Springfield and GMP Energy Deny Petraco-Linked Claims

The Companies Deny Criminal Allegations and Emphasize Commercial Disputes

Springfield Exploration and Production Limited and GMP Energy, two leading players in the oil and gas industry, have issued strong responses to recent allegations made by entities linked to Petraco, a global commodities trader. These allegations were reportedly submitted to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and have since been covered in various media outlets. Both companies have dismissed these claims as misleading and baseless, emphasizing that the disputes are purely commercial and currently under international arbitration.

A Clear Stance on Mischaracterized Claims

The companies have expressed concern over what they see as a coordinated effort to damage their reputations and disrupt their legitimate business operations. They argue that the allegations misrepresent ongoing commercial disagreements as criminal matters, which is not accurate. Springfield, which operates and holds a majority interest in the West Cape Three Points Block 2, has highlighted that it became aware of growing media reports based on a petition allegedly filed by Petraco Oil Company SA.

According to Springfield, the company entered into a $100 million facility agreement with Petraco in February 2023, but only the first tranche of $50 million was disbursed. Despite this, Petraco registered a charge over 10% of Springfield’s issued shares, covering the full value of the facility. The company asserts that Petraco and its advisers conducted thorough legal and technical due diligence before signing the agreement, and all necessary documentation and disclosures were provided. Springfield describes the arrangement as a “straightforward commercial transaction” currently under arbitration.

“We wish to respond clearly and directly: the allegations contained in Petraco’s petition are false, unfounded, and entirely without merit,” Springfield stated. The company also warned against the publication of unverified claims, indicating that it reserves the right to pursue legal action against any entity or individual that spreads defamatory material.

GMP Energy’s Response and Joint Venture Concerns

In a related development, GMP Energy addressed its joint venture relationship with Petraco Energies DMCC, a separate legal entity from Petraco Oil Company SA. GMP Energy clarified that it had established a 50/50 profit-and-loss sharing joint venture with Petraco Energies and transferred $10 million for the procurement of petroleum products. However, the company reported that problems arose when Petraco, acting on behalf of the joint venture, failed to disclose purchase prices while GMP Energy disclosed sale prices.

GMP Energy alleged that requests for a formal audit of transactions, particularly regarding 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. The company emphasized that this is a commercial matter and not one involving fraud or criminal conduct. It added that the dispute is currently being handled by an arbitration tribunal in Dubai, where GMP is seeking full accountability and may consider a counterclaim.

Media Responsibility and Industry Insights

Both companies criticized 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, there is a growing trend to frame such disputes in quasi-criminal terms—especially through public petitions to law enforcement agencies. This trend risks undermining confidence in the existing legal and regulatory framework.

Commitment to Transparency and Ethical Conduct

Despite the controversy, 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.