PREMIUM TIMES investigates TotalEnergies’ ‘zero routine flaring’ claim

For years, residents of Obite, Obagi and neighbouring communities in Ogba-Egbema-Ndoni Local Government Area of Rivers State have watched flames rise above TotalEnergies’ oil facilities, illuminating the night and, they say, altering the lives of people living closest to the company’s operations.

The flames did not disappear after TotalEnergies announced that it had achieved what it described as a landmark environmental milestone. Instead, residents told PREMIUM TIMES that the flaring continued.

In July, PREMIUM TIMES visited communities around Oil Mining Lease 58, TotalEnergies’ principal onshore asset in Nigeria, and observed flare stacks burning days and nights.

At the company’s facility in Obite, two flare stacks were visible. One burned with a large, intense flame while another produced a smaller flame. At Obagi, home to the Obagi Oil Field, PREMIUM TIMES observed two other flare stacks burning continuously during the period our reporter visited.

TotalEnergies in its own public disclosures identify December 2023 as the point at which routine flaring was eliminated from OML 100, which it described as the last Nigerian asset where routine flaring remained.

But data reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES, field observations and accounts from residents indicate that substantial flaring activity has continued around OML 58 since the announcement. Other government data also show that gas flare has increased on another upstream asset of TotalEnergies after the announcement.

The company has not explained the specific classification of the flaring observed by PREMIUM TIMES as its officials did not respond to repeated requests for clarification, leaving a critical part of the company’s environmental claim untested.

The observation does not, by itself, establish that the company has continued routine flaring in breach of its commitment. TotalEnergies distinguishes routine flaring from non-routine and safety flaring, and flare activity can occur for reasons other than routine disposal of associated gas.

However, the company has not provided the asset-level data, classification records or regulatory documentation needed to independently establish what the flames observed around OML 58 are. That gap is at the heart of this investigation.

The observations raise a question about one of the most prominent environmental claims made by the French energy giant in Nigeria: if routine flaring ended across TotalEnergies’ Nigerian operations in 2023, what exactly are the flames that communities continue to see?

The promise

On 2 December 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, TotalEnergies joined 49 other oil and gas companies that signed the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter.

The charter commits signatories to aim for net-zero operational emissions by or before 2050, near-zero upstream methane emissions by 2030 and the elimination of routine flaring by 2030. It also calls for emissions monitoring, reporting and verification and improved alignment with industry best practices.

TotalEnergies moved quickly to showcase its progress in Nigeria where it operates five assets; OML 58, 99, 100, 102, and 130.

On 18 December 2023, during a meeting with President Bola Tinubu in Abuja, TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné announced that the company had ended routine gas flaring across its operations in Nigeria.

The company’s definition of routine flaring aligns with the definition contained in the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission’s (NUPRC) Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions Regulations 2023.

TotalEnergies defines routine flaring as flaring during normal production operations where there are insufficient facilities or inadequate geological conditions to reinject, use or sell the gas produced.

NUPRC similarly distinguishes routine flaring from safety flaring, expressly stating that routine flaring does not include safety flaring, even where safety flaring is continuous.

But the Nigerian regulations also create a category of what they describe as “Non-Routine Flaring”.

Under the regulations, non-routine flaring covers flaring other than routine flaring and is typically intermittent and of short duration, whether planned or unplanned.

The category includes temporary failure of equipment handling gas during normal operations, temporary failure of facilities that prevents receipt of flare gas, safety flaring, initial plant or field start-up, start-up after shutdowns, scheduled preventive maintenance and inspections, construction activities and changes in operating conditions.

It also covers process upsets requiring flaring to stabilise a process, reservoir or well maintenance activities, and exploration, appraisal or production-well testing or clean-up following drilling or work-over activities.

That means the existence of flames at OML 58 does not, on its own, invalidate TotalEnergies’ declaration. Yet, it makes another question unavoidable.

If routine flaring has ended, what regulatory category applies to the flare activity that remains? How frequently does it occur? What triggers the flare? How long does each flare last? How much gas is being burned? And has NUPRC verified the operator’s classification?

Those are questions that can only be answered through asset-level operational and regulatory records.

If routine flaring has ended, communities, regulators and the public should be able to determine how continuing flare events are classified, they should be explained to why the flares from the four stacks in their community has not been “intermittent and of short duration” as provided in the regulation, they should determine how much gas is involved and whether they comply with regulatory requirements.

However, the unresolved question is whether the persistent flames at least around OML 58 which is easily accessible unlike its offshore and deep water assets are genuinely occasional safety or non-routine flares, or whether some represent continued routine flaring under another classification.

