This is the second and closing a part of this investigation. Read the first part here.
When Nigeria enacted the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) in August 2021, it sought to shut one of many nation’s longest-running environmental failures and scale back methane amongst different emissions.
For many years, governments had promised to finish gasoline flaring and scale back different technique of methane emission.
The PIA, somewhat than relying solely on penalties, created a authorized framework for planning, commercialisation and regulatory enforcement.
Key among the many necessities was that each producer of pure gasoline had to put together a Natural Gas Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan (FEMP) displaying precisely the way it meant to finish gasoline flaring.
The law additionally empowered the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) to seize flare gasoline and allocate it to buyers able to changing it into helpful merchandise such as electrical energy, liquefied petroleum gasoline (LPG), compressed pure gasoline (CNG) and fertiliser.
Nearly 5 years after the Act got here into pressure, PREMIUM TIMES discovered that implementation has fallen far wanting the law’s ambition.
This investigation examined whether or not NUPRC, the regulator liable for implementing Nigeria’s anti-flaring legal guidelines and lowering methane emissions, has fulfilled its authorized obligations.
The findings point out that the most important impediment to ending gasoline flaring and lowering methane emissions is the failure to implement that laws.
Deadline the regulator failed to meet
Section 108 of the PIA gives that each licensee or lessee producing pure gasoline shall, inside 12 months of the Act’s efficient date, submit a Natural Gas Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan ready in accordance with rules issued by the NUPRC.
The law commenced in August 2021. Meaning, underneath the Act, operators had till August 2022 to submit the plan. However, the rules required to information the preparation of these plans didn’t but exist.
The NUPRC solely signed the Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations in May 2023, nearly two years after the PIA grew to become law.
The rules had been later gazetted in July 2023 and by then, the statutory twelve-month interval contained within the Act had already expired by 11 months.
Rather than implement the timeline contained within the Act, Section 3(2) of the regulation launched a recent deadline, giving firms six months from the graduation of the regulation to submit their FEMP.
With the brand new deadline, the NUPRC successfully reset the clock exterior the August 2022 deadline supplied within the Act. That sequence raises a key authorized query. Can a regulation issued by an company successfully lengthen a timeline already fastened by an Act of the National Assembly?
To perceive the implications, PREMIUM TIMES sought the opinion of an Akwa Ibom-based authorized practitioner, Ekemini Udim.
He mentioned the NUPRC’s delay basically weakened the law’s implementation. “It is disturbing that a provision of an Act of the National Assembly could be frustrated in this manner,” he mentioned.
“The Act clearly envisaged that regulations would already exist before the deadline for submitting FEMP.”
According to him, the duty rested squarely with the regulator. “The companies can legitimately argue that they were waiting for the commission to issue the regulations required by the Act. If the commission had acted promptly, companies would have had no excuse.”
Mr Udim mentioned the failure ought to, subsequently, be considered primarily as a regulatory failure somewhat than a company one.
“It is the commission that failed to put the legal machinery in place within the timeline established by Parliament.”
Mr Udim’s interpretation raises uncomfortable questions. If the regulator itself failed to adjust to the implementation timetable created by the PIA, can it successfully sanction firms for delays that flowed partly from its personal inaction?
On 28 July, PREMIUM TIMES despatched an in depth media enquiry to the Head of Media and Strategic Communications of NUPRC, Eniola Akinkuotu, asking the fee to clarify why the rules had been issued nearly two years after the PIA got here into pressure and whether or not the delay contributed to non-compliance by operators.
The fee acknowledged receipt of the enquiry. When reminded on 4 August, its spokesperson mentioned the questions had been forwarded to the related departments and that responses had been nonetheless being compiled.
No substantive response has been obtained as of the time of this report.
Four years handed earlier than NUPRC acted
Long earlier than the primary allow was issued underneath the revived Nigerian Gas Flare Commercialisation Programme (NGFCP), the PIA had already handed the NUPRC powers over flare gasoline.
Section 105(2) of the Act gives that the fee “shall have the right to take, free of charge, natural gas that is destined to be flared at the flare stack.”
Instead of permitting operators to proceed burning related gasoline into the environment, the law authorises the regulator to take possession of that gasoline and allocate it to third-party buyers able to changing it into electrical energy, cooking gasoline, CNG, fertiliser and different industrial merchandise.
The authorized mechanism is meant to obtain the targets of eliminating gasoline flaring and unlocking financial worth from a useful resource that had for many years gone up in flames.
The 2023 Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions Regulations bolstered the provisions by setting out the operational framework via which the fee might train them.
Yet PREMIUM TIMES reported that the NUPRC solely issued flare-gas permits in December 2025 to 28 firms, greater than 4 years after the PIA grew to become law.
During that interval, tens of millions of normal cubic ft of related gasoline continued to burn each day, and improperly combusted gasoline continued to emit methane throughout the Niger Delta’s oil fields.
