Column

N120bn Monthly Subsidy Burden

Published

4 years ago

April 5, 2021

The Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was quoted as crying out that the N120 billion monthly subsidy burden on petroleum products is too heavy to bear -Ref. The Tide: Friday 26 March, 2021. There is a proclamation known as “crying down credit” in police circle, whereby the Divisional Police Officer in a newly established police unit would warn the community in the neighbourhood not to grant any credit to any police officer of that unit. The idea is that the police authority would not be held liable for any breach of the proclamation. You give loan or credit at your own risk!
The purpose of this digression is that the people of Nigeria are being warned to expect a price increase in petroleum products. Usually, hike in the pump price of petroleum products is a ready means of raising money when the economy is biting harder. The logic of fuel subsidy expresses the endemic enigma in the oil and gas industry, with reference to perennial paralysis of the refineries and continued importation of fuel from abroad. Obviously, there is a clever system of parasitism, of which Nigerians demand to know the truth.
The ding-dong about proper pricing of petroleum products in Nigeria began with my late colleague, Professor Tam David-West, whereby the content value of Coca Cola bottle became a measure for the price of same volume of petrol. The issue of subsidy and proper pricing of petroleum products must be resolved once and for all without the shenanigans that feature in the old story. Who are the consumers of subsidised fuel and who is robbing or fooling who, to pay another?
The logic about Coke and petrol price equalisation was also applied in subsidising the cost of transportation of petroleum products across the country. A motorist in Eleme must buy fuel at the same price as another in Damaturu, which is another form of equalisation and quota policy. The cost of delivery of fuel is passed on to the public as collective tax. The most annoying aspect of the fuel subsidy issue is parasitism in the consumption pattern. Subsidy is defined as money paid by a government to make price lower, reduce the cost of production of goods, etc. but with fuel, it translates into indirect increase of taxation, to maintain a parasitic political economy.
Why must an innumerable number of government officials and political office holders, having several vehicles each, all fueled at public expense, also enjoy huge transport allowances? Why has there not been a public audit to determine if the issue of free fuel, coupled with transport and travelling allowances, are not being abused grossly? Nigerians are aware whereby transparency is thrown to the wind.
We have not faced the issues of corruption, deceit and transparency in governance with seriousness and honesty. Part of what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded of Nigeria many years ago, included total removal of fuel subsidy. What was actually meant by fuel subsidy removal had to do specifically with excessive free fuel consumption by innumerable state and political office holders. It was the issue of transparency in governance, so that the public is not made to pay for the profligate life-style of state and political office holders.
For a long time, there had been a suspicion about possible foul play in the petroleum industry, with specific reference to endless excuses why the nation’s refineries cannot work effectively. The situation becomes even more annoying with the huge sums of money spent to revamp refineries from time to time. Yet importation of fuel into the country becomes a better option, with numerous abuses associated therewith. Neither is there any seriousness about creating enabling environment and policy for small-scale local refineries, of which there are several demands.
One Joseph Obele was quoted as saying that when the Port Harcourt Refinery is revamped, it would enhance the provision and availability of quality petroleum products. He went on to say: “It will make us have the best quality of products as against all the rubbish they are importing into Nigeria”. If revamping a refinery would be capable of creating employment for over 25,000 persons, according to the IPMAN chairman, then what is the jinx holding the nation in bondage!
Needless to revisit the issue that there are many predators and parasites within and outside Nigeria who have held this country hostage since 1970, with the oil and gas sector as their stronghold. But Nigeria would want to know why the nation’s security and intelligence network would not be able to come to the rescue of helpless Nigerian masses. Why must a great nation as Nigeria be held hostage by some faceless smooth operators? If the Nigerian masses are docile and helpless, there are some elite who are complicit or serving as willing accomplices of the predators and parasites.
The strategy of containing the Nigerian masses has been to use the forum of the nation’s lawmakers as a safety valve, to ensure a stability of the polity, through scandalous remunerations. When a senator gets emoluments estimated to be four times the salary of the President of the United States of America, then we must ask whose interests they are being paid to protect. With their known allowances as enumerated by an insider, the senators would not want to be deprived of what benefits they enjoy. These include free fuel extended to friends!
Removal of fuel subsidy would mean removing the hidden costs of maintaining the class of predators and parasites that the military installed for self-preservation purposes. The cry of government through the NNPC about the burden of spending N120 billion monthly as fuel subsidy, can be described as idiomatic “crocodiles’ tears”. It is what happens when an oligarchy is installed under the guise of a democracy. Those responsible for this structure would fight against any restructuring.
With the burden of spending N120 billion monthly as fuel subsidy, the NNPC should ask itself who are the free and insatiable consumers of petroleum products. Who is paying to support who in Nigeria? NNPC is advised to adopt the crying down credit or proclamation of the police, with respect to free consumption of fuel. Whoever consumes fuel must pay for it, rather than place a heavy burden on NNPC and on to the public. Nigerian masses have been bamboozled long enough!

Dr. Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.

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