The habit, not the steel

Why Nigeria’s next oil boom will depend less on replacing ageing infrastructure than on building the institutional discipline to maintain, renew and optimise the system that turns resources into reliable production.

Nigeria wants more oil.

The ambition is clear. The Federal Government has set a target of raising crude oil production to 3 million barrels per day by 2030. The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, NUPRC, has framed its production agenda around recovering shut-in volumes, arresting decline, reducing losses, optimising existing assets and accelerating time-to-first-oil.

And, to be fair, something is working.

NUPRC reported that Nigeria’s crude production averaged about 1.56 million barrels per day in June 2026, while crude and condensate combined averaged about 1.735 million barrels per day. June marked the fourth consecutive month of production growth, with crude output reaching its highest level since April 2020.

The regulator attributed the improvement partly to stable production operations and the absence of major pipeline outages, alongside effective turnaround maintenance and improved asset integrity.

There is renewed investment activity too.

The Federal Ministry of Petroleum Resources said in July that more than $10 billion in long-awaited Final Investment Decisions had been attracted over the preceding three years. NUPRC also announced that ExxonMobil and its partners had committed $1 billion to the Usan Infill Project, expected to add about 40,000 barrels per day.

These are encouraging signs, and they deserve to be acknowledged.

This is not an argument that nothing is being done. The evidence increasingly suggests the opposite. Regulatory reforms are beginning to unlock investment, production is recovering and projects that had remained stalled for years are moving again.

But that raises a more important question.

Can Nigeria turn this production recovery into a durable increase in output without continuously renewing the system through which that oil is produced, transported and monetised?

I think that is the harder question.

The problem is older than the latest target

Nigeria’s upstream infrastructure has developed over many decades.

The issue is not simply that some facilities and evacuation systems are old. It is that maintaining the integrity and reliability of those assets becomes increasingly important as fields mature, production systems become more complex and new developments connect to existing infrastructure.

NUPRC’s Development and Production Department makes asset integrity and reliability part of its core regulatory responsibilities, including facility engineering, risk-based inspection, asset-integrity management and oversight of pipeline and production-facility projects.

That tells us something important.

Infrastructure integrity is not a peripheral issue in Nigeria’s upstream system. It is a core production issue.

But age, by itself, is not a failure mechanism.

A mature asset can perform reliably if it is properly maintained, inspected, upgraded and eventually renewed when necessary. The problem arises when infrastructure renewal and maintenance fail to keep pace with operational requirements.

Pipeline availability clearly matters. NUPRC’s June production report specifically linked the absence of major pipeline outages to improved production uptime and crude evacuation efficiency.

But it would be simplistic to blame every production problem on old pipelines.

Nigeria’s production challenge is systemic.

Capital availability matters. Field maturity matters. Security matters. So do asset integrity, regulatory certainty, project execution, evacuation capacity and the ability to move projects from approval to final investment decision and ultimately to first oil.

The steel is only one part of the story.

From production targets to production discipline

Nigeria has rarely suffered from a shortage of production targets.

The harder part has been converting ambition into reliable, sustainable barrels.

NUPRC’s own production strategy makes clear that the challenge is broader than adding new fields. It has identified recovering economically valuable shut-in volumes, arresting decline, reducing losses, accelerating time-to-first-oil and improving regulatory predictability and speed as important parts of the recovery.

The Commission’s Chief Executive has also pointed to revived wells, optimised assets, effective utilisation and accelerated deepwater development as pathways towards the 3 million-barrel target.

The question is therefore no longer whether anything is changing.

It is whether the change can become durable.

A new field can add production. But if evacuation infrastructure is unreliable, the system remains vulnerable.

A regulatory reform can improve investor confidence. But if projects take too long to reach FID or first oil, the barrels remain theoretical.

An operator can increase production from a mature field. But without sustained investment in asset integrity and infrastructure, those gains may prove difficult to maintain.

Nigeria’s 3 million-barrel ambition should therefore be viewed not simply as a production target, but as a systems challenge.

The indigenous producer changes the equation

One of the most important developments in Nigeria’s upstream industry is the increasing role of indigenous oil companies.

This creates a genuine opportunity.

Recent divestments by international oil companies have transferred significant assets to Nigerian and Africa-focused operators. NUPRC has described the emergence of indigenous operators as an important part of the changing upstream landscape.

But local ownership is not a substitute for capability.

An indigenous company can understand the local operating environment and still face constraints around capital, technology, project management, governance or execution. NUPRC has therefore called on indigenous producers to uphold industry standards, strengthen human-capital development and promote good corporate governance.

The rise of indigenous operators should be welcomed without being romanticised.

The objective is not simply to replace international operators with Nigerian companies. It is to build strong Nigerian energy companies capable of competing globally while delivering reliably at home.

The test should not be the nationality of ownership or the excitement surrounding an acquisition.

It should be what ultimately matters: capital deployed, assets maintained, production delivered and value created.

Infrastructure is also a capital-allocation question

There is another dimension that deserves more attention.