PREMIUM TIMES, in its media enquiry on 28 July, amongst different questions to NUPRC, requested the flare websites allotted to every of the 28 firms, the operators related to these websites and the dates every allow grew to become efficient.
The newspaper additionally requested information displaying how a lot flare gasoline had been captured and commercialised between the issuance of the permits and 30 June 2026. NUPRC didn’t present this information. Checks on every of the 28 firms with a useful web site didn’t yield this information.
However, the NUPRC’s newest risk on 8 September to revoke permits for gasoline flare web site awards over non-utilisation means that the law to take gasoline destined for flaring might not have yielded the specified end result 4 years after it was handed. PREMIUM TIMES reported that the fee has mentioned it would revoke permits the place buyers fail to show vital progress in utilising the gasoline flare websites.
Regulation to publish vented gasoline information fails in compliance
The PIA and the 2023 rules issued by NUPRC moved past simply regulating operators. They additionally imposed obligations on the fee itself.
Section 23 of the Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations requires the fee to put together and publish an annual report detailing the implementation of the rules.
Among the obligatory contents is complete info on gasoline flaring and venting by producers, together with the entire quantity of disposed gasoline, disaggregated into flared gasoline and vented gasoline, expressed as a share of pure gasoline produced.
The report is to be revealed not later than 30 June every year for the previous calendar yr.
PREMIUM TIMES reviewed the fee’s 2023 and 2024 Annual Financial and Operational Performance Reports. Although each reviews comprise in depth info on gasoline flaring, they don’t publish information on gasoline venting.
Unlike flaring, the place methane is at the very least partially combusted, venting includes the direct launch of pure gasoline into the environment. Scientific research point out that venting is the biggest supply of methane emissions from upstream oil and gasoline operations.
Beyond not publishing venting information, the publication isn’t well timed. Contrary to the 30 June deadline, as of 27 August 2026, NUPRC had not revealed its report protecting 2025, lacking the statutory deadline by greater than a month.
PREMIUM TIMES requested the fee why the publication deadline had been missed and why venting information required underneath the rules had not been disclosed. The fee mentioned it might present responses in the end.
The delay means the general public can’t independently assess the nation’s methane efficiency via venting for the latest reporting yr, regardless of rules requiring annual disclosure.
The reporting gaps on the a part of NUPRC additionally go away unanswered a central query on the coronary heart of Nigeria’s local weather commitments: If methane emissions should not comprehensively and well timed reported, how can progress towards lowering them be measured?
Methane: The emissions Nigeria nonetheless struggles to measure
If gasoline flaring is essentially the most seen image of air pollution and poisonous emissions from Nigeria’s oil business, methane is its least seen and most harmful.
Unlike flare stacks that illuminate the night time sky, methane escapes silently.
It leaks from valves, compressors, pipelines and storage amenities. This is referred to within the business as fugitive emissions. It can also be launched via venting throughout upkeep and operational actions. It additionally escapes via incomplete flaring, which occurs throughout inefficient combustion when flare stacks fail to burn related gasoline effectively.
Scientists take into account methane probably the most highly effective greenhouse gases liable for accelerating local weather change.
Over a 20-year interval, methane traps greater than 80 occasions as a lot warmth as carbon dioxide, making even comparatively small releases substantial from a local weather perspective.
Recognising that risk, Nigeria positioned itself amongst African international locations searching for to scale back methane emissions.
The nation signed the Global Methane Pledge, dedicated to eliminating routine gasoline flaring, and integrated bold methane-reduction targets into its Nationally Determined Contributions submitted underneath the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Nigeria, which at the moment leads Africa in methane air pollution, accounting for 16 per cent of complete sub-Saharan African methane emissions from the oil and gasoline sector between 2010 and 2020, goals to scale back methane emissions from the oil and gasoline sector by 60 per cent between 2031 and 2035 and reduce fugitive methane emissions by 95 per cent by 2050.
Those commitments had been the idea for the Guidelines for the Management of Methane and Greenhouse Gases in the Upstream Oil and Gas Sector, issued by NUPRC in 2022.
The following yr, the fee strengthened these necessities via the Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions (Prevention of Waste and Pollution) Regulations.
The rules require operators to set up methane inventories, implement Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programmes, keep Fugitive Methane Emission Data (FMED), submit Greenhouse Gas Emission Management Plans, hold each day flaring and venting data and progressively get rid of routine flaring.
However, implementing this demand has been a problem that NUPRC has publicly acknowledged. In an official directive issued on 11 April 2026, NUPRC acknowledged that implementing Nigeria’s methane tips had encountered vital obstacles.
The fee cited what it described as “technical capacity limitations and infrastructural Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) gaps” amongst operators.
