Nigeria Releases First Greenhouse Gas Data, But Concerns Arise

Nigeria has made a significant move to improve transparency in its oil and gas sector. The country has published company-level greenhouse gas emissions data for the first time.

This disclosure comes from the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) in its 2023 oil and gas audit report. It aims to help citizens, regulators, and investors see how much pollution companies produce. It will also show if Nigeria is meeting its climate goals.

But an independent review of the data has found some problems. These issues could shake trust in the disclosures if they are not fixed.

The Emissions Monitoring and Accountability Tool (EMAT), an interactive platform created to compare emissions data from NEITI, highlighted repeated emissions figures among different companies. It also showed missing methane information and inconsistencies in the number of companies that supposedly submitted emissions data.

Repeated emissions figures

One key finding is that Chevron Nigeria Limited and the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) reported the same methane emissions figures for 2022. Both companies listed 173,578,759.2 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) and 6,943,150.368 kilograms of methane.

These figures are the same in almost all reported categories except for halons. The details can be found in Appendix 12 of NEITI’s 2022 and 2023 Oil and Gas Industry Reports. This data is Nigeria’s first public company-level greenhouse gas disclosures.

EMAT makes it easy to spot these identical figures, which might be hard to catch in regular tables. The same issue is seen with Aradel Holdings Plc, which reported identical methane values for both 2022 and 2023: 133,522,033 kilograms CO₂e and 5,340,877 kilograms of methane.

Network E&P also reported 112 kilograms CO₂e and 3.64 kilograms of methane in both years. Repeated figures do not always mean the data is wrong. Companies with similar operations might report similar emissions. But exactly matching numbers to several decimal places need more checking against original reports.

Another case involves Pillar Oil, where the same number appears across different greenhouse gases. For instance, in 2022, the number 1,610,170.7872 shows up for carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, and sulphur dioxide. The same pattern is seen in 2023 with 2,389,859.8050. The report does not explain why these different gases share identical values.

Missing methane information

The review also found that methane reporting is not complete. Out of 30 company-year records checked in Appendix 12, only 12 had information in all three methane reporting fields.

The other 18 records had missing details, and some omissions are hard to understand. For example, NAE reported 963,970 kilograms of methane in 2022 but listed zero for the carbon dioxide equivalent.

In 2023, NAE again reported methane emissions but left the carbon dioxide equivalent blank. Chevron and Heirs Energies reported methane only as carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023 without the actual methane mass.

Heirs Energies listed 217.4 million kilograms CO₂e, one of the highest methane-related figures in the data, but without methane mass, it is hard to verify.

Additionally, Platform Petroleum is on the reporting sheet, but all its methane fields are blank for both years. The report does not clarify if these blanks mean no emissions happened, no data was submitted, or emissions were not calculated. Understanding this is important since a blank field is not the same as reporting zero emissions.

Inconsistencies in company reporting

The review also questions how many companies really submitted emissions data. NEITI says 15 out of 62 audited companies provided greenhouse gas information, while 47 did not.

Yet, the appendix shows 15 companies on the reporting sheets and 58 on the non-reporting sheet. Together, they make 73 entries, not the 62 companies NEITI mentioned.

Upon closer look, Platform Petroleum appears on both lists. Also, some entries refer to joint ventures or individual oil fields instead of clear legal entities. This makes it hard to tell which companies reported emissions.

For example, the non-reporting list includes NEPL (55 percent) and Shoreline (45 percent) interests in OML 30, while the reporting sheets list Esso’s Erha and Usan fields separately. A clearer list showing legal entities, operators, and production assets would improve transparency.

Why this matters

Nigeria plans to stop routine gas flaring by 2030 and cut fugitive methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 60 percent by 2031. Tracking progress depends on reliable baseline data.

Appendix 12 is Nigeria’s first public company-level greenhouse gas disclosure and serves as the benchmark for future emissions cuts. If this baseline has gaps or inconsistencies, checking future progress will be harder.

Practical improvements could make future disclosures better. These include publishing the original reporting templates from companies, clearly marking reported zeros versus missing data, identifying the legal entity for each reported asset, providing notes for unusual entries, and keeping a public log of corrections when errors are found.

NEITI’s response

NEITI was asked, through a Freedom of Information request, to respond to the issues raised in the analysis. This includes questions about the methodology, duplicate figures, missing values, emissions intensity, the number of reporting companies, verification procedures, and data accessibility.

NEITI said that under EITI Requirement 3.4, greenhouse gas reporting is encouraged but not mandatory. The agency explained that its reporting template asked companies to provide emissions data and details on the methods used, including emission factors, ground-based sensors, satellite estimates, and other recognized methods.

However, the template did not require companies to share the Global Warming Potential values used, the specific IPCC or other scientific assessments that those values came from, or the time horizon for converting emissions into CO₂ equivalents. NEITI stated that it did not adjust or recalculate the data from companies. The published numbers reflect what companies provided.

NEITI added that there is no national verification framework for these disclosures. Its focus is on transparency, collection, and publication rather than independent validation. Regarding the repeated entries and identical figures found in the analysis, NEITI acknowledged these points and said it would carry out an internal review.

The agency noted that necessary adjustments had been made in the published data. It also mentioned that the original company templates and internal records were not meant for public disclosure. NEITI said any corrections from its review would be reflected in the published dataset. It accepted the feedback and will consider it as it updates the published information.

What happens next?

NEITI’s first company-level greenhouse gas disclosure is a significant start for public scrutiny in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector. The data gives journalists, researchers, civil society organizations, and policymakers access to information that was hard to find at the company level.

But the analysis shows that the value of the disclosure relies on improvements in how emissions information is collected, standardized, verified, and published. The immediate focus should be creating a clearer reporting framework that allows users to tell the difference between zero emissions, missing information, and non-applicable data. It should also explain the methodology used, identify the companies and assets involved, and enable reproduction of emissions-intensity calculations.

As Nigeria works towards its methane-reduction goals, the quality of the data will be as essential as the targets themselves. The first disclosure has opened the door to transparency. The next challenge is to ensure that the information available through that door is complete, consistent, and reliable for real public accountability.