Emmanuel Duah, Executive Director of Radiant Media and Intelligence Hub, has proposed the establishment of a National Petroleum Reserve Buffer (NPRB) to protect Ghanaian consumers from sharp increases in fuel prices triggered by global crude oil price shocks and supply disruptions.

According to Emmanuel Duah, the proposed reserve would provide Ghana with a dedicated and auditable stock of refined petroleum products that could be released into the domestic market when international crude prices surge or major external disruptions threaten fuel supply.

In an energy security proposal, Mr Duah said Ghana may not be able to control international developments such as conflicts, attacks on oil infrastructure or disruptions along major shipping routes, but the country can strengthen its ability to absorb the resulting economic shock.

He described the situation as one where “the crisis is external, but the pain is local.”

Emmanuel Duah’s proposal comes against the backdrop of significant volatility on the international crude oil market.

The proposal notes that Brent crude had risen to $108.77 per barrel, a four-month high, with physical crude cargoes in Europe trading above $130 per barrel.

It cited North Sea Forties crude trading at about $136.75 per barrel, approaching the previous high of $147.37.

Mr Duah attributed the international price pressure to external developments, including the escalating US-Iran conflict, attacks affecting oil infrastructure, disruptions to oil production in Libya and threats to shipping through the Red Sea.

According to Emmanuel Duah, sustained increases in global crude prices could quickly translate into higher petroleum prices in Ghana.

He warned that the resulting pressure could affect pump prices, the Ghanaian cedi, transport fares and inflation.

“Ghana cannot control the Strait of Hormuz, but Ghana can control its buffer,” Mr Duah stated in the proposal.

He therefore wants Ghana to establish a strategic stock that can be deployed during periods of extreme international price volatility.

Under the proposal, the National Petroleum Reserve Buffer would be a sovereign strategic stock held strictly for national energy security and consumer protection.

Mr Duah stressed that the reserve should not be treated as additional stock for BOST’s normal commercial trading operations.

Instead, the petroleum products would be held specifically for emergency market intervention.

The proposal recommends maintaining:

• 45 days of petrol consumption
• 45 days of diesel consumption
• 30 days of LPG consumption

The stocks would be distributed across BOST’s six depots at Accra Plains, Kumasi, Buipe, Bolgatanga, Maame Water and Takoradi.

The proposal puts the combined storage capacity of the facilities at 760,000 cubic metres or more.

BOST would remain responsible for custody, storage and maintenance of the strategic stock but would not be allowed to trade the reserve commercially.

Emmanuel Duah is proposing the creation of a National Petroleum Reserve Committee (NPRC) under the proposed Modern NPA Act, 2026.

The committee would be chaired by the Minister for Energy and Green Transition, while the Chief Executive of BOST Energies would serve as Vice-Chair.

Other proposed members include representatives from:

• National Petroleum Authority
• Bank of Ghana
• National Security
• Ministry of Finance
• Energy Commission
• Chamber of Oil Marketing Companies
• Consumer Protection Agency

The NPA Chief Executive would serve as secretary and regulator, while BOST would act as the technical operator and custodian.

Mr Duah describes the proposed arrangement as “minister-led but not minister-controlled.”

To prevent political abuse or unilateral decisions, Emmanuel Duah proposes that any decision to release reserve stocks should require a two-thirds majority of the National Petroleum Reserve Committee.

He also proposes that every release decision be published in the Ghana Gazette within 24 hours, including the volume released and the anticipated price impact.

According to Mr Duah, the arrangement would provide greater transparency and accountability while limiting the possibility of arbitrary interventions.

Emmanuel Duah’s proposal calls for a financing structure that would not impose a new tax or levy on consumers.

The proposed funding model is:

• 30% from a ring-fenced portion of BOST’s existing margin
• 40% from a windfall mechanism
• 20% from the ESLA Stabilisation portion
• 10% from private-sector participation by members of the Chamber of Bulk Oil Distributors

Under the proposed windfall mechanism, when BOST’s annual trading profit exceeds GH¢500 million, 10% of the amount would be directed towards acquiring strategic petroleum stocks.

