₦airaland Forum

One would expect that critics should be with good ideas as to how she can be improved, not filled with bile, rancor, and deep-seated animosity which has been exhibited in over ten pages of this thread. Yet, when this so-called critics were corrected, they still returned with more  vituperations to those who corrected them.

Pack of foolish goats.

I wonder why some Nigerians are this daft. She did her wedding in America so what? Must all weddings be done in Nigeria? I am sure there are some people here (the critics) who traveled abroad to further their studies, why not stay in Nigeria to do it? It is a matter of choice and decision.

Ini Edo is ugly, post your own pictures and let us see who is more uglier. Very daft and senile dementia minded critics. Her make-up is bad, can you do any better? She is a LovePeddler, yet these same set of morons know her breasts composition and bra size. Same set of idiots you find them, most probably in the sexuality section of these forum. Keep your worthless criticisms to yourself. Ini Edo is an astonishing beauty any day and at any time. If it bites you, go kiss and hug a power grid. At least Ini has a man she can do all that with.

[quote author=St.Funmi link=topic=242204.msg3541316#msg3541316 date=1236130025]Safety get levels abeg. It's safer to travel to the Uk than Afghanistan or Niger Delta.[/quote]Very funny. I answered you based on the 'adjective' you inserted into your question. Yes, safety is relative from one country to another or even region, it still does not remove the point that there is no ''whole'' safety in any country around the world.

[quote author=St.Funmi link=topic=242204.msg3541304#msg3541304 date=1236129750]Is it safe to travel to Nigeria as a whole how much less ijawland?[/quote]To answer your question, there is no country that you travel to in the world, that is safe as a whole. Stop being naive.

Sounds more like a conundrum to me, if it can actually help restoring sanity to that hell-hole called Lagos. Not sure whether the Eko Atlantic is truly sensible. In a way it is though.

The governor of Bayelsa State, Mr. Timi Sylva, had threatened last Thursday at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatam House, London, that he would no longer honour invitations by the British government to discuss the Niger Delta if it continued to issues travel warnings against the region despite all efforts Nigeria was making to contain militant activities.

I love this move. It is time, these UK people know that you cannot continue to malign us and expect a hand of friendship and gratitude all the time.

debosky:
You have lost all credibility in my eyes if you cannot back up this claim of yours. Dispute the evidence I have provided.

What evidences have you provided? The President of the nation said present power stations are not functional and they are its worst. A debosky on nairaland says they are functional and fully remedied with reference in form of weblink to the Okpai power project. Who am I to believe? Your evidences are based on ''completed projects'' whereas the situation on ground is otherwise. How many Nigerians are enjoying the benefits of the evidences you have highlighted in your grammatical exercise? You expect me to take all your words hook-line-sinker. Sorry, it does not wash down well with me.

I have not come placing any credibility of myself to you. We are faceless and anonymous. Do not expect that my arguments would buy any credibility from you. I disproved your evidence of diesel price been lowered, you again skip it NEVER made mention to that. Is that not worthy enough to prove that your claims here are baseless in addition?

I will explain this whole drama to you. You informed me that THERE 6 COMPLETED POWER STATIONS. I told you, that I am not aware of them. You mentioned the names of these power project stations and asked me to search out on them. I deliberately told you to give me evidence to their functionality. You thereafter gave me the weblink to the completed Okpai power station, which you stated is up and running. I thereafter said it was cheap lies and baseless with my supporting claims to that. If calling it a lie, makes you assume that I called you a LIAR, and it truly offends you, I apologize on that. It however still does not remove the fact that, those power stations are not up and running as given with my supporting evidence.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Back to the issue of subsidy removal, I have given you my evidence (coupled with my long overdrawn posts) on:

a). What the Global Subsidy Initiative did as a research specifically to the case of Nigeria,

b). I have also given evidence on what the Senate stated, and

c). Shown a weblink to the analysis undertaken about the cost implications of subsidy removal all in respect to Nigeria.

You on the other hand (debosky), has at no point in time that I recall within this our argument, backed your arguments with any substantial evidence of report or work undertaken specifically to NIGERIA about the long-term benefits of subsidy removal. Rather your over-repeated posts has been drumming on infrastructural repairs from the subsidy removal. This has been a major subject of debate, which I must say, I found truly enlightening.

Nevertheless, in light of my evidence given, I hereby wish to stop my discussion on this matter with a full-stop.

@ debosky,
The length to which you would go to prove your lies and baseless claims is astonishing. I have been able to draw you out with your ''acclaimed facts'' some of which I found interesting, others are better left unspoken. Permit me not to touch on all your verbiage here as it becomes long, boring and overdrawn to the readers in which I have indulged myself over the last few pages on this topic.

debosky:
If subsidy funds are used to remedy power supply, there will be improvement of the economy not hardship. And who says looting and exploitation is not taking place at present even WITH subsidy? How can you blame that on subsidy? Is inflation still not creeping higher WITH subsidy?

Stop looking at this matter with a pin-hole camera. Get a binoculars and be more broad-minded rather than repeating the same thing all over which is utterly meaningless and has no defined range or boundary. Have you sat down to do the cost implementation and spiral-to-sporadic increase when subsidy is removed? If you can give me a detailed analysis to show that there will be improvement of the economy rather than hardship, I would be most welcoming on that. In the meanwhile, here is a link to show the economic consequences of removing subsidies. At your own leisure time, please feel free to peruse and digest the information therein.

Furthermore, are you oblivious that the Senate as well, faulted the Oil Subsidy removal by the Federal Government? Here is their input in verbatim:

[center]"The central responsibility of any government is to improve the welfare of the citizen. Therefore any policy on regulation or deregulation should be carefully crafted and targeted at fulfilling this responsibility. Our opinion is that we have to go with the global tradition and best practices in the sourcing, distribution and sale of petroleum products by allowing market forces to prevail in a well-supervised and legally enriched operational environment. It is therefore imperative that any policy of the government affecting this sensitive aspect of our lives should be handled with caution."[/center]
When I stated effective monitoring policy, you came under the assumption that you know it all.
Read further here if you so wish to.

debosky:
There is cogent evidence. Your attitude has been 'NNPC stats cannot be trusted' so why would I bother with you? Ok let me humour you - get the statistics from here yourself.

How ironic! Refineries are in a poor state, yet NNPC has substantial data to show for its performance. Does that not tickle your brain debosky? Independent observers have a different view to the refinery capacities of our plants. Here is just one of the link to help you out.

debosky:
insensitive? That is a matter of perception. Is it the best thing to do LONG TERM? Yes. The government can stimulate the market in other ways apart from spending money in the petroleum sector. Improving power supply massively (as the government intends to do this year) and increasing domestic gas supply takes pressure off petroleum products demand and creates economic growth. Keeping subsidies that fuel inefficiency and sub-optimal use of petroleum products is not being sensitive, it is pandering and refusing to take some hard decisions that would propel the economy in the long run.

I have a simple question for you, seeing that you keep repeating the same old jargons in your arguments. Does subsidy removal help the poor or the rich in the society, more specifically to a country like Nigeria? Here is a supporting RESEARCH undertaken through the Global Subsidy Initiative. Read it at your own leisure time again.

debosky:
Let's not focus only on diesel. The price of JET FUEL has also reduced since external costs dropped. Diesel prices have dropped as well see HERE. Prices have dropped. Marketers are learning to better manage their inventories so they don't make losses on products. The system is adjusting itself and working.

Another glaring irony again. You tell me not to focus on diesel and immediately in your next input state that diesel price in Nigeria has dropped. That is an ASTONISHING LIE! If you had taken time to a proper investigation yourself, right from the same website you provided, you would not have been hasty to spew forth your claptrap. Here is the INCREASE TO THE PRICE OF DIESEL. Please stop spreading cheap lies here. No system is adjusting itself presently.

debosky:
1. Failure to utilise oil and gas companies' expertise to build power stations has been remedied - induce or coerce them through their oil mining license renewals to build power plants. Fruits can be seen already. Okpai Power in Delta state is up and running. Shell will soon complete Afam IV, Mobil and Chevron are planning theirs to meet with new requirements.

