Column

RSUST: In The Eyes Of The Storm

Published

13 years ago

August 17, 2012

Academic activities at the Rivers State university of
Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, penultimate Monday was paralysed following
an industrial dispute declared by the Academic Staff Union of Universities
(ASUU) in the University over the re-appointment of Professor Barinmne Fakae as
the institution’s acting Vice Chancellor.

The re-appointment of Prof Fakae for a second term at the
expiration of his first tenure had generated so much controversy within and
outside the university community which climaxed to a proclamation of an
indefinite strike by ASUU. The union among other demands requested for a
reversal of Fakae’s appointment by Governor Chibuike Amaechi, the visitor to
the institution.

ASUU, among other considerations accused the state governor
of not following due process in the selection process of a new Vice Chancellor
in accordance with the statutory provisions establishing the university.

However, the state government, through the state
Commissioner for Information and Communications, Mrs Ibim Semenitari stoutly
defended government’s wisdom in re-appointing Fakae as acting Vice Chancellor,
citing, among others, his unprecedented achievements in elevating the
university from its former 76th to 19th position out of 117 universities in the
country.

Mrs Semenitari explained that the governor followed due
process while re-appointing Fakae as the Vice – Chancellor, noting that
Professor Fakae, as a respected senior citizen of the state had brought honour
and glory to the state and elevated the nation’s premier University of Science
and Technology to enviable heights, and wondered why on earth anybody could
fault or ignore such impressive feat.

It would be recalled that the Dr. Felix Igwe-led executive
of ASUU in RSUST last week gave a one-week ultimatum to the state government to
reverse Fakae’s appointment which expired last Friday culminating to a full
strike on Monday.

As much as we appreciate that both sides of the dispute may
have good reasons for their respective positions on the critical issue of
appointment of a new Vice Chancellor by virtue of the enabling law establishing
the institution, methinks however that RSUST has had enough of crisis in its
history.

This current crisis which to many stakeholders – parents,
students, staff among others is one too many and, from all indications, could
be averted if and only if the parties concerned could appreciate each other’s position.

Hitherto, the university had lost so much, leading to
extension or loss of academic programmes and sessions, backlog in call-up for
national service, accumulated convocation/graduation of students,
de-accreditation of some academic programmes and delay in the release of
results. The list is, indeed legion.

Expectedly, stakeholders: students, parents and staff were
worst hit by the ugly scenario as the university kept on degenerating to
unacceptable level up till few years ago when normalcy was restored in the
university.

It is against this backdrop that everybody strongly feels
agitated by the current imbroglio between the government and ASUU. The matter
can be amicably resolved on a round table.

The need for an open-minded dialogue is therefore inevitable
and imperative so that the university can transit to the next level of academic
excellence and infrastructural development.

We must not allow the institution to degenerate further.
RSUST is our baby. We must not allow it to die or suffer from any mortality
occasioned by human infallibility.

Rivers people must ensure that the vision of the founding
fathers of the institution is sustained and realised now and in future.

ASUU needs to have a re-think on the issue and open up
channels for negotiation for immediate resolution of the grey areas.

To insist on strike will, for sure, expose the university to
too many uncertainties. Students will
again be delayed, facilities compromised and milestones achieved so far
will be jeopardised.

We think that ASUU should firstly shelve the strike since it
is avoidable and then dialogue with the government on the way forward.

Ironically, reports of violence and battering of Dr. Felix
Igwe, ASUU’s chairman by unknown persons is most condemnable and unacceptable
in a civilised and democratic society. I believe strongly that the ASUU boss is
not the issue. The matter goes beyond him as a person. But if it is perceived
that he is using the office to enhance his popularity, then and only then,
lawful means of easing him out will apply.

ASUU, government and the governing council of the
institution should go back to a round table with open mind and honesty so as to
resolve all the issues at stake.

Goodluck Ukwe

Column

Are the Bears Wrong About the Looming Glut in Oil?

Published

14 hours 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