3 Natural Gas Dependence and Electricity Vulnerability in N igeria Abiola Akandeand BabatolaBickersteth Abstract Natural gas is becoming the fastest-growing fossil fuel and one of the sources of electricity generation in Nigeria. This study examines the over-dependence on natural gas for electricity generation in Nigeria between 1999 and 2012. The study employed the gas supply security index (GSSI) derived from four indicators of security of gas supply, with a higher index indicating higher gas supply that might lead to vulnerability in electricity generation. The results revealed that Nigeria was least and most vulnerable in 2000 and 2005 respectively. In 2012, the GSSI was 0.83, making it the second mostvulnerable among the years considered. This was due to the nation’s over-reliance on natural gas for electricity generation as well as its greater exposure to geopolitical risks. Once there is any disruption in natural gas supply, the resultant effect is fluctuations in electricity generation. The study suggests that government should target other possible sources for power generation to mitigate natural gas supply disruption. 3 . 1 In t r od u ct io n Nat ural gas is t he fastest-growing fossil fuel and one of t he sources of power generation in the 21st century (IEA, 2014). W ith advances in industrialization in emerging markets, population growth and electricity access continue to increase 62 Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 63 along with rising living standards. As a result, global electricity usage is projected to rise annually. Electricity demand is rising twice as fast as overall energy use, and is likely to increase by more than two-thirds between 2011 and 2035. In 2012, 42 per cent of primary energy used was converted into electricity (IEA, 2014).2 In most developed and developing countries, electricity is seen as an essential source of energy for many activities and acts as a catalyst for socio-economic development (Nakawiro, Bhattacharyya and Limmeechokchai, 2007; Ayodele, 1999; 2001; IEA, 2002 and Samuel and Lionel, 2013). Electricity plays a multi-faceted role in an economy; it is a productive input that facilitates economic growth process by its direct influence on the productivity of other factors of production. Its availability and quality directly affect the degree to which households can enjoy most of the comfort and quality of living provided by modern society (IEA, 2012). Electricity availability and accessibility is one of the fastest ways to alleviate rural poverty, boost productivity among women and accelerate education and health outcomes; especially among people living in rural and semi-urban centres. Nigeria, being a commercial and economic stakeholder in Africa, requires about 120,000MW of electricity to become an industrialized nation (Adenikinju, 2013).3 Gas has been touted as the cheapest and easiest option for power generation. Moreover, Nigeria is blessed with abundant gas assets within the Niger Delta region where it is found in reservoirs or produced along with oil as associated gas. However, the Nigerian government has established price controls to keep a cap on gas prices, making gas prices artificially low, creating market imperfections and negative externalities. The gas industry has played a significant role in Nigeria’s overall economic performance having a robust agenda on gas usage which places emphasis on the use of gas for power generation. Furthermore, its vision of an aggressive gasbased industrial growth will invariably boost further growth of electricity demand. As at 2011, electricity generation from hydropower represented 20.9 per cent of Nigeria’s total production (Trading Economic, 2014)4 while natural gas accounted for the remaining 79.1 per cent. Electricity production from natural gas has steadily increased over the years. Many power plants that were built before and during the ongoing National Integrated Power Plants (NIPP) project to improve electricity generation in Nigeria are dependent on natural gas as a feedstock.5 As the country adds new capacities to meet the demand for electricity, the additional capacity would require a significant increase in natural gas supply for the power sector. Electricity generation in Nigeria is vastly reliant on natural gas; thus, a high share of natural gas in power generation raises concerns of security of electricity supply and could even make the country vulnerable to high gas dependence in its power generation over time. Studies (Olomola and Adejumo, 2006; Adedipe, 2004; Adeniyi, 2011; Adeniyi et al, 2011; Muhammad et al, 2010; Ogundipe and Ogundipe, 2013) abound in the 64 