Another of your cheap lies and baseless claims. Here is a SPECIAL REPORT ON POWER STATION which clearly indicates the truth. Furthermore, Yar'Adua was reported here and also stated here about the power stations which debosky professes to have been remedied.

debosky:
See above link, I have already explained my view on this - is refinery capacity now your grouse? Stop going off on tangents. You asked for evidence and you got it. Nowhere did I mention that refineries can operate at 100% - My line has been clear - modernisation and expansion of capacity, which are the internationally recognised methods of increasing refining capacity at minimal cost.

What is the grouse of the Federal Government in respect to this subsidy issue? Is it not related to the refinery conditions in Nigeria? Can you relate yourself to how you are now arguing blindly?

debosky:
So in essence, you can make baseless claims without backing them up? What is the worth of your knowledge in this discourse? Did you provide any evidence to back it up? Why do I need to provide proof to refute your allegations when you refuse to do the same?  I did more than that, I made reference to a thread dedicated to the matter, but as the lazy wannabe pedagogue that you are, you failed to pursue that. Anyways, there is evidence [url=http://aelex.com/files/Review%20of%20Nigerian%20Gas%20Master%20Plan%20-%20LONDON%20180508.pdf]here[/url]. Let us see if you will respond to any of the pieces of evidence posted instead of going off on tangents again.

Quit hyperventilating seriously. It is making you lose track of our discourse and providing irrelevant weblinks that have no relation to the subject of discourse. Do I need to remind you here that the weblink you have you provided which is a Grandmaster Plan of the Nigerian Gas has no relevance to the argument, nor does it in anyway support your argument that billions of Naira spent during the Obasanjo regime cannot be accounted for? This was the bane of the argument here, but you seem to have lost track on that, but you would rather ferret for irrelevant weblink to your argument.

Talk of one who goes off tangent to argument!

@ debosky,
Oh my goodness! Just when I thought you had given-up on this matter (after over ten hours of my posting) and swallowed up your illogical and incoherent arguments, you still come back with more gobbledygook spewing. OK, I will oblige you one more time with my responses to your verbiage. If you however still choose to be a recusant proponent, by having to come back and reply my posts again, I would know that you are a lost case.

debosky:
Thanks for the education, but you show yourself up again. The 'subsidies' mentioned are
"direct" subsidies refers to government spending; tax reductions (ie taxes not collected) and research and development funding
NOT a subsidy on the COST of a litre of fuel!  SO in essence, there are no subsidies to reduce the cost of petrol, rather taxes are reduced and research and development funding (for improving supply/quality and reducing emissions) are provided. This is obviously not the same as causing market distortions by subsidising prices.

My friend, what is a SUBSIDY? I think I have to start from the basics with you. I am beginning to have it difficult responding to you. Not that you are giving me any hard facts or good grounds of arguments, I am more of the view that you gravitate to whatever point suits your incoherent argument and this makes you to be highly unobjective and analyze any of my point rationally. In the link I sent to you, did your eyes skip this point made there:

[center]He said it was wrong that drivers had to pay 58p per litre in fuel duty, plus VAT of 17.5 per cent, while the aviation industry only paid air passenger duty of £1bn a year.[/center]

Your piquancy was rather directed to seeking the irrelevant and posting it here. How do I continue debating with you here?

debosky:
Wait a minute - is the external condition (OPEC) applicable ONLY to Nigeria? If it hasn't nullified competitive enterprise in other countries in Africa, why should our case be peculiarly different? I could buy your arguments about internal distortions in Nigeria, but attributing failure of competitive enterprise to external factors that are universal doesn't make sense. It's like saying planes in Nigeria crash because of gravity but don't elsewhere despite gravity being felt worldwide. 

There you go again! It would be peculiarly different to Nigeria. Why? Simply because internal factors and power play would not allow it to work. Not that I am switching my argument at the moment, but rather get me clearly that we have moribund refineries, high level of corruption, a cabal of money players, high consumption rate of petroleum products (which I have all stated previously in my arguments), coupled with the external factor such as OPEC, and you expect 'deregulation' to thrive in Nigeria? Please say something else. Once again, another of your irrelevant analogy.

debosky:
I agree fully with this - no reason why the factors should not be incorporated. I object if, ab initio, you are saying subsidy removal WILL fail without this same incorporation you mention.

At least now I know I am achieving something with you. Even if you still remain deep-seated to all your other incoherent arguments, we are on one balanced equation here.

debosky:
Please ask and you will be enlightened. My reference to unsustainable subsidies means - WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We do not have the resources to put 700bn into petrol when other sectors are in dire need of funding. Would subsidy removal ensure sustainability? That is debatable, but I'd say yes, IF a viable and commercially oriented system comes into play. Why go for the easier option? Why not take the (potential) pain now and reap long term benefits?

What long term benefits? Inflation on the rise, hardship on the economy and its citizenry, wanton looting and sheer exploitation by the power players? Are those not the long term benefits to this deregulation of the petroleum industry?

debosky:
So in essence, MTN's HQ is a pointless tangential distraction you have engaged in? Thank you very much. 

Still you are lost. I will let you be on this one. Thank you.

debosky:
Asked to defend your position, you fail to bring any cogent evidence. Escapism at it's height.  The GSM sector is a viable reference, if limited in scope for direct comparison. In any case, there is copious evidence showing subsidies introduce gross distortions into the petroleum products distribution system. Many articles exist on the subject matter, I'll refer you to one on the [url=http://bookstore.teriin.org/docs/books/Oil&gas-Background%20paper.pdf]Indian case[/url].

Have I not asked you for cogent evident all the while in the course of this debate? Have you provided any at any given point in time? NO. All you keep referring to is the GSM sector, when DIESEL has been enjoying deregulation yet no substantial evidence to show for it since 2002 in the country.

debosky:
I cannot give you that figure - is that what you wanted to hear?  I expect a 'talksmith' like yourself to be able to discern from my posts saying past failures (to utilise oil revenue for repairs) is no justification for misusing (in my view) scarce funds on subsidies.

Discern your posts? I am a reader, what I do expect is for you to make clarity with your postings not expecting me to discern your posts. You have utterly failed in that regards. This further shows how inconsistent and incoherent your arguments on this subject are.

debosky:
First line is correct, the rest is hogwash.  Oil prices have dropped, so we need to optimize our resources for MAXIMUM impact. We WILL feel the effects of dropping prices, no doubt about it. BUT the best way to manage that is to OPTIMALLY use the resources to attack the most crucial bits of infrastructure - roads, healthcare, power which have a far greater capacity to spur growth and development than subsidies can. In 'opportunity cost' terminology, Power is much higher ranked than petrol subsidy.

Read your inputs my friend very well. Does it make any sense? NO. Price of oil is dropping globally affecting economies of nations, government of Nigeria rather find than ways to stimulate its own market, decides to remove its hands from petroleum sector, and you now tell me there would be 'optimal use of the resources to attack the most crucial bits of infrastructure.' That is the most insensitive thing a government can do.

debosky:
I disagree - that is akin to saying we should stop investigating corrupt politicians because past investigations have failed. That is not only defeatist, it is lazy thinking and alluding that we CANNOT learn from past mistakes and get things right, hence we have to continue at our current mode of operation.

What mistakes have we learnt from the diesel deregulation? Has the price of diesel ever gone down in Nigeria since it came under deregulation? Cite three examples where we have learnt anything and utilized it from our mistakes in Nigeria? Rather, we would continue to aspire to do the same thing to all situations at all time. That my friend, is a defeatist attitude! ''Doing the same thing all over and expecting a different result! ''

debosky:
Who says external conditions are not being factored in? Bodies are being set up to do exactly that. You CANNOT stop external factors from affecting you, even in developed countries prices go up when external factors play up. The government doesn't possess endless resources that can be used to subsidise indefinitely - those resources are better used to develop critical aspects of the economy with a larger pay off than what subsidies give.

The only point I agree with here in your posting.

debosky:
No thank you - give the evidence yourself. I have evidence clearly available from NNPC and other companies that have been involved in refinery optimisation showing that, barring supply interruptions, local refineries can average 70% availability. State what you know and stop being condescending all in the name of obfuscation. 