Community waiting for the promised change

At Ogbogwu community, Ndenso Okwuikpo lives close enough to a TotalEnergies facility to watch the flare from his home.

He said he has seen no meaningful reduction in the intensity of the flaring since the company announced the end of routine flaring.

His larger family, he said, donated more than 150 hectares of land to TotalEnergies in anticipation that oil operations would bring employment and economic opportunities.

Instead, he said, the community has been “rewarded” with pollution. “Our farmland aren’t yielding well because of the heat in this area. That is the reward we get from the land we gave to them” he said.

Mr Okwuikpo said he had developed serious problems with his sight over the past four years and spends money on medication that he would otherwise have used to support his family.

He said residents had expected the company’s 2023 announcement to bring relief.

“We heard since 2023 that they will stop flaring. We were very happy. But since we heard that, nothing has happened. The gas burns day and night and it has never stopped even for an hour.”

His account, however, is not backed by evidence that his eye condition is caused by the flaring in the community. Nevertheless, his experience points to a concern expressed by residents about the effects of living beside oil-production infrastructure.

For another resident, Hannah Igila, her concern is the heat emitted from the flare which she said burns day and night. Ms Igila said this causes sleep difficulty for families that do not have fans, especially at night.

At Obite, 84-year-old traditional leader in the community, Ebiere Ejah remembers a time before TotalEnergies’ operations changed the landscape around the community.

He complained about the effect of the flare on agriculture.

Mr Ejah said Obite was once known for a variety of cocoyam locally called Indian cocoyam. He said the crop could no longer thrive because of the heat around the community. “Even our cassava isn’t fruitful due to the heat from the gas flared day and night,” he said.

He also complained about what he described as polluted rainwater and skin irritation among residents.

At Obagi, the flame is part of the terrain

At Obagi, residents said the situation is even more difficult to reconcile with the company’s environmental claims.

Oil production in the field began decades ago. Many residents said they were born into a community where the flare was already part of the community scenery.

Michael Kio, a high chief in the community and a family chief representing Obagi in Egi Clan, said his Umuokporo family has 32 oil wells located on its land.

Yet, he said, the family remains poor while living beside oil infrastructure.

“All we get from TotalEnergies is the continuous destruction of our environment through the nonstop gas flare,” he said.

“We heard news some years ago that this gas they burn will end, but we haven’t seen it end till date. They keep burning our lives,” Mr Kio added.

At the Obagi Primary Health Centre, the official in charge of the facility, Osam Augustine, said residents frequently arrive with complaints involving itchy eyes, skin irritation and chest pain accompanied by cough.

“There is no month we don’t have complaints about itchy eyes, at least 20 in a month,” he said.

He said complaints of itchy bodies were more frequent and that chest pain accompanied by cough was also common.

At the Obite Primary Health Centre, the officer in charge, Vatican Nwoke reported similar complaints.

She said she personally experiences itchy eyes accompanied by discharge and estimated that the facility receives about 15 cases of itchy eyes and 17 cases of itchy body complaints each month.

Ms Nwoke said chest pain was more common, with at least 20 cases monthly.

“These communities need proper epidemiological studies,” Ms Nwoke said in substance, comparing the complaints she sees with the experiences of colleagues working in communities where gas is not being flared.

The health workers did not provide clinical evidence establishing gas flaring as the cause of the complaints. Their testimony instead documents the health burden they say is repeatedly presented at the facilities.

Yet, scientific evidence gives credence to the concerns repeatedly raised by host communities.

A study published by the National Library of Medicine identified eye irritation and chest pain among the most frequently reported health conditions in communities exposed to gas flaring in the Niger Delta.

Another study published in the West African Journal of Medicine found increasing higher rates of chest pain, breathing difficulties, skin irritation and eye irritation among people residing near flare sites than those living farther away.

Data reveals more

Available regulatory and satellite data provide another piece of the picture.

Data published by NUPRC show that TotalEnergies, through its Nigerian operating entities, flared 4,395.75 million MSCF of gas in 2024, placing the company 13th among 46 companies reported in the dataset.

The same NUPRC data show that TotalEnergies utilised 418,231.37 million MSCF of gas in 2024, ranking second among the companies listed.

However, the figures does not capture what happened at individual assets.

An analysis of data from the Nigerian Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency’s Gas Flare Tracker, which uses satellite observations of flare activity was able to capture gas flaring from TotalEnergies two assets; OML 58 and 130 deepwaters asset.

NOSDRA data indicates that OML 58 recorded 10.1 million MSCF of flaring in 2022. The figure rose to 10.6 million MSCF in 2023 before falling to 7.9 million MSCF in 2024. In 2025, however, the estimated volume returned to 10 million MSCF.

