Sopuruchi Onwuka

The prevailing movement for energy transition and the associated stringent measures to quicken the process hold up a flip side which reflects a silent economic war in which the world’s richest and most industrialized countries fight vehemently to reclaim global energy sources, the revenue inflow, and full industry activity from developing countries.

Whereas experts confirm that a number of human factors and activities including agriculture, urbanization, construction and other ventures compete with fossil fuel emissions in heating up the planet, the league of rich industrialized nations lead a battle against the hydrocarbon industry with full range of commercial and financing sanctions.

The coordinated measures designed to deter continued use and production of traditional fuels that comprise coal, oil and gas pose existential threat to the economies of resource dependent nations that currently struggle to liberate citizens from abject poverty.

So, narrowing the climate debate to accelerating energy transition has polarized the world’s key economic blocs into different camps that fight for space in the emerging energy order. The most visible camps comprise the group of rich industrialized nations, popularly called the G-20 and hosted in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Their counterpoise comprises the developing nations some of which are also hosted in the coalition of the Organizations of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other 10 producing nations (OPEC+).

And at contention appears to be right to host global energy sources and consequent revenue inflow from consumer to producer.

On the surface however, energy transition is advanced as a major component of the global measures against rising temperature which has been proved responsible for climate change and associated extreme weather conditions that manifest in flooding, desertification, drought et cetera.

Energy transition would entail a deliberate push for total switch from the current energy forms that originate from hydrocarbons to new energy forms that are mainly developed from greener and sustainable options.

Interestingly, the same economic bloc that leads energy transition from fossil fuels also hosts the same group of countries that discovered fossil energy and invented machines and other appliances that drive on thermal energy from fossil combustion.

The developed countries, mainly in Europe, had in the cradle of civilization discovered and made fossil fuels the most reliable energy source for a wide range of machines used in transportation, manufacturing, electricity generation and construction.

Thus; coal, oil and gas have since the journey of human civilization and industrialization translated to economic, military, social and political advancement. They represented life and power.

So, economic and industrial advancement has traditionally entailed aggressive fossil exploitation, greater fuel consumption, and faster reserves depletion in Europe and North America. And these economies have relied on the global petroleum markets to fire growth.

The industrialized countries which currently include fast developing countries like Japan, China, India and South Africa account for over 60 percent of global destinations for fossil fuel exports from Africa, Middle East and South America.  And for over a century, former colonial territories like Nigeria served as depots from which imperial powers like Great Britain drew cheap fossil reserves to power industrialization and rapid urban development.

Thus, post colonial civilization has seen increasing reliance on new petroleum reserves in developing countries to fire the economies of the world. With that came huge petroleum income that flows from energy intensive economies to underdeveloped resource rich nations.

And with more and more emerging petroleum plays in Africa, Asia and South America, the dependence of the world’s most powerful nations on petroleum supplies from weak and poor nations of the under-developed parts of the planet posts a long term outlook. The grim energy outlook for the developed countries is accentuated by rising global population and rapid urbanization, factors that drive demand escalation and price increase.

The long term energy dependence outlook sustains the concern for energy security in developed countries; and this has led industrialized European nations with mature petroleum plays to support multinational oil corporations that forage global sedimentary basins with fossil exploration, development and production programmes. These international oil companies (IOCs) like Shell, BP, Eni, Total, Chevron and ExxonMobil; international national oil companies (INOCs) like Petrobras, Equinor, CNOOC and ONGC; as well as national oil companies (NOCs) like Petronas secure equity and commercial oil and gas cargoes for home economies.

The dependence on foreign fuel sources translates to loss of control on energy cost, and response from European nations had been a continuous exploration of energy independence through a process that would restore the fate of the global economic advancement into the hands of the most powerful countries.

COVID pulls the trigger

Before now, policy changes and technology advances had attempted to drive European and North American countries to energy independence. This has led to successes in the America’s non conventional oil plays like the shale and tar sand formations in USA and Canada respectively.

Whereas the crusade for energy independence had centred on innovations in technology and green resource exploration, the momentum for energy transition from fossil fuels mustered additional thrust from the environmental gains during the global activity shutdown against COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

The lockdown showed that industrial, commercial and transportation activities accounted for significant proportion of global dust and fuel pollution. And projections by industry analysts had suggested that transition from fossils fuel would significantly reduce the speed of climate change.

