Member Info for ZENGAS

Where's all the let's just stick to Niger advocates ? Nigeria please no !

Covid, pipeline delay, no sales outlet, domestic sales to refinery not fully paid to Chinese.

Spend all our capital raisings on building reserves and still months away from production.

Wake up to Coup - Bad incompetent management, no other assets /diversification- change pants (2-3 pairs).

To all those advocates against diversification, (particularly when we had non recourse debt financing in our favour re risk) and that we should just have stayed in and developed Niger - are now the same worriers over the present Niger coup. Today's your answer on that strategy if you think the situation in Niger is as bad as you think !

Has anybody read or listened to the military statement on the coup.

"We reaffirm our commitment to respecting all the commitments made by Niger. We reassure the National and International community that the physical and moral integrity of the deposed authorities will be respected."

I don't see any change to what Save are doing and intend to do. Fully expecting it to be normal business for the country to function and continue to grow its prosperity under different leadership (if it lasts).

Just looked at AIM listed Hummingbird resources who have their main assets in Mali and Guinea that have BOTH been the subject of very recent military coups (and previous). Business as usual, gold output unaffected, mines developed, revenue as was expected and share price growth this past year regardless of coup impacts. Perfectly normal for borders to be closed to prevent outside interference which could possibly make matters worse. 'Current' President Bazzoum had them closed a number of times against Nigeria to stop smuggling and much consternation about local community and wider inter country trade.

The main concern is getting South Sudan over the line for me.

Niger at a full 5,000 bopd would be less than 7% of total revenue on S.Sudan completion along with Nigeria. It's unlikely to reach that until later in 2024 when connections are made etc as first phase was to go beyond 1500 bopd. At the agm there was no guide on new exploration until self funding or a partner so was hoping news on new exploration by mid 2024.

Prior to year end at least one new hydrocarbon asset to be announced and as yet size/location unknown.

Trustilie - when i mentioned the possibility of closing the valuation gap by possibly a future joint listing on the NYSE to replicate a value more closely to the likes of Kosmos and those across the pond - i was thinking of a timescale within 24 months.

I honestly think the renewables division will be missed by many and undervaluing SAVE as a whole as well - so like MEN, Shell and others it would not surprise me to see a spin off in the future where it's value would grow with a seperate listing and SAVE being a major holder and cash recieved as well from an IPO into the oil/gas divsion. With so much in the pipeline for the renewables division an ipo spin off would give much greater value in the medium term.

Peter Levines Molecular Energies PLC (formerly President Energy - prior to this he floated Imperial Energy in 2005 from under £20m and sold for £1.4b in 2008) last month is also considering spinning out it's renewables arm.

"The Company has oil and gas production in Argentina as well as exploration assets in both Argentina and Paraguay. The Company has two separate subdivisions which are focused on early-stage opportunities in the green and/or alternative energy sub-sector.

Molecular Energies PLC (AIM: MEN), the international energy company, is pleased to announce its intention to spin out and IPO its Green House Capital alternative energies division ("Green House").

The spin-out will expose Green House to a wider investor audience that is more focused on the growing market for green solutions.

Significant progress within Green House gives management confidence that the Company will attract new energy focused investors and command a valuation not recognised by being part of the Molecular Group."

https://www.molecularenergiesplc.com/about/

And at Shell - "Spinning out the renewables arm could help to boost Shell’s stock market valuation, which may actually be hurt by its current green energy businesses, he added.

Mr Borkhataria said: “It’s clear that these types of [renewable] assets do not get reflected in Shell’s valuation – typically, the company actually gets penalised for it.

“So there is an opportunity to realise and crystallise that value gap"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/13/shell-fossil-fuel-pivot-consider-green-energy-business-sale/

AI on the 18/1/22

' Savannah is also looking with great interest at Petronas shares for sale in South Sudan. The British junior informed Petronas of this during the negotiations in Chad. The assets represent some 75,000 bpd for Petronas, with reserves of 300m barrels.'

The FinnCap note of 4th January 2022 page 9 at the time of the Petronas & Exxon assets assumed the acquisition price of $3.40 P2 barrel for the 103.8 mmbo 2P reserves with another 82 mmbo 2C.

With 22,500 bopd production = $15,700 flowing bl.

--------------------------------------

Afentra 19-7-23 on the Azule offshore Angola acquistion. "The attractive acquisition cost implies approx. $3.7/bbl based on 2P reserves". This is their 3rd acquisition on the same assets and gives them 6,000 bopd + 32 mmbo 2P oil + 20 mmbo 2C all done at $3.90b max which also includes some licence interests over and above production which has a discovery. If oil goes way above in 2 cases $65 and $75/b there are bonus payments to be made for 2 of the acquistions but these are spread out over 3 and 10 years respectively.

