Member Info for affc21

Mr B, thank you for the brokers note, it's appreciated...

Sounds very enticing walking in the Cantabrian hills, just don't surprise the locals (bears that is) :)
Enjoy

Regarding Savannah still paying employee wages and thereof coming to the conclusion (not 100% certain of this though) Savannah must still be getting the revenue via the oil liftings, That was my impression also TrustLie, but nice to see my thoughts posted by others who are more knowledgeable than myself.

Snap Mr B, that is what caught my eye also...

Thanks for the AI post TrustLie,

Two interesting points from the AI article:

1/ The salaries of the workers and managers of the former ExxonMobil subsidiary are being paid by Savannah, despite the nationalisation.

2/ and the firm is awaiting the outcome of arbitration launched last year at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) after a Chadian court decision of 14 December suspending the sale (AI, 05/04/23). A decision by the three appointed judges at ICC is expected next year.

Paul Griffith,
"Because we took a decision after MOU to say that we could spend a lot of time and money drilling a lot of wells in the block to prove up a very large volume of gas that would be not feasible in the current climate to continue raising money to prove up volume, bigger volume just didn't make sense. And the other problem is the more volume you prove up, the less attractive it becomes per BCF discovered gas and you could say well, why is that well, your only choice is to sell to the state that volume of gas gas to power and you will get a lower price and you will have to go into infrastructure and negotiate going into infrastructure. Alternatively, you could find an area that will prove up say for example, 40 BCF a net resources and you can sell that develop that is compressed natural gas with no fixed pipelines, set it to industry up to $16 in MCF and make money that way for 40 BCF we are estimating a price of about 150 to $200 million based on discounted NPV value at 10%. And that is saleable."

(Copied directly from the recorded transcript via Otter app)
As can be seen "say for example" is the important terminology here.

I will leave number 3 for someone else, sun is shining here and dog is demanding her daily 4 mile walk.
Keeps me fit...

And to your number 2:

Snippet from your post,
"2. G2P at 250MMcfgd. This requires 90 Bcf per year. May require up to 20 wells (not all will be successful!), 3D Seismic, plus connection to the Trans Maghreb Pipeline – assume capital cost of $300M. Provides sales of $810M pa, minus $81M royalty to PRD. I assume a 50% margin - i.e. net profit of $6/mcf. 10-yr NPV of $1450M for purchaser, $373M PRD."

By my maths,
$81m ÷ 422m (including PG's loaned shares) shares in issue = US $0.192 (cents)
= £0.154 (15.4p) per share, per annum.

Should add those figures/payments to the company would be per annum

Thank you Keith for your in-depth explanation and what the possible future payments to the company and ourselves as shareholders.

Snippet from your post:
"1. CNG at 50MMcfgd. This requires 18 Bcf per year. Low initial capital required, most of planning, drilling and customer identification already done, start up after one year. Margins, costs, etc., as in PRD presentation Sept 07 2022, pp 6 & 7. Purchaser gets net income of $137M pa, with a 10-yr NPV of $755M PRD gets $22M pa, with a 10-yr NPV of $121.5M."

By my maths,
$22m ÷ 422m (including PG's loaned shares) shares in issue = US $0.052 (cents)
= £0.042 (4.2p) per share

Very nice

Zengas,
"The 22,500 bopd from Exxon & Petronas at $60/b oil was to contribute $125m FCF for 2022 (or $5.55m FCF per 1k bopd).
Exxon FCF pipeline interest = $34.4m
Accugas before the new contracts kicked in = $81m."

Thanks for your pro-rata FCF valuation metric, very interesting...

They must be feeling short changed, lol
:)

Maths or lack of it :)

Sorry, there's more questions than answers there...

That's a good question TrustLie, I would presume that the institution's will have the clout to rubber stamp the SS transaction. Suppose it depends on the price of the asset, which has not officially been confirmed yet (just news articles to date).
Perhaps more to the point, as Zengas mentioned, the finance company may not sign the loan off, due to the present situation in Sudan, or if it does we will be paying a higher loan interest percentage due to the higher risk.
Or maybe we can get a loan directly from the seller of the asset (Petronas), as per the CC deal...

Was also thinking traders may have bought in for the podcast and are now selling out (they did not see that coming (confusing podcast) and for that matter neither did we).

Confusing strategy (which the market doesn't like at the moment, as per share price reaction this morning), but it still doesn't change the fundamentals (value) here, what it does potentially do is realise the higher value here in a shorter time period (but still can't help feeling we maybe short changed here in the speedier process, compared to what we were hopefully expected BCF/TCF wise).
Clarity?

Complete article with Thanks to MT on the other side:

General Circular put out by UK P&I Club for its member shipowners on the operational situation in Port Sudan as of Friday 20th:

'It is also encouraging to note from the update report that in Port of Sudan, shops are open, and people are going about their daily activities as usual, indicating that the local population is not unduly affected by any security concerns or other disruptions.

All roads and bridges in Port Sudan are currently open for transporting goods to and from the port, and load and discharge operations are continuing as usual in the port itself.

Furthermore, the oil terminal at Bashayer, an essential facility that handles Sudan's oil exports located near Port Sudan, is operating normally.

The recent update on the current situation in Port Sudan is positive news. However, despite the recent developments and as the conflict continues, we still encourage Members to remain vigilant and leverage local networks for up-to-date information to mitigate potential losses and ensure the safety of their assets.'

Exactly my thoughts also MEM, PG was using 40BCF as an example.
Nice explanation

World Bank South Sudan oil sector viewpoint:

"However, a modest economic recovery, recorded following the resumption of oil production, has been upended by historic floods and the COVID-19 pandemic. South Sudan’s economic outlook is now clouded by production bottlenecks in the oil sector, with production dwindling in the face of limited new investment, highlighting the need to diversify the economy."

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southsudan/overview
...........

Oil sector made up 80% (approx) of SS exports in 2021, as per below article:

"In 2021, South Sudan exported a total of $564M, making it the number 167 exporter in the world. During the last five reported years the exports of South Sudan have changed by -$916M from $1.48B in 2016 to $564M in 2021.
The most recent exports are led by Crude Petroleum ($455M), Refined Petroleum ($84.9M), Forage Crops ($9.75M), Onions ($2.1M), and Sheep and Goat Meat ($1.99M)."

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/ssd#:~:text=Yearly%20Trade,-%23permalink%20to%20section&text=The%20most%20recent%20exports%20are,Goat%20Meat%20(%241.99M).
................

Apparently South Sudan still has ongoing sanctions (due in part to the civil war?).

UK financial sanctions
USA individual persons sanctions
EU asset freeze and an arms embargo.

From various web based articles.