Home | News    Sunday 5 August 2012

U.S. applauds Sudan’s oil agreement despite sketchy details

separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation

August 4, 2012 (WASHINGTON) – The United States quickly welcomed the announcement made by African Union (AU) mediator and former South African president Thabo Mbeki that the delegations of Sudan and South Sudan reached an agreement regarding oil transit fees.

JPEG - 53.6 kb
A worker walks at the power plant of an oil processing facility at an oilfield in Unity State April 22, 2012 (Reuters)

The sticky issue has all but debilitated the economies of the two neighboring nations and both sides were entrenched in their negotiating positions despite intense regional and international pressure to reach a compromise.

South Sudan broke away from the north last year and took with it around three-quarters of the oil reserves but due to its landlocked situation the new nation could only export and process the crude through the pipelines inside Sudan’s territory to terminals in Port Sudan coastal city.

But due to a disagreement on pricing of the transportation service Juba decided to suspend its oil production which came after it was revealed that Khartoum started seizing some of the south’s oil in late 2011 to make up for what it says are unpaid fees.

Khartoum demanded the payment of $36 per barrel by Juba to export its oil but the latter offered around $1 saying this figure is consistent with international norms.

Sudanese officials also made it clear that the loss of oil revenue left a gap in the budget that needs to be built into any deal with south on oil.

Late on Friday, Mbeki made the surprise announcement to reporters that the two sides reached a comprehensive understanding on oil.

"It’s an [oil] agreement about all of the matters. The issues that were outstanding were charges for transportation, for processing, transit," he told reporters according to Reuters.

"What will remain [now]...is to then discuss the steps as to when the oil companies should be asked to prepare for the resumption of production and export," Mbeki said.

Officials in Khartoum and Juba were slow to confirm the news and both sides gave conflicting accounts of the price that was agreed upon.

A senior Sudanese official told Sudan Tribune on Saturday that Juba will export its oil for $25 per barrel. South Sudan government on the other hand said they will pay $9.48 for every barrel in addition to around $3 billion in one lump sum.

The accord is good for three and a half years after which the rates can be re-negotiated but only downwards, South Sudan government said.

Sudanese presidential assistant Nafie Ali Nafie today described the agreement as "rewarding" but that its implementation is contingent on concluding negotiations on security issues. He said the deal will provide a conducive environment to weaken rebel movements.

Khartoum accuses Juba of harboring and supporting rebels fighting the Sudanese army in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. It insisted on tackling this issue prior to discussing all other post-secession items.

Luka Biong, senior member of Juba’s ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), said in an opinion article that Sudan has made "considerable concession" which he said "showed beyond any doubt that it [Sudan] is desperate to reach a deal on oil and other payments".

He also said the price agreed upon was $11 as contradicting the $9 reported in Juba.

"As the South would not want to set precedence in oil tariffs as it intends to diversify its access to ports, the current deal of oil tariffs of $11 per barrel that has been reached provides a basis for confidence building and resolving other issues. On other payments, the offer of South of financial transitional assistance of about $3 billion to Sudan is unprecedented as it did not happen before in the post-independent history of Sudan to receive such free budget support from any country or organizations" Biong wrote in an Op-ed in ’New Nation’ newspaper.

The SPLM official however went on to say he wished the issue of Abyei was attached as a condition for the oil deal to be signed.

"One would have wished that the acceptance of the South of the current oil deal to be conditional on finally resolving the issue of Abyei Referendum, particularly the issue of eligibility to be exclusively for members of Ngok Dinka and other residents except nomads," he wrote.

South Sudan’s chief negotiator Pagan Amum, despite also praising the deal, lashed out at the international community accusing it of siding with Khartoum in the talks.

"America, the U.K., all were silent. They were abetting the theft of Sudan," he said. "They [international community] were all telling us ’let it flow, let Sudan take it.’ Because they don’t want it to affect prices" Amum said.

He also said that international pressure on the negotiations was based on desperation and the search for a "quick fix."