Flowing cost per bl approx $20,400.

For South Sudan - SAVE say "UP TO" $1,250m (so doesn't sound definitive to me) where as in the Petronas Chad acquisition it was for a definitive fixed sum when announced, while Exxon Chad was an up to price which included a contingency.

So does the "UP TO" $1250m price tag include possible contingencies for higher oil prices/production profile case ?

We kmnow little other than AI reported the reserves were some 300 mmbls - was this all 2P. There's also likely to be considerable 2C.

Based on what Save were paying for Chad ie an assumed $3.40 this would mean the 300 mmbls 2P in S.Sudan costing $1 billion pro rata. They are landlocked like Chad having to export a considerable distance through another country before reaching the loading terminal.

Based on $3.70 for Afentras offshore Azule acquistion and $3.82 for all - that would imply $1.1 - $1.15 billion for the S.Sudan 300 mmbls 2P - these are offshore and measurably less risk for export.

If you use the Chad price of $15,700 and Angola $20,400 flowing bl price - the 55,000 expected production in South Sudan could be in the $860m - $1.1b range. So on the flowing metric and 2P price examples it doesn't come to the UP TO $1250m and i can't see why SAVE would overpay given the risk never mind the Chad price example and the lower risk offshore Angola price example.

Unless there is signifcantly more reserves, greater production or some other infrastructure in S.Sudan that gives income - therefore on 300 mmbo P2 and 55k production i woukd hope for a $1b price tag with any contingencies taking it to that 'up to' $1250m initially quoted figure.

Apply a discount figure and if it's 1/1/22 then that could be a substantial deduction from $1 billion.

For the money man and deal maker that AK is, surely at some point he would seriously consider a dual listing on the NYSE -not just a move to the main market off AIM.

Oil Company valuations are much better compared to those in the UK. Even Shell is half that of its comparative US cousins.

This would give us even closer to parity on reserves, production, revenue and possible cash flow to Kosmos that has that dual listing.

Given that SAVE is already moving to become one of the biggest renewables investor in Africa and a target of 2.4 GW in motion in the next 17 months alone, surely the appeal for greater investor interest to lift the value must be significant.

AK himself is a very significant holder so i would be surprised if this will not be considered once the next few acquisitions are completed as i'm sure he'd rather have as much as possible for his shares from all possible value creation and recognition angles rather than less in the UK alone.

I think we will be undervalued in the UK alone and we will on all intents be both a very large oil & gas company and a major emerging renewables company.

Two things -

The SAVE oil/gas business should more reflect the growth to match that of Kosmos which itself is solely oil/gas - and by the way has no renewables arm.

KOS currently has a £2.46b m/cap and $2.1b/£1.64b net debt with 580 mmboe 2P & 61K boepd production.

The SAVE renewables arm could be floated off separately - but if not it should attract a significant valuation in its own right but i fear being part of a traditional oil/gas Co might be undervalued/misunderstood by being solely listed in the UK.

There must be valuations attributed to both in time.

Lekela Power with 1GW of operational African wind and a further 225 MW in development was sold for an enterprise value of $1.5b. I would hope to see our renewables division grow to a much greater level given the 240 GW African target by 2030.

https://news.cision.com/aker-horizons/r/mainstream-renewable-power-and-actis-complete-sale-of-lekela-power,c3736799

Right now my wish is to see S. Sudan completed on non recourse debt terms and not so much COTCo given where our size will hopefully soon be.

If as i hope S.Sudan circa 300 mmbls reserves and 50-55k bopd = possible $1.3-$1.5b revenue + i believe Accugas should be circa $300m revenue after that last gas contract = $1.6-$1.8b.

There's a 2nd Hydrocarbon asset top come by year end - but if it's 5-10-15k or more bopd region its possibly another $135m - $400m+ revenue range to think about, it all depends on how small or big the next deal is (and more than 1 possible).

Right now the S.Sudan deal is reducing in cost until completed.

As for Exxon Chad - let'stake it in our stride and context of overall lost immediate revenue - it's with the ICC as the proper course. End of the day we win the case or don't and Chads oil has to load at Kribi and leave the Cameroon coast by ship for international markets if we win.

We lost out on the 22.5K bopd revenue from Chad Exxon/Petronas - about $600m + a combined revenue for TOTCo + COCTCo of $152m - so in all the 2 deals were worth an expected revenue region of $750m.

