hope/expect that he does Q&A /Retail Inv coffee morning/etc.. such like..

Market Makers are just trying to make a market, and in the deafening silence of SAVEs PR output that's probably extremely difficult. No idea why they didn't RNS the appointment of PKF as auditor. It was significant when BDO resigned and issues with audit sign off, so you would have thought that the appointment was a news worthy enough event that at least provided a crumb of comfort.

Also what is the role of the appointed corporate brokers/market makers with bid offer spreads in excess of 10%, yes 1,000 basis points for the avoidance of doubt. I know these are AIM listed stocks main drawbacks. What is the point of a lazy market maker? Enter into a more formal relationship with them

The NIPCO/Accugas combination makes a lot of sense, with the chance to get some new gas blocks in the current licence round, the commissioning of the AKK pipeline adding to gas demand and the fact that Nioco have customers that actually pay for the gas. Not sure what value AK personally adds to the jv going forward. His opportunistic acquisition strategy is in tatters, and the renewables an unfocused mess where SAVE never get beyond 'studies'. Maybe something can be salvaged from the Chad debacle, if not it will be time to break up the 'AND' company and send AK back to fund management.

It seems SAVE eclectic mix of oil/gas/renewable & upstream/midstream/downstream means they're off a lot of stock watchers radars. All my Oil and Gas Cos have have seen decent rises - even where not warranted as mostly hedged production. I'm imagining most people don't quite know what SAVE is these days. It does still have 3.5-4 kbopd so not insignificant. Deafening silence on any ops updates. Hopefully they'll manage to get a set of Financials out in time this year.

Re. Chad, oil minister changed again, now Acyl (previous one went to Trade & Industry, so presumably still has influence.....attended the Paris hearings and has been working to increase foreign investment, which nationalisation hasn't helped). Perenco doesn't seem to want to get more involved following nationalisation and Sonagol apparently turned it down. A week or so ago Acyl was in Algeria, came away with some promises of downstream investment, and technical help but seems Sonatrach don't want to touch Doba. Interestingly Algerian resource nationalism was the model for Chad in Deby's eyes 20 years ago....but that calls for minimum 51% ownership, not 100% ( recently the mining law accepts national ownership as low as 20%). By taking over the Petronas share Chad fulfill that aim with 60% minimum, so perhaps the best way forward is for Savannah to get the Exxon 40% after all in return for some guaranteed investment to get production rising and maybe a revival of the solar project. Better for Chad than losing inward investment and paying compensation, while Doba production would continue to fall.

Thanks, noix

RNS 4th February:

Arbitration Update

Our wholly owned subsidiary, SCI, commenced arbitral proceedings in 2023 against the Government of the Republic of Chad in response to the March 2023 nationalisation of SCI's rights in the Doba fields in Chad, and other breaches of SCI's rights. Another wholly owned subsidiary, SMIL, commenced arbitral proceedings in 2023 in relation to the nationalisation of its investment in TOTCo, the Chadian company which owns and operates the section of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline located in Chad. SMIL has also commenced arbitral and other legal proceedings for breaches of SMIL's rights in relation to COTCo, the Cameroon company which owns and operates the section of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline located in Cameroon. We currently expect these arbitral proceedings to be concluded in the first half of 2026.

SCI and SMIL are claiming in excess of US$775 million (plus interest which is currently estimated at in excess of US$215 million and costs) for the nationalisation of their rights and assets in Chad.4 SMIL has a claim valued at approximately US$330 million (plus interest which is currently estimated at in excess of US$67 million plus costs) for breaches of its rights in relation to COTCo.5 Whilst the Government of the Republic of Chad has acknowledged SCI's and SMIL's right to compensation, no compensation has been paid by the Government of the Republic of Chad to date. Savannah remains ready and willing to discuss with the Government of the Republic of Chad an amicable solution to the disputes. However, in the absence of such discussions, SCI and SMIL intend to vigorously pursue their rights in the arbitrations.

It seems like everything is on hold here pending the Chad compensation claim. Is there any recent guidance on when this might appear?

Well spotted Investor 81 :)

I/we should read the whole rns.

The difference in the two totals I listed earlier is of course 15,069,980.

Last year we has a first qtr update on 19th May, which is 2 weeks from next Monday.

Is this good nrws or bad... i just want the share price to rise instead of stagnating

Exacly

You mean like SEE?

What rubbish

Companies House update on the cancellation of shares. Procedural.

17 Apr 2026 Cancellation of shares. Statement of capital on 20 March 2026

GBP 2,088,590.594

This document is being processed and will be available in 10 days.

As a reminder Uyi Akpata — a former PwC partner who joined as Board Advisor from 1 January 2026, subject to a two-year FRC cooling-off period before becoming a Non-Executive Director on 1 July 2026 (having retired from PwC on 30 June 2024). His presence as a senior ex-Big 4 audit partner sitting on the governance side of Savannah is significant — he brings credibility to the Audit Committee’s oversight function and would be a natural bridge to any incoming auditor.

Taken together — Akpata (ex-PwC) on the Board side.

They specifically make emphasis on deep knowledge of :

“decommissioning, IFRS 9: financial instruments, mainly debt related; IFRS 15 – revenue accounting; Expected credit losses; impairment triggers; depletion in an Oil and gas industry; control reviews for ICFR.”

The IFRS 9 is to deal with the ECL issue (receivables)

SAVE is looking for a senior Financial Controller with 15 years experience to deal amongst many things with external auditors and internal auditing based in Nigeria.

“https://careers.savannah-energy.com/job/Victoria-Island-Financial-Controller-LA/1349017055/“

Other jobs posted too

I meant AK not AC below ... apols.

(My focus is currently more on other O&Ger's in my p/f than this.... one of those is run by a chap called Andrea Cattaneo.. it one of a fair few pretty high risk o&g bets I have in play....and it with 2026 arbitration outcome a potential game changer too)

There seems to me to still a good chunk of shares held by institutional investors here BurlingtonBerty and I'm not expecting 'all asset managers' to sell out here, or anything remotely like?!

I paste major II shareholdings from the companies website here ( last updated a few weeks ago )

Ingalls & Snyder LLC 267,060,540 12.94%

Cavendish Fiduciary (Jersey) Limited 205,701,993 9.85%

Perpetual Limited/JO Hambro Capital Management Limited 107,166,247 5.13%

Standard Life plc (formerly Phoenix Group Holdings plc) 74,925,123 3.59%

Generally, while some II's may sell down/out as we go from here forward, I'd hope others would buy in as we go from here forward .. especially if/when AC can enhance the bottom line here thru 2026 - via back dated receivables payments, arbitration proceeds, more timely/complete payments for gas delivered going forward ..etc - seeing this become a more desirable share for II's and PI's generally to hold (I hope)

imho & dyor

Frustration with a capital F is the only description for this share. I feel your pain - however I do know that there has been one consistent seller since Christmas on the order book. Increasing volume and positive share price moves make me believe this is a jack in the box stock. Just remember AK bought a chunk at 8p and a shed load at 7p, I fully understand that Instos have lost faith in him only to be replaced by investors who see an opportunity. Once all Asset managers have excited and there are very few left, then I struggle to see where the supply comes from. Sources tell me that there is dwindling supply....fingers crossed DYOR etc...Good luck Savers.

Naughty naughty...very naughty

Ha ha ha ha ha haaaa

Hes a good, hes a good....