Analysis
OPEC: The need for a pragmatic market strategy
The recent press statement credited to the president of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, Alhaji Rilwanu Lukman, that an oil glut is imminent is a course for concern.
In recent years, the glut in oil market has caused OPEC members a huge loss of revenue. When the market started to pick up again sometimes this year, it gladdened the hearts of oil producers.
In recent month there has been growing concern as some members produce far above their allocated quotas.
This over production often culminate in oil glut. It would appear from recent happenings that the purpose for which the organisation was formed has been outlived.
The organisation was formed in 1961 by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in response to a unilateral reduction in the posted price of crude oil in August 1960, by the major multinational petroleum companies.
The reduction cut the oil revenues of these countries. During t he 1960s and early 1070s OPEC now thirteen with the entry of Abu Dhabi, Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Qatar, Nigeria, Gabon and Equador, followed a defensive strategy that prevented any further decline in the posted prices of crude oil.
The 1970s however saw OPEC taking a giant stride in determining both the production level and the prices for crude oil produced in its members territory.
The ideas which the organisation sort are as contained in paragraph 4 of resolution 12 and further emphasised in article 2 of the statute of OPEC.
These include: the coordination and unification of petroleum polices of member countries and the determination of bet mens of safe-guarding their interest individually and collectively.
The devising of ways and means of ensuring stabilisation of prices in international oil markets with a view of eliminating harmful and necessary fluctuations.
Due regard shall be given at all times to the interest of the producing nations and to the necessity of securing a steady income to the producing country and an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations and a fair return on their capital to those investing in the petroleum industry.
OPEC hay days were in the 1970s and late 1970s. The 1980s have not been particularly favourable to OPEC. Most of consuming nations had embarked on conservation and stock piling of crude oil in late 1970 following increased oil prices.
The result of this was that OPEC was cut under current and prices of oil plummeted to the pre-1973 oil prices of $12 per barrel.
At the wake of the oil glut, there was the need for the organisation to use its trump card, production quota. Since the resort to this use, most members over production of allocated quota to members.
In reality, OPEC authorities cannot expect absolute compliance of members to their production quota. A close study of OPEC members shows that they are at different stages of economic development and growth.
Some members can afford to keep down their production because their economies cannot absorb the earnings stemming from the sale of ever increasing quantities of crude oil at whatever market prices. This is an important point which should not be belittled since some of the most important producers, commending the largest reserves fall into this category.
How strong this argument can be for main producers depends on the size of their population, the requirement for the development plans and the political attitude of their governments.
Another factor OPEC should take cognisance of when allocating quotas to members is the size of members known (proven) reserves.
Obviously, the shorter the expected life of their reserves he sooner te bonanza comes to an end for them. It is understandable that they would wish to postpone the time of exhaustion.
The needs and objective of a country with a small population such as Abu Dhabi with a population of less than 0.25 million by 1982, Libya 2 million 1982, are quite different from those of larger or more developed countries like Iraq, Iran, Algeria and Nigeria.
The fact however is that among the countries with more plentiful city could produce to higher levels. The others, chiefly those with large output such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi probably may not be have much incentive for higher output and could possibly do with lesser quotas in order to keep production level down.
Others like Libya may be in the same position with the additional disincentive of relatively smaller reserves.
Whatever the development in supply it is unlikely that Western Europe and America can expect continued unlimited supply of oil which in the previous decade permitted an annual increase of oil consumption exceeding 10 per cent.
For instance, by the 1970s the industrial west became highly dependent on a few developing countries to supply a growing appetite for oil.
Between 1962 and 1972, US imports of oil rose from 99 million metric tons to 230 million, Western Europe’s import from 265 million to 680 million and Japan’s import from 48 million 235 million. By 1972 the United States imported about one third, Western Europe nearly all of their respective requirements.
This growth in export continued up to 1980 when the North Sea oil entered into the oil market in commercial quantity and reduced Western Europe dependence on developing countries oil.
If the past growth of demand for oil is taken as a yardstick, consumers would suffer a shortage even if oil supplies continued to grow at a more moderate rate let alone remaining static or declining.
This is a point OPEC should note and exploit in order to regain its past glory by allocating quotas to members that would enable it reduce output while taking advantage if the price like such production cut would bring into being.
