Connect with us

Column

Of Boko Haram, Jonathan’s Presidency, And The Rest Of US

Published

on

The bombing of the United Nations UN) building in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) penultimate Friday, the third in the series in the FCT within a year, may not be a surprise to many observers of events in the country, especially since President Jonathan assumed office in May 29, 2011.

Just three months in office, Jonathan’s presidency appears to have witnessed more bombings within a relatively short span than any other president or Head of State, dead or alive, particularly in peace time, or better still, during democracy which, ordinarily, should be the most peaceful period in democratic dispensations. However, the situation seems to be the opposite.

The ugly trend, as unfortunate as it looks, may well be Jonathan’s litmus test to prove his capability to govern Nigeria, the largest black nation on planet earth, using all necessary and legitimate means to subdue the revolutionary forces within and outside our boarders striving hard to subvert the unity and co-existence of Nigeria and Nigerians.

Last week’s bombing of UN building located within the diplomatic zone of FCT, to say the least, is most worrisome in many respects. For one, it signposts a clarion call on Nigeria’s security network that the insecurity in the land, particularly terrorists threats against the stability of the Nigerian State, should no longer be treated with kid gloves.

The UN complex bombing, from all indications, appears to be the most devastating bombing in Abuja so far. With 23 lives confirmed dead and over 100 people injured, as well as properties worth millions  of naira destroyed, the incident surpassed the blasts at Eagle Square during the nation’s 50th independence anniversary and the one at Police Headquarters, which recorded lost of fewer lives.

The pathetic scenario, following  the spate of bombings and air of insecurity created by the blasts in the past one year, especially in the nation’s capital, is indeed, most worrisome. Analysts are quick to conclude that if such blasts could occur in diplomatic and three arms of government zones in Abuja, then the Presidential Villa, aka Aso Rock, may not be spared either.

Infact, it makes one wonder what our security chiefs are really up to. In advanced societies, some of the security chiefs would have thrown in the towel for what I will  simply describe as their incompetence and incapability to detect or fore-see the blasts before-hand.However, in Nigeria this cannot be.

Our leaders in politics, economy, security, or whatever, will stay put in office, despite apparent failure to deliver on their duties and responsibilities to the people.

While it has become a common-place to assume or even presume that all major blasts, bombings or security threats are perpetuated by the dreaded Boko Haram Islamic sect, our security operatives should go beyond searching for suspects of the group and fish out their sponsors and masterminds.

In an era where some highly-placed individuals are so aggrieved to the extent of threatening the unity and foundation of Nigeria as a corporate entity, the issue should be investigated thoroughly. We recall that one of  the explosive outrages that happened last October in Abuja during the nation’s 50th independence anniversary was attributed to a totally different source.

The leader of  the Movement for  the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and weapons merchant, Henry Okah, is still standing trial in South Africa on charges of complicity in the Abuja Eagle Square blast till date. It can, therefore, be also assumed that other notable Nigerians, and indeed, foreigners, could be behind some of the outrages aimed at destabilising Nigeria, or simply put, making the country ungovernable for President Jonathan for reasons best known to them.

Interestingly, our security agencies in collaboration with Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) and United Nations Security apparatus are working in concert to unmask the persons behind the UN building bombing.

The challenge before those investigating the blast is to establish whether there are links in method, materials used and the execution between the blasts at Eagle Square, Police headquarters and the UN complex.

Nigerians are really watching with keen interest. Our security operatives must be more assertive now than ever before because the citizens are very wary and apprehensive of the current insecurity in the land and virtually all facets  of life of our people have been negatively affected by the trend.

A school of thought has it that regardless of the motive of all the blasts, whether they are imported or home-grown initiatives, one thing that can hardly be ignored is that the main consequence of the attacks in Abuja, the seat of power, is to destabilise Jonathan’s Presidency, as the Head of Government.

The three blasts at the heart of the Federal Capital should not be seen as a mere co-incidence at all. It is indeed much more than meets the eye. Even if the sources, initiators and executors of the bombings are separate with, perhaps, different motives and objectives, the goal and mission may clearly be similar, if not the same.

One is tempted to believe, and quickly too, that the difference in choice of target and operational strategy need to be properly investigated as the sophiscation in execution of the last two blasts:  the one at Police Headquarters and UN building had similar characteristics; using suicide bombers as the pointmen.

The bottomline is that the newest enemies of the Nigerian state who are perpetrating these acts of aggression and antagonising Jonathan’s Presidency are out, in all ramifications, to frustrate the president and cast doubts over the ability of Jonathan’s government to maintain law and order  in the country.

Nigeria requires the highest level of professionalism and understanding to unravel the real persons behind the current outrages and insecurity so as to prevent further escalation of attacks on innocent citizens. The greatest casualties so far is the ordinary man on the street, not the privileged ones.

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