I have been hearing the same thing since yesterday. You have evidence from NNPC, etc. Yet you have failed to give it out. I called your attention to a simple online search, you declined the offer. I have a question for you. Just what capacity would a 70% availability from our local refineries do for a country like Nigeria?

Note: No refinery can achieve a 100% availability.

debosky:
What is a 'saving'? It is a hypothetical figure based on what would have been spent, if current consumption was subsidised. Now to think this is a pool of money sitting somewhere shows a shocking lack of comprehension. There are a number of assumptions feeding into this calculation.

1. Would consumption have increased if subsidy was in place and the government was in charge of importation?
2. Would the government even be able to AFFORD the 1.5 trillion mentioned
3. Is the 1.5 trillion ever available or is it just a calculation of projected expenditure? To simplify, if we only had 750bn, could we have spent more than we had? NO
4. What is the opportunity cost of spending the 1.5 trillion? Would you rather not pay school teachers for 5 years or not pay salaries in order to have the subsidy?

Anyone who says subsidy removal will never work can as well give up on Nigeria and say nothing will ever work. Let's even prognosticate that the previous government wasted the gains of that deregulation, should we not move forward because of that?

Has subsidy removal worked in the case of diesel? What makes you think it will work with petroleum? If you can answer my question intelligently, I will drop this argument.

debosky:
I haven't made myself 'the best rationale' mind. This is actually a distraction. You made a claim, which I said is likely attributed to baseless speculations. I have asked you ONCE AGAIN, to come up with your facts about how there are no 6 completed power stations in Nigeria. You have FAILED to do that, with facetious references to online searches. Provide your evidence and end this.

This guy is really something else. I said to the best of my knowledge, I do not know of any 6 completed power stations in Nigeria. It does not imply I am making false claims or stating false facts. The onus was on you was to prove me otherwise, which you failed to do, by simply just mentioning the names or locations of the power project.

Again, since it is obvious that the line of argument is getting lost on you, I would painstakingly take my time to recall your memory back to how the baseless speculations arose. It came into the subject of discourse, when I stated that billions of Naira designated and ''supposedly'' spent under the Obasanjo for Power project and development could not be accounted for. You immediately took my statement and called it a ''baseless speculation in Newspapers.'' Even when evidences and facts are there for all to see that truly power development in Nigeria are at its worst presently.

debosky:
Let's even agree with this - who says we are not operating an oligopoly at present? Is the government near-monopoly on importation helping? Diesel is a niche product, unlike petrol and will definitely have a different dynamic. Even if mistakes were made with the diesel case, why can lessons learned from those not be incorporated now? 

How can you place mistakes obtained with diesel deregulation as a statement of probability? You are not ready to accept there is a wrong and the government has not learnt any of its mistakes. If it has, I would expect the diesel industry would be your strong point of referral not your quick recourse and easy gallivanting to the GSM sector.

debosky:
Poorly managed deregulation should not be made synonymous with deregulation. I see you have abandoned your 'effective monitoring' mantra and are now making excuses about how deregulation will not work. It may not have worked in the past. Nigeria has not had stable power supply in the past. Should we now GIVE UP and live with generators forever?   Arguing that since it didn't work it won't work is not good enough miss pedagogue

Poorly managed deregulation is still deregulation. Let us call 'a spade' 'a spade' and not an agricultural implement please. I can see that you have as well dropped your maxim of competent management. You are truly a hilarious case my friend.

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=240109.msg3534236#msg3534236 date=1236015009]And you call yourself the "Viper who instigated Grammar invention"??
U need 6 years of intensive tutoring to come near that title.

Not trying to be pedantic. . . . .just belabouring the obvious. [/quote]You again?!

If not that I am a ManU fan, and I have come across your excellent minded analysis on the sports section, I do have. . . . .

Mai Suya:
kai! so we get zees kin economists for NL? Seun should be mighty proud!!!!!  I'm really enjoying the debate, but not 2 sure about the name calling. PLEEEEEZ, Debosky, talksmith & 4plays why not keep it strictly intellectual, eh? remember people, probably not just NLders are being educated here.

I do not think I have called anyone names here. Maybe referring to debosky as ''ignorant'' at times though. But all that is part of not making the discussion boring.

I do agree, he is very intelligent.

debosky:
Can you tell me what subsidies there are on refined petroleum products in the developed countries mentioned?

In the UK alone, there has been fuel subsidy within their aviation industry. Please read it here. Furthermore, since the early 90's developed countries have been engaged in one form of subsidy or the other. Here is a further link to teach you some lessons this evening.

debosky:
My analogy is not irrelevant, it may be difficult for you to comprehend, so please say so if that is the case and I will downgrade to a simpler version.  Last word on the analogy - external conditions are not a sufficient reason to negate any comparison between GSM and petroleum products supply. Existence of external conditions cannot nullify the fact that competitive enterprise can achieve a lot more than government subsidy.

I still maintain your analogy is highly irrelevant. Your last statement is very debatable. For a competitive enterprise to ensue, all conditions needed for an effective have to be met. It will be very myopic of you to hold to the view that external conditions cannot nullify competitive enterprise. Not in a country like Nigeria, where the government have a stake in the enterprise. Moreover, as I stipulated earlier, equating apples with guava is not a sensible thing.

External conditions have to be properly incorporated and met if a competitive enterprise is going to emanate. It is just the same as a simple laboratory test to be undertaken - you have to meet with the external conditions which includes atmospheric temperature and pressure in order to have a good results with your experiment. I am not of a science orientation so to speak, but I know these things. From your writings, I can deduce you are one.

debosky:
Yes economic conditions are harsh, no one is contesting that. That is a moot point overall. But to point to that as the reason why unsustainable subsidies should be maintained is laughable.

I love two of your phrases here: ''economic conditions are harsh'' and ''unsustainable subsidies.'' My question to you then, what is a 'sustainable subsidy'? My understanding of sustainability makes me to know that it covers economic, as well as the social and environmental areas of it. Does the subsidy currently in place by the Nigerian government ensure that? NO! Would subsidy removal and deregulation ensure sustainability within the Nigerian context? NO again! So what is the way out? Address either the unsustainable subsidy or the deregulation. Which is more easier to undertake and implement? In my opinion, it is the SUBSIDY. Why? It suits better our environment and development.

debosky:
Please explain the emboldened - MTN voluntarily moved it's HQ to Nigeria and moved it again - so what is this 'subsidy market thing'. Be clear for once - is the subsidy the cause of MTN's move?

My goodness! For how long would I continue to annotate this point to you? I have used the analogy you stated to explain it to you, you still failed to comprehend it. I have previously to that, explained it to you in A-B-C, yet you still failed to comprehend. OK, here it is one more time: NO, subsidy is not the SOLE reason for the MTN move. As I earlier vibrated, you have a problem with semantics. In argumentative writing-discourse on a forum, it is pertinent to know the weakness of your proponent. Yours, happens to be semantics and lack of comprehension appropriately.

debosky:
How much productivity has your subsidy brought? Answer that first and then we can make a comparison with rice subsidies. A hungry man is a productive man in case you don't know.   (PS that WAS tongue in cheek too)

[s]In responding to your question, I would ask why is subsidy seen as undesirable? Because:
[list]
[li]It entails a high fiscal cost with dire consequences somewhere else in a budget[/li]
[li]It leads to over-consumption, bunkering, corruption and various other wrongs[/li][/list] If my above postulations are right, then it is stereotypical to assume there are no benefits associated with subsidies when all of the above measures can be easily mitigated. A cost-denefit analysis needs to be undertaken for the Nigerian market though. Are the mechanisms in place for such to be undertaken in Nigeria? YES! Unfortunately, the government and debosky believes deregulation is the best means out so cheaply. So maybe, you might be right truly.[/s](Oh! I just saw the tongue in cheek, so I am canceling my input).

debosky:
You have provided absolutely nothing to show how the subsidy in the oil market creates room for the GSM industry to survive, except a vague reference to moving HQs. HOW does the subsidy 'create room' for GSM to succeed?
You are the one engaging in semantics here - what is the difference between 'enabling' and 'creating room'? Is 'creating room' not a form of enabling?  

