The Herald, has intercepted a letter from the Petroleum Commission, Ghana, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Springfield E&P Limited, Kevin Okyere, requesting detailed data and reports related to the Afina Appraisal Programme.
The letter, dated December 5, 2024, and signed by the Commission’s CEO, Egbert Faibille Jnr., was titled“Re: Notice of Completion of the Re-entering of the Afina-1X Well Pursuant to the Afina Appraisal Programme.”
It reads: “The Commission hereby requests Springfield to submit all outstanding data (particularly pressure data (WFT) and Drill Stem Test Data) to it within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.”
Recently, Springfield announced a significant oil discovery at the Afina-1X well offshore Ghana, with daily production potential estimated at 4,500 barrels of oil and 12,000 barrels of oil equivalent from gas and condensates.
Located in Block 2 of the West Cape Three Points (WCTP 2), the Afina-1X well, uncovered hydrocarbons in two key geological formations: the Cenomanian and Turonian.
This discovery, positions Springfield as the first independent Ghanaian company to achieve a deepwater oil find.
The Afina project, estimated to hold 1.5 billion barrels of crude oil, offers a critical opportunity to address Ghana’s projected decline in oil production.
Kevin Okyere, CEO of Springfield, stated that the discovery, could help stabilise Ghana’s future oil output.
“This discovery could play a significant role in addressing Ghana’s anticipated decline in oil production,” Okyere said. His remarks echo recent warnings from Steve Manteaw, co-chair of the Ghana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GHEITI), about potential oil production shortfalls in the coming decades.
Mr Faibille, expressed concerns about Springfield’s earlier submissions, describing them as inadequate, “The data received from Springfield E&P were lookahead drilling reports for the next day’s drilling operations,”he noted.
The letter also referenced Section 52 (3) of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, 2016 (Act 919), which mandates operators to“provide to the Commission data and information as well as the reports, studies, interpretations, and analyses.”
The Petroleum Commission’s directive, underscores its demand for Springfield E&P to justify its claims regarding the Afina Appraisal Programme with comprehensive and verifiable data.
On November 27, Springfield Energy, made a highly publicized announcement that it had successfully concluded its appraisal program for the Afina-1X well, which has since sparked considerable debate and scrutiny within the industry.
The company claimed that the well encountered light oil and gas/condensate at substantial depths, with a successful Drill Stem Test (DST) confirming good reservoir productivity. However, this announcement has been met with questions from industry observers who understand the gaps in the announcement, and the recent response from the Petroleum Commission, data behind these claims further deepen suspicions.
Springfield’s statement regarding the Afina-1X well, outlined significant findings. According to the company, the well, drilled in 2019 at a water depth of 1,030 meters and a total depth of 4,085 meters, encountered light oil in good-quality Cenomanian sandstones.
The gross thickness of the oil zone was reported to be 65 meters, with a net oil pay of 50 meters. In addition, a secondary target in Turonian-age sands was said to contain gas/condensate, with an estimated flow rate potential of up to 12,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd).
The statement, also highlighted that a DST conducted on the Cenomanian sandstone flowed at a maximum rate of 4,500 barrels of oil per day, exceeding pre-test expectations. The company noted that pressure transient analysis indicated reservoir pressure depletion compared to 2019 levels, pointing to production-related depletion.
Despite these claims, many industry observers expressed scepticism, particularly regarding the lack of transparency in Springfield’s data reporting. The Petroleum Commission, which oversees the operations of oil companies in Ghana, has been noticeably absent from verifying or validating the company’s claims.
In the wake of Springfield’s announcement, The Herald published an in-depth investigation raising critical concerns about the Petroleum Commission’s role in regulating Springfield’s operations.
The report highlighted that, contrary to industry standards, the Commission had not been provided with key field data from the Afina-1X well, including pressure data and Drill Stem Test results, which are crucial for verifying claims about reservoir productivity.
Industry insiders pointed out that the Petroleum Commission’s apparent inaction was alarming. The Commission is required by law to receive daily operational updates from oil companies, including detailed well data, yet Springfield had not complied with these requirements. Instead, the Commission had been largely ineffective in compelling Springfield to provide the necessary documentation, raising questions about the regulator’s ability to oversee and enforce industry standards.
Following weeks of silence, the Petroleum Commission has recently escalated its demands, issuing a letter to Springfield Energy requesting that the company submit all outstanding data within 15 days. The letter, which references Section 52(3) of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, 2016, Act 919, specifically calls for the submission of pressure data (WFT) and Drill Stem Test results.
“Reference is made to the data received from Springfield E&P regarding the Afina IX re-entry, as well as Section 52 (3) of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act, 2016, Act 919, which requires the operator to ‘provide to the Commission data and information as well as the reports, studies, interpretations, and analyses.’ The data received from Springfield E&P were lookahead drilling reports for the next day drilling operations. The Commission hereby requests Springfield to submit all outstanding data (particularly pressure data (WFT) and Drill Stem Test data) to it within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.”
This letter marks a significant shift in the Commission’s approach to Springfield’s operations, which had previously operated with minimal scrutiny, raising concerns about potential regulatory capture or political interference.
The situation has sparked concerns about the integrity of the regulatory environment in Ghana’s oil and gas sector. While Springfield’s findings are potentially significant for the country’s energy future, the lack of transparency in the data provided to the regulator has undermined confidence in the process. If Springfield fails to meet the Commission’s demands for full disclosure, it could set a dangerous precedent, signalling to other companies that they can operate without adequate oversight.
The Petroleum Commission’s delay in demanding compliance raises important questions about its ability to enforce industry standards and ensure that companies operate within the bounds of the law. With the Ghanaian oil and gas industry increasingly under the global spotlight, the Commission’s credibility and effectiveness will be tested in the coming weeks.
As the situation unfolds, all eyes will be on Springfield Energy and the Petroleum Commission. Will Springfield provide the necessary data to justify its claims? Will the Commission follow through on its demands for transparency? The answers to these questions will have significant implications for the future of Ghana’s oil and gas sector and for the role of regulators in maintaining industry integrity.
The case of Afina-1X underscores the ongoing challenges faced by Ghana in balancing the needs of the oil industry with the imperative of ensuring proper oversight and accountability. It is clear that both the industry and the regulator must work together to ensure that Ghana’s natural resources are managed responsibly, in line with international best practices.
