Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
You never know, Til :-)
https://www.sudanspost.com/world-bank-pledges-to-back-south-sudans-financial-reforms/
Interesting PF, thanks for researching. Given the keeness that AIM seem to have for SAVE to relist, then one would think they could show some flexibility. For instance, if we signed an SPA for a new acquisition which would ordinarily result in a RTO, once we came back after acquiring SS (fingers crossed) then the likelihood is that the new enlarged company would no longer require an RTO for the new acquisition, so we could be back trading straightaway.
All conjecture but we have another 2 months to while away now so there's not much else to do :-)
Not sure of the answer to that PF. I'd imagine they need both, approvals from the varioul ministries plus the overall approval of the govt., but happy to be corrected. Either way, I do think that the extension shows that the powers that be (AIM, Nomad) have been convinced that the transaction still has a good chance of completing.
RR, for the AD doc. to be published I'm pretty sure that the finance workstream would need to be completed. You would have thought that any new timeframe given by SAVE i.e. 2nd April would include that as well. At some point I would expect the financiers will be satisfied that things can re-commence and that the end date reflects that.
My thought when I saw that included Noix, was that it was a simply a little more information for shareholders indicating that we won't see the AD until they have secured the in-country approvals. The update today was fine with with me. I know others want to recommence trading and have access to their cash, which is understandable, but I'm taking today's update to signify we are more likely than I'd thought previously to complete this transaction.
One of the senior reservoir engineers at GPOC messaged me last week to say he had just met a bunch of people who had introduced themselves as working for Savannah Energy in Juba. He didn't go into any details but does maybe sound as something is stirring at last.
RR, I've not come across any company that's been forced off by AIM. I've come across a couple of companies that have chosen to delist and go private, but both turned out to be frauds so I don't think that's a comparison worth making. I'm pretty sure AIM wouldn't force SAVE off just because they got fed up with waiting, if they knew that SAVE would immediately suspend for another reverse takeover.
I was just making the observation that forcing them to abandon the transaction might not achieve their aim of getting SAVE back trading if they just popped up with another reverse takeover. Even if we get another extension 1st Feb, hopefully we'll get some sort of an update that gives us more info. than we know at the moment.
RR,
just musing on your option 1 pull out or be forced out of the deal by 1/2/24
a) If AIM tell SAVE that they must complete by x date or they have to delist, then if there is still a good chance of completion but have not completed by x date, then delisting might well be the best option. For most people I would imagine that completion of SS deal pretty much derisks their investment here (obviously dependent on average buy in price and where the sp settles) so the delist option, whilst not great, might be better than just abandoning the deal because they couldn't meet AIMs date.
b) Given AK's stated objective of completing another acquistion by 2023, then If SAVE did pull out we could possibly just go straight into another reverse takeover situation if that is ready to announce. If that is the case then you can understand why SAVE want to complete the SS deal, no matter how long it takes. Not sure many of us would want them to pull out of the deal because of a demand by AIM just to go into suspension again.
Ah ok, thanks for the update RR, appreciated.
One other option I guess is to delist from AIM and carry on the deal as a private company, with a view to relisting at a later date, though that's not altogether desireable as listings are pretty expensive things in themselves. Hopefully we'll get some more clarity on 1st Feb.
If it goes on any longer there won't actually be any debt to incur! Not sure I'd agree with you on that RR as with these deals the govt. sign off generally comes well after the deal has been agreed between the 2 companies. With Accugas it was over a year later if memory is correct. If you are correct about AIM itself taking control and wanting to see significant progress by 1st Feb, then you'd hope that was something SAVE and the Nomad felt possible when agreeing to it.
Either way, we're just speculating to fill the time. Only 3 weeks left before we hopefully find something positive out!
Hopefully the fact that the last extension was only for an additional month and half rather than the obligatory 6 months suggests that they are close to finalising this one way or the other. Personally I'm comfortable with an additional extension if it means we get this across the line, but what I do not agree with is the total lack of communication on any aspect of the business. It'll certainly be an interesting next shareholder meeting either way.
Possibly TiL, but if the sticking point was signature payments then they'd just up those if they needed rather than increase the whole transaction price so the signature payments would increase. AK has always been clear that SAVE behaves in an ethically correct way (probably what cost us Chad) so it would be interesting to know what's going on behind the scenes, as I'm pretty sure SS are out for everything they can get. Doubt we'll ever find out though.
Til, that would only happen if the delay is actually a problem with Petronas rather than achieving the consent of the appropriate SS ministries. I think it's much more likely to be the latter in which case the acquisition price is immaterial imo
I'd agree with that TiL. I think most people understand the situation with SS but they certainly could keep us better informed on Niger and Accugas. The kpi for the debt revaluation was actually set in 2021 as a kpi for 2022, never mind 2023, so that's a spectacular fail by any reading. I'm sure there's valid reasons for this but they should be more upfront imo and explain the challenges rather than leaving it to us to get frustrated over the lack of closure.
The author replied to a query about the omission, so nothing sinister it appears. 'Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The article's focus was on the broader risks and opportunities surrounding Petronas' divestment in South Sudan, and regrettably, the specific transaction with Savannah Energy wasn't included. I appreciate the valuable information, and it emphasizes the dynamic nature of such developments. In future discussions or follow-up articles, I will certainly aim to provide a more comprehensive overview of specific transactions and their implications.'
Just check out the website
'In today’s RNS, the fraud Supply@ME Capital (SYME) has announced that it had secured funding for a “White-Label IM agreement: funding secured with Banco BPM S.p.A to execute an initial IM transaction”. The morons are delighted and the shares are up by 11% at 0.077p giving a £49 million market cap. The morons need to visit an Otolaryngologist PDQ as, if you scratch away beneath the surface this stinks.'
You have to subscribe to see any more but it's clear what he thinks.