₦airaland Forum

OPEC+ is discussing an extension of its production cuts until the end of the first quarter of 2025, Reuters has reported, citing unnamed sources from the group.

OPEC+ is meeting on Thursday to co-ordinate production policy and extending the cuts is the most logical course of action in light of recent price trends, which have seen the benchmarks stuck below the level that most large OPEC+ producers need to be make their budgetary ends meet.

OPEC+ agreed the cuts last year in response to the slide in prices following their strong rally in 2022. The cuts worked to stabilize prices but the slide soon resumed, driven by weakening Chinese demand growth after the post-lockdown boom and predictions that peak oil demand is not far on the horizon.

That, and the perception of ample supply despite the cuts has served to keep oil prices in a rather limited range, prompting OPEC+ in turn to keep extending its cuts despite plans to gradually begin returning supply to market this year and restore the full volume of the cuts by the end of 2025.

The total amount in daily supply withheld by the cartel stands at some 5.86 million barrels daily. Despite the quite significant size of the cuts, traders have shrugged them off, looking at China where demand growth has weakened this year, after soaring two years ago following the end of the pandemic lockdowns.

Most analysts appear to agree with that perception of weak demand and ample supply. Some, however, are warning that the supply and demand situation of crude oil may be rather different than that perception.

“We think that oil prices are about $5 per barrel undervalued relative to the fair value based on the level of inventories,” Goldman Sachs analysts said recently, implying a market correction may be on the horizon.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
Source:https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/OPEC-Prepares-for-Three-Month-Extension-of-Cuts.html

PetersKID

wassup ?

aariwa

you seem informed, whats your source.
I find it strange he is going to Angola to be a part owner of Lobito refinery,
Unless he wants to buy it completely
But where is he getting all these capital expenditure $$$ from
His refinery in Naija hasnt started turning profits
His other businesses took a hit from inflation and flotation of forex
All these should have decreased his profit margins

Where is Dangote's funds really coming from
No be all of us be mumu oooohhhhhhhh

Is he fronting for some people, where are those people getting money from
Is money being laundered here I just dey ask ooohhhhh.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) appears to be distancing himself from Israel amid the carnage in Gaza under Netanyahu’s leadership, signaling a pivot toward Iran. Here’s the distilled reasoning:
1. Public Outrage at Gaza’s Destruction:
• The brutal Israeli military campaign in Gaza has enraged Saudi citizens, making normalization with Israel politically toxic. MBS is keenly aware that aligning with Israel amidst accusations of “genocide” would alienate his own people.
2. Signal to Trump’s Incoming Administration:
• By invoking terms like “collective genocide,” MBS is warning the Trump camp that normalization won’t happen under the current circumstances. Saudi Arabia refuses to be complicit in Israeli actions that could escalate to annexation of Palestinian lands.
3. Strategic Domestic Focus:
• MBS is shifting gears from aggressive regional policies to stabilizing Saudi Arabia internally. He is prioritizing massive projects like Neom, which require peace at home and a calm neighborhood.
4. Pragmatism Over Trust:
• The apparent friendliness toward Iran is less about trust and more about avoiding provocations. Riyadh recognizes the limits of power and sees diplomacy as a way to secure stability while pursuing economic ambitions.


MBS is no saint, but he’s no fool. He sees the madness in Netanyahu’s actions and knows it’s bad business. His move toward Iran isn’t love—it’s survival. If Israel keeps fueling chaos, Saudi Arabia won’t play second fiddle to Tel Aviv’s recklessness. Instead, MBS seems poised to secure his kingdom’s future at all costs.

As Saudi Arabia pivots to peace with Iran, one question looms—will Netanyahu gamble away the last chance for regional diplomacy? Or has the Middle East’s power balance already shifted under his nose?