Infrastructure renewal is not simply an engineering decision.

It is a capital-allocation decision.

An operator deciding whether to replace, rehabilitate or extend the life of a major pipeline or production facility is also assessing the expected life of the underlying asset, production outlook, fiscal terms, security environment, regulatory certainty and the probability of recovering the investment.

This matters because Nigeria wants to attract more private capital into the upstream sector.

Investors will not commit billions to infrastructure simply because the infrastructure needs replacing. They need to know that the underlying projects are commercially viable and that the regulatory and operating environment provides a reasonable prospect of recovering their capital.

Regulatory certainty and commercial viability are therefore not separate from the infrastructure conversation.

They are part of it.

The policy question is not simply, “Who will replace the pipeline?”

It is also:

“What economic and institutional conditions will make someone willing to pay for it?”

Deepwater is important. But it is not the whole answer

Nigeria’s deepwater resources remain an important part of its production future.

NUPRC has explicitly identified accelerated deepwater development as one pathway to achieving the 3 million-barrel target.

The Usan Infill Project is particularly instructive because it combines deepwater investment with brownfield optimisation. Rather than waiting for an entirely new petroleum province to be developed, the project is designed to increase production from an existing field.

That is the sort of portfolio thinking Nigeria needs.

The country needs new production from new developments.

And it needs to protect, restore and optimise the production it already has.

Brownfield optimisation and greenfield development should not compete. They should complement each other.

Security is not only a policing question

Nigeria’s experience with crude theft, vandalism and attacks on oil infrastructure demonstrates that physical infrastructure cannot be separated from the environment in which it operates.

But infrastructure security is not only a policing question.

It is also a stakeholder question.

Durable production requires operators to maintain credible relationships with host communities, manage legitimate grievances and build sufficient trust around their operations.

A pipeline running through a community is not simply a piece of steel. It is part of a social and economic environment.

Where that environment is hostile, infrastructure becomes more vulnerable. Where relationships are credible and communities see legitimate value in continued operations, the environment can become more stable.

Security therefore belongs in the broader production system alongside engineering, economics and regulation.

There is also an energy-transition question

Why should Nigeria make substantial investments in oil infrastructure at a time when the global energy system is moving towards lower-carbon sources?

The answer cannot simply be that Nigeria has oil.

The more rational argument is that if Nigeria intends to monetise its petroleum resources while they remain commercially viable, it must do so efficiently, safely and competitively.

That means maintaining the infrastructure required to produce and transport those resources while also investing in diversification.

NUPRC itself frames its energy-sustainability responsibilities around decarbonising upstream operations while sustaining investment in oil and gas development for energy security and economic development.

The choice is therefore not necessarily between maintaining oil infrastructure and pursuing energy transition.

Nigeria will need to manage both.

The question is whether it can monetise its remaining petroleum resources efficiently while using the revenues, capabilities and institutional capacity generated by the sector to support a broader transition in its energy economy.

From production ambition to production discipline

Nigeria’s oil industry is entering another important phase.

The opportunity is real.

The resource is there. Technical capability exists. Investors are watching. Indigenous companies are becoming more important. Deepwater opportunities remain significant. Regulatory reforms are beginning to create a more structured framework for investment.

And, importantly, production is recovering.

But none of these guarantees 3 million barrels per day.

That target will ultimately be determined by thousands of less glamorous decisions.

Maintaining a pipeline.

Repairing a facility.

Securing an evacuation route.

Restoring a shut-in well.

Approving a project on time.

Financing a development.

Protecting an investment.

Maintaining the integrity of a mature asset before it becomes a production crisis.

Building credible relationships with communities.

Holding institutions and operators accountable for delivery.

Nigeria’s oil opportunity is therefore no longer primarily a question of finding more resources.

It is a question of building a system that can reliably convert resources into production, production into cash flow, and cash flow into broader economic value.

That system requires new investment, but also maintenance.

New projects, but also brownfield optimisation.

Regulatory reform, but also regulatory execution.

Indigenous participation, but also indigenous capability.

Infrastructure renewal, but also commercial viability.

Security, but also social legitimacy.

The steel matters.

But the deeper issue is the system that decides when the steel must be renewed, who pays for it, whether the investment makes commercial sense and whether it gets done before failure forces the decision.

Nigeria’s next oil boom will not be determined only by how much oil lies beneath the ground. It will be determined by the quality of the system we build above it.

 Adebawo is an energy industry executive, strategic advisor and thought leader with nearly three decades of experience across Africa’s upstream petroleum sector. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Hyphen Partners Limited, a specialist advisory firm focused on policy and regulatory intelligence, market entry, stakeholder strategy, executive and institutional positioning in complex and highly regulated industries. A former executive at Chevron and Heritage Energy, he is an author, scholar and ordained minister. His writing explores energy policy, political economy, corporate governance, strategic communication, leadership, the relationship between institutions and public life, as well as the institutional forces shaping Africa’s development.

Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.