Connect with us

Column

Govs, Sheath Your Sword! …As Sovereign Wealth Fund Rages

Published

on

An atmosphere of zest and economic optimism dominated the nation’s polity when the Sovereign Wealth Investment Authority Act, a.k.a. Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) was enacted in May, this year. But the zest is literally dead. Why? President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and the 36 state governors are now in war of words over the SWF Act, meant to save the excess revenue from the sale of crude oil.

However, the president is undaunted. He appears set to dialogue with them (governors) over this touchy national issue. Apparently reacting to media reports that governors were singing discordant tunes over the SWF, he has asked the state chief executives to approach the Federal Government on any issue that they are not comfortable with so as to take a common position.

That way, he noted, both the federal and state governments would not be exposed to media hype, and warned them not to play politics with the nation’s economy. “We  know, without fixing our economy (Sic), we cannot go anywhere as a nation. So, that is the first interest of government and I would want to urge all the different tiers of government, the states and local governments to place economic issues on the front burner because without a well managed economy, as a nation, we will not be planning for the future generation”.

The Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), last week Monday, condemned the establishment of the sovereign Wealth Fund, and described it as unconstitutional. Rising from their meeting in Abuja, the governors not only criticized the SWF Act, but also called on the federal authorities to suspend its operation because of its unconstitutionality.

Chairman of the governors’ forum and Governor of Rivers State, Rt. Hon Chibuike Amaechi who spoke on behalf of the governors, said their meeting agreed that the constitutional issues arising from the SWF Act have to be dealt with. “Members resolved to call on the Federal Government to suspend operation of Sovereign Wealth Fund Act until all the issues are resolved because it is unconstitutional”, he said.

It would be recalled that the disbursement of excess revenue from the sale of crude oil to the three tiers of government has over the years been a subject of public controversy. In 2005, the price of crude oil at the international market hit an upward trend following instability in supply due largely to crises in the Middle East. As a result, the Federal Government raked-in hundreds of billions of naira as excess revenue, accruable from the sale of crude oil.

But while the various tiers of government were awaiting the release and subsequent sharing of the excess crude oil money, the federal authorities slammed an embargo on the disbursement of the money. Expectedly, the issue generated palpable bad-blood between the federal authorities, state governors, as well as the local government councils across the country.

However, a truce over the non-release of the excess oil money was later reached between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and the state governors, following the intervention of the National Council of States which spelt out a sharing formula for the excess oil money. Under the sharing formula, at the time, 50% of the excess oil funds was set aside to take care of possible fluctuation in the price of crude oil in the near future. The council, at the time in question, also agreed that 37% of the excess oil money should be shared by oil producing states.

The sharing formula, as rolled out by the Council of states, was that the federal government’s share would be N146 billion, N74 billion for state governments, and N41 billion for oil producing states. The council also directed that the disbursement should be on monthly basis to ensure probity.

This was how touchy national issues were resolved, resulting in the withdrawal from the law courts, litigations and other crises that accompanied the non-release of the excess oil money in 2005. Regrettably, the crisis reared its ugly head again during the last lap of the Obasanjo administration, as the excess oil money was being held in the nation’s foreign and domestic reserves by the Obasanjo regime, in spite of the cries of the governors, at the time.

Worried by the development and coupled with the empty treasury inherited by most state governors from their predecessors, the new governors had at several meetings with late President Umaru Yar’Adua appealed to him to use his good offices to put the necessary machinery in motion to effect the disbursement of the excess fund from crude oil which was being held by the federal authorities.

Happily enough, late President Yar’Adua, apparently moved by the cries of the state governors, graciously authorized the immediate disbursement of the accumulated excess crude fund. Under the arrangement, the federal, state and local governments signed an agreement on the utilization of funds accruing to the Excess Crude Account which grossed more than N1.4 trillion at the time in question.

Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, Governor, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), at the time, said in Abuja shortly after a meeting of the National Economic Council, that N1 trillion of the amount was to be saved in a base account for the state, and that the balance would be shared to the three tiers of government after reconciling debts owed by seven states and the Federal Government. The agreement for the disbursement of the excess oil money which was for four years, provided for the sharing of 80% of monies to be accrued in subsequent years, while the remaining 20% would be saved, according to Soludo.

