Africa’s LNG Comeback: Progress or Phase-Out Paradox?

When oil majors like Eni and TotalEnergies start smiling again about gas, it signals more than corporate optimism; it reveals how Africa’s energy landscape is being redefined, not by the end of fossil fuels, but by a shift in the language surrounding them.
What was once called “transitional gas” has quietly morphed into “strategic LNG.” Across the continent, from Mozambique’s Afungi Peninsula to Senegal’s Greater Tortue Ahmeyim, the promise of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is once again glowing, even as global finance declares its fossil phase-out.

The Return of Gas Diplomacy

In September 2025, Mozambique’s government proudly announced the revival of Eni’s Coral Norte project, a $7 billion expansion that could double the country’s LNG output by 2030. Nearby, TotalEnergies confirmed plans to resume its $20 billion Mozambique LNG project, paused since 2021 due to insurgency-related instability. In the same week, BP and Kosmos Energy reaffirmed their commitment to LNG exports from Senegal and Mauritania, while Egypt, Tanzania, and Nigeria continued their own gas expansion drives.

But while African governments frame these as milestones in national development, global investors are signalling caution. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that global gas demand will peak before 2030. The European Investment Bank and several major private financiers have ruled out new upstream gas investments. Yet Africa, paradoxically, is witnessing a fresh wave of exploration and state-backed infrastructure.

It’s a paradox with political, economic, and moral dimensions: Is Africa progressing, or regressing, just as the world moves on?

Progress or Prolonged Dependency?

Supporters of Africa’s gas push argue that it’s pragmatic, not reckless. They insist gas can provide the baseload power for industrialisation, supply feedstock for fertiliser plants, and generate export revenue for debt-strained economies. Nigeria’s Energy Transition Plan, for example, sets a target of 17 GW of gas-based power capacity by 2035, describing gas as a “bridge fuel” that will eventually make way for renewables.

But history tempers such optimism. Over-dependence on commodities rarely ends well for African economies. As Energy Transition Africa’s recent analysis in Nigeria’s Gas Gamble: Transition or Trap? notes, gas dependency risks repeating the oil-era cycle of fiscal volatility, corruption, and stranded assets.

The current global context amplifies that risk. Demand for LNG in Europe is plateauing as renewable capacity expands. Asia, once seen as the fallback market, is now tightening import contracts, wary of overexposure to volatile gas prices. Meanwhile, Africa’s domestic gas infrastructure remains weak: limited pipelines, inadequate storage, and high transport costs mean that most new LNG will still flow out of the continent, not into African homes or industries.

The danger is that LNG becomes another export commodity, enriching elites and investors while ordinary Africans remain in the dark.

The Phase-Out Paradox

At the heart of Africa’s LNG resurgence lies a cruel irony. The same institutions that urge fossil fuel phase-outs, including global banks, G7 governments, and development finance institutions, continue to underwrite gas projects under the guise of “energy security” and “transition support.”

In 2024, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) approved funding guarantees for LNG infrastructure in Mozambique. France’s export credit agency (BPI France) quietly reinstated limited coverage for projects that demonstrate “social impact.” Even the African Development Bank has defended gas as “an energy source for stability.”

This mixed messaging creates what experts are calling a “phase-out paradox”, where the world’s north divests rhetorically but reinvests practically in Africa’s gas.

For African policymakers, this inconsistency offers both opportunity and confusion. It creates room to attract short-term capital but delays the deeper transition to renewables. The result? Policy schizophrenia, governments drafting net-zero roadmaps with one hand while signing gas expansion contracts with the other.

The Governance Fault Line

Governance remains the invisible line separating gas as a development tool from gas as another curse. Mozambique’s gas boom has already displaced thousands, triggered corruption scandals, and intensified local grievances. In Nigeria, gas-to-power plants often sit idle due to payment arrears and infrastructure bottlenecks. Tanzania’s LNG negotiations have dragged on for years, mired in transparency disputes and legal uncertainty.

The lack of regional coordination compounds the problem. Instead of pooling investments into shared infrastructure or regional value chains, African countries compete for the same investors and markets, offering tax breaks and concessions that erode long-term benefits.

The Resource Governance Index has repeatedly flagged this fragmentation, warning that unless transparency and accountability are built into new LNG contracts, Africa could face another extractive boom-bust cycle, this time under a “green” banner.

The Cost of Betting Against the Future

Energy transition economics is unforgiving. The IEA’s Net Zero by 2050 scenario forecasts that two-thirds of today’s proven gas reserves must remain unexploited if global climate targets are to be met. For Africa, this means that LNG projects taking shape now may not achieve full return on investment before demand declines.

Investors are already hedging: BP has shortened its LNG contract terms; Shell is pivoting toward renewable hydrogen; and TotalEnergies has rebranded its African strategy as “multi-energy,” hinting at an eventual diversification. Yet, African state companies and development banks continue to double down; a financial contradiction that risks turning “transition fuels” into “transition traps.”

Africa’s role in the global energy system could shift from supplier to stranded asset holder unless strategic choices change.

Who Benefits, Who Loses

In every energy boom, there are winners and losers. For LNG, the winners are clear: international contractors, shipping firms, and gas-exporting states. The losers are harder to see: local communities uprooted for pipelines, farmers displaced for terminals, and future generations burdened with environmental and fiscal debt.

Without strong environmental safeguards and community benefit-sharing frameworks, LNG expansion risks fuelling new injustices in the name of transition.

As Fossil Fuel Revenues in Decline: Who Pays for Africa’s Transition? observed, Africa cannot phase out responsibly while still trapped in old fiscal models. The continent’s clean energy future must be funded differently — not by exporting molecules, but by building industries, skills, and manufacturing capacity.

The Way Forward: A Just and Strategic Transition

For now, LNG may seem like progress: jobs, infrastructure, and foreign exchange. But progress without sustainability is a short-term victory.

Africa’s leaders face a historic choice: invest today’s gas windfalls in renewables, regional grids, and local industries, or risk being left behind when the world finally turns off the gas tap.

The just transition is not about ideology; it’s about timing. The countries that adapt early will capture new markets in green hydrogen, battery minerals, and clean tech manufacturing. Those who cling to the past will pay twice, once in stranded assets and again in lost opportunity.

Africa must ensure its energy future is not built on temporary power, but on lasting sovereignty.