- demand fair hearing
- as subject matter is in arbitration
Leading oil and gas company, Springfield Exploration and Production Limited and GMP Energy, have issued strongly worded statements rejecting what they describe as misleading and baseless allegations contained in a petition reportedly submitted to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) by entities linked to Petraco, a global commodities trader.
The companies stated that the allegations, which have formed the basis of recent media reports, mischaracterise ongoing commercial disagreements as matters of criminal concern, despite the disputes being the subject of international arbitration.
In separate statements, Springfield and GMP Energy expressed concern over what they see as a coordinated attempt to damage their reputations and undermine legitimate business operations through the publication of what they describe as “spurious” and “self-serving” claims.
Springfield, operator and majority interest holder at West Cape Three Points Block 2, said it had taken note of a growing number of media reports based on a petition allegedly submitted by Petraco Oil Company SA.
The company noted that while it had entered into a US$100 million facility agreement with Petraco in February 2023, only the first tranche of US$50 million was disbursed. Nonetheless, Petraco registered a charge over 10 percent of Springfield’s issued shares, covering the full value of the facility.
Springfield maintained that Petraco and its advisers conducted full legal and technical due diligence before executing the agreement, and that all necessary documentation and disclosures were provided. It described the arrangement as a “straightforward commercial transaction” that is currently under arbitration, and warned that attempts to frame it as criminal wrongdoing are not only misleading but potentially defamatory.
“We wish to respond clearly and directly: the allegations contained in Petraco’s petition are false, unfounded, and entirely without merit. We welcome scrutiny and accountability, but we expect it to be based on fact, not speculation,” Springfield said.
The company also raised concern about what it described as “sensationalised reports” based solely on “unverified” claims, and warned that it reserves the right to pursue legal action against any media outlet or individual that publishes defamatory material.
In a related development, GMP Energy also issued a rebuttal regarding its joint venture relationship with Petraco Energies DMCC, a separate legal entity from Petraco Oil Company SA. GMP Energy clarified that it had entered into a 50/50 profit-and-loss sharing joint venture with Petraco Energies and transferred US$10 million to the company for the procurement of petroleum products.
According to GMP Energy, problems arose when Petraco, acting on behalf of the joint venture, consistently failed to disclose purchase prices, even as GMP Energy disclosed sale prices. The company alleged that requests for a formal audit of transactions, particularly related to what it calls unreasonably high charges for freight and hedging, were ignored by Petraco and EDURC Company DMCC, a third-party entity introduced by Petraco to receive cargo entitlements.
“This is, and has always been, a commercial matter. There is no element of fraud or criminal conduct, as alleged,” GMP Energy stated. The dispute, it added, is currently before an arbitration tribunal in Dubai, where GMP is seeking full accountability and may consider a counterclaim.
Both companies chided sections of the media for publishing “one-sided accounts” of the disputes without seeking comment or clarification. They called for responsible journalism, especially when reporting on issues subject to pending legal or arbitral proceedings.
Industry analysts note that while commercial disagreements are common in joint ventures involving commodities trading and financing, the increasing tendency to frame such disputes in quasi-criminal terms—especially through public petitions to law enforcement agencies—risks undermining confidence in the prevailing legal and regulatory architecture.
Both Springfield and GMP Energy have reiterated their commitment to transparency, ethical conduct, and continued cooperation with regulatory bodies. They have also indicated their willingness to engage constructively with the media but insist that public commentary must be grounded in verified facts and legal context.
