Nembe Exploration and Production Company Limited has moved to correct what it describes as a misleading narrative surrounding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) recovery of outstanding payments linked to the Nembe Creek Trunkline (NCTL), insisting that the exercise involved money owed to its joint venture (JV), rather than funds recovered from the company.
The clarification, which responds to recent media reports linking Aiteo, now Nembe Exploration and Production Company Limited, alongside Newcross Exploration and Production Limited to EFCC recoveries over outstanding pipeline obligations, centres on what the company says is a fundamental distinction between the operator responsible for collecting transportation fees and the third-party users obligated to pay them.
Nembe maintains that it was not a defaulting party in the transactions underlying the recoveries but the operator of the NCTL, acting on behalf of its JV with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), and responsible for pursuing outstanding payments for crude oil transportation services provided to third-party operators.
According to the company, Newcross was among the operators that used the pipeline, generating transportation charges which accumulated as outstanding obligations over time.
The distinction is important because the appearance of a company’s name in reports concerning an EFCC recovery does not, in itself, establish that the company was the subject of the recovery or that it had defaulted on the underlying financial obligations.
In a statement issued in Lagos on Friday, November 13, Nembe explained that the outstanding transportation fees arose against the backdrop of prolonged operational challenges in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, particularly since the COVID-19 period.
Crude oil theft, pipeline vandalism, insecurity and other operational disruptions affected transportation through the NCTL, while complicating the reconciliation of volumes delivered by individual operators. These challenges made it increasingly difficult to establish the precise quantities transported and the corresponding payment obligations of the pipeline users.
The company said it had made repeated attempts to recover the outstanding payments through direct demands, correspondence and engagements with the affected operators before the EFCC became involved. However, these efforts failed to secure full settlement of the indebtedness.
The eventual intervention of the anti-graft agency, Nembe explained, brought its statutory investigative and recovery powers to bear on the outstanding obligations, facilitating the recovery of funds the company had already been pursuing on behalf of the JV.
In this context, Nembe is presenting the EFCC’s intervention as a revenue recovery exercise for the joint venture, rather than an enforcement action against the company for unpaid transportation fees.
Its argument is that the company provided the services, pursued the outstanding charges and, together with its JV partner, stood to benefit from the recovery of the money owed.
The clarification also carries a reputational dimension, given the company’s former identity as Aiteo Eastern Exploration and Production Company Limited. Nembe disclosed that its name changed to Nembe Exploration and Production Company Limited in the second quarter of 2025, saying the change should be reflected in subsequent reporting concerning the matter.
It suggested that changes in EFCC leadership over the years may have contributed to misunderstandings about the history of the recovery exercise and the respective roles of the companies involved.
Nembe was categorical that it was not indebted to the JV in respect of the pipeline transportation fees under discussion, insisting that its responsibility was to pursue the outstanding payments from the third-party operators that used the facility.
However, the company acknowledged that a separate financial matter involving stamp duty arising from the acquisition of Oil Mining Lease (OML) 29 and the NCTL remains under reconciliation with the relevant statutory authorities.
It said discussions were ongoing to establish the applicable obligations and amounts, stressing that the stamp duty issue was entirely distinct from the recovery of outstanding pipeline transportation fees.
The distinction is significant because the existence of a separate unresolved statutory obligation should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the company was responsible for the pipeline transportation fee defaults or that the EFCC recoveries related to such an obligation.
Beyond the immediate dispute over how the recoveries are being characterised, the matter highlights the commercial complexities surrounding crude oil transportation and revenue collection in Nigeria’s upstream petroleum industry.
Pipeline transportation is a critical link in the oil production value chain, connecting producers to evacuation infrastructure and export routes. For operators and their joint venture partners, the commercial value of that infrastructure depends not only on the availability of pipelines but also on accurate measurement of transported volumes, reconciliation of deliveries and timely payment of transportation charges.
Where crude theft, vandalism and insecurity disrupt operations, the resulting difficulties in tracking volumes and establishing contractual obligations can create disputes and delay revenue collection, with consequences for the financial interests of infrastructure owners and operators.
Nembe’s position, therefore, is that the recovery of the outstanding fees represents the settlement of commercial obligations arising from services already provided, rather than evidence of financial misconduct by the company.
The company said it welcomed the EFCC’s intervention and expressed confidence that subsequent reporting would reflect its role as the operator that provided the transportation services and pursued the recovery of revenues properly due to the JV.
