ANALYSIS: Nigeria’s first methane disclosure raises questions over repeated figures, missing data

Nigeria has taken an important step towards improving transparency in its oil and gas sector by publishing company-level greenhouse gas emissions data for the first time.

The disclosure, released by the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) in its 2023 oil and gas audit report, is expected to help citizens, regulators and investors understand how much pollution companies emit and whether the country is making progress towards its climate commitments.

However, an independent review of the data has identified several issues that may undermine confidence in the disclosures if left unresolved.

Using the Emissions Monitoring and Accountability Tool (EMAT), an interactive platform that organises and compares emissions data published by NEITI, this analysis found repeated emissions figures across different companies, missing methane information, and inconsistencies in the number of companies reported as having submitted emissions data.

The findings do not suggest wrongdoing by any company. Rather, they highlight areas where Nigeria’s emissions reporting framework could be strengthened to improve transparency, data quality and public confidence.

Repeated emissions figures

One of the most striking observations is that Chevron Nigeria Limited and the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) reported exactly the same methane emissions figures for 2022.

Both companies reported 173,578,759.2 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) and 6,943,150.368 kilograms of methane.

The values are identical across virtually all reported fields except for halons.

The figures appear in Appendix 12 of NEITI’s 2022 and 2023 Oil and Gas Industry Reports, which contain Nigeria’s first publicly available company-level greenhouse gas disclosures.

This became immediately visible because EMAT allows users to compare company data side by side, identical figures that may be difficult to notice in static tables.

The Chevron-SPDC entries are not isolated cases.

Another example is Aradel Holdings Plc, which reported exactly the same methane values in both 2022 and 2023: 133,522,033 kilograms CO₂e and 5,340,877 kilograms of methane.

Similarly, Network E&P reported 112 kilograms CO2e and 3.64 kilograms methane in both reporting years.

Repeated figures do not automatically mean the data are inaccurate. Companies with similar operations, shared production facilities, or common reporting boundaries could legitimately report similar emissions. However, exactly identical values reported to several decimal places warrant further verification against the original submissions.

Another case concerns Pillar Oil, where the same numerical value appears repeatedly across different greenhouse gases.

For example, in 2022, the value 1,610,170.7872 appears across several gases, including carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, nitric oxide and sulphur dioxide. The same pattern appears in 2023 with 2,389,859.8050.

The published report does not explain why these different gases share identical values.

Missing methane information

The analysis also found that methane reporting is far from complete.

Of the 30 company-year records reviewed in Appendix 12, only 12 contain information across all three methane reporting fields.

The remaining 18 records contain missing information, and some of the omissions are difficult to interpret.

For instance, NAE reported 963,970 kilograms of methane in 2022 but recorded zero for the corresponding carbon dioxide equivalent.

In 2023, the company again reported methane emissions but left the carbon dioxide equivalent field blank.

Similarly, Chevron and Heirs Energies reported methane only as carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023 without providing the underlying methane mass.

Heirs Energies reported 217.4 million kilograms CO₂e, one of the highest methane-related figures in the dataset, yet the absence of the methane mass makes it impossible to independently verify the conversion.

In another case, Platform Petroleum appears on the reporting sheet, yet all of its methane fields are blank for both years.

The report provides no explanation of whether blank cells indicate that no emissions occurred, that no data were submitted, or that emissions were not calculated.

This distinction matters because a blank field is not the same as reporting zero emissions.

Inconsistencies in company reporting

The analysis also raises questions about how many companies actually submitted emissions data.

NEITI states that 15 out of 62 audited companies submitted greenhouse gas information, while 47 companies did not.

However, the appendix presents 15 companies on the reporting sheets, and 58 entries on the non-reporting sheet.

Taken together, the lists contain 73 entries, rather than the 62 companies referenced by NEITI.

Further review shows that Platform Petroleum appears on both the reporting and non-reporting lists.

In addition, some entries refer to joint venture interests or individual oil fields rather than clearly identifiable legal entities, making it difficult to determine exactly which companies reported emissions.

For example, the non-reporting list includes the NEPL (55 per cent) and Shoreline (45 per cent) interests in OML 30, while the reporting sheets separately list Esso’s Erha and Usan fields.

A reconciled list that clearly distinguishes legal entities, operators, and production assets would significantly improve transparency.

Why this matters

Nigeria has committed to ending routine gas flaring by 2030 and reducing fugitive methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 60 per cent by 2031.

Measuring progress towards these goals depends on reliable baseline data.

Because Appendix 12 represents Nigeria’s first public company-level greenhouse gas disclosure, it effectively serves as the benchmark against which future emissions reductions will be measured. If the baseline contains gaps or inconsistencies, assessing future progress becomes more difficult.

Several practical improvements could strengthen future disclosures, including publishing the original reporting templates submitted by companies, clearly distinguishing between reported zeros and missing information, identifying the legal entity responsible for each reported asset, providing explanatory notes for unusual entries and maintaining a public log of corrections where errors are identified.

NEITI’s response

NEITI was asked, through a Freedom of Information request, to respond to the issues identified in the analysis, including questions concerning the methodology used by companies, duplicate figures, missing or zero values, emissions intensity, the number of reporting companies, verification procedures, and the accessibility of the published data.

NEITI explained that under EITI Requirement 3.4, greenhouse gas reporting is encouraged rather than mandatory.

According to the agency, its reporting template requested companies to provide greenhouse gas emissions data and information on the methodology used, including emission factors, direct ground based sensors, satellite estimates, and other recognised approaches.

However, the template did not require companies to provide the Global Warming Potential values used, the specific IPCC or other scientific assessment from which those values were derived, or the time horizon used to convert emissions into CO₂ equivalents.

The agency said it did not convert, normalise, recalculate or adjust the data submitted by companies. The published figures, therefore, reflect the information provided by the companies.

NEITI also said there is currently no established national verification framework for these disclosures and that its role is focused on transparency, collection, and publication rather than on independent technical validation or methodological harmonisation.

Regarding repeated entries and identical figures identified in the analysis, NEITI acknowledged the observations and said it would conduct an internal review.

The agency said necessary adjustments had been reflected in the published data. It added that the original company templates and internal validation records were not intended for public disclosure.

NEITI said that any corrections or clarifications resulting from its internal review would be reflected in the published dataset. It acknowledged the observations and said it would take the feedback into account as it updates the published information.

What happens next?

NEITI’s first company-level greenhouse gas disclosure represents an important starting point for public scrutiny of emissions in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector.

The data provide journalists, researchers, civil society organisations and policymakers with information that was previously difficult to access at the company level.

READ ALSO: Bayelsa suspends oil firm’s land acquisition over fatal community dispute

At the same time, the analysis shows that the value of the disclosure will depend on improvements in the way emissions information is collected, standardised, verified and published.

The immediate priority should be to establish a clearer and more consistent reporting framework that enables users to distinguish between zero emissions, missing information and non-applicable data; understand the methodology behind reported figures; identify the companies and assets covered; and reproduce emissions-intensity calculations.

As Nigeria works towards its methane-reduction commitments, the quality of the underlying data will be as important as the targets themselves.

The first disclosure has opened the window of transparency. The next challenge is ensuring that the information available through that window is complete, consistent and reliable to support meaningful public accountability.

This report was supported by the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development(CJID) as part of the Deepening Methane Emissions Transparency Initiative-Stream II