ExxonMobil’s announcement of a $1 billion investment in the Usan Infill Project offshore Nigeria is being touted as a major boost to crude oil production. But behind the headlines lies a troubling reality — a decade of inaction, regulatory complacency, and lost economic opportunity that stakeholders can no longer ignore.
For nearly ten years, ExxonMobil’s Nigerian affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited, remained largely absent from active drilling operations, with its last campaign dating back to 2016. In a country grappling with declining oil output, revenue shortfalls, and mounting economic pressure, that silence has come at a significant cost.
Now, with a projected addition of 40,000 barrels per day, the question is unavoidable: why now, and why not years ago?
Industry analysts argue that the Usan Infill Project is not a breakthrough, but a delayed execution of an opportunity that has long existed. The infrastructure was already in place. The reserves were known. The technology was available..
While ExxonMobil delayed reinvestment decisions, Nigeria continued to lose billions in potential revenue. At a time when global oil markets were favourable and production capacity was critical, the prolonged inactivity raises serious concerns about the company’s strategic priorities and its commitment to Nigeria’s upstream sector.
The spotlight is not on ExxonMobil alone. Regulatory bodies including the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd.), and the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) must also answer hard questions.
For years, these institutions have been tasked with driving investment, ensuring efficiency, and safeguarding national interest. Yet, during the long dormancy of the Usan field expansion, there was little visible pressure, enforcement, or urgency to compel action.
Now, the same agencies are being praised for “enabling” approvals. But approvals for what a project that should have been operational years ago?
This pattern reflects a systemic failure: a regulatory framework that reacts only when investors are ready, rather than one that actively drives development and holds operators accountable.
ExxonMobil’s decision to execute the project as a tie back to the existing FPSO, rather than building new infrastructure, has been framed as cost efficient. In reality, it exposes a deeper issue a strategy focused on minimising expenditure and maximising short-term returns.
Under Nigeria’s Production Sharing Contract (PSC) model, this approach allows the company to recover costs faster before sharing profits with the government. While this may make business sense for investors, it raises concerns about whether Nigeria is truly getting the best value from its resources.
By avoiding larger capital investments, the long-term production potential of the asset may be constrained, effectively limiting future gains for the country.
Perhaps the most damning revelation is the project timeline itself. ExxonMobil says first oil will be achieved within six months of execution, with peak production reached in 18 months.
If this level of output can be unlocked so quickly, it underscores a painful truth: Nigeria did not lack capacity it suffered from delay, indecision, and weak enforcement.
The speed of execution only amplifies the magnitude of lost years.
The Usan Infill Project should serve as a wake-up call. Nigeria can no longer afford a system where critical investments are delayed for years, only to be rushed when it becomes convenient for operators.
Both multinational oil companies and regulatory institutions must be held to higher standards of accountability, transparency, and performance.
ExxonMobil’s $1 billion investment may bring short term relief to Nigeria’s oil output. But it does not erase the economic damage caused by nearly a decade of inactivity nor does it absolve those responsible for allowing it to happen.
Until these systemic failures are addressed, Nigeria risks remaining a resource rich nation held back not by potential, but by persistent delay.