OPL 245 is one of the most controversial oil blocks in Nigerian history. It is remembered not only for its deepwater potential, but also for what it revealed about power, secrecy, public assets and the long shadow of military-era decision-making.
The block, located in deep offshore waters, became the centre of a dispute involving Malabu Oil & Gas Limited, former petroleum minister Dan Etete, Shell, Eni, the Nigerian government, foreign prosecutors, arbitration panels and Nigerian courts. For nearly three decades, the asset remained trapped in legal conflict, public suspicion and international scrutiny.
In March 2026, the Nigerian government announced a major settlement with Eni and Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited. The agreement was presented as a breakthrough that could unlock the Zabazaba and Etan deepwater fields and add about 150,000 barrels per day to Nigeria’s oil production capacity. Yet the story remained historically sensitive. In May 2026, Malabu returned to court to challenge the alleged splitting and reallocation of the block. OPL 245 therefore remains both a commercial opportunity and a warning about how weak governance can delay national wealth.
The Abacha-Era Award
The roots of OPL 245 go back to 1998, during the military government of General Sani Abacha. The oil block was awarded to Malabu Oil & Gas Limited, a company widely linked to Dan Etete, who was Nigeria’s petroleum minister at the time.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
That origin became the heart of the scandal. A valuable national oil asset had been awarded during military rule to a company connected to the same minister responsible for petroleum policy. The award raised a serious governance question: how could a company linked to the sitting petroleum minister receive one of Nigeria’s most promising deepwater blocks?
The problem was not only the award itself. It was the precedent it set. OPL 245 showed how a public resource could become entangled with private claims, political influence and weak institutional oversight. That damaged beginning followed the block for decades.
Revocation, Reallocation and Competing Claims
After the original award to Malabu, the ownership history became increasingly complicated. The licence was later revoked. Shell-linked interests became involved. Malabu continued to claim rights to the block. The Nigerian government made attempts to settle the dispute, but each settlement created fresh controversy.
By the early 2000s, OPL 245 had become more than a petroleum licence. It had become a legal battlefield. Malabu claimed rights from the 1998 allocation. Shell had interests tied to later arrangements. The Nigerian state moved between revocation, reallocation and negotiation. Instead of becoming a producing asset, the block became a symbol of uncertainty.
This uncertainty mattered because oil investors need legal clarity before committing billions of dollars to deepwater development. Nigeria had a valuable resource, but the dispute around ownership and payment structure kept the asset from delivering public value for years.
The 2011 Shell and Eni Settlement
The most controversial phase came in 2011, when the Goodluck Jonathan administration pursued a settlement intended to resolve the competing claims. Under the arrangement, Shell and Eni-linked interests obtained rights in the block through the Nigerian government, while Malabu was to relinquish its claims.
Shell and Eni maintained that they paid the Nigerian government under a lawful settlement structure. Critics argued that the government acted as a conduit, allowing large sums to flow to Malabu and then to private interests.
This distinction is central to the OPL 245 story. The companies’ defence was that they paid the state. The public concern was that the state’s role did not remove the suspicion around Malabu, Dan Etete and the political handling of the asset.
The 2011 transaction later became the subject of major international scrutiny. Italian prosecutors alleged corruption and claimed that parts of the payment were diverted to politicians and intermediaries. Shell, Eni and their executives denied wrongdoing.
The Milan Trial and the Acquittals
The Italian prosecution became one of the most closely watched corporate corruption cases in the energy sector. It placed Shell, Eni and several individuals under intense international attention.
In March 2021, the Milan court acquitted Eni, Shell and the other defendants. Eni later stated that the acquittals became definitive in 2022 after the appeal was waived. Reuters also reported that Eni, Shell and all other defendants had been acquitted in the case linked to the 1.3 billion dollar Nigerian oilfield acquisition.
The court outcome became a major turning point in the international case. It meant the criminal allegations brought in Milan were not established against Shell, Eni or the accused executives. At the same time, the acquittals did not remove the historical questions surrounding the original 1998 award, the structure of the 2011 settlement or the governance culture that allowed the controversy to grow.
OPL 245 therefore occupies a complex place in Nigeria’s oil history. It is not a simple story of proven corporate guilt. It is also not a story of a clean public process. It is a case in which criminal allegations failed in court, while public-interest concerns about the origin and handling of the asset remained powerful.
The 2026 Settlement
On 5 March 2026, the Nigerian Presidency announced a major resolution of the OPL 245 dispute. The government said the agreement restored clarity to one of Nigeria’s most commercially promising deepwater assets and could unlock development of the Zabazaba and Etan fields.
Eni also confirmed the agreement. According to the company, the old OPL 245 structure was converted into two Petroleum Mining Leases, PML 102 and PML 103, and two Petroleum Prospecting Leases, PPL 2011 and PPL 2012. Eni said Nigerian Agip Exploration Limited would operate the assets alongside NNPC Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited.
