Lenders have raised objections to the revival of a previously terminated plan to acquire a strategic stake in the Amukpe-Escravos Pipeline, questioning the basis on which a September 2025 approval tied to the failed transaction is being advanced.
Documents reviewed by this newspaper show that the proposed sale, involving Continental Oil and Gas Limited and a later entrant, Conpurex Limited, was formally terminated in October 2024 following missed payment obligations, unresolved breaches, and attempts to alter agreed terms in ways that would have reassigned core risks to the seller.
By the time of its termination, the process had not only stalled. In the view of financial stakeholders, it had lost credibility.Despite this, the earlier approval linked to that process has resurfaced, prompting concern among lenders that a concluded transaction is being revived without the procedural reset typically required in such circumstances.
The development is now being viewed within the industry as more than a routine commercial matter. This case, stakeholders say, has moved beyond a typical transaction dispute into something that tests how Nigeria handles valuation, process integrity, and national interest when strategic assets are involved. For lenders and other stakeholders, it has become a test of governance and institutional discipline, particularly given the strategic importance of the asset involved.
The Amukpe-Escravos Pipeline has, in recent years, evolved into a critical evacuation route as constraints on alternative corridors have persisted. With throughput capacity of 160,000 barrels per day and uptime consistently above 95 per cent, it is regarded as a high-value infrastructure asset whose pricing is expected to reflect both performance and strategic relevance.
ALSO READ:
- Lenders Push Back as Failed Pipeline Sale Is Quietly Revived
- ENERGY TIMES Award Holds Today in Lagos
- Energia Appoints Oladimeji Bashorun as CEO
- ENERGY TIMES to honour Adelabu, Yahaya, Attah, Others April 17
- Artemis II Crew Splashes Down from Moon into Pacific Ocean at 1:08 a.m. Nigerian Time
It is that valuation which now sits at the centre of the dispute.Industry analyst indicates that the original $243 million offer had already met resistance from a syndicate of lenders who questioned the assumptions underpinning the figure. Their concern was that the valuation did not align with the asset’s operational reality or prevailing market conditions.
An independent assessment conducted in 2025 places the same stake significantly higher, with estimates approaching $600 million under reasonable assumptions. The difference is substantial and, in the context of a strategic national asset, raises clear concerns about value preservation.For lenders, the implication is direct. Proceeding based on the earlier benchmark risks locking in a transaction at a level materially below current market value.The complications extend beyond pricing.
Industry sources note that the earlier transaction process unfolded during a period of limited alignment among key financial stakeholders. Subsequent restructuring of the financing framework, supported by improved coordination between lenders and relevant institutions, has since introduced clearer parameters for how any divestment should be undertaken.Following the exit of the original bidder, Conpurex Limited emerged without a clearly defined transition process, then failed to meet its financial commitments while seeking to reopen settled terms.
Among the proposed revisions were provisions to transfer regulatory approval risks back to the seller and to introduce interest claims on refundable sums. Lenders describe these as commercially untenable and indicative of a process that had become inconsistent.What now concerns the syndicate is not simply that the deal failed, but that a process widely regarded as compromised is being given renewed effect through administrative carryover.In private discussions, the concern is framed more starkly.
If a terminated transaction can be revived without a formal restart, the distinction between concluded and ongoing processes begins to erode. That, in turn, weakens contractual certainty and introduces caution into capital allocation decisions.For institutions already exposed to the asset, the risk is immediate.Lenders are understood to be pressing for a reset. Their position is that the September 2025 approval should be revisited rather than implemented.
A process that has lost both commercial coherence and procedural integrity, they argue, cannot form the basis of a binding outcome.The proposed path forward is straightforward. Reverse the approval, appoint an independent adviser, 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 a single transaction. It would suggest that the process can be adjusted after the fact, that valuation benchmarks can lag reality without consequence, and that discipline in the transfer of strategic assets is open to interpretation.For an industry built on long-term capital and measured risk, that is not a trivial signal. It is a defining one.