And you my learned friend, has provided absolutely no information show how deregulation would work in a market environment such as Nigeria except to make reference to the GSM sector. How knowledgeable is that?!

debosky:
I don't regard it as ludicrous. Let us focus on the current realities - the power sector requires 303bn this year for the integrated power project to be completed. Taking off HALF the 700bn subsidy will close this funding gap. Whether or not you believe it will happen is your prerogative. I believe the subsidy system is NOT working, and the money can and will be better used to repair infrastructure.

Now you are beginning to sound like a scratched CD. Repair infrastructure? I have asked you what infrastructure has been repaired from the Oil revenues over the years? Why is it pertinent that ''HALF'' of the subsidy would now be adequately used to address this infrastructural repair? You my learned friend have failed to address this point over and over again!

debosky:
In essence you are saying 'it has not worked in the past, so no effort should be made now'. No one is saying things have worked ideally in the past - the fact remains that we need to direct our scarce resources (during a period of dropping oil prices) and make OPTIMAL use of that to benefit the populace. The fact that previous funds did not make the desired impact does not negate the need for a focused and concerted attempt to remedy those mistakes.

Now I get where your main thrust lies. Due to dropping oil prices, it is unwise for the government to continue to dabble into subsidy. Instead, let its citizenry, ''external investors'' bear the brunt of dropping oil prices, by having to pay more and the government smiles to the bank with the proceeds thereof.

Listen, the fact that previous desired impacts of funds have not made any effects on its citizenry, is the more need to reject this deregulation of the oil sector. History has taught us over time, we would be subject to our own foolishness if this deregulation is accepted, when needed external conditions that should be addressed have not been undertaken.

debosky:
I have copious information on how the NIPP has provided ample ground for take off of the power sector, only if the necessary political will to act and focus to complete the outstanding projects is available. It is not hopeless, past failures notwithstanding.
[b]What facts do you have on the state of refineries in Nigeria? [/b]Please provide them, and I don't want 'everybody knows' (unless your name is everybody  ).

Now, this is where I make your learning, interactive. Simply do an online search on working conditions of Nigeria's oil refineries, come back and tell me what your findings where. I do not want you to be a lazy student.

debosky:
Subsidies on diesel have been removed since 2002/2003, so I don't know what your definition of 'recently' is. Industries are moving out due to poor power supply - why not channel scarce funds into POWER GENERATION rather than keep a subsidy that doesn't even benefit the industries since their costs are already deregulated?   

I love your arguments. Very weak indeed.  

Do you know how much has been saved from removal of diesel subsidy in 2002/2003 till December 2008? Answer: N1.5 trillion according to the Minister of State for Energy (Petroleum) Mr. Odein Ajumogobia. Can you kindly explain to me, why this ''saved'' amount has not been channeled to making the manufacturing industry thrive since most industries are powered on diesel? On the contrary, PPMC cartels, politicians have been responsible for the soaring price of diesel in Nigeria. Is this not a worthy example for all to see that deregulation of the oil industry in Nigeria will NEVER work. What stimulus package has been undertaken from the subsidy removal, which has added economic input to the manufacturing sector in Nigeria?

Rather, industries are moving out of Nigeria which you have as well alluded to.

debosky:
I didn't label newspaper facts as baseless, but your lack of comprehension shows itself again. I said 'baseless speculations' IN newspapers. Again, please note the difference in words. The MEDIUM wasn't condemned, simply inaccurate content sometimes generated by sensationalists.

This guy truly humors me. Who made you the best rationale mind to decipher 'simply inaccurate content generated by sensationalist IN newspapers'? When you need points to support your argument, you run to newspapers, when newspapers give points against your argument, you refer to them as: 'baseless speculations IN newspapers.' And you have the temerity to question my comprehension? I am seriously laughing here mon ami.

debosky:
Very plausible - refineries older than ours have been improved, repaired and expanded. A refinery achieving 70% capacity 3 years ago will not require eternity to achieve 95% (with stable crude supply of course). Again EXPANSION can be done to double or even triple refinery output - this has happened in many plants around the world and can be replicated here. The time duration is not the key here. Our refineries are not producing enough as it is, yet we have products. As long as the market is optimally geared to meeting demand, the source of refined products is secondary.

Semantics once more! Is 'expansion' not a form of new development to the already established refineries? Are they mutually exclusive? Time duration is a fundamental key here. It takes times to have a truly functional refinery. Is that possible within this year? Next year? NO! Please rethink what you are typing next time. Adding hardship upon hardship.

debosky:
Competitive, commercial oriented management of refineries coupled with the entrepreneurial drive of the private sector will lead to an effective petroleum products distribution system. You may not regard it as plausible, but it is.
Where is the evidence?

Another of your incoherent argument. First it was 'competent management' now it is competitive, commercial oriented management. Please stick with one. I do not regard it in anyway as plausible. This is my own conclusion.

Obviously, we cannot change one another's view on this subject matter.

debosky:
I did not skip those issues - The refinery repairs will be funded by investors - either from banks or equity or with other sources as they deem fit. There is no reason why simply repairing refineries will cost the consumer more - IT IS A BUSINESS DECISION. As a supplier, is it cheaper for me to import fuel or produce locally? On that basis, a commercial decision will be made. Projects have pay-back times, no one will levy consumers specifically for improving supply. I do not have the cost-benefit analysis, and that will be up to the investor to decide. In any case, with a multiplicity of investors or major market players, there will be competition and efficiency will inevitably be introduced.
Is local refining your problem or adequate supply of products? Please don't muddle up issues - if you want to debate the pros and cons of local refining vs importation then lets do it separately.

I agree with you here. So no further counter-argument on this.

debosky:
We don't need to build new refineries if the existing ones can be expanded. The government, being an inefficient allocator of resources would rather build new ones rather than expand. Leave it to the private sector to figure it out. No one will ask you 'come and pay 10 naira extra because I want to build a refinery' if the other guy down the road is selling the same product cheaper. The bottom line is, instead of leaving it down to the whims of government, let us allow an efficient system to evolve. Regardless of the time frame required to build a refinery, such information does not support subsidy.

Let me add my rejoinder here that, deregulation makes room for oligopoly. An oligopolistic market cannot work within the Nigerian Petroleum industry. It could have worked with the GSM sector, BUT not with the Petroleum sector.

As evidenced with the deregulation of diesel, a cabal of hungry of politicians, power and money shakers would sit on the market and ensure it suits their market taste. Deregulation would only make room for the dysfunctional society to get more worse in a country like Nigeria. These are my submissions. Take it or leave it once more!

debosky:
Please come back when you can

I came back after reading this input of yours. I am not sure whether I would want to continue on this matter except I see further area of discourse which are new to the subject matter already argued in your rejoinder. Which would therefore, enjoin me to once again assume the role of a pedagogy.

Nice bantering and discussing with you.

Once more you chose to prevaricate on my points made, and would rather dance to the tune of what suites your taste. For the sake of the commitment that I have stated to be your pedagogy, I will once more retort with my verbiage.

debosky:
2 things - Celtel suffered from a lack of funding. Were Glo and MTN not flourishing under the same conditions? MTN moving it's group headquarters is not relevant to this discourse - are they making profits from Nigeria or not? Yes they are. Is their business thriving? Yes it is. Where the HQ is cannot be the determinant of whether deregulation works or not - it does. Whatever reasons are behind the move cannot be easily gleaned, nor are they relevant to this current discourse. Spain's Castellon refinery is owned by BP and managed from London and it works. I find it laughable that the HQ of MTN now becomes the anchor for your opposition to deregulation, as if there would be any MTN without deregulation in the first place. 