The agreement also involved the settlement of claims connected to OPL 245 and the discontinuation of the international arbitration proceeding at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. For the Nigerian government, this was presented as a practical way to move from years of litigation toward production, investment and revenue.
The Attorney-General of the Federation later defended the settlement. He said earlier proceedings in the United States, United Kingdom and Italy had not established wrongdoing against Eni, SNEPCo or the transaction as a whole. He also said Nigeria faced possible exposure of more than 2 billion dollars in damages and costs over delays connected with the licence.
The settlement represented a major commercial step, but it did not erase the wider historical debate. OPL 245 remained a powerful example of how early governance failures can haunt a national asset for decades.
Malabu’s Fresh Challenge
The 2026 settlement did not silence every dispute. In May 2026, a Federal High Court in Abuja granted Malabu Oil & Gas Limited leave to seek judicial review over the alleged splitting and reallocation of OPL 245.
Malabu argued that the restructuring was done without the consent or approval of its directors. This meant the Nigerian government and Eni could present the commercial dispute as resolved, while Malabu’s legal challenge kept part of the controversy alive.
The March 2026 agreement was therefore a major settlement, but not a total historical closure. It moved the asset closer to development, yet the questions around Malabu’s role, the block’s original award and the long trail of litigation continued to shape public understanding of the case.
The Prosecutors’ Case in Italy
Another development came in June 2026, when Italy’s Court of Cassation fully acquitted two Milan prosecutors who had been accused of failing to file documents that could have supported Eni’s defence in the OPL 245-related corruption case.
A lower court had earlier convicted the prosecutors, but Italy’s highest court overturned that decision and ruled that the offence did not exist. This ruling added another layer to the OPL 245 story. It did not revive the allegations against Shell or Eni. It also did not remove the Nigerian governance questions behind the block’s origin.
Instead, it showed how complex the case had become. OPL 245 was no longer only about a Nigerian oil block. It had become a test of corporate accountability, prosecutorial conduct, state decision-making and international legal strategy.
What OPL 245 Reveals
The OPL 245 story reveals three major lessons.
First, the original allocation was structurally problematic. A valuable oil asset was awarded under military rule to a company linked to the sitting petroleum minister. That remains the central stain on the history of the block.
Second, the 2011 settlement was legally sophisticated but politically toxic. Shell and Eni maintained that they paid the Nigerian government. Critics argued that the structure allowed money to reach Malabu and private interests. Even after court acquittals, the transaction continued to raise public-interest questions.
Third, the 2026 settlement may unlock production, but it cannot rewrite the past. If Zabazaba and Etan are finally developed, Nigeria may gain revenue from a resource that has been dormant for decades. But production will not erase the fact that one of the country’s most valuable assets became trapped in conflict because of weak institutions and questionable early decisions.
Conclusion
OPL 245 is one of Nigeria’s clearest warnings about the long-term cost of poor governance. The block began with a military-era award to Malabu Oil & Gas, a company linked to Dan Etete, the petroleum minister of the time. It passed through revocation, reallocation, settlement, international prosecution, acquittal, arbitration and renewed litigation.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
The courts did not establish the major criminal allegations against Shell, Eni and their executives in Italy. But the deeper historical judgement remains serious. OPL 245 exposed how secrecy, conflict of interest and unstable state decision-making can trap public wealth for decades.
The 2026 settlement may finally move the asset toward development. If that happens, Nigeria may recover some value from a block that spent far too long in dispute. But the lesson remains clear: when national assets are handled without transparency, the damage is not only financial. It is institutional, reputational and generational.
Author’s Note
The story of OPL 245 is not only about oil, companies or courtrooms. It is about the price a country pays when public assets are caught between private interests and weak institutions. Malabu and Dan Etete explain the controversial beginning, Shell and Eni explain the global corporate dimension, and the 2026 settlement explains Nigeria’s current push to turn a stranded asset into production. Yet the larger takeaway is that national wealth can be delayed, diminished and distrusted when transparency is missing from the start.
References
The State House, Abuja, “President Tinubu Oversees Historic Resolution of OPL 245 Dispute,” 5 March 2026.
Eni, “The President of Nigeria Bola Tinubu Meets Eni CEO Claudio Descalzi,” 5 March 2026.
Eni, “OPL 245: Eni’s Position on the Nigeria Case.”
The State House, Abuja, “Those Opposed to the Resolution of OPL 245 Dispute Pursuing Selfish, Not Patriotic Interests,” 26 March 2026.
Premium Times, “Court Grants Malabu Leave to Seek Judicial Review Over OPL 245 Split,” 22 May 2026.
Reuters, “Italy’s Top Court Clears Milan Prosecutors in Eni Nigeria Case,” 18 June 2026.
