Lake Albert oil projects have environmentalists worried. The Albertine region is extremely fragile. A spill could harm unique wildlife and important forests in both Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
A report by E-Tech International, commissioned by Environmental Defenders (ED), accuses Uganda of approving flawed upstream oil projects. According to the report, these projects threaten communities and sensitive ecosystems around Lake Albert. The DRC is a major concern, because it shares the risks but not the oil revenue.
The 2025 report also accuses Uganda of ignoring international agreements. It says the country is exploring, drilling, and building oil infrastructure in the most sensitive parts of Lake Albert.
Tilenga, Kingfisher, and the risks to Lake Albert
Two oilfields are under active development. Tilenga is operated by TotalEnergies, while Kingfisher is operated by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Both lie on the shores of Lake Albert. As a result, they could harm Murchison Falls National Park, the River Nile, and wetlands that drain into Bugoma Forest.
The Ngassa oil block, still in the exploration phase, could pose an even greater danger. It would require offshore platforms inside Lake Albert itself.
“Since 2006, a series of oil discoveries under and around Lake Albert in Uganda have led to investment by a consortium of multinational companies, most prominently CNOOC and Total, and the Ugandan Government.” — E-Tech International report for Environmental Defenders
Oil production risks for Lake Albert and the Nile
Threats to Lake Albert in Uganda and the DRC include oil spills, treated sewage discharged into the lake, and water extraction. Communities on both sides of the lake are worried about plans to draw water during production and about how Kingfisher will be decommissioned.
In addition, Tilenga lies near the point where Lake Albert flows into the Nile. Oil activities there could therefore affect several other countries.
In 2019, Uganda ratified the Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement. The agreement was negotiated among Nile Basin countries, including Burundi, the DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. It aims to balance national sovereignty with fair use of shared waters.
According to the report, Uganda is not meeting these standards. Its decisions on Lake Albert do not meet the agreement’s test of “equitable and reasonable” use.
“Under the agreement, states shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other Basin states.” — E-Tech International report for Environmental Defenders
Ramsar wetlands and poorly chosen project sites
The report also warns that the projects may breach the Ramsar Convention of 1971. Uganda ratified the convention in 1988. It requires countries to conserve wetlands and use them wisely.
The experts also identify major problems with where the oil facilities were placed. In a 2019 review of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) for Kingfisher, E-Tech International criticized the location of the Central Processing Facility on the fragile Buhuka Flats.
“Best practice is to locate the Central Processing Facility above the escarpment to avoid highly sensitive Buhuka Flats and Lake Albert.” — E-Tech International
E-Tech International also criticizes the placement of the well pads and of the feeder pipeline linking Kingfisher to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). It further questions the use of a drilling rig powered by a 6,000-kilowatt diesel engine. Instead, it recommends electric motors, because the region’s abundant wildlife needs low noise levels.
Ugandan officials defend the Lake Albert oil projects
Ugandan officials reject these findings. They argue that the government and its partners have taken every necessary step to develop oilfields in one of the world’s most complex ecosystems.
Dr. Akankwasah Barirega, Executive Director of Uganda’s National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), says Uganda has done well so far.
“Tilenga has been here since 2006, and it has been progressing very well. It is one of the most successful oil and gas projects in a sensitive ecosystem, perhaps in the whole world.” — Dr. Akankwasah Barirega, Executive Director, NEMA
According to Dr. Barirega, the joint venture partners, TotalEnergies, CNOOC, and the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC), invested in detailed ESIAs and geological studies to understand all the impacts.
“All impacts were studied, subjected to public hearings, and external review support was sought from Norway and the Netherlands.” — Dr. Akankwasah Barirega
However, the report by Environmental Defenders and E-Tech International does not support his view. It notes that the CNOOC and Total ESIAs have been criticized for understating the risks.
Independent reviewers raised concerns
Some of this criticism came from the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), which pointed to technical and legal flaws in the ESIAs.
“They [NCEA] noted the presence of inconsistent numbers, incomplete design, unfinished decision-making, lack of justifications for the choice among different alternatives, lack of credibility of the net gain concept, non-transparent trade-offs between oil development and other potential uses of natural resources and ecosystem services.” — E-Tech International report for Environmental Defenders
The report adds that the NCEA found no mitigation measures for some identified impacts. It also found too little ambition to follow good international industry practice. Read more in our companion article: Has Uganda done enough to prevent pollution of Lake Albert by oil drilling?