Uganda’s discovery of 1.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil is evolving to reveal unhinged extractivism, with TotalEnergies positioning itself to rake in 62% of export revenue while the Ugandan government receives a paltry 15%. Even worse, local governments and host communities will receive nothing.
Crude Returns in the West Vs. in Uganda
As a rule, countries and their citizens should freely use and maximize returns from their resources, a rule that holds well in former colonial empires but is undermined when countries in the global south discover important resources. For instance, the British historically mined their coal without interference until they transitioned into petroleum and nuclear energy. However, countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and South America have found it impossible to develop their resources without UK/US-enabled Western interference that is done using fake justifications such as Weapons of Mass Destruction, promoting democracy, or defending human rights. Countries in the global south continue being targeted for theft through modern colonialism, and crude oil has been an attractive target. Uganda’s crude represents the most recent case of appropriation by being channeled to export by foreign hands.
Exporting Crude Makes no Economic Sense; EACOP is Unnecessary
There is no economic Justification as to why Uganda should export its crude oil in raw form, considering that refining entails distilling it into diesel and gasoline, products that are highly sought after in the region. Refining and selling products in the region means Uganda would not need expensive pipelines. Also, it would not relinquish a large percentage of revenue to a foreign firm. Uganda’s projected output is substantial, peaking at 240 000 barrels/day in 2027, but a foreign company will capture more revenue than the east African country. The Ugandan leadership’s attitude of accepting minority shareholding in its resources recurs in the ongoing construction of a refinery by Dubai-based Alpha MBM group, where the foreign party will own 60% and the host country 40. The refinery is projected to process 60,000 barrels of crude per day.
EACOP and the aforementioned refinery are examples of how Africans get capital for extracting resources at ridiculously high prices. Uganda will have to relinquish revenue from 60% and 85% of the volumes refined at home, and exported respectively. The costs presented by foreign companies for refining are unreasonable, considering that artisans in Nigeria distil crude into diesel and gasoline using makeshift contraptions. Therefore, many moderately sized Ugandan enterprises can make or import distillation equipment to refine the country’s crude oil and maximize wealth generation. However, the government’s decision to choose transnational companies that impose extractivist demands remains to be adequately explained.
With oil refining increasing its value by 15-25%, it would have made more economic sense for Uganda to refine the entirety of its crude output, and sell to the region. Uganda and its neighbors can buy refined products from 240 000 barrels of crude, noting that Kenya alone imported over 114 000 barrels of refined products per day in 2016, an amount that has significantly increased since. Therefore, Uganda would not need EACOP if it refined its crude and sold finished products to its neighbors, and would be able to build long-term wealth from this resource. Nonetheless, observers may never understand the subterfuge that went into getting Uganda to give away its resources, but an article published in the news decoder in April 2025 recognizes that Western countries threaten African leaders with regime change, giving examples of past leaders who stood up for control of their resources such as Muammar Gaddafi, which led to their death. Threats may have been used against the Ugandan and Tanzanian leaders Yoweri Museveni and John Magufuli respectively to acquiesce to daylight robbery of Uganda’s crude oil. However, African leaders should understand that playing to the West’s blackmail is not a guarantee of their safety, noting that Magufuli would later die under mysterious circumstances.
Strangely, the Ugandan government has proceeded to exempt oil companies from paying taxes, meaning TotalEnergies will receive 62% of revenues from exporting the country’s crude tax-free. This move is expected to cost Uganda about $500 million. The government will only receive royalties under a loose provision that will allow fluctuation from $20 to $0.6 million depending on international prices. Therefore, it is not possible that the government will gain substantial returns from its crude; it has already declined to define districts producing this crude, setting the ground for refusing to pay them 6% of oil revenue as defined by the country’s law. Still, it tries to frame its decision to refuse to tax TotalEnergies as justifiable, showing clear enthusiasm to assist foreign companies maximize returns at the expense of citizens and local governments.
Leaving Social and Environmental Challenges to Communities
EACOP shows all attributes of colonial extractivism, as it will facilitate raw resources being exported while local communities only get social challenges and environmental pollution. This pipeline has limited capital mobility and will not help local economies in any other way than facilitating the export of crude oil. It will cause large-scale displacement of families, pollution, and risks of devastating environmental hazards such as oil leaks. Those displaced by the pipeline are unlikely to find sustainable economic activities and may end up in urban areas where they will be exposed to high levels of poverty. Similar projects in the past, such as Shell Company’s pipeline in Nigeria,, leaked crude oil into farmlands and rivers, polluting ecosystems and displacing communities. Predictably, Shell Company attempted to dodge responsibility and later engaged in sham cleanup exercises for over a decade. EACOP exposes East Africa’s largest freshwater lake to potential pollution from oil spills, and TotalEnergies cannot be trusted to either admit fault or engage in any meaningful cleanup. The primary orientation of Western corporations is resource extraction, while giving no meaningful protection or remediation to those who are affected by their activities. EACOP’s high social and environmental risks are worsened by the reality that the choice of crude export pathway is economically inferior to refining and value addition, which would have far less adverse effects on communities and would lead to long-term wealth generation in Uganda.
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa
