Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Facts You Must Know About Nigeria Fuel Subsidy

Pastor 'Tunde Bakare delivered this expose on Fuel Subsidy at The Latter Rain Assembly a few hours ago. Please read, digest, and share with as many people as you can. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

1) DEFINITION

To subsidise is to sell a product below the cost of production. Since the federal government has been secretive about the state of our refineries and their production capacity, we will focus on importation rather than production. So, in essence, within the Nigerian Fuel Subsidy context, to subsidise is to sell petrol below the cost of importation.

2) THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The Nigerian government claims that Nigerians consume 34 million litres of petrol per day. The government has also said publicly that N141 per litre is the unsubsidised pump price of petrol imported into Nigeria. (N131.70 kobo being the landing price and N9.30 kobo being profit.)

3) ANNUAL COST OF IMPORTATION

Daily Fuel Consumption: 34 million litres

Cost at Pump: N141.00

No. of days in a regular year: 365 days

Total cost of all petrol imported yearly into Nigeria:

Litres Naira Days

34m x 141 x 365

= N1.75 trillion

4) COST BORNE BY THE CONSUMERS

Nigerians have been paying N65 per litre for fuel, haven’t we? Therefore, cost borne by the consumers =

Litres Naira Days

34m x 65 x 365

= N807 billion

5) COST OF SUBSIDY BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT

In 2011 alone, government claimed to have spent N1.3 trillion by October – the bill for the full year, assuming a constant rate of consumption is N1.56 trillion.

Consequently, the true cost of subsidy borne by the government is:

Total cost of importation minus total borne by consumers, i.e. N1.75 trillion minus N807 billion = N943 billion.

Unexplainable difference: N617 billion

The federal government of Nigeria cannot explain the difference between the amount actually disbursed for subsidy and the cost borne by Nigerians (N1.56 trillion minus N943 billion = N617 billion).

6) BOGUS CLAIM BY THE GOVERNMENT

A government official has claimed that the shortfall of N617 billion is what goes to subsidising our neighbours through smuggling. This is pathetic. But let us assume (assumption being the lowest level of knowledge) that the government is unable to protect our borders and checkmate the brisk smuggling going on. Even then, the figures still don’t add up. This is because even if 50% of the petrol consumed in each of our neighbouring countries is illegally exported from Nigeria, the figures are still inaccurate. Why?

WORLD BANK’S FIGURES: POPULATIONS OF WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES

NIGERIA: 158.4 million

BENIN: 8.8 million

TOGO: 6 million

CAMEROUN: 19.2 million

NIGER: 15.5 million

CHAD: 11.2 million

GHANA: 24.4 million

The total population of all our six (6) neighbours is 85.5 million.

Let’s do some more arithmetic:

a) Rate of Petrol Consumption in Nigeria: Total consumed divided by total population:

34 million litres divided by 158.8 million people = 0.21 litres per person per day.

b) Rate of Petrol Consumption in all our 6 neighbouring countries, assumed to be the same as Nigeria:

0.2 litres x 85.5 million people = 18.35 million litres per day

Now, if we assume that 50% of the petrol consumed in all the six neighbouring countries comes from Nigeria, this value come to 9.18 million litres per day.

7) PATHETIC ABSURDITY

There are two illogicalities flowing from this smuggling saga.

a) If 9.18 million litres of petrol is truly smuggled out of our borders per day, then ours is the most porous nation in the word. This is why: The biggest fuel tankers in Nigeria have a capacity of about 36,000 litres. To smuggle 9.18 million litres of fuel, you need 254 trucks. What our government is telling us is that 254 huge tankers pass through our borders every day and they cannot do anything about it. This is not just acute incompetence, but also a serious security challenge. For if the government cannot stop 254 tanker trailers from crossing the border daily, how can they stop importation of weapons or even invasion by a foreign country?

b) 2nd illogicality:

Even if we believe the government and assume that about 9.18 million litres is actually taken to our neighbours by way of smuggling every day, and all this is subsidised by the Nigerian government, the figures being touted as subsidy still don’t add up. This is why:

Difference between pump price before and after subsidy removal =

N141.00 – N65.00 = N76.00

Total spent on subsidizing petrol to our neighbours annually =

N76.00 x 9.18 million litres x 365 days = N255 billion

If you take the N255 billion away from the N617 billion shortfall that the government cannot explain, there is still a shortfall of N362 billion. The government still needs to tell us what/who is eating up this N362 billion ($2.26 billion USD).

