Connect with us

Column

Vision 20:2020 Mirage Or Reality?

Published

on

Nigerians are not comfortable that we are talking about competing with leading economies in the Western and Eastern blocs, when the necessary institutional framework is virtually non-existent, when our socio-political system is still characterised with mediocrity and sycophancy, when corruption still stir us in the face, (in high and low places) and indeed when the ideals of the Rule of Law and democratic process are still fragile.

 

Barely eight years to go, Nigeria’s ambition to categorise the country among the world’s 20 strongest economies by 2020 and place her as one of the fastest developing nations is fast becoming a pipe dream.  Vision 20: 2020 is packaged to launch Nigeria, not only as an African giant, but a global economic giant in the comity of nations.

However, the project appears to be heading to the rocks as a number of factors stir the project on the face, thus hindering the successful execution of the scheme. Among the obstacles include: dearth of non accessibility to long-term credit facilities, high cost of living, influx of substandard finished products, especially from Asia axis (China, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, India etc).

Other indices are unstable power/energy, poor infrastructures like road network, absence of railway transport, poor research, weak link between small and large-scale enterprises, poor tax administration, policy somersaults, among other hindernesses.

Infact, the obstacles are legion and except deliberate and conscious efforts are made to revert the trend, our hopes to be among the best 20 in the world will continue to be a mirage.

Just recently, a friend of mine, simply called Joe (an economist) while addressing participants during an economic forum held in Port Harcourt recently observed that Nigerian leaders were merely day-dreaming with the Vision 20:2020 project, noting that Nigeria cannot break even with the present crop of leaders.  For him, our leaders are just re-circled from one dispensation to another, and except there is a redical departure from the status-quo, we will continue to slide further.

For Joe, our leaders lack the political will and commitment for a change as most of them are products of the “old brigade” who have run out of ideas and only bent on milking Nigeria dry, rather than strategising on how to move the country forward economically.  According to him, this generation of Nigerians may not see the Messiah that will salvage our economy.

Rightly or wrongly, my friend made his views clear to the conveners of the forum.  He may not be completely right in his assertion but there are salient points that must and should be addressed, if Nigeria must attain the philosophy behind the Vision 20:2020 project.

Currently, the Nigeria business community, from all indications, appears not fully mobilised for the execution of the project.  The development of the business sector is critical, and indeed, crucial to the realisation of the economic dream.

Sadly enough, the manufacturing sub-sector which, of course, is an intergral part of the business community is virtually in limbo, operating in less than 50 per cent capacity due to multiple factors militating against its full operational capacity.

The sector, due to obvious hip-cups, contributes only three per cent yearly as against 25 per cent which the sector should ordinarily contribute to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The sector’s minimal contribution to the GDP is largely attributable to the nation’s epileptic power situation Manufacturers lament that they spend over N3.5 trillion annually on diesel and petrol due to unstable electricity which had remained a nightmare and unaddressed to by successive administrations for decades.

Except drastic and decisive steps are taken urgently by the authorities, the phenomenon may remain the same and this, no doubt, had forced many manufacturing firms to re-locate to neighbouring countries where power is relatively stable.

The question now is what should government do to address this?  Some say, the authorities should declare a state emergency in the power sector while other opine that Nigeria must withdraw supplying some West African countries with light to add to the nation’s power capacity, if it is serious about the Vision 20:2020 ambition.

As much as I subscribe to these views, I also believe that the problem with the power sector is much more than that because there seems to be unpatriotic Nigerians with foreign collaborators who are bent on sabotaging government’s efforts in addressing the endemic power situation in Nigeria.  Government should therefore not hesitate to identify such blacklegs with a view to apprehending and possibly prosecuting them as a deterant to others with such evil intentions.

Similarly, our leaders need to focus on job creation, agriculture, mass transportation, land reforms, qualitative education, functional healthcare system, infrastructural development and security to turn around the economy and make the 20:2020 economic scheme realisable within the target date.

A school of thought believes that the deadline is achievable if only the government can muster enough political will and genuine commitment to make things happen.