OPEC should also note that it is not every commodity that can stand for cartelisation. The oil cartel (OPEC) has stood the test of time because the demand for has been price inelastic in both the short run and longer run
Analysis
As EU plans Russian Gas exit, Ministers to convene in Paris to chart Africa’s export potential
In the wake of seismic shifts in the European energy landscape, the Invest in African Energy (IAE) 2026 Forum in Paris will host a Ministerial Dialogue on “Unlocking Africa’s Gas Supply for Global Energy Security.” This strategic session will examine how Africa can turn its untapped gas reserves into a reliable and sustainable source of supply. With Europe seeking to diversify away from Russian gas, the dialogue highlights both the continent’s growing role in global energy markets and the opportunity for African producers to attract long-term investment. Recent developments underscore the urgency of Africa’s role in global energy security. Last month, EU countries agreed to phase out their remaining Russian gas imports, with existing contracts benefiting from a transition period: short-term contracts can continue until June 2026, while long-term contracts will run until January 2028. In parallel, the European Commission is pushing to end Russian LNG imports by January 2027 under a broader sanctions package aimed at limiting Moscow’s energy revenues.
Africa’s role in this rebalancing is already gaining momentum. Algeria recently renewed its gas supply agreement with ČEZ Group, ensuring continued deliveries to the Czech Republic. In Libya, the National Oil Corporation (NOC) has approved new compressors at the Bahr Essalam field to boost output and reinforce flows via the Greenstream pipeline to Italy. These developments complement the Structures A&E offshore project – led by Eni and the NOC – which is expected to bring two platforms online by 2026 and produce up to 750 million cubic feet per day, supporting both domestic and European demand. West Africa is pursuing ambitious export routes as well.
Nigeria, Algeria and Niger have revived the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP), with engineering firm Penspen commissioned earlier this year to revalidate its feasibility. The proposed $25 billion Nigeria–Morocco pipeline is also advancing as a long-term corridor linking West African gas to European markets. Meanwhile, the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA) project off Mauritania and Senegal came online earlier this year, with its first phase targeting 2.3 million tons of LNG annually. In June, the project delivered its third cargo to Belgium’s Zeebrugge terminal, marking the first African LNG shipment from GTA to Europe. Together, these milestones underscore a strategic convergence: African producers are accelerating efforts to scale up exports just as Europe intensifies its search for reliable alternatives to Russian gas.
Yet, as the ministerial session will explore, unlocking Africa’s gas supply demands sustained investment, regulatory alignment, environmental management and community engagement. For Europe, diversification of supply is a strategic necessity; for African producers, it is an opportunity to accelerate development, build infrastructure and secure long-term capital. At IAE 2026, these shifts will be examined by the officials and stakeholders driving them. The Ministerial Dialogue brings African energy leaders together with European policymakers, industry players and investors in a setting that supports practical, solution-focused discussion on supply, export strategies and future cooperation. As Europe adapts its gas strategy and African producers progress major projects, the Forum provides a direct platform for ministers to outline priorities and for investors to engage with key decision-makers.
Analysis
Authorities must respond as digital tools used by organized criminals accelerate financial crime—IMF
International Monetary Fund IMF, has said that criminals are outpacing enforcement by adapting ever faster ways to carry out digital fraud. The INF in a Blog post said the Department of Justice in June announced the largest-ever US crypto seizure: $225 million from crypto scams known as pig butchering, in which organized criminals, often across borders, use advanced technology and social engineering such as romance or investment schemes to manipulate victims. This typically involves using AI-generated profiles, encrypted messaging, and obscured blockchain transactions to hide and move stolen funds. It was a big win. Federal agents collaborated across jurisdictions and used blockchain analysis and machine learning to track thousands of wallets used to scam more than 400 victims. Yet it was also a rare victory that underscored how authorities often must play catch-up in a fast-changing digital world. And the scammers are still out there. They pick the best tools for their schemes, from laundering money through crypto and AI-enabled impersonation to producing deepfake content, encrypted apps, and decentralized exchanges. Authorities confronting anonymous, borderless threats are held back by jurisdiction, process, and legacy systems.
Annual illicit crypto activity growth has averaged about 25 percent in recent years and may have surpassed $51 billion last year, according to Chainalysis, a New York–based blockchain analysis firm specializing in helping criminal investigators trace transactions. Bad actors still depend on cash and traditional finance, and money laundering specifically relies on banks, informal money changers, and cash couriers. But the old ways are being reinforced or supercharged by technologies to thwart detection and disruption.