Over the last few weeks, colleagues, bosses, mentors, and friends from high school have asked me some version of the question “What’s up with Mohammed bin Salman?” On Nov. 11 at a summit of Islamic nations in Riyadh, the Saudi crown prince called on the international community (translation: the United States) to compel Israel to “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.” At the same gathering, he described what the Israel Defense Forces had wrought in the Gaza Strip as a “collective genocide.”
This rhetoric runs against everything that most folks in Washington have come to believe about Mohammed bin Salman, thus prompting the “What’s up with him?” questions. And this time at least, the Washington foreign-policy community is not imagining things.
Mohammed bin Salman’s words at the summit do seem to be a qualitative change. After all, the crown prince once asked: “How do you have a dialogue with a regime built on an extremist ideology … which [says] they must control the land of Muslims and spread their Twelver Jaafari sect in the Muslim world?” He was being rhetorically coy, but for those in the know, it was clear he was referring to Iran. To be fair, that was in 2017, a year after mobs had stormed the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, prompting a break in relations between the two countries. Yet, even after the Chinese government brokered a resumption of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran in March 2023, officials in Riyadh still express skepticism about Tehran’s intentions and remain distrustful of the Iranian leadership.
On Israel, Saudi officials have heretofore signaled that normalization was not a question of if but a matter of when. They said it so often that after a while, no one took much notice; it just became part of Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic messaging. Of course, with the brutal war in Gaza, the price the Saudis were demanding of the Israelis for normalization has steadily increased Still, throughout the last year, officials in Riyadh nevertheless seem committed to settling with Israel. Although the Israelis have been accused of genocide from the earliest days of the war, Mohammed bin Salman never used that term before the summit on Nov. 11.
So, what is the deal? Are the Saudis “pivoting”? I have three working theories to explain the change in Saudi rhetoric.
First, it is an opening bid in negotiations with President-elect Donald Trump over the long-discussed security pact between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman may have shifted his on Iran—but only cynically. Improving Saudi-Iranian ties, if only rhetorically, at the same time that Trump’s transition officials are vowing to reimpose “maximum pressure” on Iran could be part of a strategy to extract benefits from Team Trump to keep the Saudis on side. It’s almost as if the crown prince is saying, “OK, Mr. President-elect, you fancy yourself a master negotiator. I’ll play. What do you have?”
I was convinced of this theory for a few days. But ultimately, it does not feel right. Trying to manipulate senior U.S. officials by making nice with the Iranian leadership is something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did in the 2010s, but I don’t remember the Saudis ever following suit. Mohammed bin Salman could be taking a page from Erdogan, but it does not strike me as his style.
Second, it is more compelling to believe that in running to Iran, Mohammed bin Salman is running away from Israel and the possibility of normalization. The brutality of Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip has outraged many in Saudi Arabia. During a recent visit, my colleagues and I were subjected to a fusillade of criticism of the Biden administration over the ongoing carnage in Gaza. The word “shameful” came up in at least one of these fraught conversations. That certainly must be part of Mohammed bin Salman’s thinking. The crown prince is all powerful, but he is not immune from public opinion. Normalization with Israel is hardly worth it for him in the short run, given the depth of the public’s anger at the destruction of Gaza.
The crown prince’s use of the word “genocide” is also a clear warning to the incoming Trump administration, which places great importance on normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia as a follow-up to the Abraham Accords. There is no way Saudi leaders want to be associated with normalization at a time when Israeli settlers have come to believe that Trump will not get in the way of annexation. His appointment of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee—an advocate of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank—to be ambassador to Israel suggests they may not be wrong. It would be deeply embarrassing for the crown prince to go down the path of normalization only for the Israelis—with Trump’s blessing—to extend Israel’s formal sovereignty to even parts of the West Bank. By invoking genocide, he is signaling to the president-elect that under the current circumstances, the Saudis are not prepared to move forward.
Finally, there is the most compelling explanation for Mohammed bin Salman’s apparent pivot: that, after intervening in Yemen’s civil war, laying a blockade on Qatar, forcing a Lebanese prime minister to resign, supporting opponents of the internationally recognized government in Libya, and failing to achieve any of his goals, the crown prince has concluded that bending the region to his will is not within his power. Instead, he has now turned inward, seeking to ensure stability within the kingdom. Leaning toward Iran is one way of keeping the chaos outside Saudi Arabia’s borders.
This shift is of utmost importance to Mohammed bin Salman because he is laying out hundreds of billions of dollars to shape Saudi Arabia’s future. One can question the wisdom of his mega- and giga-projects, including the new city of Neom and the Qiddiya Coast tourism project in Jeddah. But now that he has invested so much in them, it would be unwise for the Saudi leadership not to seek basic economic and political stability to give them a chance of success, even if they have to hold their noses to achieve it. There is no indication that the Saudis suddenly trust the Iranians, but they don’t want to give them any excuses to muck up what the Saudis have going on domestically.
In the not-so-distant past, the Saudis practiced riyalpolitik, basically paying to make sure that regional problems did not envelop the kingdom. There is an echo of this in what Mohammed bin Salman was doing when he called on the world to restrain Israel and made clear that he saw Iran as a member of the family (sans the bags of cash). From where the crown prince sits, this is not a pivot to Iran but rather a pivot to Saudi Arabia.