When the Yar’Adua’s administration assembled a cream of Nigerian egg-heads in Abuja in October, 2008 to fashion out the road-map to the nation’s desire to join the league of 20 of world’s strongest economies, little did he realise that apart from the political will power needed to push ambition to a desired end, other variables need to be addressed squarely.

Perhaps, it may be right to assert that the zeal and spirit which the then administration attached to the project may have died down judging from the fact that four years after, not much had been achieved towards realising the dream of belonging to “Club 20 in the next eight years.

One is not, however, saying that Nigeria does not have the potentials to make the dream realisable but the fact is that we need more than rhetories and more of action, action, action.

The action must manifest in setting out clear-cut targets by creating institutional and micro-macro economic framework from growth –inducing environment.

Cases abound of policy thrusts by previous administrations which did not see the light of the day just because successive regimes did not see such projects or programmes as their babies and therefore attached no priority to them.

Targets were set on education, agriculture, health, power generation and distribution, industrial capacity, among others, yet noting came out of them eventually.

Remember Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution, Vision 2010, eradication of polio, illiteracy and poverty, guinea worn, Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) among other policies which hit the rocks after their initiators  left the saddle.

One cannot easily forget our economic policy thrust aimed at reducing inflation to single digit, revaluation of the Naira, and other economic jargons which could not lead Nigeria anywhere close to Club 50 strongest economies in the world.

My worry on the Vision 20:2020 is hinged on these economic considerations which appear not to be favourable to the successful execution of the target date.

Nigerians are not comfortable that we are talking about competing with leading economies in the Western and Eastern blocs, when the necessary institutional framework is virtually non-existent, when our socio-political system is still characterised with mediocrity and sycophancy, when corruption still stir us in the face, (in high and low places) and indeed when the ideals of the Rule of Law and democratic process are still fragile.

Continue Reading

Column

Are the Bears Wrong About the Looming Glut in Oil?

Published

on

The oil market is oversupplied while demand growth is slowing down. This has become the dominant assumption among oil traders over the past two years, repeatedly reinforced by analyst outlets. Assumptions, however, are often wrong, especially when not based on physical data.
The International Energy Agency’s latest monthly report, for instance, said that the world is facing a record overhang of crude oil, set to unfold in the final quarter of this year and extend into the first months of 2026.
The expected glut was attributed to lower-than-expected oil consumption in several large developing world markets, combined with rising production in both OPEC+ and elsewhere, notably in the United States, Canada, Guyana, and Brazil.
The investment banks also see a glut, as they tend to do unless there is a war breaking out somewhere.
Goldman Sachs recently forecast Brent crude would drop below $55 per barrel next year, citing a supply overhang of 1.8 million barrels daily at the end of this year, very much in tune with the IEA.
Morgan Stanley is more guarded in its forecasts but still assumes abundant supply, as does ING in most of its regular commodity market notes. But there are some exceptions.
One of these has recently been Standard Chartered, which has bucked the trend of doomsaying among oil price forecasters, noting bullish factors that other forecasters either ignore or overlook.
The other is Oxford Energy, which this week released a report taking a close look at the physical oil market. Surprisingly, for many, the physical market does not show evidence of a glut forming anytime soon.
Crude oil inventories are always a good place to start, and that is exactly where Oxford Energy starts, noting that inventories in the OECD have only gained a rather modest 4 million barrels over the first six months of the year.
This modest increase means OECD oil stocks are still substantially below the five-year average, the research outlet noted, adding that the gap with that average was 122 million barrels.
The inventory situation is similar in the United States as well, even though the benchmarks slide every Wednesday when the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports a crude inventory draw.
Over a longer period, however, inventories have trended down, suggesting demand is pretty healthy and the threat of a massive glut may well be a bit exaggerated.
So, what about inventories outside of the OECD and outside of the United States? China, notably, has been building up its oil in storage, taking advantage of discounted sanctioned Russian crude.
Earlier this year, media reports said Chinese crude oil inventories had hit a three-year high, suggesting demand growth was lagging behind refinery processing rates.
There have also been repeated warnings about slowing oil demand in the world’s largest oil importer—even when imports increase and so do processing rates at Chinese refineries.
Oxford Energy notes, however, that since China does not report inventory information, it is difficult to get an accurate number on oil stocks and estimates produced by data trackers vary too widely to offer reliable information.
Another factor to take into account when studying oil price prospects is floating storage, according to the analysts. This boomed in 2020 when lockdowns decimated demand and supply turned excessive.
After the end of the pandemic, oil in floating storage declined before rising again amid Western sanctions on Russia. Still, Oxford Energy notes, the level of oil in floating storage remains below the levels reached in 2022.
Then there is the matter of oil products. If there is too much supply around, some of it would go into storage—including expensive floating storage—but the rest would be turned into fuels and other products.
Once again, all eyes are on China, where another surprise is waiting. Per Kpler data cited by Oxford Energy, oil product exports from China have not gone higher.
They have actually gone down by 10% and remain weak. One reason for this is, of course, government quota-setting. Another, however, may well be healthy demand for fuels at home.
As the oil market awaits OPEC’s next meeting to start exiting its positions in anticipation of that glut, it may be wise to keep the physical market in mind, along with the fact that the IEA has repeatedly had to revise its own forecasts as physical world data comes in and refutes them.
More interesting, however, is this quote from a recent note from ING analysts: “The scale of the surplus through next year means it’s unlikely the group [OPEC+] will bring additional supply onto the market.
“The bigger risk is OPEC+ deciding to reinstate supply cuts, given concerns about a surplus.”
If there is a massive surplus on the way, any new cuts from OPEC+ should have a limited effect on prices, just as they did over the past two years. But maybe that massive surplus is not so certain, after all.
Continue Reading

