Peru’s energy crisis has exposed an uncomfortable contradiction: a country rich in natural gas remains dangerously dependent on a single transportation corridor. For investors, the disruption has reopened a multibillion-dollar infrastructure opportunity, but its commercial viability will depend on political resolve, regulatory certainty and the ability to overcome a complicated history. 

On 1 March 2026, a rupture in the Camisea pipeline system disrupted gas supplies, forcing emergency rationing and exposing vulnerabilities across electricity generation, industry and domestic fuel markets. Camisea supports approximately 40 percent of Peru’s electricity generation, making transportation infrastructure a critical economic dependency. 

“The Camisea crisis triggered a wake-up call within government, not only for the current administration but also for the previous one. On a scale of 0 to 100, that awakening was around 60, mainly due to the shock caused by how quickly energy costs rose,” remarked a senior executive at an independent Peruvian investment banking advisory firm. 

“The Camisea crisis triggered a wake-up call within government, not only for the current administration but also for the previous one."

Senior executive at an independent investment banking advisory firm, Peru

The implications extend beyond operational reliability. Peru’s seismic exposure adds another dimension to infrastructure risk. As the senior executive warned, “Peru is considered an earthquake-prone country, and there has not been a major earthquake in that area for the past 40 years, so one is likely in the coming years. This could cause significant disruption in the area where the pipeline is located.”

Attention has consequently returned to the Southern Peruvian Gas Pipeline (“GSP”), a roughly 1,000-kilometre project intended to connect southern Peru to the country’s natural gas reserves. Awarded in 2014 to a consortium involving Odebrecht and Spain’s Enagás, construction stalled amid the Lava Jato corruption scandal, with the concession terminated in 2017. The project subsequently became entangled in international arbitration. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes awarded Enagás approximately USD 303 million, including interest and costs, although Peru has sought annulment of the decision. 

Resolving this legacy could be central to any revival. According to a source, “What will most likely happen is that, within the next one to two years, the State will revive the project and negotiate with Enagás in order to avoid making the compensation payment and proceed with the development.” 

Such an agreement remains speculative, but could create opportunities for infrastructure investors, engineering contractors, gas distributors and power generators. 

The potential economic benefits are substantial. Connecting southern power plants currently dependent on diesel to natural gas could reduce generation costs, improve fuel flexibility and unlock additional capacity. “If completed, the country could increase its energy capacity by approximately 30 percent, as gas could then be supplied to a number of ‘cold reserve’ power plants that currently run only on diesel,” commented the financial advisor.  

Greater gas availability could also moderate electricity prices and strengthen industrial competitiveness. However, changing the regional energy supply balance would inevitably affect existing commercial interests. The advisor pointed to lobbying against the project from market participants whose competing investments could face reduced growth opportunities. 

“If completed, the country could increase its energy capacity by approximately 30 percent, as gas could then be supplied to a number of ‘cold reserve’ power plants that currently run only on diesel.”

Senior executive at an independent investment banking advisory firm, Peru

President Keiko Fujimori’s administration has signalled an investment-friendly approach, including proposed hydrocarbons reforms and greater private participation in energy infrastructure. One source observed, “Fujimori is open to listening to and approving foreign investment in the country. She is very pro-investment, and lobbying is also highly prevalent in Peru. This is an important issue for any foreign company looking to invest in the country.” 

Yet political openness does not guarantee execution. Investors will need clarity on concession structures, tariffs, financing arrangements, environmental approvals and stakeholder interests before committing capital. The GSP’s troubled history makes contractual protection and institutional credibility particularly important. 

Peru must also balance gas infrastructure investment with its renewable energy ambitions. A more diversified generation mix offers long-term advantages, but reliable transportation, storage and backup capacity remain essential to energy security. 

The coming decade could redefine Peru’s energy landscape. Reviving the GSP offers an opportunity to strengthen resilience, stimulate industrial growth and attract foreign capital. The question is whether the government can transform renewed political urgency into a commercially bankable project, while navigating the competing interests that have historically constrained progress. 

For investors, Peru’s opportunity is considerable, but so, too, is the cost of getting it wrong.