Mr Duah cited BOST’s reported GH¢683.96 million profit in 2025 as an indication of the potential financing base.

The proposal also calls for clearly defined conditions for releasing petroleum products from the reserve.

The first proposed trigger would be activated when the 30-day average Brent crude price exceeds $100 per barrel.

The second would apply when Ghana’s ex-pump petrol price crosses GH¢15.50 per litre.

The third would be triggered when the NPA declares a supply disruption resulting from an external shock, such as a major interruption in supplies or a disruption along a key international shipping route.

When the triggers are met, BOST would release the buffer stock at a subsidised ex-depot price.

The difference between the market price and the subsidised price would be absorbed by the proposed Buffer Fund, rather than by oil marketing companies.

Mr Duah argues that this structure would allow the price relief to reach consumers directly.

Emmanuel Duah also proposes that Ghana should restock the reserve once international crude prices ease.

Under his proposal, when Brent crude remains below $85 per barrel for 30 consecutive days, the reserve would begin to be replenished.

The mechanism is intended to allow Ghana to build up stocks during relatively favourable market conditions and deploy them during periods of severe price pressure.

A major element of Mr Duah’s proposal is the need to maintain BOST’s financial strength and commercial independence.

He argues that BOST’s commercial operations should remain separate from the strategic reserve so that the company can continue generating profits that could contribute to national energy security.

He cited BOST’s reported GH¢683.96 million profit in 2025 and GH¢34.2 million dividend payment to the government as evidence of the company’s ability to generate revenue.

Under the proposed framework, BOST would be the custodian and technical operator, NPA would regulate the reserve, the Energy Minister-led committee would make strategic release decisions, and Parliament would provide oversight.

Emmanuel Duah’s proposal also points to strategic petroleum reserves maintained or planned by other countries.

It cites the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve, India’s Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited (ISPRL) and Kenya’s plans for a strategic reserve.

Mr Duah believes Ghana could establish itself as a regional leader in energy security by maintaining a 60-day petroleum buffer.

According to the proposal, a strategic reserve could help reduce the immediate impact of major increases in international crude prices.

Mr Duah estimates that if crude prices rise from approximately $80 to $130 per barrel, a reserve release could potentially reduce the increase in Ghanaian pump prices by between GH¢2 and GH¢3 per litre for 45 to 60 days.

He argues that such intervention could help cushion consumers, transport operators and businesses while limiting the impact of fuel-price increases on the cost of transporting food and other goods.

The proposal also suggests that the reserve could help prevent panic buying and shortages during major supply disruptions.

Mr Duah further argues that reducing the immediate transmission of global oil-price shocks into the domestic economy could give the Bank of Ghana additional room to manage pressure on the cedi.

Emmanuel Duah is therefore calling for the proposed Modern NPA Act, 2026 to provide a legal framework for establishing the National Petroleum Reserve Buffer.

Under his proposed arrangement, the Energy Minister-led committee would make strategic decisions, BOST would operate and safeguard the reserve, NPA would regulate it, and Parliament would provide oversight.

Mr Duah says the system would give Ghana a structured mechanism for responding to international oil-price shocks rather than allowing every external increase to be transmitted immediately to local consumers.

His proposal is based on the view that while Ghana cannot control international conflicts or disruptions to major oil supply routes, it can strengthen its domestic capacity to absorb their economic effects.

As Mr Duah puts it: “Ghana cannot stop missiles in Hormuz, but Ghana can stop the full missile hitting the Ghanaian consumer.”

Ed Sheeran’s North American Loop Tour has lost all of its remaining scheduled supporting acts after rapper Macklemore was removed from the tour following pro-Palestinian comments he made during performances in New Jersey.

The departures involve Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe and Irish folk group Beoga, with the artists citing concerns about artistic expression and solidarity with Macklemore.

