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.
Link2) 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.