A Texas federal judge has imposed sanctions on the Ghanaian energy company Springfield Exploration & Production Ltd. for dishonesty in a discovery dispute connected to a case in Ghana. U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison ruled that attorney fees and costs are appropriate due to Springfield’s misrepresentation of the Texas dispute to the Ghanaian court.
On Tuesday, Judge Ellison ordered sanctions against Springfield after Italian oil giant Eni’s Ghanaian subsidiary, Eni Ghana Exploration & Production Ltd., accused Springfield of misrepresenting the nature of the Texas case. The sanctions cover attorney fees and costs related to Eni Ghana’s motion to modify a protective order, a bid by Springfield’s counsel to withdraw from the proceedings, and the sanctions proceedings themselves.
Judge Ellison declined to vacate the protective order but agreed that “modest sanctions are appropriate.” He requested Eni Ghana to provide a brief detailing the amount of costs and fees owed, along with supporting documentation.
Eni Ghana had initiated the Texas proceedings to obtain a report prepared by Gaffney Cline & Associates Inc., which allegedly found significant untapped reserves in a Springfield oil field. This report was seen as critical to proving the commercial viability of a joint venture between Springfield and Eni Ghana.
Originally, Gaffney Cline and its parent company, Baker Hughes Co., were respondents in the Texas proceedings, with Springfield intervening later. Judge Ellison granted Eni Ghana’s request for the report’s production in August 2022. However, Springfield refused to provide the report or the underlying data, hindering Eni Ghana’s ability to challenge Springfield’s claims.
Though Gaffney Cline and Baker Hughes eventually produced the report, Judge Ellison issued a protective order to safeguard proprietary commercial information. The parties disagreed on whether the documents could be filed under seal if Ghanaian courts rejected Eni Ghana’s motion to do so. Eni Ghana wanted to file the documents regardless, while Springfield sought to prevent their filing without a seal.
In May 2023, Judge Ellison sided with Springfield and maintained the protective order.
Prior to this, in April 2023, Eni Ghana had challenged a stay in the case seeking to compel Baker Hughes to release records related to the oil reserve dispute. Eni Ghana and Vitol Upstream Ghana Ltd. opposed Springfield’s emergency motion to stay document discovery, arguing that the stay was “baseless” and “highly prejudicial.” Judge Ellison denied the stay, stating that Springfield had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal.
Eni and Vitol had sought access to the Gaffney Cline report assessing the commercial viability of the oil discovery central to the Ghanaian case. Eni and Vitol argued that Springfield’s attempts to withhold evidence indicated the information might be detrimental to Springfield’s case.
In July 2022, Eni and Vitol filed a petition in the Southern District of Texas. They claimed a $6.2 billion investment in an offshore project, including the Sankofa Cenomanian Oilfield. In Ghana, they are contesting directives from the Ministry of Energy that require them to jointly develop and share proceeds from the Sankofa field with the new “Afina Discovery” potentially worth billions. There has been no appraisal of the Afina Discovery yet.
Eni and Vitol argued in their April 2023 filing that Springfield’s aggressive efforts to withhold the Gaffney Cline report suggested that the undisclosed information was unfavorable to Springfield’s case.
Counsel for Eni Ghana and Vitol Upstream declined to comment, while counsel for Baker Hughes, Gaffney Cline, and Springfield did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Eni Ghana Exploration and Vitol Upstream Ghana are represented by Luke A. Sobota of Three Crowns LLP. Baker Hughes and Gaffney Cline are represented by Edwin S. Gault Jr. and Caroline Upchurch.
By Joyce Hanson