Flare volumes recorded around OML 130 remained below 6.2 million MSCF in 2022 and 2023, before rising to 7.9 million MSCF in 2025.

The pattern failed to show a sustained disappearance of flare activity after TotalEnergies’ December 2023 announcement.

TotalEnergies commitments versus Methane question

Beyond visible flames, there are concerns around TotalEnergies methane disclosures.

Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a highly potent greenhouse gas.

TotalEnergies has set global targets to reduce methane emissions from its operated assets by 80 percent by 2030 compared with 2020 levels.

In its 2026 Sustainability Climate progress report, the company says it achieved a 65 per cent reduction globally in 2025 and is targeting a 70 per cent reduction by 2026.

However, those figures are global operated-asset figures and do not reveal the level of methane emissions from TotalEnergies’ Nigerian operations to help the country measure its own milestones in climate commitments.

Yet, TotalEnergies has invested in technology designed to detect and quantify methane. The company said it deployed its AUSEA drone technology in Nigeria in 2022.

In December 2023, TotalEnergies and NNPC signed a cooperation agreement to use AUSEA technology for methane detection and measurement on Nigerian oil and gas facilities.

In its 2026 progress report, the company reported one key methane reduction from its Nigerian operations noting that a source of venting identified in Nigeria was combustible cover gas used in storage tanks. It said in December 2024, the company replaced the combustible cover gas with inert nitrogen.

According to TotalEnergies, the intervention reduced emissions from 5.2 kilotonnes of methane per year to 0.35 kilotonnes. That represents a reduction of 4.85 million kilogrammes of methane annually.

Although this is a substantial reduction from that particular source, it is not a measure of TotalEnergies’ total methane emissions in Nigeria.

A facility can stop routine flaring and still release methane through equipment leaks, venting, incomplete combustion or other sources hence methane measurement and disclosure remain necessary even where an operator reports zero routine flaring.

TotalEnergies Nigerian methane data not publicly accessible

The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative’s (NEITI) 2022-2023 oil and gas audit found that only 15 of 62 companies covered by the audit submitted greenhouse gas emissions data while 47 did not.

While major multinational oil companies in Nigeria like Shell, Mobil, and Chevron submitted, TotalEnergies’ two Nigerian upstream entities; TotalEnergies EP Nigeria Limited and TotalEnergies Upstream Nigeria Limited were not among the companies identified as having supplied the required methane and other Greenhouse Gases (GHG) data in the audit. Yet, TotalEnergies is global company that publishes extensive global climate data and has publicly committed itself to methane measurement and reduction.

NEITI recommended strict enforcement, including penalties for non-compliance, incentives for accurate and timely submissions and third-party verification of emissions data. The audit also called for engagement by NUPRC, the Federal Ministry of Environment and NEITI to help companies understand and comply with GHG reporting requirements.

But the regulatory framework has since become more demanding as the 2023 Gas Flaring, Venting and Methane Emissions Regulations established measurement and reporting obligations for upstream operators.

In April 2026, NUPRC issued another directive requiring operators to adopt standardised templates for GHG emissions management plans and methane and GHG emissions accounting.

The regulator said operators must use, at minimum, IPCC Tier 2 methodologies from the third quarter of 2026 and transition to measurement-based Tier 3 systems by January 2027.

Disclosure must match technological capability

The Nigeria Country Director of the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), Tengi George-Ikoli said TotalEnergies’ reported progress should be welcomed, but argued that corporate commitments and technological capability must be matched by transparent, asset-level disclosure.

“NRGI welcomes TotalEnergies’ reported elimination of routine gas flaring from its operated Nigerian assets and its deployment of AUSEA technology to detect and quantify methane emissions,” she said.

“But corporate commitments and technological capability must be matched by transparent, asset-level disclosure.”

Ms George-Ikoli stressed that ending routine flaring should not be confused with eliminating methane emissions.

Methane, she said, can still escape through fugitive leaks, venting, equipment failures and incomplete combustion.

“Therefore, a zero-routine-flaring claim does not remove the need to measure, report and independently verify methane emissions,” she said.

Ms George-Ikoli said TotalEnergies could demonstrate leadership by publishing its Nigeria-specific emissions results and clarifying what information it had submitted to the relevant authorities thus allowing for independent assessment of TotalEnergies’ progress.

“Voluntary corporate disclosure should complement, not replace, strong regulatory reporting and public accountability,” she said.

The organisation called on TotalEnergies, like other operators in Nigeria, to publish methane emissions data for its Nigerian assets, including absolute emissions, methane intensity, emission sources, facilities surveyed, methodologies used and corrective actions taken.