For the sake of clarity to readers on our subject of discourse and debate, I DID NOT bring up the discourse of GSM sector to the topic. You did! That I made mention of MTN relocating to South Africa was to further show that with the harsh economic condition in Nigeria, where the subsidy market was not in place by the Government, it gave opportunity for the move. You are absolutely failing to see my argument on that, but would rather and readily refer to the case of Spain's Castellon refinery. The way you juggle your analogies beggars for serious thinking. You are rather so quick to circumvent my point and post irrelevant analogies and then label them as: 'tongue-in-cheek analogy' when they are found and proved to be illogical. Or how do I explain your drawing parallels of a developed country with a less developed country? These are countries that have one form of subsidy in place or the other, and yet you are so quick to make references to them. How awesome!

debosky:
You failed to realise the tongue in cheek analogy - Not only oil is subject to 'external influences' as you mentioned with OPEC. What economic benefit does subsidising petrol bring that subsidising other products cannot bring?
You brought up the issue, saying subsidy is the reason GSM succeeded, which is laughable at best. People need communication facilities, regardless of the cost of petrol so how can subsidy be the reason for success of GSM??

So subsidizing the importation of Rice from Thailand and China would generate the much needed productivity for the economy (In response to your first question above)? How laughable In response to your second question, I NEVER said it was the sole reason for its success. Please get me clearly. It is one of the reasons for its success in Nigeria, given how fuel is fundamental to a successful economy operation in present day Nigeria, how logical would it be to now exclude that fact from my argument?

debosky:
Like you keep pedagogically preaching, stick to a coherent line of argument - You said subsidy is the reason GSM succeeded, I say no - GSM operators need diesel to run their operations not petrol. Comprende?

Tu ne comprehend pas! Now you are mixing my argument upside down! Anyone reading your inputs here would assume I said: There is subsidy in the GSM industry. When my attributes are that; subsidy in the oil market creates room for the GSM industry to thrive. It is different from: ''Subsidy is the reason GSM succeeded'' as you stipulated above. See why I undertook the responsibility to be your pedagogy?

debosky:
Once again - HOW MUCH SUBSIDY is there on a litre of fuel now to conclude that 'suffering is being inflicted'? There is definitely a detrimental effect - 700 billion can be better used to improve basic infrastructure rather than engaging in nebulous subsidies of private sector inefficiencies. What evidence do you have that bunkering is the only negative effect? Can you quantify the positive impact that 700 billion invested in power gen alone would have in just 2 years?

Improving infrastructure? This is ludicrous! Kindly tell me what infrastructure has been improved from the proceeds of oil revenue, vis-a-vis that the funds from removed from subsidy will now handle it. I think you are just arguing for argument sake.

debosky:
Energy subsidies is not the way. Develop power supply. The government is spending 303bn this year on power generation, and that is how to help manufacturers, not keeping subsidy on diesel. As you clearly mentioned, manufacturers use DIESEL which is NOT SUBSIDISED!! My explanation of developing infrastructure is very pertinent - the infrastructure improves people's quality of life, and are not infrastructure unto themselves. Power generation gives you more productive ability instead of making petrol slightly cheaper.

I agree with the fact that power generation creates room for productive potentials. But your point on diverging the subsidies to that effect is what I find nauseating to human reasoning. What cushion effect has all the funds in the past done to improve power generation? If you can clearly explain that, I will be forced to drop out of this argument.

And again, what is not just of recent that subsidy on diesel was removed? Power generation in Nigeria has its worst in Nigeria. Industries are moving out of Nigeria to neighboring countries. Are you oblivious to that fact as well?

debosky:
NNPC stats show a precipitous drop in refining capacity after the pipeline outage. Should I believe your beer parlour impressions rather than statistics? 

Beer parlor impressions? I speak based on facts. NNPC in itself would never be critical enough to give a balanced and fair stats which the ''ignorant'' would feed on and label it as fact.

debosky:
Warri Refinery is working, just two weeks ago, they started producing LPG again. Please deal with stats that you know.

You are so hilarious! You at one time label facts from newspapers to be baseless and here you embed the weblink of a newspaper to support your argument! How truly amazing.

debosky:
The reason for the hue and cry was that the refinery had just been repaired, before it was hurriedly sold. That process was not open, so the failure of one privatisation scheme does not negate the usefulness of the process as a whole.

It still does not add any weight to your point. My point has been made. If you fail to see it, I cannot help you further.

debosky:
Refineries cost money to be set up agreed.In Spain, 300m euros increased capacity of a refinery by 20,000 barrels per day. extrapolating, 1.5bn euros can achieve an increase by 100,00 barrels. Not an impossible task.
There is no ignorance here - our refineries producing even at 100% ( of current capacity) cannot meet domestic supply - this is why i have said improved efficiency AND expansion. Read and comprehend pedagogue! 

Calm down once more. I know my responsibility and I will gladly fulfill it. Once again, further ignorance and more hogwash been spewed forth by you. Improved efficiency from where? Our ''external investors''? If as you stated, our local refineries cannot meet with domestic supply currently, how plausible would it be that improved efficiency and expansion would solve that? Is that part of a 'competent management' system that subsidy removal would ensure? Do you know how long it takes to repair each of the four refineries? Mister, can you comprehend yourself?

debosky:
I did not state the refineries are working at 70% right now, I gave a specific time boundary. You asked a question about when last they worked and I provided you information. Did I say they are currently working at that capacity? 
The efficiency I am talking about will come from the investors who will have a commercial orientation - govt can achieve 70%, but private enterprise will achieve better.

Your circumlocutory tactics will not help you. You gave a time range as to when the refineries were working with its capacity, I questioned the veracity of such a claim when evidently, our refineries are in a dilapidated state. Here you are, stating that investors with commercial orientation will achieve much more than that. Who is going to fund the repair of our current refineries? Would it not have a spiral effect of increase on the citizenry? These are pertinent questions you skip, and you then begin to draw analogies with the GSM sector.

According to experts on this matter, it will take a minimum of five years to develop new refineries. It entails a lot of logistics such as geographical and soil location, importing materials that will be favorable to the Nigerian condition. Who will fund all these bills?

debosky:
Gladly! I have worked in a refinery and all the ones in Nigeria operate onsite electricity cogeneration facilities for steam and electrical power - take Warri Refinery as an example.  NNPC doesn't manage the subsidy, the PPRA does so subsidy quantification is not an NNPC duty.

At least I agree with you on this point made here.

debosky:
Closing one channel but opening another? Maybe, but at least we will run an oil industry capable of sustaining itself without government hand outs. If you cannot comprehend that private entities can manage better than the government, then that is your cross to bear.

You are still wrong here. I would not belabor myself to repeat it all over again. This however remains your cross to carry.

I wish to further on take other points of yours and address them, unfortunately, I have to round up my tasks for the day. Probably later in the evening, I might still TALK further on. I am seriously pressed for time right.

Nice engaging you.

@ debosky,
In trying to understand your point, I am of the conviction that semantics seems to be a gray area to your fully comprehending why subsidy removal on the Nigerian Oil market cannot work. I have read your rejoinder, and once more you humor with your IGNORANCE and your passionate attempt to prevaricate from some of the points I have made. I would once again assume the role of a pedagogy in making clear this subject matter to you.

debosky:
Econet was bought over because it didn't have financial clout. Vodacom's deal was CANCELLED because of allegations of corruption in the process of finalising the deal. Celtel is now called Zain and is making profits in Nigeria. There has been no case of any of them not being able to thrive. MTN's HQ location is not the matter here - it continues to make more from Nigeria than it does in SA, so your point is moot.

Kindly explain what happened to Celtel before it became Zain. Epileptic services to its consumers means thriving to you? How many of the GSM consumers enjoy the full services of these independent marketers? There have been numerous cases of consumers losing their money to poor services. Who regulates them? Who are they going to complain to? The NCC? Please do not let us go there! Once more you have chosen to be oblivious to the plight of Nitel which I earlier mentioned in my argument. Deregulation clearly has its advantages as evidenced with the GSM sector, but to think or imagine that the same is applicable to the Oil sector is totally IGNORANT of you. The location of MTN to South Africa matters Mister. When you state that it continues to make more money in Nigeria than it does in South Africa, does that not strike a bell of thinking within you? Moving to a location where operational cost is lower, continue to operate in a market where cheap and easy money can be made due to lacking of proper monitoring.

debosky:
So what if there are external factors for OPEC? Is that a justification for subsidy? Are external factors such as importing from Thailand and Chinese demand not affecting rice prices? Why not subsidize those as well?