Ed Sheeran Tickets – Concert Tour Dates – AXS AU

Macklemore removed from remaining dates

Macklemore was scheduled to appear on several of Sheeran’s remaining US stadium dates. During Sheeran’s September shows at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium, he made comments supporting Palestinians, including a call to “Free Palestine”, while performing his protest song Hind’s Hall.

The tour promoter, Messina Touring Group, subsequently announced that Macklemore would not perform the remaining support dates.

The promoter said venues on upcoming dates had indicated they would not host concerts with Macklemore on the bill, creating the possibility that shows could be cancelled.

New Macklemore Single ‘Growing Up (Sloane’s Song)’ Entrenches Old Camps

Sheeran says the decision was not his

Sheeran subsequently addressed the controversy, saying that removing Macklemore was the promoter’s decision rather than his own.

He said venues had communicated that they would withdraw their shows if Macklemore remained on the bill and that he had spoken with venues and other parties in an attempt to find a solution.

Sheeran also said he did not want to turn his concerts into a public political debate and emphasized his concern for fans, touring staff and musicians whose livelihoods depend on the shows.

First look at Ed Sheeran’s new Loop Tour stage in Auckland

Four supporting acts leave

Following Macklemore’s removal, the remaining support artists announced their departures.

Finneas said artists should not be silenced when speaking about people they believe are being oppressed. Beoga, meanwhile, had been performing alongside Sheeran during his shows.

Dispute involving Robert Kraft

Macklemore has said that billionaire businessman Robert Kraft, whose Kraft Group owns Gillette Stadium in Massachusetts, played a role in efforts to prevent him from appearing at some of the remaining shows.

Kraft has defended his opposition to Macklemore’s continued participation, citing what he described as the rapper’s broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. Those characterizations are disputed, and Macklemore has framed his comments as criticism of Israeli government policies and support for Palestinians rather than hostility toward Jewish people.

The promoter’s public explanation has focused on the positions taken by venues and the potential effect on the wider tour rather than attributing the decision solely to one venue owner.

Macklemore pledges tour earnings to Palestinian aid

The controversy has continued beyond the tour itself. Macklemore has said he intends to donate approximately $1 million in net earnings from his time on the Loop Tour to organizations providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians.

He has also challenged Kraft to match the donation.

What happens to Sheeran’s tour?

The Loop Tour is scheduled to continue despite the departures. The immediate change is that Sheeran no longer has the group of support acts originally planned for the remaining dates.

The episode has also opened a broader debate within the music industry over the boundaries between concert entertainment, political expression and the commercial interests of artists, promoters and stadium operators.

The facts surrounding the dispute are relatively clear — Macklemore was removed, the other supporting acts subsequently withdrew, and Sheeran says the removal was made by the promoter. The competing explanations for why the decision was ultimately made remain contested.

Independent assessment

The incident illustrates how political statements made from a major concert stage can have consequences extending beyond an individual performer. It also raises questions about who ultimately controls the content of large commercial tours when artists, promoters and venue operators hold different positions.

The departures by the other artists make the dispute unusual because the consequences have extended across almost the entire remaining support lineup, rather than being limited to Macklemore’s own performances.

Sources: Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, ITV News, Variety and Al Jazeera.

Snapchat says it is prepared to consider introducing daily limits on how long teenagers can use the platform, as pressure grows on social-media companies to adopt stronger safeguards for young users.

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel told the BBC that a default time limit could represent an industry-wide step toward establishing common standards for protecting teenagers. However, he did not give a timetable for when Snapchat might introduce such a measure.

Was Eltern über Snapchat wissen müssen — Medienzeit

Spiegel signals openness to limits

Asked about the possibility of a default time restriction for teenagers, Spiegel said it was an example of a measure Snap would be “willing to implement.”

He also said the company had been discussing the issue internally but had no further details to announce at this stage.

“We want to figure out how we can be part of the solution,” Spiegel said, according to the BBC report.

The comments do not amount to a formal announcement of a new Snapchat policy. They instead indicate that the company is considering whether and how a daily usage ceiling could work.

