Economy

FG, CBN move to boost gas utilisation with N250b

By
2 Mins read
0
Share

•NLC says slight product price adjustment won’t improve electricity supply
•Issues Dec deadline for N15 energy tariff reduction

The Federal Government and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) have announced an N250 billion intervention fund to expand gas utilisation in the country.

Although the most populous black nation has over 206 trillion standard cubic feet of gas reserves, product utilisation remains dismal, as over 56 per cent of the consumed resource are imported.

Electricity-generating companies are usually out of gas, worsening the energy situation and keeping generation at about 5,000 megawatts, while homes and industries either buy the commodity at a high rate or face shortage.

The current intervention, announced in Abuja by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, Bitrus Nabasu, is to domesticate the development of the resource and allow indigenous players to advance the sector.

To be financed under the Power and Airlines Intervention Fund (PAIF) in line with existing guidelines and regulations of the fund, the initiative, will according to him, be an elixir to investment for infrastructure development with a view to optimising domestic gas resources for economic growth while spurring product processing, small-scale petrochemicals and gas cylinder manufacturing plants, as well as LCNG regasification modular systems.

Nabasu stated that the intervention would encourage motorists to use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and provide resources for power generation firms besides encouraging the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LPG) for cooking, transportation, and power.

In her remarks, Special Adviser to the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources on Gas Business Development, Brenda Ataga, said three million jobs would be created across the value chain.

She pointed out that government would promote awareness and micro-retailing outlets across the federation.

Ataga submitted that the commodity might not be affordable except its development is domesticated.

According to her, the product price might sustain its rising outlook dependent on prevailing micro-economic indices, urging more Nigerians to invest in the sector.

IN a related development, Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), at the weekend, said the slight price reduction of gas to power from $2.50 to $2.18 per Standard Cubic Feet (SCF) would not lead to improvement in electricity supply nationwide.

Its President, Comrade Ayuba Wabba, argued in Abuja that the adjustment must come down to $1.50 for it to have an effect on power supply. 
 
He added: “Consequently, Congress’ demand to the Federal Government is to reduce the price of domestic gas supply to GENCOs to less than $1.50 per SCF. We also demand that payment for gas by GENCOs should be denominated in naira. Furthermore, the gas companies should be included in the CBN and Nigerian Electricity Service Industry (NESI) payment waterfall to guarantee payments for gas and contract sanctity with GENCOs.”
  
The union also urged the government to respect the agreement it reached with organised labour on electricity tariff. 

The NLC declared that it remained committed to the reduction of electricity tariffs by N15 per kilowatt-hour at the end of the year, as contained in the pact.

Wabba stated: “Congress hereby serves notice that the posture of the Federal Government to flouting agreements is completely unacceptable and would be resisted.”

   

0
Share

About author
Time Nigeria is a general interest Magazine with its headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s Capital.
Articles
Related posts
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

By
6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryDevelopmentEconomyEntrepreneurshipNewsTelecommunication

NCC, Maida’s Leadership Take Centre Stage as Nigeria Celebrates GSM Revolution

By
4 Mins read
  By Abdulrahman Aliagan,  As Nigeria prepares to celebrate more than two decades of the GSM revolution, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)…
Cover StoryDevelopmentEconomyEnergyEntrepreneurshipFeaturesOil and GasOpinionPerspectiveSecurity

The Missing Middle of Productive Use of Energy: Why Electricity Access Is Not the Same as Economic Power

By
6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor The transformer is energised on a Tuesday morning. Engineers make a final check, close the switch, and the…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com