A September 2025 approval tied to a failed pipeline transaction has resurfaced, despite the deal being formally terminated four months earlier, according to sundry reports.
The approval relates to a proposed sale of a 40 per cent stake in the Amukpe-Escravos Pipeline, a 160,000-barrel-per-day evacuation route that has become a critical piece of Nigeria’s oil infrastructure.
The original transaction, involving Continental Oil and Gas Limited and later Conpurex Limited, was terminated in October 2024 after the buyer failed to meet payment obligations, missed key milestones, and sought to rewrite core terms, according to reports..
Lenders, including AMCON and Sterling Bank, had lost confidence in the process.
Now, with the approval back in play, they are questioning how a terminated deal can be revived without a procedural reset, especially given a new independent valuation that places the stake at nearly three times the original offer.
The original bid for the 40 per cent stake was $243 million. A fresh independent valuation conducted in 2025 places the same stake between $372 million and $641 million.
The development is now being viewed within the industry as more than a routine commercial matter.
This case, stakeholders say, has moved beyond a typical transaction dispute into something that tests how Nigeria handles valuation, process integrity, and national interest when strategic assets are involved.
The complications extend beyond pricing.
Following the exit of the original bidder, Conpurex Limited emerged without a clearly defined transition process, then failed to meet its financial commitments while seeking to reopen settled terms.
Among the proposed revisions were provisions to transfer regulatory approval risks back to the seller and to introduce interest claims on refundable sums. Lenders describe these as commercially untenable.
What now concerns the syndicate is not simply that the deal failed, but that a process widely regarded as compromised is being given renewed effect through administrative carryover.
Lenders are understood to be pressing for a reset. Their position is that the September 2025 approval should be revisited rather than implemented.
The proposed path forward is straightforward: reverse the approval, appoint an independent adviser, and return the asset to the market through a transparent and competitive process that reflects current value.
Anything less, they warn, risks setting a precedent that extends beyond a single transaction. It would suggest that the process can be adjusted after the fact, that valuation benchmarks can lag reality without consequence, and that discipline in the transfer of strategic assets is open to interpretation.
For an industry built on long-term capital and measured risk, that is not a trivial signal. It is a defining one.