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation literature which assess oil volatility in Nigeria, but little attention has been given to gas supply security in the country that emphasizes the electricity sector. This paper attempts to address this gap in the literature. The paper aims to assess the impact of natural gas dependence on power generation and how it can make the Nigerian economy vulnerable over time. Furthermore, the paper analyses how gas supply security will affect power generation over time, especially since natural gas is the major feedstock for electricity generation. The paper is divided into six sections. Following this introduction, section 3.2 presents a range of stylized facts on the nation’s power h=generation. Following this in section 3.3 is the literature review; and then section 3.4, which provides the methodology used in the study. Section 3.5 is based on the vulnerability analysis, while section 6 presents the conclusion of the paper. 3 . 2 St ylize d Fact s Nigeria is endowed with abundant gas reserves but the enormous challenge facing the country is how to use this resource for economic growth especially in power generation. The country’s agenda on gas utilization is robust because it places gas at the core of the nation’s power generation endeavour. Thus, its vision of an aggressive gas-based industrial growth will invariably boost further growth of electricity demand. Electricity generation in the country currently stands at4,044MW on account of improved gas supply to generation stations and the rise in the water levels at the various hydro stations (Business D ay, 4 September 2014). The 4,044MW generated as at September 2014, later dropped to 3500MW6 by 16 December 2014 presumably due to shortage in gas supply. The main source of electricity generation in Nigeria has shifted over time. First, it was coal that predominated, followed by oil, then hydro and now gas. The dominance of coal ended in 1997, followed by hydro and natural gas; thus natural gas has remained the pre-eminent source of fuel for electricity generation (OECD/ IEA, 2014).7 Indeed, natural gas has been promoted as “a noble fuel” for enhancing electricity generation in the country because it is reliable, available in abundance, easy to manage, flexible, and more environment-friendly. This has fostered the greater involvement of government and the oil companies in the development of the gas market in the country. Consequently, a lot of gas projects were developed to exploit the country’s enormous gas reserves and reduce the large quantum that is flared. Many gas-to-power plants were built and the ongoing National Integrated Power Projects (NIPP) were inaugurated to improve electricity generation in Nigeria using gas as feedstock.8 Therefore, electricity production from natural gas has increased steadily over the years, rising from about 5.94 per cent in 1971 to 63.3 per cent in 2011 (CIA, 2014). Nevertheless, there seems to be a real challenge with supplying gas to the Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 65 power plants. For example, gas pipelines and infrastructure are being sabotaged and vandalized continually just as low gas prices and technical fault s furt her constrain the power plants. Also, there are uncertainties and increasing regulation around gas prices. The consequence is a significant drop in electricity generation as shown in the power sector polls that NOI Polls conducted in November 2014. The survey shows that 63 per cent of Nigerians received less than five hours of continuous power supply daily, while the majority (72 per cent) spent a lot more on alternative energy sources ( Vanguard, 24 July 2013; 28 January 2014).9 Figures 3.1and 3.2 complement each other in reporting the sources of fuel used to generate electricity in the country. It also reveals the transitional trend over t he years. Figure 3.2 shows that coal and hydro were the respective dominant sources in the 1970s and 1980s. Then came the era of oil which ended in 1997, thereby paving the way for natural gas to dominate the scene. Thus, coal, oil, gas and hydro sources accounted for 0.1per cent, 13.7per cent, 53.7 per cent and 32.5 per cent, respectively, of power generation in 1990. By 1993, coal wasno longer used for electricity generation in the country while the share of oil and gas fell to 13.5 per cent and 48.1 per cent, respectively. This automatically raised the share of hydro source of energy to 38.4 per centin the same year. Another dramatic t urn was witnessed in 1997when oil accounted for 0 per cent of power generation. This reduced the major sources of electricity generation from four to two, namely, gas and hydro, thus exerting pressure on these remaining two sources which accounted for 80.3 per cent and 19.7per cent, respectively, in 2012 (EIA, 2014). Figure 3.1. Nigeria Generation Electricity Fuel Sources (1970-2012). Source: OECD/IEA, 2014. 