Speaking to Vanguard in an exclusive chat, Belema Paulson Cookey, of the Department of petroleum and Gas Engineering, University of port-Harcourt, stated that “the questions we ought to ask is, will the benefits outweigh the cost? Or Will the cost outweigh the benefit, if it is removed or in place?
He explained that subsidy removal is seen as an opportunity to accelerate infrastructural and industrial development, a sound economic strategic policy with higher economic priority.
According to him, “The fact that you sell crude oil and import petroleum products does not mean that the cost of refined product is different from what you earn from crude oil and what you get from refined products.
“They are different, money earned from sales of crude was available for competing economic choices, using it for fuel subsidy deprives you from infrastructure that is an economic cost.” “Subsidies to fuel energy, transportation, housing, agriculture, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that preservation or expansion of these industries, even at a cost to the general public, is in the public interest.”