Overall that would have meant we would have been on a revenue guide of about $2.35b - $2.55b by now ahead of the intended acquistion beyond S.Sudan -so thats how close we were and maybe still are depending on the next deals by this year end and '24.

Our remaining 41% COTCo revenue share should still account for $75-$80m as the pipeline element was about 90% COTCo to 10% TOTCo.

Nigeria/Accugas $300m, S.Sudan estimate $1.3-$1.5b and on deal completion see us on $1.7b - $1.9b revenue ahead of the next follow on hydrocarbon deals.

As for S.Sudan i think they will derisk it further by building on a few more geographically spread hydrocarbon deals ('at least 1' by this year end) and to me its the unfortunate order they come to market in as on how risk is percieved now - versus a few more deals under our belt when non recourse to the company.

There is an excellent lengthy article this morning re Cameroon in todays AI. They’ve just recently been put on the GAFI and EITI grey list for countries since June 23. Also SNH which is part of COTCo wants an investigation authorised by Biya to look into the payment of money to executives at the company of which Glencore had admitted to. Too long to post but shows there is support for SAVE from some inside SNH and with Save being a member of EITI - adds further support

There may be no firm date for S.S govt approval.

Look at 7E they first had Nigerian Govt DPR dd and sent for final approval which bewteen those 2 dats lasted a year and overall the deal took 2.5 years in total to complete from first announced.

Currently the S.Sudan president is involved with a lot of talks and travelling with and to other countries and Sudan itself on ending the war in Sudan - so this could impact timelines.

Amending that to - 7E and Exxon Chad running to almost 3 and 4 weeks respectively beyond the 6 month rule

We are still in the ball park area for resumption of trading timeline based on past suspensions.

The 4 Suspensions

11-1-2016 The Company has entered into non-binding heads of terms regarding a potential transaction which, if completed on the currently proposed terms, would be classified as a reverse takeover under the AIM Rules for Companies. The Company's ordinary shares will remain suspended from trading on AIM until such time as either an admission document setting out details of the proposed transaction is published, which would be no earlier than April 2016, or confirmation is given that the transaction is not proceeding.

5-7-2016 In the event that the Placing does not complete, it is highly likely that the Board will terminate discussions on the potential transaction in order to avoid the Ordinary Shares being cancelled from admission to trading on AIM, which is currently scheduled to take place on 12 July 2016, pursuant to AIM Rule 41. $40m raised at 38p and suspension lifted

---------------------------

8-6-2017 suspended for 7E takeover.

21-12-2017 Adm doc published.

22-12-2017. $125m raised at 35p. Suspension lifted.

11-10-2018. Nigerian Govts DPR complets DD on deal - sent for final approval.

24-1-2019. $23m raised at 28p.

15-11-2019 Deal approved & Completed

--------------------------------------

2-6-2021 suspended for Exxon Chad deal.

13-12-2021 Announced Petronas Chad deal

30-12-2021 $65m raised at 19.35p

31-12-2021 Adm doc published. Suspension lifed/trading restored.

9-12-2022 Exxon deal announced as completed. (Petronas subsequently abandoned).

-------------------------------

12-12-2022 suspended for Petronas South Sudan deal.

Adm doc to be published by 28-7-2023.

---------------------------

In the very first RTO they were mindful to be back from suspension within 6 months which they were, though the deal terminated so no adm doc = 25 weeks.

In the 7E RTO they were back trading just 2 weeks beyond the 6 month rule and adm doc published at the same time level of just beyond 6 months = 29 weeks though another almost 2 years before deal completed.

Re Exxon Chad - Adm doc published at 2 weeks beyond the 6 month rule and back from suspension at the same time = 30 weeks.

South Sudan - adm doc intends to be published next week by 28th which shows that it will be 32 weeks lapsed (or if by this coming Friday would be 31 weeks).

No price target on relist from me RR but this is what i see as reasonable parity post closure.

Tullows July 12th trading statement showed they certainly struggled in H1 2023 with production averaging 53,000 bopd (down from 61k 2022 ) with their net debt at $1.9b.

Their estimate average for all of 2023 is for circa 58-64k boepd and todays announcement reinforces that guidance after the 2nd phase of Jubilee start-up..

1.448b shares and back up from the low 20s to 31p today so a market cap of £450m + £1.49b debt = £1.94b They had fallen from 55p less than 9 months ago presumably with the large fall in half 1 '23 production now to be corrected and with Jeffries downgrading them in April from 40 to 25p.