Source: Apple News
Steven A. Cook is a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

GeneralPulal:
Person wey tell Op say Allen Onyeama founded Air peace don deceive ham..

He’s just a front man for the real founders..

Who are the real founders ?

advanceDNA:
Oh.... so now u rememeber it's all politics..but you are telling pple they will see benefit of bad policies..... continue

Was that English you typed ? Made no sense.
Are you able to communicate in English ?

Nigerians have long lived in an economy where the math doesn’t add up, where everyone wanted to eat suya but no one wanted to raise the cows. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has shown up with the unpopular yet necessary reforms to shake us from our collective slumber. For a nation that’s long believed in subsidized illusions, Tinubu is forcing us to face reality—and while it stings now, it might just be the bitter medicine we need to heal.

Fuel Subsidy Removal: Goodbye to Endless Car Convoys

For decades, Nigeria was the global leader in absurdity: an oil-producing nation subsidizing fuel for millionaires’ SUVs while its healthcare and education sectors crumbled. Removing the fuel subsidy was like yanking a Band-Aid off a festering wound. It hurts, yes, but it exposes the rot beneath.

Now, people think twice before owning fleets of cars or leaving their engines running unnecessarily. Suddenly, shared transport and public systems seem sensible. This reform is not anti-poor; it’s anti-reckless. Fuel subsidies were a scam that allowed a few to live extravagantly while the masses got crumbs. Tinubu’s decision ended a racket that no one dared touch for 50 years.

Exchange Rate Unification: Killing the Dollar Mafia

Unifying the exchange rate was like switching on the lights at a nightclub—exposing all the shady deals happening in the dark. For years, some “businessmen” thrived by gaming a dual exchange rate system, accessing cheap dollars to fund ventures that couldn’t compete in an open market. The free lunch is over.

Sure, the naira has taken a beating, and we feel it when we price goods, but this is the cost of honesty. A unified exchange rate puts everyone on a level playing field. If your business cannot survive without subsidized dollars, then you were never really in business. The real entrepreneurs, those willing to innovate and adapt, will now rise.

Electricity Tariffs: Powering Up Responsibility

The electricity tariff increase hit many Nigerians hard, but look deeper, and you’ll see its unintended benefits. More people are embracing renewable energy—solar panels, inverters, and conscious electricity use. There’s no free power anywhere in the world, and Tinubu is forcing us to respect what we consume.

We’re finally waking up to the fact that leaving lights on all day is a luxury we can’t afford. And yes, the tariffs should come with better power supply. If Tinubu pushes reforms that attract serious investments into power infrastructure, Nigerians could one day look back at this moment as the turning point.

Tax Reform Bill: Making Looters Sweat

For too long, Nigeria has been a country where governors collect federal allocations, buy fleets of German cars, and still leave hospitals without paracetamol. Tinubu’s tax reform bill is a game-changer. It forces states to generate their own revenue, putting pressure on governors to deliver instead of turning Abuja into their ATM.