In the words of the CBN Governor, “the saving will accrue interest for the respective states to be utilised for a rainy day”. Commenting on the issue, many Nigerians expressed the belief that if the excess oil money is being shared, a large chunk of it would end up in private accounts of the few privileged ones in government at the expense of the poor ones. They reasoned that there was no sin in sharing the excess oil money from the foreign reserves, but it was not tied to specific programmes that will ensure the socio-economic development of the country. More so, as the excess oil money was being withdrawn, it was not attached to any socio-economic programmes, such as education, health, employment generation, among others.

The Minister of State for Finance, Mr Remi Babolala, at the time, explained that the Federal Government got the lion share of $841.911 million, the 36 states, $799,648 million, while the 774 local government councils received $358.440 million. Certainly, with the sharing of the two billion US dollars by the three tiers of government, there was more cash pumped into the system to enhance spending and rejuvenate the nation’s economy. It also meant that funds were made available for on-going projects at the federal, state and local government levels. La-mentably, the common man did not feel the impact of the excess crude cash sharing.

Again, barely two months after assumption of duty as President, Dr Jonathan, ordered the release of  another two billion US dollars from the Excess Crude Account. Indeed, the money was released and the three tiers of government shared the oil windfall, accordingly. However, reactions trailed the remittance of the excess crude cash  into the accounts of the three tiers of government. While some Nigerians saw nothing wrong in the president’s action, scores of others condemned it, insisting that it was rather too early for the president to have ordered the sharing of the oil money, barely two months after assumption of office. All that is now history.

Better still, the Federal Government, early this year, ordered the sharing of $1 billion from the Excess Crude Account to the three tiers of government. Indeed, the excess oil money was remitted into the accounts of the federal, state and local governments. According to the former Minister of Finance, Olusegun Aganga, a large chunk of such funds earlier shared had always ended up in the private pockets of the privileged ones in government. Worst offenders are the local government chairmen.

It is public knowledge that scores of the nation’s political office holders have a penchant for looting excess crude cash and statutory allocations from the Federation Account disbursed to the various tiers of government. Yes, not too long ago, Senate President, David Mark, accused local government chairmen of going to hotels to share among themselves, funds statutorily allocated to them from the Federation Account.

As contained in the new law, any excess money from the sale of crude oil will now be properly invested or tied to specific projects. This new economic feat, achieved by President Jonathan, has been widely applauded by economists and other well-meaning Nigerians. No doubt, this has added another feather to Jonathan’s cap of achievements.

But it is imperative to ask the federal authorities, especially the “managers” of the Sovereign Wealth Investment Authority to begin now to set in motion the machinery to invest the excess crude cash in specific economic projects, as well as infrastructural facilities that will spur the socio-economic developments at the federal, state and local government levels.

It is still fresh in the minds of Nigerians that the National Assembly in May, this year, passed into law the Sovereign Wealth Investment bill, a.k.a. Sovereign Wealth Fund. This follows an executive bill for the establishment of the fund which was mid-wifed by President Jonathan and duly sent to both the Senate and House of Representatives for passage into law. Happily, the president assented to the billed on May 27, 2011.

Indeed, the president’s action was greeted with applause by many Nigerians because, with the setting up of the fund, backed by law, the frequent sharing of excess crude cash by the three tiers of government was legally suspended or stopped. What’s more, with the new law now in place, the Excess Crude Account, from which the excess oil money was being shared, will not be in operation, any longer.

That said, it behoves the 36 states governors to sheath their sword over the SWF Act. Afterall, some elected public office holders have been fingered for looting excess oil money and monthly allocations, disbursed to them from the Federation Account.

Beyond that, with the Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, economic analysts believe that Nigeria is set to play in the $4 trillion global alternation assets club, address her critical infrastructure deficit and attract the needed investments. Again, renowned economists say Sovereign Wealth Fund has the capacity to do two things: either prevent drastic aftershocks of a systematic financial crisis or principally provide cash to the owner countries (or firms) that are on brink of insolvency or in need of capital for growth.

Happily, Nigeria has just enacted her own Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. No doubt, the wealth fund will provide a firmer legal basis to ring-fence the nation’s saving. Our governors must therefore allow the SWF to see the light of day.

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