Column

Senate, NCC And GSM Service Providers

Published

13 years ago

July 27, 2012

One major problem which has persistently troubled Nigerians, particularly GSM subscribers in the past 12 years or thereabouts is the epileptic services provided by GSM service operators. Not even the resolution of the Senate and sanctions against them by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), the regulatory organ have deterred the erring service providers to have a change of heart and make a difference towards providing efficient services to their subscribers.

Aside NCC’s hammer on major GSM operators in May this year totaling over N1.2 billion as penalty for poor services to their subscribers, the Senate, last week, gave marching orders to GSM firms in the country to improve on their lingering poor services or quit the country.

Speaking through the Senate’s Committee on Communications, its chairman, Gilbert Nnaji said the upper legislative House would soon invoke the relevant section of the law to either make the GSM operators perform effectively or leave the shores of Nigeria. Nnaji did not mince words when he affirmed that “GSM firms must be sensitive to the sufferings of Nigerians, if they must continue to operate in the country.

While speaking during the committee’s public hearing on the deteriorating service of GSM providers, the Senator described as highly unacceptable the prevailing ugly trend, asserting that Nigerians deserved nothing but the best in the area of telecommunications, considering the huge investments the Federal Government had made in the subsector, since the inception of GSM in Nigeria in the year 2000.

I recall vividly that the Obasanjo’s regime granted tax holidays and other incentives to service providers upon licence acquisition to enable the operators deploy sufficient funds for infrastructural development and efficient service delivery.

But government’s gesture to the operators appears to have been lost, considering the fact that GSM firms, till date are yet to reciprocate by way of efficient service delivery to their teeming subscribers. Infact, the billions of naira they rake in quarterly and annually do not in any way reflect on the quality of service rendered.

Perhaps, that informs why the NCC in the first quarter of 2012 sanctioned the four major networks, viz: MTN, Globacom, Airtel and Etisalat to the tune of N1.17 billion as penalty for poor quality of services rendered to their different subscribers in the months of March and April, 2012.

According to the NCC’s authorities, the operators were sanctioned for contravening the provisions of the quality of service regulations and their inability to meet the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

Like other developed parts of the globe, operators are expected to meet 98 percent Call Setup Success Rate (CSSR), two per cent Call Drop Rate (CDR), 96 percent Call Completion Rate (CCR) and other pre-conditions set out by the regulatory authority. But from all indications, none of the GSM firms are meeting these guidelines which occasioned the NCC’s hammer on them in the first quarter of this year.

However, rather than pay the penalty for poor services, they resorted to protest to higher authorities, thereby defying NCC’s target for the payment of sanctions, citing among other reasons, poor power, insecurity and other logistical constraints for their epileptic services to their subscribers.

May 21, 2012 was the deadline for such payments, but, according to telecommunications sources, none of them had paid by that date. It was gathered that only MTN paid in June, perhaps due to mounting pressure from the Presidency and the National Assembly on the implications of disobeying the NCC, the regulatory body.

I reason that the operators may have thought that complete non-compliance with NCC’s sanctions will ultimately be counter-productive as was evidenced by the Senate’s position last week, that the necessary provisions of the law will be invoked on them if they remain recalcitrant and adamant by exhibiting corporate rascality.

Well, to be fair to the operators, the business terrain may not be the best for them for now due to the increasing security concerns, especially in the northern part of the country. But that can not be said to be the picture in Western and Southern Nigeria where business still thrives and flourishes.

It is no secret that these major service providers post billions of naira as profit quarterly despite their flimsy excuses of hostile business environment. Besides, the Power Ministry under the watch of Professor Barth Nnaji, (who I must confess is doing a great job in the power sector) promised a special power arrangement/supply for the GSM firms to enhance their performances.

On the other hand, the operators’ claim of multiple and over-taxation had been debunked by the Federal Inland Revue Service (FIRS) who challenged the operators to come up with explicit evidences of illegal taxes imposed on them by any of the three tiers of government or governmental agencies.

If truly the operators are sincere with their claims of running out of business due to unfavourable business environment, how many of them are out of business in Nigeria despite the so-called hindrances? Can they conveniently tell us their financial records to buttress their claims?

Does their earnings, compared to their expenditures sufficiently mitigate the challenges they encounter as to warrant their continued stay in business? Is there truly any market in Africa that provides higher Returns On Investment especially in the telecommunications industry than Nigeria?

Nigeria’s infrastructural under-development can not and should not be sufficient reason why GSM firms should compromise international standards like their counterparts in the oil and gas sector. I earnestly believe that Nigeria is not the worst business climate in Africa, compared to other climes where telecoms business is being operated and made functional, effective and efficient.

From all indications, the operators are breaking even. Statistics show that returns on investment are encouraging and high. It is expected, therefore, that hindrances of the operating environment should not warrant non-committal attitude and disposition of operators to spending “one naira more” on their investments for good quality services to their subscribers.

It is my candid suggestion that the NCC and other relevant organs of government should seal up offices of erring and defaulting operators since it does appear that all the diplomatic measures taken so far by the regulatory body to call them to order had failed.

The poor service delivery currently witnessed by over 100 million Nigerian subscribers to GSM services is unacceptable and must be stopped now or never. Enough of corporate rascality and insensitivity to the plight of customers who pay through their nose to the service providers. The international minimum standard of telecoms services must be enforced in Nigeria, which indeed is part of the global village.

Column

Are the Bears Wrong About the Looming Glut in Oil?

Published

2 days ago

September 8, 2025

The Tide

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.

Column

Renewable Energy Faces Looming Workforce Crisis

Published

3 weeks ago

August 18, 2025

The Tide

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

Column

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

Published

1 month ago

August 1, 2025

The Tide

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