The government’s handling of the Springfield issues continues to attract public scrutiny as policy think tank IMANI is raising fresh concerns over the purported valuation process of the Afina Oil field.
IMANI is warning that the government risks walking blindly into a financial trap if it relies solely on Springfield Exploration and Production’s data to determine the block’s value.
In its latest brief, the think tank argues that the idea of government basing a multibillion-cedi acquisition on information collected almost entirely by Springfield is not just risky, it is totally “untenable.”
The Afina block, IMANI argues, is too uncertain, too under-appraised, and too technically ambiguous for any meaningful valuation to be drawn from existing data.
In its analysis, the CSO indicated that confirming whether Afina holds commercially viable oil cannot be done by simply reviewing Springfield’s reports. It would require fresh spending, new drilling, and strict oversight, this time under an arrangement where the government acts as a lender, not a buyer walking in with blindfolds on.
READ ALSO
Springfield’s limited appraisal work was carried out under its own control, with no regulator-led validation and no independent verification. Relying on that data to justify a state takeover, IMANI warns, would effectively shift the company’s corporate risk onto the shoulders of taxpayers.
“The process of confirming whether the block is commercially valuable for Ghana cannot be limited to a review of data collected by Springfield. The Minister’s suggestion that he could base a decision to acquire the block on such a review is untenable. Determining the commercial viability of the block would likely involve significant new investment under an arrangement controlled by the government as a lender,” IMANI’s brief insisted.
The risks go deeper than geology. IMANI fears Springfield’s legal battle with Swiss trader Petraco, its reported debt challenges, and a ruling against it in a drilling-related arbitration all raise uncomfortable questions about the purported.
IMANI fears the state could unintentionally inherit hidden liabilities or unresolved obligations if it rushes into an acquisition without a proper, independent assessment.
“Springfield’s reported debt exposure and its legal dispute with Swiss trader Petraco raise serious questions about whether GNPC could inadvertently absorb legacy liabilities or financially distressed obligations through the Afina deal. The company that drilled the only well at Afina has already won arbitration proceedings against Springfield because of the latter’s refusal to pay its bills. All this raises questions about what actual serious investments Springfield has made in Afina, for which reason it should dictate commercial terms through an acquisition process,” it added.
For IMANI, Ghana must not convert a private company’s uncertainties into a national burden.
It further states that with only one well drilled and no complete appraisal programme, the Afina block is still guesswork. Any state-led evaluation must be driven by fresh, regulator-supervised technical work, not by Springfield’s paperwork.