Peel Hunts price target went up to 80p in May based on executing todays news and there was a fair amount of some recent director buying. Cannacords target back in March was reiterated at 54p. Davys target May 100p.

Save some 55,000 bopd from S.Sudan. Add Accugas, Niger and with the existing debt should be in a range of $1-$1.2b some $7-$900m lower than TLW.

If you use the current metric on todays TLW valuation at £1.94b and deduct Saves expected net debt of £785 - £940m - leaves £1b - £1.15b for Save across it's 1.4b shares fully diluted.

So I get 71p - 82p (And If you extrapolate to the Cannacord/Peel Hunt/Davy targets then Saves target compared to the lowest 54p TLW target alone should be worth another 23p to Save - ie 100p range. So i wouldn't be surprised to see our coverage beginning at 90p risked again as when it reflected Chad alone on the same number of shares.

-------------

As for Kosmos on todays joint Jubilee news and late 23 early 24 first Tortue gas which should take them from the current circa 58,800 bopd in Q1 to 90k+ boepd in the next 6-9 months.

460m shares at todays £5.08 price = £2.34b + £1.65b net debt = £3.99b.

100p Target for Save on the same KOS production levels as of now = £1.4b + net debt range of £785m - £940m = valuation just shy of almost half of KOS and again KOS b/targets are much greater than its share price of today.

---------------

So i can't see any broker for Save, given the previous guidance on Chad revenue/FCF/Production etc, being much less than above compared to what i have given.

I fully expect Save on the back of S.Sudan to lift them into parity with the revenues of KOS/TLW - given our other income streams.

In addition to keep pace with TLW/KOS over the next 6-9 months targets - we have Niger start-up and a further - at least one hydrocarbon acquisition. I would say if our net debt stands still as the above estimate we could theoretically add up to 10k bopd from revenue/FCF alone.

Worst case if there was 10% share dilution for any raise - then roughly you could cut 7-10% of the share price target in the short term.

At the same time nothing for the renewables, the delayed Niger exploration and the possible upside that could come from S.Suda

I could be wrong but i hope we are looking at the $1.25b headline price in a slightly incorrect 'immediate cost context'. The use of the term 'UP TO' or similar by Save is shown in the Afentra, Panoro and Saves Exxon Chad acquisitions (There was no 'UP TO' in the Petronas Chad SPA when announced).

We will no doubt be discounted by the effective transaction date (if it is 1/1/22) but also the use of the wording "UP TO" $1.25b consideration - could there be cost contingency built in to that $1.25b figure used. You can see how this works in a number of other deals recently. Not a given but i think the actual starting price could be less say $1 billion and then $250m for contingencies as seen in the other deal examples. From that starting point of say $1B then deduct just over 1.5 years of contributions.

Saves 3 acquisitions 
Exxon Chad for the sum of US$360 million (with a further oil-price contingent payment of up to US$50 million), subject to other adjustments ie $410m. 
Petronas Chad for the sum of US$266 million, subject to working capital and customary adjustments 
Petronas South Sudan for a *total* cash consideration of *up to* US$1.25 billion, subject to certain completion adjustments. 

There remains a possibility that perhaps as much as 20% of that headline price could be inclusive of contingencies - ie for certain production levels being met as well as the oil price for x years. 

Panoro Feb 2021

Equatorial Guinea and Gabon oil producing assets $180m - for an initial US$ 140 million and aggregate contingent consideration of up to US$ 40 million, based on an effective date of 1 July 2020. 

The EG Contingent Consideration is up to US$ 16 million in aggregate payable only in years where the average annual net production of the acquired interests is in excess of 5,500 bopd. Once this initial net production threshold has been reached, in that year, and for the four consecutive subsequent annual periods, annual contingent consideration of US$ 5.5 million will be payable to Tullow provided that the production threshold is met in such annual period and the average daily Dated Brent oil prices in respect of the annual period is in excess of US$ 60/bbl, subject to the aforementioned cap of US$ 16 million.


The consideration for the Dussafu Acquisition consists of an initial cash consideration of US$ 46 million (to be adjusted at completion for working capital and other customary adjustments) and a contingent consideration of up to US$ 24 million (the “Dussafu Contingent Consideration”). 