Column

Renewable Energy Faces Looming Workforce Crisis

Published

on

Despite a discouraging political climate and unprecedented uncertainty in the United States clean energy sector, low costs of wind and solar energy continue to drive growth of the domestic clean energy sector.
However, while market forces continue to support the expansion of renewable energy capacity, the sector faces critical challenges extending beyond the antagonism of the Trump administration.
The continued growth of solar and wind power risks being hampered by several mitigating factors, including (but not limited to) intensifying competition over increasingly scarce suitable land plots, stressed and volatile global supply chains, lengthy and unpredictable development processes, Complex and overlapping permitting processes, and a critical talent gap.
The renewable energy labor shortage has been years in the making, but is no less closer to resolution. The issue spans both white collar and blue collar positions, and threatens to kneecap progress in the booming sector.
Between the years of 2011 and 2030, it is expected that global levels of installed wind and solar capacity will quadruple. Analysis from McKinsey & Company concludes that “this huge surge in new wind and solar installations will be almost impossible to staff with qualified development and construction employees as well as operations and maintenance workers.
“It’s unclear where these employees will come from in the future,” the McKinsey report goes on to say.
He continued that “There are too few people with specialized and relevant expertise and experience, and too many of them are departing for other companies or other industries.”
The solar and wind industries are suffering from a lack of awareness of career paths and opportunities, despite their well-established presence in domestic markets.
Emergent clean energies face an even steeper uphill battle. Geothermal energy, for example, is poised for explosive growth as one of vanishingly few carbon-free energy solutions with broad bipartisan support, but faces a severe talent gap and punishingly low levels of awareness in potential talent pools.
But while the outlook is discouraging, industry insiders argue that it’s too soon to sound the alarms. In fact, a recent report from Utility Drive contends that “solutions to the energy talent gap are hiding in plain sight.”
The article breaks down those solutions into four concrete approaches: building partnerships with educators, formulating Registered Apprenticeship pathways, updating credential requirements to reflect real-world needs, and rethinking stale recruitment strategies.
Targeting strategic alliances with educational institutions is a crucial strategy for creating a skilled workforce, particularly in emerging sectors like geothermal energy.
Businesses can, for example, partner with and sponsor programs at community colleges, creating a pipeline for the next generation of skilled workers. Apprenticeships serve a similar purpose, encouraging hands-on learning outside of the classroom. Such apprenticeships can apply to white collar positions as well as blue collar roles.
“If we can figure out a way to educate the younger generation that you can actually have a career that you can be proud of and help solve a problem the world is facing, but also work in the extractive industry, I think that could go a long way,” said Jeanine Vany, executive vice president of corporate affairs for Canadian geothermal firm Eavor, speaking about the geothermal energy talent gap.
These approaches won’t solve the talent gap overnight – especially as political developments may discourage would-be jobseekers from placing their bets on a career in the renewables sector. But they will go a long way toward mitigating the issue.
“The clean energy transition depends on a workforce that can sustain it,” reports Utility Drive. “To meet the hiring challenges, employers will benefit from looking beyond the next position to fill and working toward a strategic, industry-wide vision for attracting talent.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Is It End For Lithium’s Reign As Battery King?