Meta’s push for industry-wide standards

The discussion follows changes announced by Meta after legal action in the United States concerning the use of its platforms by teenagers.

Meta has agreed to a settlement involving $12.7 billion and measures including a default two-hour daily limit for teenage users, muted notifications during school hours and nighttime restrictions. Meta has denied wrongdoing in connection with the allegations.

Meta has also encouraged other major platforms to adopt comparable measures. A Meta spokesperson previously expressed hope that Snap would introduce similar protections.

For Snapchat, Spiegel’s comments suggest the company is examining whether common limits across social-media services could establish what he described as industry norms.

Influencer shares astonishing amount she earns monthly on Snapchat by posting her daily life

Snapchat already offers parental controls

Snapchat currently provides parents with controls through its Family Center feature, which allows parents to see aspects of how their teenagers are using the service.

A daily limit would represent a different approach: rather than relying entirely on parents to monitor usage, the platform itself could impose a maximum amount of daily time.

The precise design remains unresolved. Questions would include the age groups covered, the length of the limit, whether parents could modify it and how the restriction would be enforced.

Debate over teenagers and social media

The proposed changes come amid continuing legal and public scrutiny of major social-media platforms.

Snap, Meta, TikTok and YouTube have faced lawsuits alleging that aspects of their platforms can encourage excessive or compulsive use among young people. The companies have disputed various allegations and have highlighted safety measures and parental controls.

Research and policy debates over social-media use among teenagers remain complex. Evidence concerning harmful or compulsive use exists, but questions remain about causation, individual differences and the effects of particular platform designs.

That distinction is important: a decision by Snapchat to introduce a time limit would be a product and policy response to concerns about youth usage, rather than proof by itself that Snapchat causes a particular health outcome.

The wider technology shift

Spiegel made his comments while discussing Snap’s next generation of Specs smart glasses, which are being developed with AI capabilities.

The company says the glasses will be able to provide recommendations based on information about a user’s goals, relationships and routines. Snap is positioning the product as a lightweight alternative to conventional virtual-reality headsets and as part of a new category of AI-enabled wearable technology.

The announced US price for the new Specs is $2,195, while the UK price is £1,995, according to the BBC report.

What happens next?

For now, Snapchat has not announced a launch date or a specific daily limit for teenagers.

The significance of Spiegel’s remarks is therefore that Snap has publicly indicated a willingness to participate in a broader industry discussion over standardized limits for young users. Whether that becomes an actual Snapchat feature — and what the rules would look like — remains to be determined.

Independent assessment: The development reflects a wider shift from voluntary parental controls toward platform-level restrictions, but the practical and social effects will depend heavily on how any limits are designed and enforced.

Sources: BBC reporting via syndicated publication; Meta-related reporting; Guardian analysis of ongoing social-media litigation.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | Independent Technology Report | 17 September 2026

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has acknowledged that public concern about increasingly powerful artificial intelligence is justified, while arguing that people should nevertheless trust AI companies to act responsibly as the technology develops.

Speaking at Salesforce’s annual Dreamforce conference in San Francisco on September 15, Altman said AI had advanced to a point where the potential consequences of failures were becoming easier to imagine. He also identified another concern: the possibility that a small number of AI companies could accumulate excessive economic and social power.

“The world is right to be afraid of this,” Altman said, while also arguing that people should trust AI companies to make responsible decisions.

Two risks highlighted by Altman

Altman’s comments focused on two broad categories of risk.

The first is what he described as the possibility of a loss-of-control accident or another serious failure involving increasingly capable AI systems.

The second is concentration of power. Altman warned that AI companies could potentially acquire enough influence to affect the economy or push particular worldviews onto the public.

That distinction is significant because the AI safety debate is no longer limited to hypothetical questions about future superintelligence. It also includes more immediate questions about who controls advanced models, how they are deployed and what safeguards apply to them.

Technology Leaders Speak At Annual Dreamforce Event In San Francisco

Altman argues the industry can manage the risks

Despite acknowledging those dangers, Altman expressed confidence that AI companies can develop the technology safely.