Hasty forecasts

Heightened clamor for energy transition amplified forecasts of consistent decline in oil demand as low-carbon energy took the spotlight. The International Energy Agency (IEA) which keeps market intelligence for the OECD predicted that oil demand growth was going to slow down this year. It also forecasted a possible oversupply on the oil market for the current quarter, citing the effect of the Omicron variant on fuel consumption and rising non-OPEC production.

The forecasts came against the background of global oil demand destruction during the 2020 pandemic lockdown when oil price went temporarily negative and OPEC+ was forced to call off production of over 10 million barrels per day to avert total resource value erosion.

The gloomy oil demand predictions also factored the impact of the environmental and social governance (ESG) requirements on global institutions and enterprises, including energy companies which have been under pressure to diversify from fossil fuel production.

However, most of the gloomy predictions shattered against demand resurgence as global economies embarked on recovery process in 2021. With demand recovery, prices rose steadily from less than $11 per barrel to over $80. And OPEC+ has since started responding to supply calls by gradually calling back production to pre-pandemic levels.

Again, most of the predictions for oil demand fall did not hazard any opinion about possible replacement energy for domestic, commercial and industrial application. The forecasts also neglected the energy need of rising global population and persistent social urbanization. And these fundamental bases for energy demand growth stand right against the world’s finite resource base.

Eminent geologist, Mr Austin Avuru, has consistently stated that fossil is a finite resource that would inevitably exhaust; he maintains that transition to renewable energy is a logical option that does not need the prevailing disruptive acceleration. 

He said threat to global economies is on the energy supply side, warning that renewable energy development has been too late and slow in development to catch up with galloping demand.

The Oracle Today reports that oil and gas prices have maintained steady rise as global economies recover from pandemic downturn. Analysts including the IEA predict that prices could surge beyond $100 per barrel as gap between demand and supply widens.

According to the Secretary General of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), HE Dr Mohammed Barkindo, demand at the global oil markets are fast returning above 100 million barrels per day, translating to huge pressure on the group and its allies to ramp up production and tame strong prices.

Dr Barkindo stated that the global population is projected by OPEC to rise by over 1.8 billion people by 2040, explaining that the new arrivals on earth would need energy for homes, businesses, social facilities and infrastructure.

Bypassed emitters

But despite the rising oil and gas demand and calls on OPEC+ to increase production to calm market sentiments, the world’s leading nations maintained their focus on energy transition at global podiums for climate debate. They have also paid scanty attention and made inaudible remarks about other sources of emission that cause climate change.

The IEA had previously estimated nearly one third of all methane emissions from human activity come from fossil fuel operations. It however recognized agriculture and waste as large scale emitters.

Reviews of presentations on the subject matter by The Oracle Today showed that growing human activities simultaneously release carbon into the atmosphere and deplete vegetation that form natural carbon sink. And even the renewable energy industry holds a record of carbon emissions in its value chain.  From mining raw materials to processing and manufacturing equipments and components, the renewable energy follows the huge climate footprints of building and construction, farming, and cement manufacturing.

Petroleum industry investor and Chairman of AA Holdings, Mr Austin Avuru, said the global population boom and associated aggressive agriculture, construction and urbanization are contributors to the prevailing climate crisis.

Mr Avuru said that human population has over-tapped into natural resources to survive and live comfortably.  He pointed out that farming, urban development, roads and sundry infrastructure development have all displaced significant proportion of earth’s natural carbon sink and exposed the environment to carbon clog.

Another industry analyst and Executive Director of integrated energy services provider, Hobark International, Dr Emmanuel Okoroafor, agrees that rising global population and associated activities continue to deplete the earth’s natural resources. He pointed out that the inverse relationship between rising human needs and depleting natural support for life accounts for the prevailing climate crisis.

For instance, a video based on Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) statistics claim that each of the world’s 1.6 billion cows and greater number of other ruminants in homes, farms and the wild pump about 100 kilogrammes of methane every year. That is the same pollution profile of burning 1000 liters of petrol every year per an animal.

“Thus, the global cow population which survives by eating down earth’s carbon sink also release some 160 billion kilograms of methane every year.“

A different report produced by the FAIRR Initiative shows that a single cow can release around 250-500 liters of methane a day. The report also holds that more methane is produced when the animals’ waste is collected in holding ponds, a typical practice for large scale industrial meat producers.