U.S. president Barack Obama issued a statement welcoming news of the agreement.

"The leaders of Sudan and South Sudan deserve congratulations for reaching agreement and finding compromise on such an important issue, and I applaud the efforts of the international community which came together to encourage and support the parties in finding a resolution. In particular, I am grateful for the work of the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel, led by President Thabo Mbeki, for its determined and skilled leadership in bringing about this agreement" according to the statement on the White House website.

Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a separate statement from Kenya praising the "courage" of South Sudan government.

"We praise the courage of the Republic of South Sudan’s leadership in taking this decision," added Clinton, who had visited Juba on Friday on her current Africa tour.

"Now was the time to bring this impasse to a close, for the good of the people of South Sudan and their aspirations for a better future in the face of ongoing challenges. South Sudan’s leaders have risen to the occasion" she added.

A senior U.S. state department official speaking to reporters on background from Kenya said that that Khartoum and Juba "were in a downward economic spiral that was accelerating at a rapid pace that would have led them into major economic destruction" as a result of the oil shutdown.

"Ninety-eight percent of the revenues of South Sudan lost 95 percent of their budget – lost. And from all indications from the World Bank, from the IMF, and from independent economic analysis that we’ve done, would’ve shown that the South would have probably run out of foreign exchange sometime between the end of August and the first of October. Others say they might have been able to last up until December of this year or January, but this was a major disaster waiting for a new government" the official said.

"In the North, you can see what was also happening. For the first time probably in a decade, we were seeing on the streets of Khartoum daily an increasingly vocal and violent demonstrations against the government. We saw a large rise in inflation; we saw spiraling high fuel prices and fuel shortages and higher food costs in the North, demonstrating that they were in economic trouble as well" the official added.

The official suggested that Clinton pressed South Sudan president Salva Kiir successfully into sealing a deal with Khartoum on oil.

"[T] Secretary did point out very clearly that the prospects of the situation getting worse economically were very, very apparent. But she also said to President Salva Kiir and his leaders that the global economic community, which has helped South Sudan over the last several years with large infusions of money, is going through a tough time itself and that it could not expect an international bailout of the type that would be needed to be able to provide for all of the lost revenue and assistance that it was losing as a result of the oil shortages" the official said.

It remains to be seen how quick the oil will start flowing though experts say that it will take few months to get the pipelines up and running.

(ST)

Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 5 August 2012 09:19, by Dako

    Two days of confusion. what a pathetic deal!

    repondre message

    • 5 August 2012 09:54, by Darkangel

      Clinton pressed Kiir to sign an agreement ! I think this summarizes it all. Pagan can cry and yell he wants, that all he is good at ! But everyone knows he is stealing more than anyone, and he and so called ’Garang Boys’ are nothing but gangster thieves souring any deal btw sudan and South for their own reason $ being most obvious.

      The security deal will seal the end of darfur/SPLM-N rebellion.

      repondre message

      • 5 August 2012 11:33, by Logic

        Loool

        Told you both Sudans are being run into the ground and an agreement is essential to maintain both governments in power, its a shame for the Sudanese spring against the NCP.

        However, its good news for most average Sudanese, northerners & southerners. It allows foreign currency to contribute to cuts in living expenses.

        repondre message

        • 5 August 2012 12:21, by mohammed ali

          The illogical jalabi,I don’t care about how much to be paid, as these are details for the negotiators and mediators to see what is fair & just. I am happy for an agreement that will stop the war & maintain peace. Sudan economy is under too much pressure, but is not run down.SS economy is run down & collapsing, according to IMF report.The thieves don’t care about their pple,...con

          repondre message

          • 5 August 2012 12:28, by mohammed ali

            CON: tremendous pressure had been put on them to come to their senses.Their fat bank account was shown to them, to tell them what you have looooooted is much less than what is needed for an agreement.Clinton had to come down to put pressure.Now I don’t know what pple like Mr.Observer will say, is he going to continue lying?! To show that he is " realistic" he has to stand against " his country"

            repondre message

            • 5 August 2012 12:31, by mohammed ali

              cob: The financial assistance went up from $ 2.5 to 3 billions , because SS had to pay for the damadge it inflicted to Heglig oil facilities. SS negotiators don’t want this to be announced publicly. We don’t care as long as the money is paid in full!