Afentra April 2022

Sonagol transaction $80.5m upfront with a $50m contingency (up to $130m) (Contingency is $5m annually for 10 years subject to above $65/b oil price and being over 15k bopd gross production). 
INA transaction $12m cash upfront plus $21m contingency (Contingency is $10m licence extension, plus $2m/yr x 3 yrs on 30% of the revenue upside if oil price above $65/b. Further $5m if any new discovery subject

Beginning to fear the worst for you Agadem, so warm welcome back and glad to see you here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Let's see how he deals with the debt repayment in the meantime TYB.

The last pvt placement was .054 in Februray and that was a long time after no oil was sold in Tunisia by Sept 22 when looking at the accounts and then told in June 2023 that no oil was sold.

The VWA is now at .035 - 0.375 ahead of completion of the US deals. It is as low as it is for now but id wait to see what dilutuion might happen given the RNS, also if there is a need for cash given the debt and if the original funders will help out but want a discount to their original price in February given what has happened since and all we have is likely make or break production to keep the lights on for 12 months until a result comes out at arbitration (or if it resolved before hand).

I'd wait for a decent meaningful asset to appear such as Benin and at the minute they dont have the cash as i see, for it.

I'd be happy investing at a higher price than now rather than looking for the bottom but it all comes down to the asset - and im mindful that Benin could be off the table given that we are using cash/dilution to take up our time on a low base in the USA which after all are fairly small wells - i don't say that to be negative just to appear so, but i beleive they will be a long time in creating any significant value and take too much of the companys time given the geographical split - and if Benin was close as in 3-6 months there's no point in heading to the US if that was the case.

If i had listened to some that are here since 1p back in 2020 when i studied up on investing on Tilapia with AC after AAOGs mess of things, that this was going to 3-5p i'd be down 66% of my cash and diluted into the bargain. It's the reason you ask questions and share things which BBs are intended for. Answer that !

The point that is wrong with some of you is if you see any percieved negative questions or points put up for discussion, you would rather bury your heads in the sand and think everything will be just dandy and hope it goes away.

It's got nothing to do with Azerbaijan. We were well aware of the asset hopping long before that.

The point is the threat of very significant dilution is still there. When that is removed, and there are decent assets on the table and potential new mangement added, then i might be interested in investing significantly.

Where on earth does it say that you must own shares in a company to be allowed to discuss it's potential - answer that please. It just shows how naive some of you are when it comes to investing.

Would you take the same attitude if your company pension pot provider or money manager invested willy nilly with your hard earned and never asked questions first and batted away any discussion from the rest of the organisation about a companies performance - past, present and future trend under the same leader who has never delivered any meaningful growth and no shareholder return on the substantial number of assets that this company has been involved with.

(callit - by the way thank you. I would prefer to see workovers and performance upside targets replaced by a share of production achieved rather than dilution by more equity).

Just out of interest on the 41p overheard s/p, 41p was reached back in June 2022 when the Chad deals were due for completion and thereafter started to fall possibly on some having knowledge that the deals were struggling. I would expect the cash flow to be greater than the Chad deals. On the other hand if there is some dilution I could live with it as any debt will be lower and we know a further hydrocarbon acquisition is expected to follow by year end.

The price was a penny then Florida when Africa Intelligence published that article and were able to produce the letter - which is incidentally still there. Tell me who's false - you or AI ?

They've ran a few articles on the Tilapia case and Zenith and his then focus on Gabon as well (2020) but i'd say you prefer to keep your head somewhere where the Florida sun doesn't shine.

0.35p of a penny.

Yes, but look at the management announcements and changes over the years at ANGS. Imo there is much better governance on an AIM listed stock such as ANGS rather than on the standard list - yet some think a standard list is better when it clearly isn't.

AC has been delivering the same unchallenged performance imo year in year out for the last 14 years and continues in doing so. He should step down, let the company build a better team and take it forward - but the company as i see it, is just really him - where's the challenge to seek change. 14 years and he's chasing 60 bopd deals where 24 of those bls have to paid for in equity at an all time low. I see no justification for 3 small deals over such a geographical spread at a time when they are trying to preserve cash. These kind of US deals are two a penny in the US trade and industry divestment mags. How much from a distance is he prepared to pay to have them managed is another thing.

While Angus might have the onshore gas pricing on their side in the current environment at a current m/cap of £33m.

The dilution ignores the obvious fact that Angus Energy's share price was 11p (Eleven pence) in March 2017 and yes as you point out there is 3.6 billion in issue today and the share price is 0.9p (nine tenths of a penny). That's not how it's meant to work in delivering shareholder value.

Good luck to ANGR from here but for now I see no end in sight to Zeniths capacity to keep eroding shareholder value to keep them in the game and the reasons i pointed out earlier.