Cool ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS

i) We have assumed that there are no working refineries in Nigeria and so no local petrol production whatsoever – yet, there is, even if the refineries are working below capacity.

ii) Nigeria actually consumes 34 million litres of petrol per day. Most experts disagree and give a figure between 20 and 25 million litres per day. Yet there is still an unexplainable shortfall even if we use the exaggerated figure of the government.

iii) Ghana, Togo, Benin, Cameroun, Niger, and Chad all consume the same rate as Nigeria and get 50% of their petrol illegally from Nigeria through smuggling.

These figures simply show the incompetence and insincerity of our government officials. This is pure banditry.

9) FACT 9: The simplest part of the fuel subsidy arithmetic will reveal one startling fact: That the government does not need to subsidise our petrol at all if we reject corruption and sleaze as a way of life. Check this out:

a) NNPC crude oil allocation for local consumption = 400,000 barrels per day (from a total of 2.450 million barrels per day).

b) If our refineries work at just 30%, 280,000 barrels can be sold on the international market, leaving the rest for local production.

c) Money accruing to the federal government through NNPC on the sale, using $80/bbl – a conservative figure as against the current price of $100/bbl – would be $22.4m per day. Annually this translates to $8.176bn or N1.3 trillion.

d) The government does not need to subsidise our petrol imports - at least not from the Federation Account. The same crude that should have been refined by NNPC is simply sold on the international market (since our refineries barely work) and the money is used to buy petrol. The 400,000 barrels per day given to NNPC for local consumption can either be refined by NNPC or sold to pay for imports. This absurdity called subsidy should be funded with this money, not the regular FGN budget.

If the FGN uses it regular budget for subsidising petrol, then what happens to the crude oil given to NNPC for local refining that gets sold on the international market?

10) TACTICAL BLUNDER

The federal government is making the deregulation issue a revenue problem. Nigerians are not against deregulation. We have seen deregulation in the telecom sector and Nigerians are better for it, as even the poor have access to telephones now right before the eyes of those who think it is not for them. What is happening presently is not deregulation but an all-time high fuel pump increase, unprecedented in the history of our nation by a government that has gone broke due to excessive and reckless spending largely on themselves. If the excesses of all the three tiers of government are seriously curbed, that would free enough money for infrastructural development without unduly punishing the poor citizens of this country.

Let me just cite, in closing, the example of National Assembly excesses and misplaced spending as contained in the 2012 budget proposal:

1.Number of Senators 109
2.Number of Members of the House of Representatives 360
3.Total Number of Legislators 469
4.2012 Budget Proposal for the National Assembly N150 billion
5.Average Cost of Maintaining Each Member N320 million
6.Average Cost of Maintaining Each Member in USD $2.1 million/year

Time has come for the citizens of this country to hold the government accountable and demand the prosecution of those bleeding our nation to death. Until this government downsizes, cuts down its profligacy and leads by example in modesty and moderation, the poor people of this country will not and must not subsidise the excesses of the oil sector fat cats and the immorality precipitate fiscal scandal of the self-centred and indulgent lifestyles of those in government.

Here is a hidden treasure of wisdom for those in power while there is still time to make amends:

PROVERBS 21:6&7

“Getting treasures by a lying tongue is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death. The violence of the wicked will destroy them because they refuse to do just.”

A word of counsel for those who voted for such soulishly indulgent leadership:

“Never trust a man who once had no shoes, or you may end up losing your legs.”

This is the conclusion of the matter on subsidy removal:

i) “If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked.” (Proverbs 29:12)

ii) “The Righteous God wisely considers the house of the wicked, overthrowing the wicked for their wickedness. Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and will not be heard.” (Proverbs 21:12&13)

Thanks for your attention. God bless you all.

