Member Info for TrustILie

Soder - I agree although Perenco is a private company so it's room to do back door shady deals is far greater than any public listed company, so yes and no I would say but my wish is that Petronas don't sell to Perenco or SHT, frustrate them for 18 months to 2 years and than by that point Perenco would lose interest and move on and we can strike another SPA for Petronas stake in Doba

What didn't help Savannah in my honest opinion is when Savannah struck the deal the chad president was alive so at the point of striking the deal I am sure they had positive dialogue, it's unfortunate that the president died during the deal period and in africa once the head of state dies, it's a chance for power grab and different agendas being played out. I think that's something is purely timing and not something i can blame andrew on just a case of pure bad timing.

If I was to read between the lines in the negotiations the chad ministry clearly knew they were not going to get the $160m so if they felt that they had legal grounds they would have clearly restricted the sale much earlier through the courts, I believe there current ask to the courts is just optics and bite rather than any material substance, possibly know they will probably settle and move on if Perenco end up with Petronas 30% stake in Doba which seems like the most possible outcome now. Let's face it SHT being funded so they can exercise their pre-emptive rights is basically a back door entry for Perenco to buy the assets

Zengas - $160m that is criminal and ridiculous ask clearly some wants to pocket big time, and here is me thinking that Exxon wanted to pay nothing. Exxon clearly prepared to pay $20 - $25 m which seems reasonable. I hope that Exxon don't buckle up and I hope that Petronas no play hardball and don't sell to SHT or Perenco. Don't think any legal courts would argue that $160m is a reasonable settlement so I believe I am confident that the Exxon element of the deal seems more or less watertight as courts would have a hard time justifying this as well especially when there was no such contractual obligation. Clearly Perenco had their eye on Exxon and Petronas stake in Doba although I believe that they will now end up with the Petronas stake in Doba especially if SHT is being funded by the Perenco they will exercise their pre-emptive rights, I hope now Petronas frustrate them in turn and if they can't sell their stake to us they simply hold on for a few more years.

Agreed Tier, we will have to be patient but I for one am totally on board with AK strategy, I always said I want us to get to 100k bopd production company inorganically and then start to optimise assets. I believe Niger will only unlock in time for pipeline completion which makes sense no point in using temporary transport facilities for production when the pipeline will be ready in next 12 months. I think the only thing that people will find slightly frustrating is the debt re-finance but I am hoping that will be done swiftly after south sudan closure.

One positive thing is Africa Energy Chamber (AEC) have been supportive of our strategy and keep on positively endorsing our acquisitions. The law of averages hopefully mean's that even if we go for 5 for example we should be able to successfully land at least 2. So I think AK being aggressive can be a good thing as there will come a point where all the mature assets will start to dwindle and if majors don't invest to keep up production the fields will reach the end of life so african countries have a choice to either let independents like savannah in where they can still exploit their resources or call it a day on oil and gas resources.

Don't think Pereneco have any such influence, I believe the only reason that they had swift sign off is because Glencore paid circa $30 million dollars to people in government when there was no obligation to do so seen as a bribe. Glencore have been caught up in bribery scandals so I could understand why Exxon and Petronas have been hesitant in paying exit bonus as it was not contractual in can be seen as a bribe to pay off and move things swifly.

What's interesting is that they have the president and the energy minister and the director of their state owned company as speakers the event is June 2023, So I would imagine they would want to go into that with actual evidence that they are creating a investment friendly environment, so If you are looking to market other licences what better way than to provide us with timely sign off.

https://www.southsudanoilpower.com/speakers-2023/#speakers

Looks like I feel slightly at ease with South Sudan deal as I am sure they must have got an indication of what the ministry need to move this deal forward for formal sign off. But seems like South Sudan wants to make it attract for new investment and what better way than to demonstrate it than providing a speedy approval for our deal with Petronas.

https://energycapitalpower.com/south-sudan-oil-power-is-where-energy-deals-are-made-in-2023/#:~:text=In%20recent%20months%2C%20South%20Sudan,Energy's%20investment%20in%20the%20country.

Seems to me that the the Petronas Chad deal could be because of Cemac council approval, I am guessing the competition had issues with us taking on both the exxon interest alongside petronas and hence it created some nervousness........ As for the Chad Exxon deal I believe optics are being played and it's more a political spin, as per broker note they would have liaised with chad authorities all the time whilst transitioning so seems illogical for them to come out now, it makes me think as I said it african politics truth is framed as a lie and a lie is framed as a truth, so it could just be a way of different fractions of government playing politics to say we agreed to disagree.