That means that nearly two billion cows used in the global meat and dairy industries, combined with other animals raised for livestock, are responsible for releasing the methane equivalent of some 3.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year; accounting for some 44% of global anthropogenic methane emission; the report said.

“If the global livestock industry were its own country, it would be the world’s third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter, falling between U.S. and India when it comes to total greenhouse gas emissions,” the report stated.

And methane emission from cows, according to both reports, accounts for significant 18 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide; a volume that eclipses that of the global transportation sector.

Beyond the livestock farms, the world’s manufacturing industry pump huge emissions into the earth’s atmosphere.

Energy industry consultancy firm, McKinsey, estimates that the cement, steel, ammonia and ethylene industries, jointly account for 45% of global emissions. 

In pointing at the cost burden of decarbonisation, the International Aluminium Institute pointed out that aluminium industry alone accounts for roughly 2.0% of global annual carbon emissions.

Renewable energy is also in the emission train

Even the renewable energy comes with a huge profile of carbon footprints, a fact that climate activists and energy transition campaigners play down. The renewable industry relies heavily on fossil powered equipment for mining its metal requirements and manufacturing its components. 

All forms of renewable energy surveyed in the carbon footprint showed varying levels of emissions during different stages of production; from metal mining through processing and manufacturing. And most of the processes still rely on gas fired production. 

Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, Bernstein, and Venkateswaran; climate scientists claim that whereas an example of renewable energy like wind would not generate carbon emission, manufacturing of its components comes with high emission count.

“Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

“All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

“In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fuelled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuously as coal and natural gas are combusted,” the reports quoted sources.

The data quoted in the reports have it that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%.

In other seemingly natural sources like hydro-electricity and natural steams, harnessing the energy and transforming it into usable forms tasks the manufacturing industry with production of equipments and materials in a process that pumps out emissions.

Attack on fossil

Interestingly, world leaders and institutions that fall under the influence of powerful diplomats from Europe and North America have concentrated all measures against climate change on energy transition from fossil energy.

At the 26^th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP26) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) hosted in Glasgow, Scotland, there were no resounding strong deterrents against other industries that account for emissions that cause climate change.

The COP26 resolution document emphasized withdrawal of all commercial and financial supports for new fossil fuel development. It instead committed rich nations to significantly increase funding for clean energy development.

A major far reaching decision at the conference was the pledge by some 500 financial organizations including major banks, investors and insurers across 45 countries with cumulative asset worth of $130 trillion to haul trillions of dollars at green energy funding in a coordinated commitment to incorporate carbon emissions into their investment and lending decisions.

The global lenders also pledged to freeze funding to fossil fuel-burning industries in an attempt to involve private companies in meeting net zero targets.

Blackrock, one of the largest asset managers in the world with over $13 trillion in pension and savings portfolio pointed at growing clamour on the part of many pension fund trustees and their scheme members to dump or divest shares in fossil fuel businesses to starve them of capital.

Former head of the central banks of England and Canada, Mark Carney, declared that the funding freeze on fossil production and consumption was to transform the architecture of the global financial system to deliver net zero goals.

Also in a major move to cut significant demand from fossil fuel energy, more than 100 national governments, cities, states and major car companies signed the Glasgow Declaration on Zero-Emission Cars and Vans to end the sale of internal combustion engines by 2035 in leading markets, and worldwide by 2040.

At least 13 nations also committed to end the sale of fossil fuel powered heavy duty vehicles by 2040 in alignment with the green transport movement.

In addition, COP26 facilitated many smaller but significant commitments including formation of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) in which 11 countries including Ireland, France, Denmark, and Costa Rica and some sub-national governments set a deadline to end national oil and gas exploration and extraction.

COP26 also required world leaders to phase-out subsidies that make coal, oil, or natural gas affordable for diversified use. These targeted subsidies exist mainly in developing countries where governments battle extreme poverty. And removal of fuel subsidy in regions with low energy access would inevitably escalate energy cost, exacerbate poverty and lead to social unrest.

The Cost Hurdle

Besides, most of the poor oil dependent economies like Nigeria and other African countries can hardly afford the massive investments required to switch from fossil energy.

Our survey of technical presentations on the challenges of energy transition shows that accelerating the build-out of renewable energy capacity to cover other sections of the energy industry would come with massive cost.

