Lagos — After many postponements, the cessation of gas flaring in the country was fixed for December 2010. The National Assembly was resolute about it and there was high hope that at last the hot, smoky flares would be put out.

But again the goal post has been shifted and with it has at last come a confession. The Minister of State, Petroleum Resources, Odien Ajumogobia has confessed that any attempt to enforce an immediate gas flares- out, would affect the revenue accruing to the country.

"To stop gas flaring as it is today would obviously lead to the shutting down of crude oil production and ultimately loss of revenue to the country," Ajumogobia said, explaining that the only way out for now is to create systematic framework for gas usage in the country.

We find it strange that in arguing his case, the Minister made no mention of the human and material losses caused by gas flaring. Some 40 per cent of Nigeria's gas is flared as oil is produced. That accounts for 12.5 per cent of the world's gas flaring; the second largest volume of gas flared of all oil-producing nations behind Russia. Also, it creates more greenhouse gas emissions than all other sources in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Certainly, the flaring from hundreds of well heads spread around the oil producing communities constitutes health hazards. Although the oil companies contest it, it is widely believed that gas flaring causes acid rain which damages crops and vegetation. Gas flaring also reduces farm yields and increases the risk of respiratory illnesses, asthma,cancer and it is also said to cause chronic bronchitis, decreased lung function, blindness, impotency, miscarriages and premature deaths.

It was for these concerns and the agitations of the affected communities that the Shehu Shagari administration passed the Associated Gas Re-injection Act of 1979 to compel oil groups to find ways of re-injecting the gas they had no immediate use for. Many years later, the flares are still burning.

In the determination to put a final stop to gas flaring the Yar' Adua administration stipulated December 2008 as the deadline. But it was shifted again. Under the draft law of the Senate, any company found flaring gas after that date will be subjected to a fine not less than twice the international market price of the gas flared. In addition the Minister is authorised to shut down any wells producing flared gas.

The bill demanded of oil companies to provide reports showing quantity of gas flared, reserve, location and composition within 90 days. In addition, all operators are required to submit their plans on how they intend to utilise the flared gas to the Minister of Petroleum for approval on or before the flare-out deadline of December 2010.

The Ministry, through the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) had also listed its suggested version of the Gas Act amendments to include fines on defaulting companies after 2010 at the rate of $3.50 per 1000 standard cubic feet (scf) for temporary flaring; $1 million for same quantity in the event of continued flaring; emergency flaring due to equipment failure will be fined $500,000 for the same volume if the breakdown is not reported within 24 hours.

We have always known that the reasons for the shifting posts are basically two, namely the defence of the oil companies and the Federal Government's ambivalence, made acute by the current urgency to increase oil revenue in a global economic meltdown.

The oil companies argue that gas is naturally produced with crude oil, the country's cash cow. To put good use to the flared gas it must be collected at every flow station and exported in gas pipelines over kilometres of land and water to where it can be used. They say that unlike now when new gas production facilities have in-built technology to gather gas, most of the old facilities do not have this technology so there has to be fresh investment in gas-gathering plants.

According to the oil majors, these are capital-intensive projects with long gestation periods that do not only need timely funding, but uninterrupted execution.

We are not unaware that every economic decision entails some opportunity cost, but on this issue the federal government had been trying to eat its cake and have it. Now it is clear that economic considerations are more important to government.

As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulated binding limitations on emission of gases, and a participant of the Copenhagen Summit, Nigeria has the burden of convincing its nationals and the international community that oil revenue is worth more than human life. That would even have been less of an issue if huge oil revenue earned over the years has made any significant difference in the socio-economic wellbeing of the people.