66 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation Natural gas is traditionally used mostly for cooking and heating in the residential and commercial sectors. In the industrial sector, fertilizer plants use natural gas as raw material, just as the power sector uses it for electricity generation. The electricity sector is among the key users of natural gas, accounting for 53 per cent and 80 per cent of natural gas consumption in 1990 and 2012, respectively (IEA, 2014). This huge share of the electricity sector is attributed to government policies which gave it priority in gas allocation in Nigeria (Ige, 2014). It was observed that the electricity sector has shown faster growth in gas demand during the post electricity reforms period and the same has been attributed to the failure of electricity markets. The power sector is by far the largest user of natural gas with around 40 per cent of global gas demand as the fuel contributes to meeting incremental power demand and produces less CO2 than coal. Industrial sector uses roughly 24 per cent of total gas consumption and the residential/commercial sector uses 22 per cent. Other uses include energy industry consumption which accounts for about 10 per cent (IEA, 2014). Figure 3.2. Share of Fuel Sources for Electricity Generation in Nigeria (1990-2012) Source: IEA, 2014 As in most developed countries, natural gas is seen as the fastest global commodity for generating electricity owing to its attributes of environmental friendliness, high efficiency and least cost (Cabalu and Manhutu, 2009; BP, 2014). This has made other sources of generation highly expensive compared to natural gas. Natural gas helps to drive the electricity sector in Nigeria; hence, the nation has built her electricity base on a mono-fuel supply mix with the commodity resident in the most fragile and volatile zone – the Niger Delta region (this is prior to the advent of Boko Haram in Nigeria). The zone is also characterized by incessant pipeline Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 67 vandalism which has resulted in fluctuations in electricity supply in Nigeria, t hus raising concerns for gas supply security. Nigeria has failed to maintain a balanced electricity mix as compared to other gas exporting countries. Figure 3.3 reveals the share of electricity mix in the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF). It reveals t hat Russia has the most balanced electricity mix, followed by Iran. Both Nigeria and Egypt have the most imbalanced electricity mix and both have a disproportionate dependence on natural gas for their electricity supply (Adegun, 2014). Figure 3.3. Electricity Mix of the Selected Natural Gas Exporting Countries Source: Adegun (2014) W ikipedia (list of power plant, 2014) 3 . 3 Lit er at u r e Review Over the past decade, much of the work done on energy security has focused on oil and has been carried out mainly in developed countries. However, of the few ones done in Nigeria, most used descriptive analysis while others placed emphasis on energy as a whole. The gap t hus created by this analytical method and the area of emphasis has necessitated this study. Bhattacharyya et al (2008) examined t he electricity capacity expansion in Thailand, an analysis of gas dependence and fuel import reliance. They adopted t he traditional electricity capacity planning using theW ien Automatic System Planning version IV. They found t hat high gas dependence in power generation makes t he Thai economy vulnerable over t ime. Cabalu (2009) similarly examined the indicators of security of natural gas supply in Asia (Japan, Korea, China, India, Singapore and Thailand). He found that both India and China are moderately less vulnerable to gas supply disruptions because they produced gas domestically as against other countries t hat relied on 68 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation imported gas for energy generation. Also, the two countries have a balanced energy mix such that the share of natural gas as fuel source is relatively small compared to other countries. Sonya (2012) examined gas supply security for selected European countries (UK, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, France, Italy and Greece). The research adopted gas supply security indicators such as gas intensity, net gas imports dependency and domestic production to consumption and geopolitical risks for all the countries in 2000 and 2010. Also, it