TOPE FASORANTI argues for prudent use of the recent gains to prop up the economy
On the surface, the past few months have flattered Nigeria’s oil economy. Production reached roughly 1.53 million barrels a day in May, a fifteen-month high and the first sustained move above the country’s OPEC quota in years. Brent has spent most of the spring comfortably above the price on which the federal budget was built. And the Dangote refinery, after years of dependence on imported crude, is at last drawing more of its feedstock from home. Taken together, the figures invite a certain complacency.
They should not. Almost none of this improvement is of Nigeria’s own making. The gains are exogenous: they originate outside the domestic economy, and what arrives from outside can depart as abruptly as it came. A favourable accident is worth having. It is not the same as wealth deliberately set aside, and the distinction matters most precisely when conditions are benign.
Three supports, all temporary.
Consider how each gain actually arose. Production recovered chiefly because the Niger Delta grew calmer. Pipeline attacks eased, crude theft declined, and the producing region enjoyed a spell of relative security. The additional barrels came not from new wells or renewed investment in onshore fields, but from the simple absence of disruption. The capacity ceiling that has constrained Nigeria for a decade, a structural limit rather than a passing one, has not shifted. So when prices surged this spring, and the incentive to produce was overwhelming, the country could not respond. It could only recover ground already lost, restarting shut-in wells rather than commissioning new ones. A return to full capacity is a genuine achievement. It is not, however, the same as the capacity to expand, and that distinction is the crux of Nigeria’s predicament.
The second support was a conservative benchmark. The 2026 budget was based on an oil price of $60 per barrel, well below the $64.85 initially proposed. That restraint is the principal reason a declining oil price has not yet opened a gap in the public accounts. It appears prudent in hindsight. It affords the budget genuine fiscal headroom, revenue a higher assumption would have committed in advance, and it leaves a surplus worth safeguarding.
The third support was the war itself. Oil remained above 100 dollars for months because Iranian missiles closed the Strait of Hormuz and triggered the largest supply disruption on record. That elevated price was a geopolitical risk premium, value conferred by another country’s crisis rather than by any domestic strength, and it is now unwinding. With the United States and Iran holding to a ceasefire and negotiating towards a final settlement, and the Strait of Hormuz gradually reopening to normal traffic, Brent has retreated into the mid-70s, surrendering much of that premium within weeks. The price that flattered the budget is receding even as it is being counted.
A subtler tension runs beneath all this. A growing share of Nigeria’s crude is now retained at home. The Dangote refinery requires thirteen to fifteen cargoes a month to run at full capacity, and NNPC has raised its supply to seven from five. Supplying the refinery is the correct long-term policy, a form of import substitution for a country that imported refined fuel for four decades. Yet each cargo directed to Lagos carries an opportunity cost: it is a cargo not sold abroad. Nigeria, therefore, captures less of any price increase precisely at the moment when such an increase would matter most.
The price floor gives way.
Strip away the war premium and examine the market into which Nigeria must now sell. OPEC is a major producer of lighter oil. The United Arab Emirates departed on 1 May after fifty-nine years, removing the group’s third-largest member. It did not leave on account of the war. It left because it had invested 150 billion dollars, lifting its capacity towards five million barrels a day, and saw little reason to keep that capacity idle. A low-cost producer will rationally choose to monetise its reserves now, while global demand persists, rather than defer them to a less certain future.
That decision is the more telling signal, and an uncomfortable one for a producer with Nigeria’s cost structure. The discipline that once held prices within a tolerable band, the very purpose of the cartel, is eroding. At its first meeting without the Emiratis, in early May, OPEC raised its output target rather than lowered it. Saudi Arabia, whose fiscal breakeven sits close to 90 dollars a barrel, the level it requires to balance its budget, is now left to defend the price largely alone. A smaller and more competitive OPEC may conclude that the way to protect market share is to produce more, not less. The precedent is not reassuring. In 2014, the same logic prevailed, Brent fell below 30 dollars, and Nigeria was driven into a recession from which its public finances never fully recovered.
The vulnerability that remains. Through all of this, the single factor that determines how severely a downturn would be felt remains unchanged. There is no fiscal buffer to absorb it. The Excess Crude Account, the country’s countercyclical savings, the reserve set aside in good years to be drawn upon in bad, held 535,823 dollars at the most recent disclosure. Not millions. That is the entire balance in an account that once exceeded 20 billion dollars in 2009. Whatever explains its depletion over the years, it could not cushion the blow of a serious shock today.
Nor is the remedy to leave OPEC, as the Emiratis did. Angola attempted precisely that. It withdrew in January 2024 over a quota it judged unfair, yet eighteen months later its output had not risen. It had fallen below a million barrels a day because the constraints were never the quotas. They were ageing fields with steep decline rates, chronic underinvestment, and fiscal terms that claimed too large a share. For a high-cost producer, departure changes the nameplate and little else. The constraints simply follow it out.
The proper way to read these past few months is as a warning, and a comparatively gentle one. The market has revealed what lies ahead and granted a brief interval in which to prepare. The required response is simple to state. While Brent trades above the 60-dollar benchmark, the difference, the windfall, or above-benchmark revenue, should be ring-fenced automatically and in law, channelled into a stabilisation fund durable enough, and sufficiently protected, to survive the next downturn. The case for acting now rather than in the next budget is straightforward: a surplus exists to be saved today, and the window is measured in months, not years.
The remaining priorities still matter, and each requires time: diversifying the economy and broadening the non-oil revenue base, consolidating the recent production gains, and keeping the refinery supplied. Saving is the one measure available immediately, and the one that creates room for all the others. The Gulf’s lowest-cost producers have already judged where this market is heading and committed capital accordingly. Nigeria cannot match their reserves, but it can at least retain more of this windfall while it lasts.
The reprieve is real, and so is its expiry. The opportunity before Nigeria is to convert a transitory windfall into lasting resilience, and that opportunity is at its widest while prices remain firm. What matters now is not what is declared over the coming year, but what is set aside over the coming months.
Dr Fasoranti is an Economist, Banker, and Enterprise Transformation Strategist