According to latest industry estimates by McKinsey, reaching the climate redemption targets set by the world governments and institutions would cost $9.2 trillion annually across 30 years, tasking the global economy with significant $276 trillion between 2020 and 2050.

McKinsey explained that the world is already spending $5.7 trillion a year to lower the impact of harmful emissions and use alternatives, saying that additional $3.5 trillion every year till 2050 would be required for alternative energy development and land use management, including agriculture to limit global warming.

“That is the equivalent of half of all corporate profits in 2020. It is the equivalent of one quarter of all tax revenue, or 7% of household spending,” the company stated.

Again, the International Aluminium Institute estimated that it could cost as much as $1.5 trillion to decarbonize the electricity-related portion of the aluminium industry’s emissions, which account for more than 60% of the sector’s 1.1 billion tonnes of emissions produced annually.

It also estimates that it would cost $21 trillion to decarbonize the cement, steel, ammonia and ethylene industries, “which together account for 45% of global emissions.”

Producers take a stand

Both sovereign resource owners and commercial players in the petroleum industry insist that meeting the cost burden of diversifying from fossil energy and venturing into decarbonisation of industries would require oil revenue.

Dr Barkindo voices the position of leading members of the OPEC+ coalition including Russia and Saudi Arabia that emphasizes the need for a smooth transition from the currently available fossil fuel energy to diversified options that include cleaner renewable sources in a manner that must not impede economic development of nations and aggravate poverty in their populations.

He restates the desire of OPEC for the world to efficiently address climate change by making it comprehensive enough to address all harmful emissions and inflict softer blows on developing countries currently receiving the double misfortune of disastrous climate change impact and energy poverty.

He warns that drastic and radical migration of energy use to green sources would create supply gaps that would perpetuate poverty in nations already suffering acute energy deficits.

Dr Barkindo made it clear that there is no available option to fossil, especially petroleum, in meeting projected demand boom in the next 20 years. He said projected contribution of renewable energy by 2045 when the advanced economies target total switch from fossil fuels would be 20 percent of global energy mix.

Vice President of Guyana where new petroleum play is emerging, Bharrat Jagdeo, argues that some funding from oil revenues can be directed toward climate-change mitigation and adaptation to help the countries pursue green economy objectives.

He made it clear that the Guainian government would prefer a smooth transition that allows it achieve the dual objectives of delivering its people from poverty and meeting environmental goals with oil revenue.

Also, global investors and players emphasize the role of the petroleum industry as the reliable funding source for new energy development, explaining why the industry must be sustained in the short to medium term.

The oil companies most of which have changed to energy companies to reflect portfolio diversification in response to pressure from investors, regulators and emission reduction commitments now amplify the role of fossil fuel in meeting the immediate energy demand and generating the needed revenues required to finance investments in cost intensive and low return renewable energy industry. 

Chairman of Shell which has diversified to energy firm, Mr Ben van Beurden, declared that the company would rely on its traditional oil and gas business to meet immediate and midterm demands as well as generate cash to fund investments in carbon free energy business and meet net zero target by 2050.

Analysts point at the recent energy crisis and price jumps as strong indication that the world is still hugely reliant on fossil fuel; and Mr van Beurden argues that that global reliance of fossil fuel must be managed down over time to avert future price shocks.

He confirmed the position of Dr Barkindo that the industry is adapting new technologies to transform its legacy petroleum facilities and expertise to produce cleaner energy.

Chief Financial Officer of BP, Murray Auchincloss, stated in a conference call with shareholders that underinvestment in petroleum development and “significant constraints in energy supplies” threatens global economic recovery from pandemic downturns of 2020.

He said oil demand would grow stronger than 100 million barrels per day as the key global economies ramp up and air travel fully recovers from pandemic downturn.

In its security filings ExxonMobil, “views climate change risks as a global issue that requires collaboration among governments, private companies, consumers and other stakeholders to create meaningful solutions.”

Chairman of TotalEnergies, Mr Patrick Pouyanne, declared that too much expectation from renewable energy is responsible for current price woes that have unsettled global economies.

Mr Pouyanne has been consistent with warnings that total reliance on renewable energy to meet global demand would be risky without a guarantee of sustainable supply capacity. The warnings are based on the argument that the most popular sources of renewable energy-mainly solar and wind- are significantly influenced by weather conditions.

“So that is I think a lesson. Another is that the more we put renewables in our electric system, we put in intermittent sources which depend on the weather,” he is quoted by an agency reporter that covered a conference in Russia.