Encrypted messaging apps help cartels coordinate cross-border transactions. Stablecoins and lightly regulated virtual asset platforms can hide bribes and embezzled funds. Cybercriminals use AI-generated identities and bots to deceive banks and evade outdated controls. Tracking proceeds generated by organized crime is nearly impossible for underresourced agencies. AI lowers barriers to entry. Fraudsters with voice-cloning and fake-document generators bypass the verification protocols many banks and regulators still use. Their innovation is growing as compliance systems lag. Governments recognize the threats, but responses are fragmented and uneven—including in regulation of crypto exchanges. And there are delays implementing the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) “travel rule” to better identify those sending and receiving money across borders, which most digital proceeds cross.
Meanwhile, international financial flows are increasingly complicated by instant transfers on decentralized platforms and anonymity-enhancing tools. Most payments still go through multiple intermediaries, often layering cross-border transactions through antiquated correspondent banks that obscure and delay transactions while raising costs. This helps criminals exploit oversight gaps, jurisdictional coordination, and technological capacity to operate across borders, often undetected.
Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments. There’s a parallel narrative. Criminals exploit innovation for secrecy and speed while companies and governments test coordination to reduce vulnerabilities and modernize cross-border infrastructure. At the same time, technological implications remain underexplored with respect to anti–money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT. Singapore’s and Thailand’s linked fast payment systems, for example, enable real-time retail transfers using mobile numbers; Indonesia and Malaysia have connected QR codes for cross-border payments. Such innovations offer efficiency and inclusion yet raise new issues regarding identity verification, transaction monitoring, and regulatory coordination.
In India, the Unified payments interface enables seamless transfers across apps and platforms, highlighting the power of interoperable design. More than 18 billion monthly transactions, many across competing platforms, show how openness and standardization drive scale and inclusion. Digital payments in India grew faster when interoperability improved, especially in fragmented markets where switching was costly, IMF research shows These regional innovations and global initiatives reflect a growing understanding that fighting crime and fostering inclusion are interlinked priorities—especially as criminals speed ahead. The FATF echoed this concern, urging countries to design AML/CFT controls that support inclusion and innovation. Moreover, an FATF June recommendation marks a major advance: Requiring originator and beneficiary information for cross-border wire transfers—including those involving virtual assets—will enhance traceability across the fast-evolving digital financial ecosystem.
Efforts like these are important examples of how technology enables criminal advantage, but technology must also be part of the regulatory response.
Modernizing cross-border payment systems and reducing unintended AML/CFT barriers increasingly means focusing on transparency, interoperability, and risk-based regulation. The IMF’s work on “safe payment corridors” supports this by helping countries build trusted, secure channels for legitimate financial flows without undermining new technology. A pilot with Samoa —where de-risking has disrupted remittances—showed how targeted safeguards and collaboration with regulated providers can preserve access while maintaining financial integrity without disrupting the use of new payment platforms.
Several countries, with IMF guidance, are investing in machine learning to detect anomalies in cross-border financial flows, and others are tightening regulation of virtual asset service providers. Governments are investing in their own capacity to trace crypto transfers, and blockchain analytics firms are often employed to do that. IMF analysis of cross-border flows and the updated FATF rules are mutually reinforcing. If implemented cohesively, they can help digital efficiency coexist with financial integrity. For that to happen, legal frameworks must adapt to enable timely access to digital evidence while preserving due process. Supervisory models need to evolve to oversee both banks and nonbank financial institutions offering cross-border services. Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments—anchored interoperable standards that also respect privacy.
Governments must keep up. That means investing in regulatory technology, such as AI-powered transaction monitoring and blockchain analysis, and giving agencies tools and expertise to detect complex crypto schemes and synthetic identity fraud. Institutions must keep pace with criminals by hiring and retaining expert data scientists and financial crime specialists. Virtual assets must be brought under AML/CFT regulation, public-private partnerships should codevelop tools to spot emerging risks, and global standards from the FATF and the Financial Stability Board must be backed by national investments in effective AML/CFT frameworks.
Consistent and coordinated implementation is important. Fragmented efforts leave openings for criminals. Their growing technological advantage over governments threatens to undermine financial integrity, destabilize economies, weaken already fragile institutions, and erode public trust in systems meant to ensure safety and fairness. As crime rings adopt and adapt emerging technologies to outpace enforcement, the cost is not only fiscal—it is structural and systemic. Governments can’t wait. The criminals won’t.