explored how natural gas has evolved for the selected countries over the years. The research found that UK had the highest level of gas supply security in 2000 while the pendulum swung to Netherlands by 2010. During the period of study, France, Italy and Greece had improved in terms of gas supply security while Ireland remained highly vulnerable and most susceptible among all the countries under study. Cabalu and Alfonso (2013) examined the energy security in six Asian countries10 using a gas supply security index that cut across 1996 to 2009. They found out that both China and India are the least vulnerable to natural gas security. This can be attributed to the fact that both countries produced natural gas domestically and it accounted for a minor share of their energy mix as compared to other countries. The over-reliance and huge exposure of Thailand electricity sector to natural gas made the country the most vulnerable with greater exposure to geopolitical risks in the country. Borok et al (2013) examined energy security in Nigeria with emphasis on oil. They argued that oil and gas are vital to the Nigerian economy because they accounted for about 80 per cent of government revenue, 90 per cent of exports and 90 per cent foreign exchange earnings. They evaluated the challenges facing the oil and gas sector in terms of its availability, accessibility and utilization using a descriptive analysis. In similar view, Agbaeze et al (2014) explored Nigeria’s dependency on oil. They adopted descriptive analysis and argued that Nigeria’s economy is highly volatile to international oil price shocks because oil constitutes the bulk of Nigeria’s oil export, revenue and foreign earnings. Biresselioglu et al (2014) investigated the natural gas supply security in 23 importing countries11 from different regions of the world. They employed the principal component analysis (PCA) to evaluate the gas supply security index. They focused more on two supply securities for all the selected countries on yearly basis between 2001 and 2013. They found that the greatest consumers of gas by volume and the greatest dependence on imports are not certainly the most exposed to supply security shocks. The results reveal that the most natural gas importdependent countries are also the secure countries, which are Spain, France, Belgium, Italy and UK, while Brazil, Mexico and the US are the less secure and have the highest levels of import dependence by a single supplier of natural gas. Furthermore, Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 69 Hungary, Slovakia, UAE, Iran and Finland are the least secure countries. They ascertained that for the period under study, Spain and France remained the most secure countries and concluded that diversification has a great impact on natural gas supply security. Kamsamrong et al (2014) examined an assessment of energy security in Thailand’s power generation. They employed the ESSI and found that coal power plants produced the highest emission which raised the unit cost of electricity. We have found from the reviewed literature that most studies were done in developed countries with scanty works in developing countries, and most especially in Nigeria. The few works done adopted descriptive analysis, to the best of our knowledge. The over-exposure of the electricity sector to natural gas has raised concerns and necessitated this study. 3.4 M e t h o d o lo gy The literature on oil shocks in the 1970s and 1980s and the recent dwindling in oil prices have revealed how vulnerable the world’s economy could be to supply disruptions and oil price fluctuations. The Nigerian electricity sector is vulnerable to disruptions caused by insufficient gas supply, vandalism, technical faults and increased insecurity in the Niger Delta by limiting the continuous supply of natural gas to the electricity sector. This study employs the gas supply security indicators (GSSI) as postulated by Cabalu (2009) and has been widely used by different authors (Bhattacharyya et al, 2008; Sonya, 2013). GSSI provides combined quantitative indicators which are easy to compute, making it a preferred method. It also captures the main components of gas supply security and takes into consideration the interactions and interdependence among the various indicators. Each of the indicators allows for aggregation to create a composite indicator (GSSI). It is derived as the root mean square of the scaled values of four indicators of security of gas supply (Gnansounou, 2008). These indicators are gas intensity (G1 ), gas dependency (G2 ), ratio of domestic gas production to consumption (G3) and geopolitical risk (G4 ). The GSSI helps to capture the