wazua Thu, Dec 5, 2024
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In | Register

2 Pages<12
Massive government projects to come up in the coast
itz
#21 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 5:33:38 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 3/20/2009
Posts: 348
@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.
murchr
#22 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:20:09 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 15,980
@itz...The South want to pay the North $1.00, so $32 is nowhere near a bargain. Once the S.Sudan is done in building the pipeline, they will dump the north so fast that they wont understand what hit them. Their major customers are the chinese...If u look at the map its easier to navigate from lamu than from sudan....that could translate in cheaper freight charges(am just guessing).

Secondly, there is a big likely hood that Kenya could hit oil soon in lamu, so if that is to happen then the pipeline will not be so idle we will be using a pipeline that our lovely neighbor built on our land.

On your last concern...the govt is not in a rush to have this project going. It was conceptualized in 1975 and shelved until baks govt came in place, the guy got in on a mission of reviving all the projects he had helped conceptualize when he was a technocrat in Kenyattas govt and a minister in Mois..funding was the issue
"There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
mkeiy
#23 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:10:57 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 1/27/2012
Posts: 851
Location: Nairobi
@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.
murchr
#24 Posted : Saturday, March 17, 2012 6:12:10 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 15,980
some info http://www.afdb.org/en/p...o/project/p-z1-d00-019/

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...11-07-27+at+12.07.48.png
"There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
eboomerang
#25 Posted : Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:35:21 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 6/27/2011
Posts: 301
Location: Nairobi
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)
FundamentAli
#26 Posted : Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:31:06 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 11/4/2008
Posts: 1,289
Location: Nairobi
@eboomerang,

At the moment Mombasa port is operating to capacity and it is not big enough to handle Kenya and Uganda leave SS and eastern DRC. This are has a growth of more than 5% per anum. In 10 years the volume of goods handled might triple. How do you expect this to be handled? Or will you be asking whether our planners were asleep?
tony stark
#27 Posted : Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:48:16 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 947
FundamentAli wrote:
@eboomerang,

At the moment Mombasa port is operating to capacity and it is not big enough to handle Kenya and Uganda leave SS and eastern DRC. This are has a growth of more than 5% per anum. In 10 years the volume of goods handled might triple. How do you expect this to be handled? Or will you be asking whether our planners were asleep?


Ha ha ha ha!
Mombasa port at capacity. Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly

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
#28 Posted : Friday, October 05, 2012 11:19:28 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 6/27/2011
Posts: 301
Location: Nairobi
tony stark wrote:
FundamentAli wrote:
@eboomerang,

At the moment Mombasa port is operating to capacity and it is not big enough to handle Kenya and Uganda leave SS and eastern DRC. This are has a growth of more than 5% per anum. In 10 years the volume of goods handled might triple. How do you expect this to be handled? Or will you be asking whether our planners were asleep?


Ha ha ha ha!
Mombasa port at capacity. Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly Laughing out loudly

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.

That is what I think too that there is still quite a lot that can be gained from improvements in efficiency in the current port.

A new one is not yet needed, we can utilize all the possible capacity of the existing one otherwise we will create similar congestion in the new port as soon as it is operational.
mkeiyd
#29 Posted : Friday, October 05, 2012 2:19:39 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 3/26/2012
Posts: 1,182
eboomerang wrote:
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)


@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.

eboomerang
#30 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:13:49 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 6/27/2011
Posts: 301
Location: Nairobi
mkeiyd wrote:
eboomerang wrote:
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)


@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.

I do understand your point. However, I still maintain that it is possible to grow the economy without necessarily creating large spending spikes such as we have had on our budget recently, we should also see that our debt and trade deficit is getting out of hand.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2024 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.