All will be forgiven if we can successfully deliver Perronas I hope when announcing the SPA for South Sudan they have a sense of what the south Sudanese government need to satisfy their needs and I hope petronas play ball this time if they are serious about divesting from Africa they will have to at some point meet demands of host governments otherwise they can never leave plain and simple I would imagine there must be positive dialogue for them to execute another SPA otherwise it starts to look like a circus with constant SPA execution and terminations. If successful out enlarged company will be big enough and be 100k bopd plus and then we can easily pursue other acquisitions which can replace the potential loader from petronas chad interest without suspension

If you take a step back and think about it, we all knew last week the long stop date was 13th December and the Exxon and Petronas transaction were independent. We had a completion on Exxon last week to meet the 13th December for the Exxon part of deal but the termination for Petronas today as it was an independent transaction and also subject to long stop date of 13th December. Then announce Petronas South Sudan deal seems far to convienent to me. The Petronas chad termination is independent of the news coming out of chad on Exxon completion they were already aware last week that the long stop date was not going to be achieved and henced had already decided to terminate that transaction and announce to the market today at closing of longstop date timeline fits if you look objectively

I believe that we have closed Exxon acquisition as per all our legal requirements and contracts we would have had our legal advisors Bracewell who are a very experienced law firm advising us on Chadian law but also international arbitration law not to mention the added security of Exxon and there legal team who would obviously want to do things by the book without having a bad reputation. The revenues have started to effectively flow our way and the only thing that can stop it is a full halt of oil production from chad fields but also a full halt of pipeline which in my opinion seems far fetched as it impacts their coffers too. So we may never get the chad government to officially come out and say that they have signed of the transaction and it's something that will always be as is sometimes it can be used as a political spin in government especially when there is a split government to oppose what you agreed on to make it seem like the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth, that's just the nature of african politcs. I believe this will be the blueprint of all african asset divestments the government will never publicly admit sign offs it wouldn't surprise me if south sudan is the same, but this is not just for us I believe all divestures now in africa will be done based on contractual obligations and legal possibility whether the host governements want to approve or not so we will have to always live with this. As long as we don't have a Force majeure (lit. superior force, with the sense of overwhelming force, from French[1][2]) is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic or sudden legal changes prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.

Keep calm and carry on....................................

None of the main credible outlets have reported it so my guess is it could be someone trying to discredit Savannah. Remember Lekoil ceo in the past has tried to use the same outlet to say that negative things about Chad deal. So until we get confirmation from Company or more credible news outlets report the same I would be cautious all the more we are suspended as during the period I am sure this will be cleared up for the better or worse.

challenge with African assets is it's never plain sailing ever there is always an element of doubt but hopefully it's just optics rather than them being able to stop operatorship, either way they would not like to stop operatorship as exxon have exited and if they halt us they lose out massively on revenues.

It seems like the chad ministry may be ****ed that they didn't get the required exit fees, and somehow we would have completed the deal through a legal bypass, I am sure we would have got legal advice but it would still be good to get confirmation from savannah that it's water tight and we have nothing to worry about

Agadem - If you havent had your call with IR could you ask about the below as well. Seems like Chad are contesting completion, it would be good to get confirmation that there is none re-course

https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/606034782/chad-vigorously-contests-savannah-energy-plc-s-purported-completed-acquisition-of-esso-s-petroleum-assets-in-chad

Agadem - I would quite like it to open below 30p so I could grab a ton and than it can re-rate quickly after. ;)

Personally I think they have mentioned H1 2022 to be conservative. But judging by Chad / Cameroon timelines, I would expected resumption to be swift i.e the admission document should more or less be ready just going through reviews etc etc, I would expect an admission document at least by the end of December or at least first couple of weeks of Jan, as you only sign an SPA if you have everything lined up i.e how the transaction will be funded etc etc, so they would have all the funding details and the terms of the transaction as that when only both parties sign NDA, so my guess is the admission document is not far off and will be with us shortly to put things into perspective please see below timeline of chad from the point SPA was released.

3th Dec 2021 4:34 pm RNS SPAs Signed with Exxon Mobil and PETRONAS
13th Dec 2021 4:30 pm RNS SPA Signed with PETRONAS (E&P) Overseas Ventures

Admission Document and restoration was 3 weeks or so

31st Dec 2021 7:30 am RNS Restoration - Savannah Energy PLC
31st Dec 2021 7:00 am RNS Admission Document & Restoration to Trading

and general meeting was 3 weeks later

24th Jan 2022 4:56 pm RNS Result of General Meeting and Total Voting Rights

I think they mention H1 2022 as that's the whole timeline i.e they expect the transaction to be completed and settled by 30th June 2023. Considering that we are not operators of the assets, the operation on the ground legwork is minimal like we had with CHAD/Cameroon to integrate IT infrastructure etc etc. So I can see us being suspended for too long like we were for Chad/Cameroon. When we suspended for chad cameroon we were not even at SPA, SPA came six month later. which was part of the reason why we were suspended for longer.

on the plus side this is the last RTO as after we will be big enough and even if we were to pursue more acquisitions in the future they would be smaller than our enlarged capital.