The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

Europe’s search for new energy suppliers is creating new strategic opportunities for Africa, with major pipeline projects promising to reshape energy diplomacy while deepening geopolitical competition.

Europe needs gas. It also needs options.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Europe has moved quickly to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. That shift has changed the continent’s gas map. Norway, the U.S., Algeria, Azerbaijan and other suppliers have all become more important. But diversification has also created a new problem: Europe does not want to replace one dependency with another.

That is why African gas is receiving renewed attention. The issue is not simply supply. It is political flexibility. Additional pipeline routes from Africa could help Europe reduce exposure to geopolitical shocks, volatile LNG markets and excessive reliance on a narrow group of suppliers.

Two projects sit at the centre of this debate: the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP), which would carry Nigerian gas through Niger and Algeria, and the Africa Atlantic Gas Pipeline (AAGP), also known as the Nigeria-Morocco Gas Pipeline, which would run along the West African Atlantic coast towards Morocco and Europe.

• African ministers push to turn urban commitments into action at WUF13 in Baku
• Africa and Azerbaijan deepen business ties at Baku forum

If completed, these projects could reshape Europe’s energy map. They could strengthen Nigeria’s position as a strategic gas power, give transit countries new leverage and intensify the long-running rivalry between Algeria and Morocco. They would not solve Europe’s energy challenges overnight, but they could change the balance of energy diplomacy between Europe and Africa.

Why Europe is looking south

Europe’s search for energy has become more urgent because the old assumptions no longer hold. Russian gas is being phased out. LNG markets are exposed to price swings and shipping risks. Tensions in and around the Middle East, including pressure on major maritime routes, have added another layer of uncertainty to the global gas trade.

Europe is not without suppliers. It receives pipeline gas from Norway, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Libya and other partners, while LNG imports from the U.S. have grown sharply. Yet this shift has created its own strategic anxiety. American LNG helped Europe absorb the shock of losing much of its Russian supply, but heavy dependence on any single supplier brings political and commercial risks.

This is where African gas becomes attractive. Europe has imported Nigerian LNG for decades, but pipelines could provide a different kind of relationship: longer-term, infrastructure-based and less exposed to the day-to-day volatility of the global LNG market.

Natural gas also remains part of Europe’s energy mix, even as demand has fallen from its recent peak and renewable energy capacity expands. The energy transition has not removed the need for gas imports. It has simply made the question of where that gas comes from more strategic.

The Trans-Saharan route: Nigeria, Niger and Algeria

The Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline is the older and more direct of the two major proposals. It is designed to move Nigerian gas north through Niger and into Algeria, where it could connect with existing infrastructure linking North Africa to European markets.

The project has been discussed for more than two decades. For years, it remained more ambition than reality. However, recent progress on the Algerian section has given it renewed momentum. The planned corridor is more than 4,000 kilometres long and is designed to carry up to 30 billion cubic metres of gas a year.

For Europe, the attraction is clear. A functioning Trans-Saharan route would bring additional African gas into the Mediterranean energy system and strengthen Algeria’s role as a gateway between Africa and Europe.

For Algeria, the project is also about influence. It would reinforce Algiers as a major energy partner for Europe and allow it to link its own export infrastructure with Nigeria’s vast gas reserves. For Nigeria, the pipeline would diversify export routes and reduce dependence on LNG shipments. For Niger, transit revenues, infrastructure and jobs could bring much-needed economic benefits.

But the route is also exposed. It crosses difficult terrain and politically fragile areas. Security risks in parts of Nigeria and Niger, combined with the cost of construction and the need for sustained financing, remain significant obstacles. The project is strategically attractive, but it will not be an easy pipeline to build or protect.

The Atlantic route: Nigeria, Morocco and West Africa

The Africa Atlantic Gas Pipeline offers a different vision. Rather than crossing the Sahara, it would run from Nigeria along the West African coast, through or near a chain of coastal states, before reaching Morocco and potentially connecting to European markets via Spain.