sensitivity of the Nigerian electricity sector to development in the international and domestic gas market, with a higher index indicating higher gas supply insecurity and vulnerability of the electricity sector in Nigeria. For this purpose, the indicators were modified, as against the literature, to address the objectives of this study. The G1measured the ratio of domestic gas consumed (GC) in an economy to gross domestic product (GDP). It implies the amount of natural gas required to produce a dollar’s worth of goods and services. Also, it explains how the gas consumed locally is used efficiently in producing the economy’s output. The gas intensity (G1) is computed as: 70 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation G1  GC GDP (1) The gas intensity of the country is expressed as the ratio of total natural gas consumed to GDP in Nigeria. It is expressed as the ratio of natural gas to produce electricity to GDP. The Nigerian GDP is measured in US dollar and sourced from IEA. The relative indicator for Nigeria associated with G1 (N1) is estimated as: 1t  G1t  Min(G1 ) Max(G1 )  Min(G1 ) (2) The relative indicator, 1t results in projection of G1t that lies between 0 and 1. The low value of 1t implies that at time (t) Nigeria is less vulnerable or less insecure to supply shocks compared to other years in the study. Secondly, the G2 is expressed as the ratio of electricity generated from natural gas (GTP) to total electricity produced (TEP) in the economy. This is one of the modifications that makes this work different from other conventional methods. This is used to capture the degree of electricity generation dependency on natural gas consumption. G21 GTP TEP (3) Where GTP is the natural gas to power at time t and TEP is the total electricity generated in Nigeria at time t, which is expressed as a percentage. Similarly, the relative indicator for various time t associated with G2 ((N2)) is computed as:  21 G21  Min(G2 ) Max(G2 )  Min(G2 ) (4) The modified indicator lies between 0 and 1 such that the values consider both extremes. The values 0 and 1 are assigned to express the least and most vulnerable of the selected security of supply indicators, respectively, for Nigeria for the various years under study. Thirdly, we consider G3, which measured the ratio of domestic gas production to total domestic gas consumption. Cabalu (2009) argued that domestic gas production is one of the best yardsticks of a country’s capacity to survive with short-term supply disruption than domestic reserves, as production excludes gas from stranded reserves which cannot be tapped immediately. It is expressed as: Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria G31 GP GC 71 (5) W here GP is the domestic natural gas production in Nigeria over the selected t ime frame and GC is the total natural gas consumed (total final consumption). The computation of G3 is quite different from other previous indicators since it is negatively related to gas supply vulnerability or security. To accommodate t his negative relationship, t is adjusted to ensure t hat it is consistent with GSSI design. Thus, high G3 and low (N3) is preferable. Therelativeindicator for time ( t ) associated with G3 (N3) is computed as: 31 Max(G3 )  G31 Max(G3 )  Min(G3 ) ( 6) Lastly, weconsidered the geopolitical risk (G4) using the adjusted Shannon W einer Newman Index which accounts for the political stability of the supply source of natural gas in Nigeria. The index is modified as follows: ( 7) G41  ( mi Inmi ) W here mi represents the political stability in natural gas producing areas (Niger Delta) in Nigeria. The number of cases of vandalism on natural gas pipelines was used as a proxy to capture this variable. A low G4t denotes higher exposure to security supply risk. It is relatively related to security of natural gas supply for the period under study. The relative index for the same period is calculated as:  41 Max(G4 )  G41 Max(G4 )  Min(G4 ) (8) After all the four indices were derived, we then computed the gas supply security index (GSSI) for the selected years. TheGSSI for the selected years can be calculated as the root mean square of the four relative indicators discussed above. The GSSI ranges lies between 0 and 1 in which zero and one means the highest and lowest relative level of gas supply security, respectively. The GSSI is computed as: GSSI   2 1     22   32   22 / 4 ( 9) 3 . 