Why the sale of the Amukpe-Escravos pipeline is no longer…

According to multiple reports, a September 2025 approval tied to a failed gas pipeline transaction has resurfaced, despite the deal having been formally terminated four months earlier.

The approval concerns the proposed sale of a 40% stake in the Amukpe-Escravos pipeline, a 160,000 barrel-per-day pipeline that has become a key part of Nigeria’s oil infrastructure.

According to reports, the original transaction, involving Continental Oil and Gas Limited and later Conpurex Limited, was terminated in October 2024 after the buyer defaulted on payment obligations, missed key milestones and sought to rewrite key terms.

Lenders, including AMCON and Sterling Bank, had lost faith in the process.

Now, with approval back in play, they wonder how a terminated deal can be revived without a procedural reset, especially in light of a new independent assessment that puts the stakes at nearly three times the original offer.

The original offer for the 40% stake was $243 million. A new independent valuation conducted in 2025 places the same stake between $372 million and $641 million.

The development is now seen in the industry as more than a routine business matter.

This case, stakeholders say, went beyond a typical transactional dispute to test how Nigeria handles assessment, process integrity and national interest when strategic assets are involved.

The complications go beyond pricing.

Following the exit of the original bidder, Conpurex Limited emerged without a clearly defined transition process, so it failed to meet its financial commitments as it sought to reopen under established terms.

Proposed revisions include provisions to transfer the risk of regulatory approval back to the seller and to introduce interest claims on repayable sums. Lenders describe them as commercially unsustainable.

What concerns the union now is not simply that the deal has failed, but that a process widely considered compromised is receiving new effects through administrative carryover.

Lenders are believed to be pushing for a rollback. Their position is that the September 2025 approval should be reviewed rather than implemented.

The proposed path is simple: revoke approval, appoint an independent advisor and return the asset to the market through a transparent and competitive process that reflects current value.

Anything less, they warn, risks setting a precedent that extends beyond the single transaction. This would suggest that the process can be changed after the fact, that valuation metrics can lag behind reality without consequence, and that the discipline in the transfer of strategic assets is open to interpretation.

For an industry built on long-term capital and measured risk, this is not a trivial sign. It is crucial.

Related