You keep concocting irrelevant points to your argument. Rice can be grown locally by any farmer who desires to. What economical benefit does it serve to subsidize it importation from Thailand or China? On the other hand, kindly tell me whether any farmer can grow 'Oil' on its farmland? Your ignorance is truly blissful.

debosky:
I will not 'take it or leave it', because you have exhibited SHOCKING ignorance once again. Diesel prices have been FULLY DEREGULATED for years with NO SUBSIDY, and that is the primary fuel the GSM operators use to power their base stations. So please explain how the subsidy has made them succeed.

Pray tell me, what is the percentage share of DIESEL users in Nigeria to PETROL users? Moreover, when the government increased the price of DIESEL, FUEL and KEROSENE in Nigeria during the Obasanjo regime, did we not all see that call rates and charges was sky-rocketed by GSM operators? Are you once more ignorant to that fact? If you raise the issue of no subsidy on diesel for years, what is market demand for diesel in Nigeria? How many cars run on diesel as compared to petrol? Most diesel users in Nigeria, lie within the industry - manufacturing sector of the economy. It is a total different ball game. Please stop displaying this arrogant ignorance.

debosky:
Greediness to make money?  MTN was greedy to make money as well, till the MARKET sorted out the issue with Glo's introduction and a crash in SIM prices and tariffs. There will be greed, but the market will sort itself out. Once again, no reason to selectively protect petrol prices alone to the detriment of the wider economy.

What exactly is detrimental to the economy when subsidy was in place? The only detrimental factor to it, was that as I have been saying it ever since: illegal bunkering of oil became good business. Is this a problem of the masses? NO! Why inflict the punishment at this point in time of global economic melt-down on the citizenry?

Whereas developed nations are looking for means to cut down costs for manufacturers and producers, so as to encourage consumers to spend more, in order to boost the financial sector; our own Nigerian government are rather adding costs to manufacturers, which would in turn to make consumers to spend more in this hard times of financial depression. And your sole explanation is that the removal of subsidies will help maintain, restore, or even develop infrastructure. I am truly appalled by your insensitivity and poor rationale to see through things.

debosky:
The refineries were achieving 80% availability in 2001, and had 70% availability in 2005/2006, easily verifiable from NNPC statistics, before the Chanomi Creek pipeline vandalisation dropped capacity down again. With repairs and expansion, they can achieve 90-95% availability and will meet supply with expansion.

Where did you get this baseless assumptions from? As at September 2008, NNPC was still saying they are developing 3 New Refineries at a cost of N800 Billion. And a debosky comes here to tell me refineries are achieving a higher percentage availability. When it is no longer news that Nigeria's moribund oil refineries have not been receiving any function whatsoever for YEARS now. There are four oil refineries in Nigeria, tell me which of them is functional? You would rather sit down with useless NNPC statistics which are only used as PR and base your argument on that? I am once more disappointed!

The Kaduna Refinery and Petrochemical Company Limited (KRPC Ltd), the only refinery located in North has not received any Turn Around Maintenance in the last ten years. Towards the end of Obasanjo's regime in 2007, this refinery was sold to a company called Blue Star Ltd which was purportedly owned by Dangote and Femi Otedola. Are this the external investors you lay claim to?

Furthermore, how much is the cost and repairs? Who is going to foot the bill? The poor but yet hard working citizens? Do you know how long it takes to repair this refineries and set them working in place once more? It is so easy for you to refer to the GSM sector, setting up a refinery is not a matter of months. It takes an appreciable amount of time - years to do such. China will tell you better when it comes to this.

debosky:
They were working at 70% under government supervision, and will achieve better under private management. Regulating prices through subsidies can never bring in investors. Oil bunkering is not the cause of the problem here - it is an inefficient subsidy system that gets padded with whatever unwanted costs the marketers don't like, with us footing the bill. Remove this loophole and they will be FORCED to become efficient.

More load of ignorance been spewed by you. Refineries working at 70%, yet we export crude oil and import refined oil based on subsidy, and this private management still have the effrontery to undertake oil bunkering. And you are here talking of becoming efficient with this process? I am really gob-smacked!

debosky:
Again, display of ignorance. On site power generation is based on fuel gas usage - a by product of the refining process. There is NO SUBSIDY on this, and the refinery pays for fuel gas as part of the oil received for refinement. Since the government insisted refineries paid international crude prices for feedstock a few years back, there is NO SUBSIDY on power generation. Get your facts straight.

Can you kindly show me where you got this your ''fact'' from? I am really forced to question the credibility of your claims henceforth seeing that you would rather give me lies from NNPC who has you stated, cannot even stipulate in details, how much subsidy is been undertaken.

debosky:
So you would prefer the government's incompetence to private initiative? There will be competent management when private enterprises are allowed to run these facilities. They need to secure financing, justify expenditure to shareholders and achieve returns. They are FORCED to be efficient through the market.

I have addressed this issue, a couple of times. I do not count it wise to keep repeating myself on this matter. There is nothing as competent management. Competent management is not the key to handling the oil industry.

debosky:
Funds are being mis-appropriated on this subsidy and the system still doesn't work. I don't buy the excuse that due to past failure to fix roads, we should continue letting some people feed fat on subsidies. We are not creating room for more misappropriation, we are simply closing ONE channel. There will be no more subsidy 'allocation' to be padded by fraudulent administrators.

You are closing one channel, and opening several other channels for more misappropriation of funds. What a wonder!

debosky:
It does have little to do with it - Nigeria generates power with Gas as well, not liquid fuels. We need to invest in utilising our gas capacity, not continuing to subsidise at an unsustainable level, while neglecting crucial infrastructure upgrades.

I thought you earlier stated this:

''power supply has little if anything to with petroleum products production and supply''

which is which? Can you please tender a coherent argument for me to deal with?

debosky:
Who says the billions cannot be accounted for? Please state what you know and not baseless speculations in newspapers. There are 6 power plants completed only requiring gas supply to start generation. Besides, why should petrol prices be the focus of subsidies except for an emotional feeling that 'this is our oil and it should be cheap'?

Baseless speculations in Newspapers? Calm down. So in order to prove your point, you would rather nullify the report of the newspapers as baseless? Where did you obtain your facts from? There are no 6 power plants completed to the best of my knowledge. Please stop spreading lies here.

Besides why cannot petrol prices be the focus of subsidies? Are you ignorant that petrol prices drives the economy of Nigeria? You are blessed with ignorance.

debosky:
I don't mind talking about it, but we must do it in an informed manner, not from an emotional starting point. Without knowing the quantum of subsidy, what exactly are we crying about? Take the government out of this and let the system work with appropriate supervision, NOT subsidy.

And who are the system that will make it work with appropriate supervision? Is it not the same Government? Tell me any developed country, that does not have a stake in the oil market? You are preaching for oligopoly right?

4 Play:
Create an open-market system while leaving the subsidy in place?  

Would you proffer your counter-argument to my statement? I am subject to learning anything new on this matter.

4 Play:
Instead of creating incentives for smugglers looking to arbitrage, it's best to remove the distortions to the pricing mechanism - the subsidy.

Subsidies are symptomatic of dysfunctional societies. It's the reason why Nigeria, the most corrupt nation on the planet, has a subsidy in the first place. It creates avenues for corruption and leaves the country with an inefficient fuel supply system.

And could you please prove or state how smugglers will still not pilfer or arbitrage oil even if subsidies are removed? Subsidies are symptomatic of dysfunctional societies? I guess the US and UK would be reasoning along your point right now.

debosky:
fascist? I think that is a tad harsh  - I'd rather say allow capitalism in the oil distribution system, just like we did for telecoms. SIMPLE.

Yes I maintain you have a fascist ideology on this subject matter. I knew sooner than later you do want to chip-in the point of the telecoms industry to further strengthen your argument. I need to remind you that MTN have relocated their main office back to South Africa. What made Econet, Vodacom, etc not to thrive in Nigeria? How functional is the working capacity of Nitel today? Please mull over these things and get back to me.

debosky:
Investors need a 'working environment'? Didn't the GSM companies progress in the 'working environment' that we have? The key is this - assurance of freedom to set the prices of your products. That is what we need.