5 Dat a An alysis an d In t er pr et at ion The methodology used here was adopted for Nigeria based on data derived for t he years 1999, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2012. Data on GC, GTP, TEP, GP and GDP were obtained from IEA Energy Balance of Nigeria (IEA, 2013). The GDP is quoted in US dollars. The number of cases of pipeline vandalism was used as a proxy for 72 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation political stability factor in the Niger Delta where natural gas is produced in Nigeria. The individual gas security indicators are shown in Table 3.1. It reveals the areas of strength and weakness of the indicators and how they tend to influence the relative indicators over time. Thereafter, we present Table 3.2 which shows the results of the analysis of relative indicators for gas supply security between 1999 and 2012 for Nigeria. Table 3.1. Individual Gas Supply Security Indicators for Nigeria Between 1999 and 2012 1999 2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 G1(m3/$) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G2 (%) 61.79 61.78 67.00 72.90 75.60 80.29 G3 6.65 10.50 7.03 12.70 21.94 10.86 G4 0.64 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.93 0.98 Source: Author’s computation. From Table 3.1, natural gas intensity, G1, was zero for all the years considered which was measured in cubic metres per unit of GDP (in $US). The share of natural gas in electricity generation over time, G2, measured in percentages, shows an upward movement over the years considered in the study. This depicts a huge reliance on natural gas for electricity generation. In 1999, the contribution of natural gas to electricity generation accounted for about 62 per cent, and kept increasing over time. G3 represents the ratio of natural gas production to natural gas consumption in Nigeria. G3 was low in 1999 and rose to about 10.86 in 2012, owing to gas monetization and gas-to-power initiatives. The geopolitical risk, G4, reflected the level of vandalism in areas where natural gas is found. The individual gas supply security indicators were used to compute the relative indicators between 1999 and 2012 for Nigeria. Table 3.2. Relative Indicators for 1999-2012 1999 2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 Average N1 0.32 0.38 1.00 0.49 0.00 0.56 0.46 Source: Author’s computations N2 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.60 0.75 1.00 0.44 N3 1.00 0.75 0.98 0.60 0.00 0.72 0.68 N4 0.64 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.93 0.98 0.75 Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 73 Note: N1 is the relative indicator or scaled value for G1 (gas intensity); N2 is the relative indicator or scaled value for G2 (gas dependency on electricity generation); N3 is the relative indicator or scaled value for G3 (ratio of domestic gas production to total domestic gas consumption); N4 is the relative indicator or scaled value for G4 (geopolitical risk). This paper estimated the GSSI for Nigeria between 1999 and 2012. The final values of the GSSI for the six years that natural gas was utilized with a drastic reduction in gas flaring in Nigeria is shown in Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4. Comparison of GSSI for the Selected Years in Nigeria 1999-2012 Source: Author’s computations, 2015. From Figure 3.4, year 2000 is revealed to be the least vulnerable in the event of a natural gas supply disruption. It shows that GSSI was the lowest at 0.42, ranking it first among other years in the study. The reason for this might be attributed to weak N2 and N3 where the strength lies in N1 and N4. This implies that the gas dependency for electricity generation and geopolitical risk for the concerned years was weak or low as against other years in the study, and hence not reliant on imports. With hydro and natural gas being the main sources of energy for power generation in Nigeria, gas intensity of the economy’s GDP was low. However, in 2000, Nigeria’s natural gas consumption rose faster than any other fuel due to the gas monetization initiatives of the Nigerian Gas Master Plan and other gas-to-power strategies that had positioned initially flared gas towards electricity generation. In 1999, the GSSI was 0.62, ranking it the third among the selected years under study. The gas intensity was low because a large volume of natural gas was flared and it was reflected by N1. Also its share of total domestic consumption is high relative to total domestic production as captured by N3. The high indicator witnessed in N3 can be attributed to the gas monetization policy that led to utilization through 74 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation LNG exports to Asia and other parts of Europe. However, the gas intensity was low and geopolitical risk was high in the region as captured by N1 and N4 respectively. The GSSI rose to 0.87 in 2005 which was the highest recorded under the period of