He said companies should maintain safety and alignment ahead of their capabilities and indicated that development could be slowed or stopped if necessary.

The argument places considerable emphasis on responsible behaviour by the companies themselves rather than relying exclusively on government regulation.

That approach is becoming one of the central issues in the international AI debate.

Industry disagreement over regulation

Altman’s remarks came during a week of unusually intense discussion about AI safety.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has called for a slower pace of AI development and stronger safeguards. Altman has expressed support for coordinated efforts to improve safety, while other technology executives have argued that companies can manage the risks internally without extensive new government regulation.

The debate therefore involves two related but different questions:

Calls for greater external oversight

Not everyone agrees that the technology companies should be trusted to police themselves.

The Associated Press reported that the recent debate has exposed divisions within the AI industry over whether there should be coordinated restrictions or a slowdown. Some AI leaders have advocated stronger external safeguards, while others maintain that companies have sufficient incentives and technical expertise to manage safety themselves.

Yoshua Bengio, one of the pioneers of modern AI, has argued for ambitious safety efforts outside the for-profit sector, according to AP.

That disagreement reflects a broader question of governance: can companies developing the most powerful AI systems simultaneously be the primary institutions responsible for determining how those systems should be controlled?

There is no universal agreement on the answer.

Why the debate has intensified

The latest discussion follows warnings from researchers and technology executives about the possibility that increasingly autonomous AI systems could create serious risks if safeguards fail.

At the same time, experts do not have a consensus on the probability or timing of catastrophic AI scenarios. AP reported that proposed risks range from malicious use of AI to hypothetical situations in which future systems become difficult for humans to control.

This uncertainty is important. Acknowledging that a risk is possible does not establish that it will happen, nor does it establish how likely a particular scenario is.

The trust question

Altman’s remarks put the issue of trust at the centre of the discussion.

AI companies argue that they have strong technical knowledge, commercial incentives and reputational reasons to prevent their products from causing serious harm. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has argued that AI laboratories have both the ability and incentive to ensure their systems remain aligned with human values.

Critics counter that commercial competition can create pressure to release increasingly capable systems quickly, potentially creating a conflict between speed and safety. The debate therefore extends beyond whether individual executives are acting in good faith; it concerns what institutional safeguards should exist regardless of who is running a company.

What remains unresolved

Several major questions remain open:

• How much autonomy should advanced AI systems be permitted to have?
• What safety tests should be mandatory before powerful models are released?
• Should independent organizations have access to evaluate frontier AI systems?
• When should governments intervene?
• How should responsibility be assigned when AI causes harm?
• Can international safety standards keep pace with rapid technological development?

These questions are likely to remain central as AI systems become more capable and more deeply integrated into business, government and everyday life.

Independent assessment

Altman’s comments represent a notable acknowledgment from one of the industry’s most prominent executives that fear of AI is not inherently irrational. At the same time, his call for public trust highlights the unresolved tension between industry self-governance and external oversight.

The available evidence does not establish that AI companies can or cannot safely regulate themselves on their own. What is clear is that there is an active disagreement among technology leaders, researchers and policymakers over the appropriate balance between innovation, corporate responsibility and independent oversight.

For the public, the practical issue is therefore not simply whether to trust or fear AI. It is whether the systems governing AI development provide enough transparency, accountability, testing and independent scrutiny to justify that trust.

Sources: Reuters, Associated Press, Axios, WIRED and Salesforce Dreamforce coverage.

By Angel No Lie | KPD Online | 17 September 2026 | Independent Markets Report

Gold prices moved higher on Thursday as investors assessed the U.S. Federal Reserve’s latest interest-rate decision, while easing concerns over Middle East oil supplies took some momentum out of the recent crude rally.

Spot gold was initially up more than 1% in Asian trading, reaching about $4,310.49 per ounce at 0149 GMT, according to Reuters. Later in the session, the gain had moderated to 0.8%, at $4,295.26, showing how quickly prices were adjusting after the Fed decision.