If your governor is still driving luxury SUVs while your roads are death traps, you now have every reason to hold him accountable. Tax reform is the first step toward financial discipline at all levels of government. It’s time for leaders to justify their salaries and perks, not just enjoy them.

Plugging the Corruption Leak

That said, no matter how revolutionary Tinubu’s policies are, corruption remains the elephant in the room. Without addressing looting, these reforms will only enrich a new set of kleptocrats. Nigerians have seen this movie before: big reforms, but the money still finds its way into private pockets.

Tinubu needs to introduce airtight anti-corruption policies—think real-time budget monitoring, forensic audits, and stiff penalties for looters. Governors, ministers, commissioners, and local government chairmen should not have unchecked access to funds. Why should one man’s greed rob an entire community of schools, hospitals, and roads?

A New Era of Realism

Tinubu is preparing pounded yam, and yes, the wailers want boiled yam with palm oil because they’re impatient. But real change takes time. These seismic reforms are setting the stage for a more honest Nigeria, where we live within our means and build wealth sustainably.

Critics, myself included, have slammed Tinubu in the past—and rightfully so. But credit must be given where it’s due: these are bold decisions no one dared to make in 50 years. Yet, boldness alone is not enough. Tinubu must match his reforms with an equally aggressive crackdown on corruption.

Dear Mr. President, Nigerians are ready to tighten their belts, but don’t let us suffer only for the fat cats to feast. Plug the holes. End the looting. Then, and only then, will we see the true fruits of these hard decisions. The yam is boiling, but until we stop the rats from stealing it, the people may never get their share.

And for those who are still wailing, just imagine a Nigeria where we finally cut our cloth according to our yard. It’s painful, but it’s necessary. The future is calling, and Tinubu, for better or worse, is answering.

Kobojunkie:
[/b]
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA543719

This write-up is a regurgitated blend of tired tropes, overgeneralizations, and shallow analysis that underscores a chronic lack of intellectual rigor. The author demonstrates an almost comical failure to engage with the complexity of Nigeria’s geopolitical, economic, and cultural realities, reducing them to a simplistic failed-state narrative designed to fuel alarmist fantasies rather than offer constructive solutions.

1. Recycled Doom-Mongering: The author dusts off the same cliché-laden scenarios of “failed states” without offering fresh insights or actionable strategies. Predicting Nigeria’s collapse based on dated stereotypes of corruption, ethnic strife, and brain drain is lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.
2. Absurd Simplifications: The portrayal of Nigeria as “shattering like fine china” is not only melodramatic but betrays a lack of understanding of the resilience within Nigeria’s socio-political framework. While challenges exist, such oversimplification erases the strides Nigeria has made in governance, democracy, and infrastructure.
3. Shallow Analysis of Oil Dependency: Claiming the U.S. would face unparalleled economic catastrophe due to Nigeria’s potential failure ignores the diversification of energy sources and the declining importance of oil imports in a post-carbon economy. This fixation reeks of 20th-century thinking.
4. Misguided Focus on Military Solutions: The emphasis on U.S. Air Force capabilities as a response to a hypothetical failed state is tone-deaf. Instead of exploring diplomatic, developmental, and multilateral strategies to strengthen Nigeria, the monograph fantasizes about interventionism—an approach proven time and again to exacerbate instability.
5. Hollow Prognostication: Suggesting that repairing Nigeria would take two generations shows a defeatist mindset. The author writes off the efforts of Nigerians themselves, whose resilience and innovation have historically overcome far greater challenges.

This write-up is an intellectual black hole: devoid of originality, fraught with outdated Cold War-esque interventionist fantasies, and blind to the dynamic realities of modern Nigeria. It’s not just unhelpful—it’s actively harmful, perpetuating stereotypes while offering no substantive pathways for collaboration or growth. The author would be better served sitting in a library for a few months before attempting such a monograph again.