study and later declined to 0.68 and 0.59 in 2008 and 2010, respectively. The significant values recorded can be attributed to gas intensity (N1), gas supply security (N3) and geopolitical risk (N4) respectively. The gas intensity and geopolitical risk were relatively high due to high prices of natural gas at the international market and pipeline vandalism activities in the region where gas is found, respectively; hence an increase in natural gas dependency for electricity generation. This implies that the share of natural gas in electricity generations is weak and low and began to increase till 2012. There was a significant improvement in GSSI for year 2008 and 2010 that accounted for 0.68 and 0.59, respectively. For both years, gas supply security (N3) and geopolitical risk (N4) improved, which made Nigeria less vulnerable as a whole but electricity generation was highly vulnerable due to high dependency on natural gas. This was obvious in the results as N2 has witnessed an upward trend since 2005. The world financial meltdown led to a low demand for gas at the international market which resulted in low gas intensity in 2000 and raised its domestic usage towards achieving the gas-to-power strategy for Nigeria. In 2012, the GSSI deteriorated to 0.85 compared to 0.59 in 2010, which made Nigerian electricity generation highly vulnerable to natural gas dependency in the event of natural gas supply disruption. This ranked fifth among other years in the study and the strength lies in all the four indicators of GSSI. This has raised natural gas as the main source of fuel for power generation in Nigeria so as to drive the nation’s economy. However, the following deduction was arrived at in the course of this study: Gas monetization led to the utilization of natural gas and reduction in gas flaring in Nigeria over time. In addition, natural gas has become a viable and dominant fuel source for electricity generation in Nigeria. Therefore, natural gas supply disruption and over dependency on natural gas will further make the Nigerian electricity sector more vulnerable. 3 . 6 Con clu sion an d Recom m en dat ion There were fluctuations in GSSI over the years in which the two extremes are 0.46 and 0.88 in 2000 and 2005, respectively, compared to the overall average of 0.76. In 2012, all the indicators were high which led to high GSSI that accounted for about 0.84. The overall average GSSI was 0.76 with strength in gas supply security (N3) and geopolitical risk (N4) which accounted for 0.68 and 0.75, respectively. Therefore, the electricity sector and the export market i.e., the LNG exports, are the key demand drivers for natural gas in Nigeria. With the increase in demand and supply for Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 75 natural gas and multiple players entering the market and dwindling crude oil prices, the Nigerian government must be proactive in ensuring sustainability, availability, security and diversification of the electricity-mix away from natural gas which currently accounts for a bulk of the electricity generation and domestic gas consumption in the country. The following recommendations were made to promote the need to diversify electricity mix in Nigeria. Firstly, there is need to diversify the Nigerian electricity fuel source mix from natural gas and embrace other sources such as renewables. Secondly, the government should implement policies to address pipeline vandalism in the country particularly in the areas where natural gas is found. Thirdly, the government should improve and emulate best practices for all the component indicators. En d n o t e s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Abiola is a doctoral research student at Centre for Petroleum Economics and Law (CPEEL), University of Ibadan. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/World-EnergyNeeds-and-Nuclear-Power/ Cited from Punch newspaper report entitled “Nigeria needs 120,000MW of electricity for industrialization”, dated Thursday, 18 April, 2013, p. 33. Cited from article written by Yinka Abraham titled “renewable energy options for embedded generation“ of the BusinessDay newspaper dated 26 August, 2014 filed under power West Africa Energy. How to develop Nigeria Gas Market, TheGuardian newspaper dated Friday, 13 Dec., 1996. See http://www.today.ng/news/power-supply-drops-to-3500mw-due-to-gaschallenges/ Electricity generation by fuel for Nigeria, www.iea.org/statistics How to develop Nigeria Gas Market, TheGuardian newspaper dated Friday, 13 Dec., 1996. See http://www.punchng.com/business/business-economy/power-supply-hasntimproved-with-privatisation-survey/ Japan, Korea, China, India, Singapore and