Gold price prediction: Meltdown as prices fall by Rs 900/10 gram amid profit booking. Can bulls stage a comeback? – The Economic Times

Fed raises rates by 25 basis points

The Federal Reserve raised its benchmark federal funds target range by 25 basis points to 3.75%-4.00% on Wednesday.

The decision was approved unanimously by the Federal Open Market Committee. The Fed said economic activity was expanding at a solid pace but that inflation remained elevated.

The accompanying projections indicated that the rate increase may not be the final move this year. Reuters reported that 16 of 18 Fed policymakers expected at least one additional quarter-percentage-point increase before the end of 2026.

That creates a complicated environment for gold.

Gold does not pay interest, so higher interest rates can make yield-bearing assets comparatively more attractive. At the same time, expectations surrounding inflation, currencies, geopolitical risks and investor demand for defensive assets can support bullion.

Dollar-Obsessed Argentines Have a Newfound Love for Buying Gold – Bloomberg

Gold’s move came after a sharp pullback

The rise followed a weaker session in which gold had reached a near six-week low.

Reuters reported that technical factors were contributing to Thursday’s rebound, while the Fed’s more hawkish message had already been largely reflected in market pricing.

U.S. gold futures did not mirror the initial spot-market gain. December futures were reported down roughly 1.2% at $4,333.90 in later trading.

That divergence is important: the headline rise in spot gold does not necessarily indicate a broad-based bullish move across all gold contracts.

Oil rally loses momentum

The other major part of the market story is oil.

Brent crude futures fell 1.2% to $104.59 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate declined 1.1% to $101.29 in early Thursday trading. Both contracts had fallen by roughly $3 on Wednesday.

The decline followed reports that Saudi Arabia was offering additional crude cargoes to Asian buyers through ship-to-ship transfers off Sohar, Oman.

The alternative export route is helping reduce immediate concerns about supply disruptions following attacks on Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline and disruption at the Red Sea export hub of Yanbu.

Commodity snapshot

Figures reflect different points in Thursday’s trading and therefore should not be interpreted as simultaneous closing prices.

Why oil matters for gold

Oil and gold are responding to several of the same macroeconomic forces, but in different ways.

Higher oil prices can intensify inflation concerns because energy is an important input into transportation, manufacturing and household costs. Persistent energy inflation can, in turn, make central banks more reluctant to cut interest rates.

Conversely, a sustained decline in oil prices could reduce some inflation pressure. Reuters quoted OANDA analyst Kelvin Wong as saying continued oil weakness could provide additional support for gold over the medium term.

For now, however, the oil market remains exposed to developments in the Middle East. Reuters reported that the East-West pipeline disruption has not been fully resolved and that uncertainty remains over repairs.

The bigger picture

The market is therefore dealing with two competing forces.

For gold:

• renewed safe-haven demand;
• geopolitical uncertainty;
• expectations surrounding inflation;
• technical buying after the recent decline;
• but also pressure from relatively high U.S. interest rates.

For oil:

• continuing geopolitical and transportation risks;
• disruption affecting Saudi export infrastructure;
• alternative shipment arrangements through Oman;
• and signs that some immediate supply fears are easing.

Independent assessment

Thursday’s market action does not point to a single, straightforward trend.

Gold’s initial more-than-1% rise was significant, but the subsequent moderation shows that investors remain sensitive to the Fed’s higher-for-longer interest-rate signal. Meanwhile, oil’s retreat suggests that alternative Saudi export arrangements have reduced some of the immediate supply anxiety, although the underlying Middle East risks remain.

The key question for markets is whether oil prices continue to fall as supply routes normalize, or whether renewed disruptions push energy prices higher again. That outcome could materially influence inflation expectations, interest-rate expectations and, consequently, gold.

In short: gold is being supported by defensive and technical factors, while oil is losing some of its geopolitical risk premium—but neither move should yet be interpreted as a settled new market direction.

Sources: Reuters; U.S. Federal Reserve.