The panels of industry captains at the last World Petroleum Congress (WPC) in the United States, made it abundantly clear that fossil energy does not stand in the way of energy transition, warning that aggressive switch from oil and gas would plunge to global economy into crisis.

The conference reviewed the Glasgow Climate Pact and warned that transition from petroleum to renewables would be messy for many years and lead to sharp energy price volatility as demand and supply interrelate.

Chief Executive Officer of Hess Corporation, John Hess, declared that the global quest develop new energy forms must not be run into conflict with the existing fossil fuel industry, arguing that oil and gas should be seen as part of the solution and not perceived as problem to orderly energy transition.

Chief Executive Officer of Spain’s Repsol, Josu Jon Imaz, stated that a reliable supply of oil and natural gas must be guaranteed by energy companies as demand will continue in the coming years. He stated that the prevailing distortions and volatility in the market as a result of strong global push to move away from fossil fuels have begun to hurt families with energy bills.

Chief Executive of ConocoPhillips, Ryan Lance, warned in a panel discussion that hasty switch from use of oil and gas could create huge energy supply gaps, spur price jumps and induce global inflation.

Government proposals to halt investments in new oil, gas and coal production “didn’t do anything about the demand side or inflation,” he stated.

Managing Director of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) of India, Subhash Kumar, warned against pushing the unprepared world into energy transition, noting that consumers and markets are not prepared to make the transition to clean fuels as quickly as some want.

Demand overhang

Meanwhile, while leaders of western economies and global lenders declared commitments to literally kill the fossil industry, gas prices in the market soared, oil prices jumped and even coal usage and demand rebounded; powerfully asserting the indispensability of fossil in the prevailing world energy equation.

Panel discussants at the last World Petroleum Conference in Houston, USA, criticized global political leaders for making demands on both sides of the industry: calling for speedy transition from fossil fuels while calling on OPEC+ producers to boost market supply to meet immediate fossil fuel demand.

The CEO of Suncor Energy Incorporated of Canada, Mark Little, lamented the tendency of political leaders to focus on supply as solution to prevailing energy crisis, adding that energy transition advocates demand cheaper and adequate petroleum supply while demonizing the producers.

Industry consultancy firm, Goldman Sachs Group Incorporated, supports with a prediction of 2.5 million barrels per day in oil supply deficit. It added that seasonal demand and global recovery from the coronavirus pandemic would further hike demand for petroleum energy in 2022.

There is also the ultimate influence of market forces which is determined by the right of consumers to make energy choices. Key industrialized nations including India and China maintain strong demand for oil and gas despite hostile sentiments from Western nations and multilateral lenders.

Our tracking of market dynamics still indicates massive demand for fossil fuels as the most available energy option in developing economies of Africa, Asia and South America. In these areas of the world, fossil fuels, especially petroleum, form pillars of economic development and internal energy security.

Mr Avuru also said the finite nature of fossil energy reserves forecasts long term supply crisis. He pointed out that demand for all forms of energy would continue to increase mainly in the developing countries where infrastructure and production capacity for electric cars are yet to be developed.

He made it clear that petroleum demand would still be driven by emerging urban populations in Africa, Asia and Americas for whom, he said, the automobile industry would likely sustain production internal combustion engine vehicles.

Dr Barkindo sees the deadlines set by some nations for total switch from fossil fuels as recipe for global energy crisis. He also points at possible violation of the right of most African people to affordable energy as guaranteed under the article 7 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG-7).

In ruling out the possibility of effective energy transition, Dr Barkindo pointed at a huge demand projection into the future, saying that petroleum would still dominate the global energy mix beyond 2050.

 “Before COVID, this world was consuming an average of 100 million barrels every single day. And yet, we have endemic energy poverty where our people have no access to electricity; no access to gasoline, diesel, cooking fuels and so on. So, if you are advocating for zero funding to this industry, which sources of energy will replace hydrocarbon? None!

“In 2045, the projection on renewable will be less than 20 per cent of the energy mix. You are sowing the seeds of fresh energy crises that will sentence the people of the developing countries to perpetual energy poverty,” he stated while referring to closure of lending windows to fossil energy development.

Leaving poor countries behind

He stressed that oil producers do not deny the reality of climate change and its grim impacts on the planet. He laments that what the world leaders and climate activists appear to do is ignore the plight of developing countries and their right to develop with available energy forms.