Thailand. US, Mexico, Austria, Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, UK. Hungary, Slovakia, UAE, Iran, Finland, Brazil, Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Turkey, Singapore and Thailand. Re fe r e n ces Adedipe, B. 2004. The impact of oil on Nigeria’s economic policy formulation. MaximizingProPoor Growth: Regenerating theSocio-economicDatabase.organized by Overseas Development Institute in collaboration with the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, 16th-17th June. Adeniyi, O.A. 2011. Oil price shocks and exchange rate dynamics in oil exporting countries: what is the Nigerian experience? A paper presented at the Fourth NAEE/IAEE 76 FutureEnergy Policy Options: Assessment, Formulation and I mplementation International Conference. Adeniyi, O., Omisakan, O., Yaqub, J. and Oyinlola, A. 2012. Oil Price-Exchange Rate Nexus in Nigeria:Further Evidencefrom an Oil ExportingCountry. Adeoye, B. W. and Atanda, A.A. (date?) Exchange rate Volatility in Nigeria consistency, Persistency and Severity Analyses, CBN Journal of Applied Statistics Vol.2 No.2. Agbaeze, E.K et al.2014. Resolving Nigeria’s dependency on oil- the derivation model, Journal of African Studies and Development . Vol. 7(1), pp.1-14, January 2015. Ayodele, A. S. 1999. Illegitimate energy market activities in the Nigerian energy industry: The case of electricity and petroleum products. DPC Working Paper . 2, 63-81. Ayodele, A. S. 2001. Improving and sustaining power (electricity) supply for socio-economic development in Nigeria. Retrieved May 12, 2009 from www.cenbank.org/out/annual/ ACZRU/ 2001. British Petroleum. 2009.BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June 2005 (http://www.bp.com/ statisticalreview). British Petroleum. 2010. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June. Retrieved from http:/ /www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_ publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/ 2010_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2010.pdf) British Petroleum. 2011. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June. Retrieved from http:// www.bp.com/statisticalreview Cabalu, H., 2009. Indicators of security of natural gas supply in Asia. Energy Policy. 38 (1) pp. 218-225. Cabalu, H. and Manhutu, C. 2009. Vulnerability of natural gas supply in the Asian gas market. Economic Analysisand Policy,Vol. 39, No. 2. Ige.2013. Lecture note on natural gas delivered at Centre for Petroleum, Economics and Law, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. International Energy Agency.2014.K ey World Energy Statistics. OECD/IEA,http://www.iea.org/ publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.pdf. International Energy Agency.2012.K ey World Energy Statistics. OECD/IEA,http://www.iea.org/ publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2012.pdf. International Energy Agency. 2002. K ey World Energy Statistics.OECD/IEA,http://www.iea.org/ publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf. Komiyama, R., Zhidong, L. and Ito, K. 2005. World energy outlook in 2020 focusing on China’s energy impacts on the world and Northeast Asia. International Journal of Global Energy Issues. 24(3-4), 183-210. Muhammad, Z., Suleiman, H. and Kouhy, R. 2010. Exploring oil price-exchange rate nexus for Nigeria. FIW WorkingPaper . No71. Nakawiro, T. and Bhattacharyya,S.C.2007. High gas dependence for power generation in Thailand.Energy Policy. 35 (2009) 3335-3346.Centre for Energy Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP). University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK. Nakawiro, T., Bhattacharyya, C. and Limmeechokchai, B. 2008. Expanding electricity capacity in Thailand to meet the twin challenges of supply security and environmental protection. Energy Policy. Vol. 36, Issue 6,June, pp. 2265-2278. Natural GasD ependence and Electricity Vulnerability in Nigeria 77 Ogundipe A.A and Ogundipe O.M. 2013. Oil price and exchange rate volatility in Nigeria. MPRA WorkingPaper. Olomola, P.A. and Adejumo A.V. 2006. Oil price shocks and macroeconomic activities in Nigeria. International Research Journal of Financeand Economics. 3, 28-34. Samuel, U.P. and Lionel, E. 2013. The dynamic analysis of electricity supply and economic development: Lessons from Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Society. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1-11. Sonya. 2012. GasSupply Security: How HasIt Evolved and What Can BeLearnt?A Caseof Selected European Countries.Published in Centrefor Energy Petroleum, Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP), Annual Review, University of Dundee, UK-CAR Volume 16 (2013).