Please stop equating apples with guava. They are two different areas of functions. GSM can be regulated easily by the government without need of external forces. Oil has external factors set in place, such as OPEC. Probably you are oblivious to the fact that when subsidy is removed from the Nigeria oil market, it would have also have an impact on the GSM companies. Partly due to the success of the GSM industry in Nigeria is the subsidy on oil (Take it or leave it)! You are simply seeing this matter from the angle of various independent oil market struggling to own the market, whereas, greediness to make money is inherent with the oil business.

debosky:
The refineries are there - nowhere as old as the refineries in other parts of the world that are still working. Investors with management ability can come down and rapidly turn them around and produce in-house. The current system demands nothing of the ingenuity of our local oil companies, except to distribute what they or the NNPC import, and collecting a fat subsidy cheque from the government each month.

You are a jester! Please tell me when last the refineries worked? If you make void my option of ''effective monitoring policies,'' I see your point of good management ability as a child's play. The same refineries Obasanjo spent billions of naira on to make functional throughout his tenure, you now tell me: ''Investors with management ability can come down and rapidly turn them around''! How amazing to see such work in Nigeria! What the current system does, is for the Government to regulate the price, based on the subsidy given. However, loopholes covering oil bunkering have been left un-attended which makes even your so-called 'local oil companies' to make profit from thereby.

You are really failing to give me a cogent point and coherent argument as to why subsidy should be removed.

debosky:
Alternative power supply? No refinery takes power from the grid, there is usually onsite generation, so that point is moot - basic infrastructure is in place, we just need to expand them to bring on additional capacity, only when you feel you can recoup costs will you do that.

On-site generation of power based on what? Answer: Subsidies set in place by the Government. Removing the subsidies only means the cost of operation going up! This is then played out on its consumers. SIMPLE.

debosky:
Security and other costs can be quantified - what we really require is COMPETENT MANAGEMENT of our local refining capacity, something the government is incapable of doing

Who is responsible for this ''COMPETENT MANAGEMENT" in Nigeria?  PLEASE!

debosky:
'effective' monitoring policies? The government cannot manage simple refineries or even quantify how much is spent on subsidies. This money is better spent on improving transport systems to remove the abysmal wastage of time on bad roads - reduced journey times will reduce petrol consumption and lessen the blow of (potential) higher prices.

We have been spending money on improving transport, please tell me over the years what has been the outcome to it? Government after government create budget for road maintenance and repairs, yet tomorrow, there will still be road accidents across the nation Nigeria. There is no point there SIR. We are simply creating room for more misappropriation of funds.

debosky:
This is not a matter of 'punishment'. It is punishment to continue to give money that could be  used to fix vital systems such as power, roads and the like on a nebulous subsidy that no one can quantify and no one can identify the true beneficiaries.

True beneficiaries of subsidy has been the masses so far. It is just a shame that some greedy beings have exploited the loopholes with the subsidies to enhance their own pecuniary status. And for that, it is the citizenry that must suffer! What a shame on the government!

debosky:
Power supply has little if anything to do with petroleum products production and supply, and thus cannot be used as an excuse. As I mentioned earlier, refineries have in-house power generation as standard.

I think I have addressed this issue above. Furthermore, developed nations, use GAS for power supply. So stating that ''power supply has little if anything to with petroleum products production and supply'' is totally WRONG of you. It is just a pity that Nigeria has not utilized in full capacity the potentials with Gas for power supply.

debosky:
Let me put it this way - if the money being 'wasted' on subsidies can be channelled to achieve steady power supply, wouldn't that make sense?

NO! It would not make sense. If the billions of Naira, Obasanjo spent on improving power supply cannot be accounted for, how logical would subsidies be channeled to achieving that?

debosky:
Before even debating prices, we need to act with information - how much does it cost to get a litre of petrol to pump NOW? With that available, then we can know just how much more or less petrol will cost at deregulated prices. Anything outside of that is pointless. Government will always invent spurious subsidy levels that cannot be verified - close off that source of corruption and we are better off.

I have little or no information to this. I am least qualified to respond to this. Hope you do not mind if I do not TALK about it?

debosky:
I think we should remove the subsidy - that is the only way we will ever have refineries that will be attractive to external investors. Without that, they will continue to be run inefficiently, because the same government agencies responsible for managing them are run by guys who will make money by getting a petrol importing contract from the government.

We need to plug all these avenues for corruption - since there is no more government subsidy, we can easily trace how much it costs to import the product to how much it costs at the pump - the companies like Oando, Total and others are public companies and we will be able to see clearly what they are making off petrol sales.

You have a fascist idea presently. Removing subsidy in order to create oil market transparency as indicated from your posts in Nigeria will not work. When you talk of external investors, who do you mean? Are they not the same scroungers around the corridor of power in Nigeria? In a country solely dependent on the revenue from oil, you surely believe there are the ''external investors.''

If I stated that subsidy removal will not work, it is because:
[list]
[li]Investors need a working environment thoroughly functional to survive in a country like Nigeria. Is the environment enabling for such? NO! Example: No steady power supply, investors will have to depend on making available, their alternative power supply. This would only sky-rocket the price of services provided to Nigerians.[/li]

[li]Who is going to ensure security of lives and property of investors? Investors would have to make room for their own security of property and various other logistics. This also incurs costs. Would the government be ready to make room for such, when its own citizens are not enjoying even that at the moment? I do not think so.[/li]
[/list]

What is the plausible way out? Let the ''subsidy'' remain, create an open-market system with effective monitoring policies.  Close all borders against oil bunkering with appropriate measures set in place to deal with deterrents. We have been talking about this issue for years, still we close our eyes against it and inflict the punishment upon the citizenry. This is not fair. If some idiots are utilizing the loopholes which the government cannot address, why inflict the punishment on its citizens?

I quite reason with your idea, however, not until when the fundamental operational mechanisms such as steady power supply are set in place, removing subsidy is the most idiotic thing the government can think of doing right now.

brownbonno:
Now i can see why lot of Nigerian graduate are unemployable!!!
Surely,WAEC/NECO/JAMB/Post JAMB are not doing enough.People should spend 5 years in the university and the first year should solely for GSS(General studies)courses.

@poster,thanks for the logical analysis.

Why are you speaking from both sides of the mouth?

Becomrrich:
Notice the word" under this constitution" and it did not says" taken this oath"

Take the time to go thru the constitution . Everybody " take the oath of office. And not under the oath. edo first governor  was the " a person first elected" under the oath and not oshimolo. oshimolo is only allowed by constitution to use 2 years in office.

There is a different between the word " taken this oath" and "under this oath"  , 


the oath started from the first person election as governor under this constitution.

Quit hyperventilating.

Could you please expatiate further on the option (B)? You seem so focused on the option (A), you are oblivious to option (B).

Nigeria,

Where is the hope?!

The answer my friend is blowing in the winds, the answer is blowing in the winds - Bob Dylan.

lucabrasi:
theres nothing like moral justification in world politics,the ideology guiding world leaders is that of "bottom line"

And, you are not led to think that ''bottom line'' is a branch of moral justification?

Although, ''moral justification'' is subjective, hence, no conclusive definition to its meaning or application across various subjects.

Zimbabwe, what a country!

A country once regarded as the ''food basket of Africa.'' Today, it is a shame to point to Zimbabwe on the map of Africa. How ludicrous can it get!

A loaf of bread in Zimbabwe of today costs 7 Billion Zimbabwean dollars (70 US Cents).

A crate of 30 eggs costs 45 Billion dollars ($4.50 US).

A tin of milk costs costs 5 Billion dollars (50 US Cents).

Would the ''giant of Africa'' ever tow this line also?


AFRICA, we need to WAKE-UP!!!

Becomrrich:
We Yorubas would give the USA land to build africom on the New republic of Benin. We would also raise $5 million to help the USA set up Africom in the New Republic of Benin.





telephone 416 904 5008

I find this to be highly hilarious!

When would Benin in itself become a Republic, vis-a-vis that it would raise $5 million for the USA? Would that be the top priority for the ''New Republic of Benin''? What happens to providing basic amenities for its citizenry?