In consistently demanding an inclusive debate on the subject matter, Dr Barkindo maintains that the prevailing drive for energy transition must come with equitable consideration and evolution of efficient and effective solutions to the climate crisis.

He contended that climate action should be made compatible with the alternate requirement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) which guarantees wellbeing for every section of the global community.

In dwelling on hostility towards the petroleum industry, Dr Barkindo said that proponents of climate action must recognize the rights of poor nations to leverage on the best forms of energy available to them to build capacity for low carbon energy options that are currently beyond their reach.

From South America, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana had told audience members at the Baker Institute in Texas in August 2021 that “the big challenge has been, and the question locally and among many of our friends abroad, is whether we can become an oil producer and still maintain our environmental credentials, and continue to advocate globally for a zero-carbon economy. And we believe the answer is yes.”

His comments came less than six months after the IEA called for “no new oil and gas fields approved for development” beyond projects already committed by 2021, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.

The Guyanese Vice President had argued that if the country were to prematurely forego oil and gas revenues, “it would also mean that Guyana would remain poor and unable to invest in lifting the living standards of its people.”

Petroleum industry leaders in Africa interpret the rave for energy transition as coming at a time of local content policies in the developing countries. They see energy transition as last mile protest against attempts to recover greater industry benefits through in-country job delivery requirements.

The Oracle Today reports that energy transition gained momentum at a time of oil price escalation towards $100 per barrel, and when resource owners begin to review fiscal and operating terms with multinational oil firms.

Until recently, lack of requisite capacity for industry jobs meant that all the economic benefits of oil industry operations were trapped by the OECD countries whose multinational oil service firms executed local industry jobs. 

With rising levels of local content policy and industry reforms sweeping across the developing petroleum economies, the foreign companies are now committing to net zero emission and portfolio diversification to renewable energy. The situation portends massive repatriation of investments by the big multinational energy firms for local production new energy options.

Africa vows to continue production

In Sub-Saharan Africa, which hosts largest number of the world’s poorest people, governments of petroleum producing countries have restated their resolve to press on with investments in petroleum exploration and production despite energy transition.

At separate meetings in Abuja and Brazzaville, country delegates of the African Petroleum Producers Organization (APPO) agreed to continue use of petroleum fuels in tackling prevailing energy deficit and driving economic growth.

Secretary General, Dr Omar Farouk Ibrahim, declared that APPO would rise to the challenge funding freeze against the petroleum industry by transforming its Fund for Technical Cooperation to African Energy Investment Corporation.

He said the strategy would broaden funding sources for development of over 100 billion barrels of hydrocarbon liquids still untapped.

Irreversible Course

Unfortunately, all the policy options and counter positions from oil producers’ bloc appear to have failed to alter the position of world leaders and lending institutions on energy transition, posting grim signals of funding drought for industry exploration, development and production investments. The situation also posts revenue and wider economic predicament for producers and other developing nations that rely on cheaper and available petroleum fuels to drive development.

The intransigent posture of western governments on rapid diversion of energy demand from fossil without sufficient replacement for coal, oil and natural gas in the global energy mix amplifies the suspicion of desperate pressure on the world’s industries to reclaim energy funds from mainly poor oil nations to finance new energy development.

This will entail capital exportation of tens of trillion dollars from African petroleum provinces. And signals for that have started emerging in Nigeria where most of the multinational oil majors have sold off brownfield assets, halted exploration, scaled down corporate bureau activities and concentrated on draining existing reserves.

African governments are not in the dark as they prepare to take their fate in their own hands, pooling funds, forging collaborations and conceptualizing cross-national infrastructure development to deepen continental energy market. The worst case scenario, according to the Group Managing Director of Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited, Mallam Mele Kyari, is for Africa to drive development with its own fuel.

Thus, the highly coordinated clamour for energy transition; the consequent political and economic measures against the fossil fuel industry; and the counter-narratives on climate change have all transcended into broader economic insurrection against the global petroleum markets as industrialized nations compel global demand shift from fossil energy.

Discerning analysts clearly see the struggle of OECD countries to reverse the direction of global energy revenue flow under the prevailing global climate sentiments to make energy producers of today the buyers of tomorrow. And the polarization of coalition of western economic powers on the one hand and the bloc of petroleum producers and emerging economies on the other hand transcends energy transition towards economic war.