Published

on

Lithium-ion batteries power the world around us. Their prevalence in our daily life is growing steadily, to the extent that lithium-ion batteries now power a whopping 70 percent of all rechargeable devices.
From electric vehicles to smartphones to utility-scale energy storage, lithium-ion batteries are increasingly forming the building blocks of innumerable sectors.
But despite its dominance in battery technologies, there are some serious issues with lithium supply chains that make it a less-than-ideal model upon which to base our world.
Not only is extracting lithium often extremely environmentally damaging, it’s deeply intertwined with geopolitical pressure points. China controls a huge portion of global lithium supply chains, rendering markets highly vulnerable to shocks and the political will of Beijing.
China’s control is particularly strong in the case of electric vehicle batteries, thanks to a decade-long strategy to outcompete the globe.
“For over a decade, China has meticulously orchestrated a strategic ascent in the global electric vehicle (EV) batteries market, culminating in a dominance that now presents a formidable challenge to Western manufacturers,” reports EE Times.
The effect functions as “almost a moat” around Chinese battery production, buffering the sector against international competition.
The multiple downsides and risks associated with lithium and lithium-ion battery sourcing is pushing EV companies to research alternative battery models to power the electric cars of the future.
There are a litany of lithium alternatives in research and development phases, including – but not limited to – lead, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, sodium nickel chloride, lithium metal polymer, sodium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and solid state batteries.
Solid state batteries seem to be the biggest industry darling. Solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte as a barrier and conductor between the cathode and anode.
These batteries don’t necessarily do away with lithium, but they can eliminate the need for graphite – another critical mineral under heavy Chinese control. Plus, solid state batteries are purported to be safer, have higher energy density, and recharge faster than lithium-ion batteries.
While solid-state batteries are still in development, they’re already being tested in some applications by car companies. Mercedes and BMW claim that they are already road-testing vehicles powered by solid-state batteries, but it will likely be years before we see them in any commercial context.
Subaru is on the verge of testing solid-state batteries within its vehicles, but is already employing a smaller form of the technology to power robots within its facilities.
However, while solid-state batteries are being hailed as a sort of holy grail for battery tech, some think that the promise – and progress – of solid-state batteries is overblown.
“I think there’s a lot of noise in solid state around commercial readiness that’s maybe an exaggeration of reality”, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said during an interview on this week’s Plugged-In Podcast.
Sodium ion batteries are also a promising contender to overtake lithium-ion batteries in the EV sector. Sodium is 1,000 times more abundant than lithium.
“It’s widely available around the world, meaning it’s cheaper to source, and less water-intensive to extract”, stated James Quinn, the CEO of U.K.-based Faradion. “It takes 682 times more water to extract one tonne of lithium versus one tonne of sodium.That is a significant amount.”
Bloomberg projections indicate that sodium-ion could displace 272,000 tons of lithium demand as soon as 2035.
But even this does not signal the death of lithium. Lithium is simply too useful in battery-making. It’s energy-dense and performs well in cold weather, making it “indispensable for high-performance applications” according to EV World.
“The future isn’t lithium or sodium—it’s both, deployed strategically across sectors…the result is a diversified, resilient battery economy.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Trending