@eboomerang Fast forward, South Sudan is planning to build a new pipeline infrastructure via Kenya. "Northern" Sudan will have an almost idle pipeline infrastructure. If North can put down their ego, they will do the rightful and reduce the charges for that infrastructure otherwise they will continue to loose revenue and more after shocks will follow in the economy. This has always been my qualms about the proposed pipeline from S.Sudan to Lamu.I have said the same thing that N.Sudan when push comes to shove they will lower their fees instead of having an idle pipeline,thus the new pipeline might not be as profitable but would just be used as a second option.This week N.Sudan reduced the fees from $36 to $32 per barrel.I expect this to go down further.For the Lamu port my understanding is that it will be able to accomodate bigger ships that mombasa cannot and it can serve S.Sudan and Ethiopia.Does anyone also think the govt is in a rush also to have a national port there so that this secession people cannot put claim to national treasures thus making their cause difficult.I know it is not this simple but this guyz are getting louder.

@itz, the issues bedeviling the two countries S.S & Sudan are deeper and messier than just the rate per barrel. If Sudan has been siphoning [stealing] oil,bombing oil fields, fighting over Abyei and the thorny Darfur etc, how does that get solved by lowering of transit fees and expect S.S to carry on business as usual. What's the length of the pipeline thru' Sudan? Who built the Sudanese pipeline? Who is building[paying for[ the Lamu one? Do you think S.S will sink millions of dollars to build a pipeline then ditch it? What do you think will make S.S fall in love with Sudan and trust it? The two, S.S and Sudan are like water and oil,don't expect them to mix. They just have to put up with each other coz they share a border. I will ask who cares to answer, what information are some saying it's not available? Be specific,avoid ambiguous/obscure language.

Allow me folks to revive this old discussion. I had raised concerns about rushing to build up this Lamu projects mainly predicated on the fact that South Sudan was the key customer for the government. Some people here just failed to see or accept the issues I was raising. I was asking for the government to conduct some extra research on how to proceed with the development of this infrastructure and not just rush head in, an opinion strongly opposed by others here. The exact things I raised that had the potential to undermine this investment are playing out now: 1) North and South Sudan sign an peace agreement largely around oil exports logistics. Link 2) Somalia could turn significantly stable in the next 10 years. (requires no link)

Ha ha ha ha! Mombasa port at capacity. This must be the joke of the day. Kilindini harbour is one of the most under utilized ports in the world and when you add port reitz to the mix mombasa is way below capacity. That said Lamu is still a good idea only if Mombasa is also being expanded and being efficient.

@eboomerang. "Others here" are here to answer you on the two points. The deal the two signed is good news to the Lamu projects.S.Sudan needs to export its oil,Sudan needs the revenue. None of them could have afforded to stay for years without exporting oil. The deal they signed will serve their interests but Lamu projects serves SS interests better,in the long run,Lamu would be economical,reliable and convenient for them. The signed deal will also generate cash to foot part of their bargain for the Lamu projects. On to point two,Somalia may, or may not be peaceful in 10 years, that doesn't mean everything will or has to be happening there. Why do you think DRC has cargo passing thru' Kenya when Tz would be preferred? I mean, they are more peaceful than us? To add a lil' Kilindini handles relatively small vessels. With Africa being the next frontier if not the frontier, we need bigger ports and efficient infrastructure to every part. Lest we wake up one morning and start whining of not planning ahead.