The key item to look out for, for me anyway, is the overall purchase price. The Exxon price was $372m plus $50m contingent on oil price, so will be keen to see how much that is reduced by given we effectively owned the asset from 1/1/2021.
I think Zengas posted some calculations he made a while back.
The 10 day rule relates to the admission to trading of the new enlarged asset. For the 7 deal the schedule one was issued on the 30th April, along with the submission document. However the shares were not re-admitted to trading till 15th May, 10 working days later.
Thanks Sajy. That suggests to me that we'll also need to get a schedule one for the Petronas asset if the intention is to submit one admission document for both entities. So 10 days after that would be the logical assumption for completion.
Ha ha, I personally think that's unlikely but can always be hopeful :-) A lot depends on how much we end up paying. If the market is pleasantly surprised at how little we end up paying then who knows. Hopefully the oil has been flowing without too much disruption. The press updates on the amount of oil travelling through the pipeline seem positive so , given we were over 40p in June then I don't think it's impossible 50p could be hit if the deal closure is financially positive. I'm just a bit more cautious by nature so settling in the 40's assuming no other updates would be ok with me.
Well I'm hoping Agadem is correct and we get near the IPO price at 56p. It's almost impossible to second guess the market so a nice pre-Xmas closing of the deal and anything over 50p for me would be a nice way to close off the year. Have a good USA trip :-)
Thanks Zengas, appreciate you posting all these articles for us. Hopefully sense will prevail and they wrap this up. I assume we won't be hearing anything on new acquisitions in the meantime, but a new Accugas contract would at least be something to perk the sp up, he said wishfully ;-)
Usually that's true where the responsibility lies with the company to deliver. This is slightly different in that, as far as we know, nothing is in Savannah's remit and they are just having to wait for Exxon and Chad to resolve the issues. Even if this doesn't come off, we probably shouldn't drop much anyway as we were about 19p before the acquisitions were announced, and we have added a number of new Accugas contracts since then. Ak, in his last interview late September, said he hoped to announce new hydrocarbon acquisitions within the month, so if CC doesn't come off I'm sure we'll hear details on those immediately afterwards. Till then it's just a case of gritting the teeth and waiting it out.
They have actually shown Abrdn as a reduction of 1.7m shares since their last update on 12th October. Including that reduction the overall change is a net decrease of 1.36m since 12th October which is pretty insignificant. Not clear on why there is a discrepancy between the RNS and the reported holding unless it is simply an internal transfer of some sort and the sp has been dropping for some other reason such as general AIM inertia.
On the last Vox market interview end of Sept AK said 'We've been very active about looking at hydrocarbon acquisition opportunities, so I'd be hopeful that we'll be able to announce other transactions over the course of the coming month'
Obviously that has extended, presumably because of the CC delay, but with the new entity being set up this month, hopefully it's an indication that things can't be too far off.
MansuMasa, the outstanding issues are in effect part of the sale agreement. If the govt. don't agree the terms of departure with Exxon then the sale doesn't go ahead, so if Chad want a new operator who will increase production (and hence their revenue) through various upside activities then it is in their interests to agree the deal. Not sure what you are expecting Savannah to have done in relation to this that is not already in the terms of the contract?
The reported exit fees are a drop in the ocean, with Exxon reportedly willing to offer $15m whereas the govt. want $30m. Compared to the profits they will have made it's not a consideration. I imagine the main sticking point is the principle of paying a non-contractual payment which could impact other divestments.
The longstop date (1 year from the signing of the SPA with Exxon/petronas - RNS'd on the 13th December 2021) is the date either party can pull out if certain conditions/obligations have not been satisfied.
From the Admission document
'2.1.6 As mentioned in Part 2 of this document, the Exxon (same applies to the Petronas SPA) SPA provides that each of Savannah Chad and the Exxon Sellers are under a reasonable endeavours obligation to satisfy (or waive) the
various conditions precedent by the Exxon Longstop Date:
(a) obtaining Ministerial Consent
etc
So I guess 13th December could be the hard stop date when Exxon & Petronas have to decide on whether to pay the termination bonus or scrap the deal, assuming the govt. won't negotiate. Either that or agree an extension with Savannah. We should get some info. around that date either way I would imagine.
So could Savannah claim that
Looks like Hubrishunter has had their account deleted or have removed it themselves as the username is no longer searchable. More irritatingly some of the associated threads have been removed. Oh well, back to the tedious waiting game.
Though you are suggesting that the information posted by SAVE on their website is unreliable? To be honest, not sure anyone is that bothered about the numbers anyway, it's just indicative, and we can all make of it what we will according to individual preferences.