              repondre message

            • 5 August 2012 17:48, by zulu

              I thought you fellows gave conditions for the oil agreement because of security? Q is going on?
              The details on the agreement has to surprise all of us because ss will not offer 3b on top of all
              /The stupid jalaby shifts his position as the jalaba always do/ Interesting

              repondre message

              • 5 August 2012 18:10, by mohammed ali

                Zulu, am afraid you should call yourself zig-zag , because you are flip flopping everday!No oil will pass through Sudan unless security issues are completly resoled. This written clearly in the article!

                repondre message

        • 5 August 2012 13:12, by Lang

          lool what kind of idiot in the north will jump for joy while any deal is only for 3 years? hahaha, all this talk of transit fees its only for a few years wow. so much time has been wasted for this. we could have so many other problems solved by now.

          repondre message

      • 5 August 2012 22:37, by Lang
    • 5 August 2012 10:00, by Hardball

      Can this be called a deal; when Sudan is saying juba said they will transit at $ 25.00 and South Sudan itself saying $ 9.00 and $ 3 billion lum sum; Lum sum for what purpose? Is this a deal? Who in his right mind would believe this?
      By the way; why do Sudanese keep saying “South Sudan government said this and that” South Sudanese don’t say it themselves?

      repondre message

      • 5 August 2012 10:09, by Chol

        South Sudanese negotiators over there at the conference; if you accept and sign $ 36.00, $ 28.00, $ 9.00 or whatever the price is; and then the price dropped to $ 9.00 per barrel in the world market! What are you going to do? Sell it and handed all over as a transit fee to Sudan? Yes you can do that because that’s what you signed! ----

        repondre message

        • 5 August 2012 10:12, by Chol

          — Make the deal with the percentage formula; this is where by when the price dropped in the stock market to $ 28.00 per barrel; then the transit fee would 10% of $ 28.00 which would be $ 2.80. If the price of a barrel is $ 200.00 in the stock market; then 10% of it would be $ 20.00 per barrel as a transit fee.

          repondre message

          • 5 August 2012 10:21, by P.K.M

            If you guys read the news article; you cannot see any deal the Sudanese are either confirming or rejoice to as a deal. Both sides are not in the same page. If you’re a Sudanese who read and understand English; you would know there is no deal here!

            repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 09:31, by Dako

    Announce the exact details, so that I can organise a protest. Bring them down, they are no longer our representative.

    repondre message

    • 5 August 2012 09:55, by mabuto

      hey Bro Dako, just come down. Please go to BBC news.com and get more information about the right details. Jallab is in our shoe right now.

      repondre message

    • 5 August 2012 22:16, by Augustino Ambros

      Hey my dear fellows guys, if i get to know after all they sides agrred on the oil issue, Sudan & South Sudan.
      who are going to be the workers on that field?
      If i can ask, are they going to be South Sudanese or Sudanese???

      repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 12:07, by solider

    i am sure this agreement will harm SPLM/N badly.khartoum regime were dying and it was about time for SPLM/N to change the regime .but s.sudan gave sudan the cure and the medicine. SPLM betrayed SPLM/N again. SPLM/N are similar to sick and dirty homeless dogs, the more you hit them the more they follow you.even street bitches have more dignity than them.

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 12:14, by solider

    i am sure this agreement will harm SPLM/N badly.khartoum regime were dying and it was about time for SPLM/N to change the regime .but s.sudan gave sudan the cure and the medicine. SPLM betrayed SPLM/N again. SPLM/N are similar to sick and dirty homeless dogs, the more you hit them the more they follow you.even street bitches have more dignity than them.