The proposed route is much longer, at roughly 6,900 kilometres, and is expected to be developed in phases. Its planned capacity is also widely cited as around 30 billion cubic metres a year, although a significant share is expected to serve domestic and regional markets along the route rather than being exported entirely to Europe.

That distinction matters. Unlike the Trans-Saharan project, the Atlantic pipeline is not only an export corridor. It is also presented as a development project for West Africa. Participating countries hope it can support electricity generation, industrialisation and regional integration in a part of the continent where energy shortages continue to constrain growth.

For Nigeria, the logic is similar to that of the Trans-Saharan route: monetise gas reserves, diversify export channels and strengthen its regional energy role. For Morocco, the project is even more strategic. It would allow Rabat to present itself as an energy bridge between Africa and Europe while expanding its influence across West Africa.

• Nigeria approves $128 million payment for gas debts in bid to boost power supply
• Revived train service eases transportation burden in Nigeria's Plateau State

That is also why the project carries political weight. The Atlantic route could strengthen Morocco’s diplomatic position, including in relation to the Western Sahara dispute, and give Rabat a stronger response to Algeria’s energy geography. In this sense, the pipeline is not just about gas. It is about competing regional visions.

Two pipelines, two rival logics

The TSGP and AAGP are sometimes described as complementary. In theory, they could both help bring Nigerian gas closer to Europe while supporting African energy development. In practice, however, they also reflect competing geopolitical strategies.

The Trans-Saharan route strengthens the Nigeria-Niger-Algeria axis and makes use of Algeria’s established connections to Europe. The Atlantic route strengthens the Nigeria-Morocco-West Africa axis and gives Morocco a larger role in the continent’s energy future.

This competition is not necessarily negative. It could encourage investment, accelerate regional energy planning and give African states greater bargaining power. But it could also deepen the rivalry between Algeria and Morocco, particularly if pipeline diplomacy becomes increasingly tied to wider disputes over influence, borders and regional alignment.

The limits of Europe’s African gas bet

The potential is considerable. So are the constraints.

Both pipelines are extremely expensive. The Trans-Saharan project is often estimated to cost around $20 billion, while the Atlantic project is commonly estimated at around $25 billion. Securing that level of investment will not be easy, particularly as Europe is also investing heavily in renewables, hydrogen, electricity grids and LNG infrastructure.

Commercial risk is another challenge. Gas demand in Europe has fallen from its 2021 peak, and long-term demand remains uncertain. A pipeline that takes years, or even decades, to complete must compete within a rapidly changing energy system. Investors will want confidence that future demand will justify the cost.

Security risks are also significant. The Trans-Saharan route faces threats from armed groups, smuggling networks and instability in parts of the Sahel and northern Nigeria. The Atlantic route avoids some of those land-based risks, but its offshore and coastal sections present technical complexity and maritime security challenges.

There are also engineering obstacles. Desert pipelines require demanding construction and maintenance. Long offshore and hybrid routes require advanced technical expertise and constant protection. The longer the route, the greater its vulnerability.

A long road, but not an irrelevant one

Europe should not view African gas as a quick fix. It is not. These pipelines will not replace Russian gas immediately, nor will they eliminate Europe’s reliance on LNG. Their timelines are long, their risks are considerable and their commercial viability will depend on future prices and demand.

Nevertheless, the projects matter because energy infrastructure is also political infrastructure. Pipelines create relationships. They bind producers, transit states and consumers into long-term arrangements. They give countries leverage, but they also create mutual dependence.

For Africa, the question is not only whether Europe needs its gas. It is whether African producers and transit states can use that demand to build industry, improve energy access and strengthen their own strategic position. For Europe, the question is whether diversification can be achieved without creating new forms of dependency.

The answer remains uncertain. But one thing is already clear: Europe’s search for African gas is not merely an energy story. It is also a story of power, geography and the politics of supply in an increasingly unstable world.

Tags

Europe Africa gas LNG Middle East