Pastor ‘Tunde Bakare


--
Rehema
Patriot in Kampala,East Africa

When the boot of government is on your neck,it doesn't matter if it's left or right. Today is Buganda, tomorrow is some one else. Click on both links to listen to these revolutionary songs, courtesy of UAH Forum:
http://ugandansatheart.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/president-final-mix.mp3

http://ugandansatheart.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/revolution-final-mix.mp3''

Friday, 16 December 2011

OPEC World Oil Outlook 2011

OPEC’s World Oil Outlook 2011 is part of the Organization’s commitment to market stability and a means to highlight and further understand many of the possible future challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of the oil industry. This year’s WOO highlights that OPEC’s role will be even more important in the future. Its Member Countries’ daily efforts to provide adequate petroleum supplies to the market, coupled with the huge investments being made to maintain existing fields and infrastructure, develop new capacity, build pipelines and terminals, construct refineries and expand sea transportation fleets, are illustrations of the Organization’s commitment to the market and consumers.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/WOO_2011.pdf  

Thursday, 22 September 2011

Oil:Did Uganda negotiate and receive a share of 55 to 67% of oil proceeds?


Journalists should have asked Energy Minister Irene Muloni today at a press conference to clear the air about one and one thing: Did Uganda negotiate and receive a share of 55 to 67% of oil proceeds?  If she can prove that Uganda did, then she should be very proud of her ministry. Further, if 55 to 67% is the true sharing agreement-PSA- then Ugandans of all political stripes should applaud the team for a great job. Like I said it would be one of the most generous oil sharing agreements in the world (emphasis added).  

 Now ask yourself: why is the government adamant to take credit for negotiating such a generous PSA agreement? Is it laziness or outright stupidity? Put differently why is the Ugandan governments sometimes slow to sing its praises?  I am not sure about the PSA, but let me cite one example I am sure of: UPDF and Burundi’s success in Somalia. That is a huge a positive story. But what do we read in your paper Bukedde and New Vision: Libya-Btw, do you have reporters there or what because your reporting is overboard?

Please tell Ms Muloni that if she is certain beyond a doubt that Uganda negotiated and received 55 to 67%, she must sing praises for Ugandan negotiators. In plain English, there is nothing to hide nor be ashamed of  if Uganda successfully negotiated and received 55 to 67% of oil proceeds. 

Some moron on UAH who want us shot for speaking our mind would be put to shame.  And I let be blunt: the person who said such things about some of us is one of the most annoying morons in UAH who is always ignored.

So go and tell govt officials that openness wins all the time.  If MPs cannot read or interpret the deal that is their problem or the problem of Ugandan voters who keep electing such a bunch of mediocre folks  as their reps.

Compare what Ugandan is alleged to have received: 55 to 67% with what the rich oil province of Alberta received: 10%.    FYI, Alberta has far more oil than Uganda and is also the LEADING supplier of oil to the USA ahead of Saudi Arabia or any other country.
 Yes, most USA oil comes from Canada or to be exact Alberta and Saskatchewan. USA is so dependent on Canadian oil that right now there is a controversy brewing with environmentalists being arrested at the White House for protesting the construction of the proposed oil pipeline to carry Canadian Oil to the USA. Construction would pass through some prime environmental   grounds hence the protest. 

President Obama is under immense and I mean intense pressure to cancel the pipeline but given that he gets most of his campaign money from big oil, he is not going to do anything to make environmentalists happy.  I bring this up to illustrate to you that if Uganda can prove-questionable and doubtful hence the secrecy-that it actually won a share of 55 to 67%, it would have done 5 to 6 times better than Alberta!

Well if the MPs cannot read or interpret government documents that is their problem.  Oil is also laden with emotion and not fact.

Why can't the minister go on record in parliament and say we got 55 to 67%. That would be one of the most generous oil deal in the world. The Province of Alberta got only 10% and its people are agitating for better oil sharing deals.  Now according to circulating PSA, Uganda got 55 to 67%.  And that is called a bad deal. What is the truth?

Think of Nixon and Watergate. The initial crime was minor. The problem was the cover up so tell the AG and that lady SG to be honest with Ugandans and MPs.
W.B.KYIJOMANYI
UAH forumist in New York