The Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP) has clarified that its positions regarding the Springfield Afina drilling appraisal are not aimed at harming Springfield but are intended to address critical national issues that have been compromised by recent governance shortcomings.
ACEP noted discrepancies in the data presented by Springfield, which significantly differed from the government's data used to determine Tract Participation (TP) percentages in the unitization directive.
The directive granted Springfield and its partners 54.545% and Eni and its partners 45.455%. Notably, Springfield's estimate of the Oil Water Contact (OWC) at 3958 meters was approximately 172 meters less than the Ministry of Energy's estimate of 4130 meters, which informed a Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) volume of about 642 million barrels.
ACEP argued that if Springfield's OWC had been utilized initially, the Afina discovery might have been regarded as requiring further assessment to determine its commercial viability, rather than prematurely moving toward unitization, which wasted three years of potential development.
Regarding the appraisal program's costs, ACEP expressed concern over the proposed re-entry into the Afina well, aimed at evaluating reservoir productivity and potential pressure changes, at an estimated cost of $50 million.
The organization argued that such expenses raise questions about value for money, as reservoir flow tests ideally should have been conducted during the original drilling campaign when hydrocarbons were first discovered. Delaying this test now imposes unnecessary financial burdens on the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) and Explorco, the Afina field partners.
ACEP criticized regulatory failures by the Petroleum Commission and the Ministry of Energy, attributing unnecessary financial strain on Ghana to their oversight.
It contended that it is contentious to label the proposed well re-entry as an appraisal program under Act 919, which mandates delineating hydrocarbon accumulation and determining the discovery's commerciality—essentially the core of an appraisal.
In terms of unitization objectives, ACEP emphasized that the appraisal program aims to confirm connectivity between the Afina and Sankofa fields, essential for the unitization process.
However, it argued that following the arbitration ruling, studies to verify connectivity should involve collaboration with Eni to enhance the process's credibility and prevent further disputes. A joint effort would have more effectively tackled issues of dynamic communication and commerciality, ultimately saving time and minimizing uncertainties.
ACEP also expressed concern over a growing perception that hidden interests are being prioritized over investment and development in Ghana’s upstream sector.
It warned that with the global shift away from oil and gas due to decarbonization, ensuring a fair and transparent oil and gas industry in Ghana is crucial.
The recent focus on misgovernance, political interference, and regulatory failures could undermine the sector's long-term potential, making Ghana vulnerable in an era of stranded assets.
To tackle these challenges, ACEP urged the government to implement sound, transparent, and investor-friendly policies that align with global trends in energy transition and decarbonization.
In response to ACEP’s criticisms, Springfield Group's Chief Executive, Kevin Okyere, dismissed claims made by ACEP's Executive Director, Benjamin Boakye, regarding contradictions between Springfield’s recent appraisal and its original data.
Okyere clarified that the company has just begun its appraisal program and has not yet established the necessary data to constitute an appraisal report. He further urged the media to disregard ACEP's assertions, asserting that they are false.
Read full article
The Africa Centre for Energy Policy (ACEP)