MRV methods are the spine of greenhouse gasoline regulation. Without correct measurement, reporting and verification, regulators can’t decide whether or not firms are lowering emissions or merely estimating them.
The fee admitted that these deficiencies had affected implementation of the methane tips.
To tackle the issue, it directed operators to undertake standardised reporting templates for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management Plans and greenhouse gasoline inventories.
It additional instructed firms to start reporting emissions utilizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Tier 2 methodology beginning within the third quarter of 2026 earlier than transitioning to the extra correct, measurement-based Tier 3 methodology by January 2027.
This acknowledgement implies that practically three years after the methane rules got here into pressure, Nigeria continues to be working to set up the methods required to measure emissions precisely. This factors to the truth that at the moment out there methane information stays based mostly on engineering estimates somewhat than direct discipline measurements.
The Programme Lead for Energy, Extractive and Climate Justice of Policy Alert, Edidiong Dickson, says that limitation complicates efforts to consider whether or not Nigeria is genuinely lowering methane emissions.
When reporting turns into voluntary
The fee’s personal annual reviews additionally reveal challenges in acquiring environmental info from operators.
In its 2024 Annual Financial and Operational Performance Report, NUPRC recognized amongst its principal constraints: delayed submission of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management Plans; failure by operators to submit greenhouse gasoline inventories; insufficient technical capability for methane leak detection; and shortages of specialized greenhouse gasoline service suppliers.
Those findings align with the expertise of PREMIUM TIMES throughout this investigation.
Frontier Oil admitted that it had not submitted Fugitive Methane Emission Data to the fee regardless of the regulatory requirement and that no sanction adopted. The failure of Sterling Oil, Aradel Holding, and Heirs Energy to reply to PREMIUM TIMES’ enquiries raises suspicion of non-compliance.
The NUPRC itself has neither publicly disclosed the names of firms that failed to submit obligatory methane reviews nor revealed data displaying enforcement actions taken in opposition to defaulting operators.
That lack of transparency makes it troublesome to assess whether or not environmental obligations are being utilized persistently throughout the business.
From environmental penalty to authorities income
If implementation gaps signify one problem, one other issues what occurs after firms flare and vent gasoline.
The PIA treats gasoline flaring and venting as an offence.
Section 104 gives that operators who flare or vent pure gasoline are liable to pay prescribed penalties.
But the Act went additional than earlier rules by recognising that host communities bear the environmental brunt of gasoline flaring and venting. Section 104(4) gives that gas-flaring penalties needs to be utilized towards environmental remediation and aid for the host communities the place gasoline is flared.
However, that association modified earlier this yr when, in February 2026, President Bola Tinubu issued an Executive Order directing that gas-flaring penalties be paid into the Federation Account.
The federal authorities argued that retaining the cash exterior the Federation Account diminished revenues out there for nationwide distribution.
According to an environmental professional and Executive Director of the Peoples Empowerment and Ecosystem Restoration Foundation, Mfon Gabriel, “that call reclassified gas-flaring penalties as a part of authorities income, making firms see flaring now not as an offence however as a way to contribute to authorities income.
“If government begins to see gas-flaring penalties primarily as revenue, there is a legitimate concern that eliminating gas flaring becomes financially less attractive, leading to more emissions while the host communities and the environment are sacrificed.”
According to NUPRC’s 2024 operational report reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES, though N700.75 billion had been remitted as gasoline flare penalties between 2021 and 2024, liabilities arising from gasoline flaring exceeded $936 million.
The figures in liabilities elevate one other accountability query.
Section 104 (2) of the PIA gives that penalties are to be paid in the identical method as royalties.
In Nigeria, operators should pay royalties month-to-month after the month of manufacturing.
The continued existence of tons of of tens of millions of {dollars} in excellent liabilities raises questions past assortment, enforcement and restoration. It throws into query whether or not flaring and venting are nonetheless seen as punishment for air pollution, provided that the penalties are generally allowed to be paid at comfort, therefore the liabilities.
For environmental advocate and Coordinator of Peace Point Development Foundation, Umo Isua-Ikoh, the larger situation is that “Government should not become comfortable collecting penalties while flaring continues.”
“The objective should always be to eliminate gas flaring, venting and fugitive emissions, thereby reducing methane emissions so that our planet won’t be thrown into a climate crisis from which humans, especially the global south, are unable to recover due to global warming”.
Regardless, the findings of this investigation expose clear gaps within the enforcement of the PIA and different supporting rules.
Despite the authorized structure, in group after group visited throughout this investigation, residents judged these legal guidelines by their lived actuality.
Those experiences revealed that local weather governance is measured by whether or not rules issued change circumstances on the bottom and contribute to lowering the local weather change plaguing communities.
This is the second and closing a part of this investigation. Read the first part here.
This story is supported by the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID).
Discover extra from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the most recent posts despatched to your e-mail.