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 13:41, by solider

    we IN SUDAN share your natural resources but you can’t share ours .now did you realize who is bigger and stronger?

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 13:51, by solider

    even if it is $0.50 still we in SUDAN share your fortunes and natural resources.but you can’t share a penny from ours.that is called POWER

    repondre message

    • 5 August 2012 17:30, by Mi diit

      What I know is that this poor oil deal will never be implemented. It will remain on paper until the D-Day comes.

      repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 19:18, by Kim Deng

    "Mutrif Sidiq, the official spokesman for Sudan’s delegation in the talks in Addis Ababa told The Associated Press from Khartoum, that there was an agreement on the transit fees for two different pipelines, one transporting crude for export and another that is light crude oil that goes through a refinery before going to the port. One fee agreed to was $9.48, and another was for about $11...

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 19:19, by Kim Deng

    The deal is accepted by both sides. Even though it falls below the expectations of both sides, it constitutes a middle ground," he said by telephone."

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 19:23, by Kim Deng

    That means, both sides agreed on $10.24pbl. But still it’s beyond international practices.

    Shame on coward Slava!!

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 19:47, by Kim Deng

    "Pagan said South Sudan negotiating team faced pressures from international community especially United States of America and the United Kingdom to accept the demands of the Sudan but they persisted until a deal was struck."

    repondre message

  • 5 August 2012 22:24, by Northern Sudanese

    south sudanese

    do you really believe that we would let you export our oil for $9 p/b ???

    it is $25.80 p/b as mentioned by our officials! your leaders just want you not to know innorder not to embarres you. Mbeki himself was proposing for $25 some time ago.

    repondre message

    • 6 August 2012 19:18, by Mapuor

      North Sudanese
      your economy is dying,any offer will help you out.Why not rely on agriculture when you already built Marowe dam,haaaa salinity and farmers inability to maximise production is of course a big issue.next time dont waste money on building dams,its a waste

      repondre message

  • 6 August 2012 03:33, by Hardball

    Sudan Tribune editorial Team; is there a reason why all the comments were cleared or is it just a web technical issue? We all hope everything is fine. We value Sudan Tribune very much for the freedom of speech they always have for us.

    repondre message

Comment on this article


 
 

The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.



Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis


Africa and the ICC: a dynamic relationship 2013-05-24 09:19:39 By Tiina Intelmann May 23, 2013 - The relationship between Africa and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is remarkable in its history, and dynamic. Africa and the ICC share the fundamental (...)

NCP Parliament Speaker will not negotiate with those who carry arms 2013-05-23 08:09:52 By Mahmoud A. Suleiman May 22, 2013 - This article comes on the backdrop of the war drums beating campaign orchestrated by the National Congress Party (NCP) regime Parliament Speaker, Ahmed (...)

At the Mercy of the Sky, South Sudanese professionals 2013-05-23 08:02:35 By Suzanne Jambo May 22, 2013 - "I have nothing to hide and I walk away with my head high. There was absolutely no board meeting to discuss my issue. The reason given were unilateral spending (...)


MORE




VIDEOS



Latest Press Releases


FAO expands support for national food security information systems for decision makers 2013-05-24 00:41:30 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO expands support for national food security information systems for decision makers They say information is power; in South Sudan, (...)

Sudan: Anatomy of a Conflict—New Report from Harvard Humanitarian Initiative 2013-05-22 00:46:46 Harvard Researchers Publish Satellite Imagery-Based History of Conflict in Sudan 2000+ Civilian Structures Appear Intentionally Destroyed; Humanitarian Agencies Targeted May 21, 2013 (...)

Wau Dialogue W. Bahr el-Ghazal state 13-15 May 2013 2013-05-13 14:41:35 South Sudan Law Society 13th-April-2013 Citizen of Western Bhar el-Ghazal State calls for limitations of President Powers and the Independence of Executive, Legislature and Judiciary and (...)


MORE

Copyright © 2003-2013 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.