Operator, regulator that has not answered

PREMIUM TIMES sought answers from TotalEnergies.

On 22 July, the newspaper sent the company in Nigeria and its headquarters in France a detailed enquiry asking it to identify the exact date routine flaring ceased at OML 58; explain the flare activity observed during the newspaper’s visit to local communities in Nigeria; state whether the company had investigated residents’ claims; and clarify whether the observed flaring was classified as routine, non-routine, emergency or safety-related.

The newspaper also requested OML 58 flare volumes from 2021 through 2025 and for January to June 2026.

Earlier on 16 June, PREMIUM TIMES in a media enquiry asked for methane emissions data, including fugitive emissions, venting and combustion-related methane, as well as copies of fugitive methane emissions reports submitted to NUPRC.

The newspaper asked the company whether it had submitted methane data to NEITI and, if not, why.

It also requested its Flare Elimination and Monetisation Plan, details of investments made to eliminate routine flaring, any regulatory sanctions or compliance notices, and information on third-party verification of its emissions data.

No response was received and a reminder was sent on 26 August and another on 21 September yet the company still did not respond.

PREMIUM TIMES also approached NUPRC through the Commission Chief Executive, Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan, and Head of Media and Strategic Communication, Eniola Akinkuotu on 21 June and again on 21 September to establish whether the regulator had independently assessed TotalEnergies’ declaration that routine flaring had ended in Nigeria.

The regulator was specifically asked whether its assessment supported the company’s claim in light of the persistent flare activity observed around OML 58. NUPRC was also asked what action it had taken over TotalEnergies’ failure to report methane emissions in the NEITI audit. The regulator did not respond to the enquiry.

NUPRC’s silence is not an isolated occurrence.

In a PREMIUM TIMES investigation published in September, Oil companies violate Nigerian laws, flare gas, face no sanctions, this newspaper also sought answers from NUPRC on regulatory enforcement. The regulator did not respond to questions. The pattern is also evident in PREMIUM TIMES’ July investigation, Gas flares, poisoned lives, regulatory failures in Nigeria’s oil fields, which sought information from NUPRC on operator compliance and regulatory enforcement. NUPRC did not respond to the enquiries.

The regulator’s repeated refusal to provide a response raises an accountability question.

For a regulator responsible for enforcing rules on flaring, venting and methane emissions, the public needs to know whether investigations are being conducted, what they have found and what action follows when operators fail to comply with commitments and rules.

Without that information, it becomes difficult for communities and the public to assess whether public declarations and rules are being enforced.

What the silence leaves unanswered

The silence leaves a more difficult problem.

Visible flare activity remains around OML 58 after the company declared that routine flaring had ended across its Nigerian operations.

Satellite data indicate that flare activity in OML 58 and 130 did not disappear or reduce significantly after the announcement.

Residents say the flames remain part of everyday life, while health workers report recurring complaints from people living close to the facilities. NUPRC’s company-level data show that TotalEnergies continued to report substantial gas volumes flared in 2024, but the data do not disclose adequate asset-level information to determine what proportion came from OML 58, its other four operated assets or how individual flare events were classified.

And TotalEnergies has not provided PREMIUM TIMES with the operational and emissions records that could resolve the discrepancy, leaving a critical question unanswered: If routine flaring has ended, what exactly are communities seeing day and night and who has independently verified the situation?

Without verifiable records and answers from the operator and regulator, the public is left with two competing realities: a corporate declaration of zero routine flaring and a physical landscape in which flames remain visible all day and night.

READ ALSO: Nigeria among top nine world’s gas-flaring countries in 2025 — World Bank

Claims have to be interrogated – Experts

The Director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation and Environmental Activist, Nnimmo Bassey, said the apparent contradiction is evidence that public claims by oil companies and government agencies must be tested against conditions on the ground.

“When TotalEnergies say that they have stopped routine flaring yet flaring is taking place around their facilities in the community it is simply a cover up,” Mr Bassey said.

He said the government and oil companies should demonstrate environmental commitments through measurable action rather than declarations.

Head of Energy, Extractives and Climate Justice Programme at Policy Alert, Edidiong Dickson, said the case points to weaknesses in emissions reporting that need to be addressed.

Mr Dickson said field observations from oil-producing communities suggest that emissions claims by some operators may not always be readily reconciled with conditions on the ground.

He called for improved monitoring by NUPRC and involvement of communities in emissions information.

According to him, claims by operators need to be interrogated by the regulator, particularly where available evidence from communities and other monitoring systems raises questions.