Your ''tempo'' laced drawing would have won you the best drawing artist for Primary Two category.

debosky:
Didn't [/b]you mean 'well detailed collection of statistical information' or 'well detailed statistical investigation'? 

As a TalkSmith, I expect better from you. [b]Don't fret though, the man who invented grammar is here! 
I will never forget that book. I still remember my 'lesson teacher' Mr Afolabi, affectionately known as 'Mr. Afo' reading the book to me.

Now this gets more interesting. Frolicking in my area of natural excitation (Pardon my poor science orientation)! If I happen to get you clearly, you are 'the man who invented grammar,' I do have reason that your grammatical prowess would be flawless.

Or how do I explain the 'contraction' consistent in your response to me? Under a strict grammatical review which you have subjected me to likewise, this would have earned you a dismantle of the self proclaimed title you avouch so audaciously.

tamme:
@bawomolo

dont mind that osisi idiot, yet he wants one Biafra,

igbo people and their wahala

Whether we like it or not, there will still be BIAFRA. Nigeria is tending to that inclination seriously.

Mai Suya:
Of course he cant resign; such an action would be tantamount to him acting  honorably - clearly inconsistent with his person.

Aboki, this is CLASSICAL!

No university in Nigeria may be on those list, but yet, Nigerians who studied their first degrees in Nigeria, march on into these universities and set records.

It does not however validate that our ivory towers should be left to deteriorate more than it is right now, but it creates an anecdote that it is brains who make these glorious ivory towers flourish. Does Nigeria have these brains? YES! But sadly, Nigeria is losing them in their thousands everyday!

It was quite refreshing to read the inputs from various self proclaimed statistical pundits on interpretation of statistical data. I liked the argument and counter arguments respectively. What I however found appalling was when Negro Nts decided to traduce the data provided by JAMB on their website. He totally went off tangent and became rather despondent to prove his point. In respective of whether the data is valid or otherwise, the onus was on him to rather make his input based on the data provided and further strengthen his argument.

I, on the other hand hold to the view that the data displayed on the JAMB website does not correlate to the demographics obtained from the NPC. This is rather another proof of how shallow we are, in undertaking well detailed statistical information.

In respect to whether the SW goes to school more than the SE or SS, I am of the view, the SE have an impressive record than the SW. This brings to mind, the literature book, one read earlier in those yester-years: ''Eze Goes to School.''  

Crude Oil:
Why should he resign?

What service has be done for Nigeria?

What patriotic service has he rendered for Nigeria? The more I keep reading his verbal diarrhea, the more I keep questioning myself, who is sane between myself and this lunatic?

Is this man really in his senses? Is it not the tax payers money that is been used to pay this ''Ewu'' of a human being?

The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Maurice Iwu, yesterday took a swipe at  Nigerian politicians accusing them of bias in the call for his resignation vowing to step on toes in the commission’s quest to push for the electoral reform that would be used for the conduct of the 2011 general election.

He said he cannot be sacked, but can only be removed by the National Assembly.
Iwu made the remark  while speaking at the National Institute of Policy and Strategic Study (NIPSS), Kuru, near Jos, on the topic: “The Electoral Process and the Imperatives of Electoral Reforms” for participants of Senior Executive Course No.31.

In his presentations, the INEC Chairman condemned the attitude of politicians who should be custodians of the people's mandate were tied to the apron-strings of  private individuals lacking in morals and ethics, adding that they have sold their conscience to powerful few not more than 12 who impose their will rather than allowing the people to choose their candidates.

He blamed Nigerian politicians and the political parties, which he said had been cornered by the few adding that contribute to the woes of  the country.

He said politicians were largely responsible for the flaws observed in the conduct of election in Nigeria explaining that electoral violence and the pervasive use and influence of money in elections,  gender inequity in politics and the unhealthy mindset of Nigerians on election were some of the tools employed by politicians.

“The tone of my language changed after the Supreme Court ruling on the presidential election; before I was soaking all the insults and the abuses. I now had to draw the line on the sand that in the interest of the system, I have to speak and speak out and call a spade a spade and not any other name”, he said.

"When people demand that I resigned, I refuse because that would have been the most unpatriotic thing to do; if I am not able to solve the problem, then I can contemplate resignation, but I am more than equal to solving the problem, I have no doubt about that.

"Why had people not asked the head of army to resign because people died in Jos, why haven’t you asked the governor of Bauchi to resign because people died in Bauchi?", he queried.

He said "That would have a wrong thing for them to do. You cannot resign in the middle of a problem because the problem is starring at your face.  It would have a most unpatriotic thing to do; first who am I leaving the problem for, secondly, if I do that, it means that that tactics of intimidation and name calling would be sustained and whoever comes after me would face worse situation".

"It has not occured to those who want the rule bent that the chairman of the commission has the same protection like the president of the federal republic and governors because we are all product of the same constitution and which cannot be treated in isolation and they know that I have a tenure.

"It is only when I commit a crime and I am impeached, that is what the rule says. I can only be impeached, not hounded by any body not matter how and that is why I did not resign and I would not resign.'' he posited.

http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=136693

elodie:
Carte du Nigeria

Il y a 4 heures

KANO, Nigeria (AFP) — Cinq personnes ont été tuées et quatre blessées samedi lors d'affrontements entre chrétiens et musulmans provoqués par des incendies de mosquées et d'églises dans le nord du Nigeria, ont rapporté des témoins.

Une foule de musulmans a mis le feu à des églises et a attaqué des chrétiens, qu'ils tenaient pour responsable des incendies de deux mosquées la nuit précédente dans un quartier populaire de Bauchi, a-t-on appris de même source.

"J'ai vu cinq cadavres dans la rue ce matin, l'un d'entre eux était brûlé", a déclaré par téléphone à l'AFP un résident de Bauchi, Muazu Hardawa.

"L'un des corps était celui d'un des cinq jeunes musulmans atteints par balles par la police, qui est arrivée pour rétablir le calme lorsque la foule voulait incendier une église. Les quatre autres jeunes ont été admis à l'hôpital de Bauchi", a-t-il ajouté.

Selon M. Hardawa, trois églises près du quartier de Kofar Dumi ont été incendiées au cours de l'émeute.

Le climat est tendu à Bauchi depuis le vendredi 13 février, lorsque des membres d'une église pentecôtiste avaient barricadé un passage étroit devant leur église, bloquant l'accès à la mosquée voisine, ont expliqué des résidents.

Une unité de police présente dans le quartier avait dû intervenir pour lever les barricades et appeler au calme, a raconté Babayo Hassan, un résident.

"Echauffés par ce qu'ils considéraient comme une provocation, un nombre sans précédent de musulmans a assisté hier à la prière du vendredi et se sont rendus devant l'église, mais il n'y a pas eu d'incident", a rapporté M. Hassan.

"Mais vers 03H00, deux mosquées étaient en feu. Les musulmans ont accusé les chrétiens d'avoir allumé l'incendie et de jeunes musulmans se sont déchaînés", a-t-il ajouté.

Ce quartier majoritairement chrétien avait déjà connu des affrontements interreligieux meurtriers en 2004.

Le gouvernement de l'Etat de Bauchi a estimé que des politiciens mécontents étaient responsables des émeutes de la nuit.

"Cette crise est organisée par des éléments qui souhaitent déstabiliser l'Etat", a déclaré le gouverneur de Bauchi Isa Yuguda à la radio publique.

Il a également ordonné à l'armée de remplacer la police pour restaurer le calme dans la zone.

Le nord du Nigeria est le théâtre de violences religieuses et politiques dans ce pays qui compte 140 millions d'habitants.

Fin novembre 2008, au moins 200 personnes avaient tuées à Jos (centre du Nigeria) dans des violences à la fois politiques et inter-religieuses.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmJtxkLAymv2HJ9_ax6fPycTBzQQ

Traduciez en anglais s'il vous plait.

Mon francais, c'est mauvais.

Religion has never any lasting positivity on the society. I support Free-Thinkers.

I wonder when our own culture will begin to re-consider some of the tools of Western imperialism which has not fostered National unity in the country.