Analysis
Multilateral development banks reaffirm commitment to climate finance, pledge innovative funding for adaptation
Multilateral development banks have reaffirmed their commitment to climate finance, pledging to scale up innovative funding to boost climate adaptation and resilience. “Financing climate resilience is not a cost, but an investment.” This was the key message from senior MDB officials at the end of a side event organised by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) on the opening day of the 30th United Nations Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil.
The conference runs from 10 to 21 November. During a panel discussion titled “Accelerating large-scale climate change adaptation,” MDB representatives, including the African Development Bank Group, outlined how their institutions are fulfilling Paris Agreement commitments by mobilising substantial and innovative resources for climate adaptation and mitigation. Ilan Goldfajn, President of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, emphasised that “resilience is more than a concern for the future: it is also essential for development today.” He announced that MDBs are tripling their financing for resilience over the next decade, targeting $42 billion by 2030.
“At the Inter-American Development Bank, we are turning preparedness into protection and resilience into opportunity,” Goldfajn added. Tanja Faller, Director of Technical Evaluation and Monitoring at the Council of Europe Development Bank, stressed that climate change “not only creates new threats, but also amplifies existing inequalities. The most socially vulnerable people are the hardest hit and the last to recover. This is how a climate crisis also becomes a social crisis.” Representatives from the Islamic Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank Group, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank, the New Development Bank and IDB Invest (the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group) also shared concrete examples of successful adaptation investments and strategies for mobilising new resources.
Kevin Kariuki, Vice President of the African Development Bank Group in charge of Power, Energy, Climate and Green Growth, presented the Bank’s leadership in advancing climate adaptation and mitigation. “At the African Development Bank, we understand the priorities of our countries: adaptation and mitigation are at the heart of our climate interventions.” He highlighted the creation of the Climate Action Window, a new financing mechanism under the African Development Fund, the Bank Group’s concessional window for low-income countries.
“The African Development Bank is the only multilateral development bank with a portfolio of adaptation projects ready for investment through the Climate Action Window,” Kariuki noted, adding that Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland are among key co-financing partners. Kariuki also showcased the Bank’s YouthADAPT programme, which has invested $5.4 million in 41 youth-led enterprises across 20 African countries, generating more than 10,000 jobs — 61 percent of which are led by women, and mobilising an additional $7 million in private and donor funding.
Representatives from Zambia, Mozambique and Jamaica also shared local perspectives on the financing needs of communities most exposed to climate risk. The panel followed the official opening of COP30, marked by a passionate appeal from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for greater climate investment to prevent a “tragedy for humanity.”
“Without the Paris Agreement, we would see a 4–5°C increase in global temperatures,” Lula warned. “Our call to action is based on three pillars: honouring commitments; accelerating public action with a roadmap enabling humanity to move away from fossil fuels and deforestation; and placing humanity at the heart of the climate action programme: thousands of people are living in poverty and deprivation as a result of climate change. The climate emergency is a crisis of inequality,” he continued.
“We must build a future that is not doomed to tragedy. We must ensure that we live in a world where we can still dream.” Outgoing COP President Mukhtar Babayevn, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology, urged developed nations to fulfil their promises made at the Baku Conference, including commitments to mobilise $300 billion in climate finance. He called for stronger political will and multilateral cooperation, before handing over the COP presidency to Brazilian diplomat André Corrêa do Lago, who now leads the negotiations.
-
News3 days agoNigeria to officially tag Kidnapping as Act of Terrorism as bill passes 2nd reading in Senate
-
News3 days agoNigeria champions African-Arab trade to boost agribusiness, industrial growth
-
News3 days agoFG’s plan to tax digital currencies may push traders to into underground financing—stakeholders
-
Finance1 week agoAfreximbank successfully closed its second Samurai Bond transactions, raising JPY 81.8bn or $527m
-
Economy3 days agoMAN cries out some operators at FTZs abusing system to detriment of local manufacturers
-
News1 week agoFG launches fresh offensive against Trans-border crimes, irregular migration, ECOWAS biometric identity Card
-
News3 days agoEU to support Nigeria’s war against insecurity
-
Uncategorized3 days agoDeveloping Countries’ Debt Outflows Hit 50-Year High During 2022-2024—WBG
