levitra price

levitra price

The government of South Sudan says it is taking neighbouring north Sudan to court over what Juba describes as the “stealing” of its oil. Minister for oil, Stephen Dhieu Dau, said in an interview with the Sudan Tribune last month that his ministry had filed a lawsuit against Khartoum in “specialised international tribunals.” “We are not leaving it just like that. The Sudanese government must return all they have stolen otherwise we are taking them to court,” minister Dau said. He did not elaborate.

He further said that in December Khartoum started diverting more than 120,000 barrels per day of oil pumped from South Sudan, which says it is keeping the oil in lieu of pipeline transit fees reportedly owed by landlocked South Sudan. Juba announced in January it was stopping all oil production until its oil was returned and a “fair” fee was agreed.

The new nation accused Khartoum of preventing ships from loading entitlements belonging to South Sudan and confiscating what has been loaded onto ships. Juba claims Khartoum has stolen $350 million worth of its oil and prevented over $400 million of it from leaving Port Sudan. “We have starting looking for an alternative route for exporting the oil after reaching a deadlock with Sudan, which is exaggerating the oil transit fees,” Dau said last month.

“We have already started discussions about construction of a pipeline through eastern Africa, via Kenya. We expect the pipeline to be completed in 10 months. We will also begin immediately the construction of a refinery in South Sudan,” he added. He further disclosed that international oil companies operating and producing oil in South Sudan would construct the pipeline and refinery. “We do not have any problem with companies operating in the south.”

As tensions over oil resources continue between North and South Sudan, a new report says failure by both nations to clinch a deal at on-going post-session negotiations could threaten prospects for peace and stability. Global Witness, a UK-based organisation, urged the two countries to agree to a new and transparent arrangement soon or risk renewed conflict.

“Any disruption in the transit and export of oil could have damaging financial consequences for Sudan, South Sudan, their investors, and export partners. It is crucial that this dispute is resolved immediately,” said Dana Wilkins, Global Witness campaigner.

“A new deal that guarantees transparent and accountable management must be agreed to prevent further tension,” she added. In the January 16 statement, Global Witness also said the agreement of a new deal governing how South Sudan’s oil is exported and how funds are managed is “critical” to both countries’ economies, citing South Sudan’s  direct transfer of funds to assist in Sudan’s financial transition, debt forgiveness, a per-barrel transit fee as important steps for resolving the wrangle.

However, while the newly independent nation proposed to offer Sudan $2.6 billion over a four year period to resolve its financial woes and an additional $2.8 billion as debt forgiveness, the Khartoum reportedly declined both offers approved by the African Union Implementation Panel on Sudan (AUHIP).

Both countries, according to Global Witness, needed to be far more transparent about the production, processing, and sale of oil if any agreement is to be sustainable. Such levels of transparency, it adds, should involve independent verification of details of all shipments, revenues, and fees paid as well as received.

“In the absence of independent verification on the movement and export of  the crude, it is impossible for anyone to be sure of exactly what is happening, who will be affected, and how,” said Wilkins. “What is certain is that this latest dispute again proves that transparency and accountability across the oil sector are essential to building a sustained peace between the two countries.”

South Sudan’s government Spokesperson, Barnaba Marial Benjamin, has identified four alternative routes for transporting the country’s crude oil to international markets.Marial was quoted as saying South Sudan would build a pipeline through Kenya to Port Lamu in the next 11 months. “South Sudan has all the chances; we can build our pipeline through Kenya right up to Port Lamu, which we are already working on. We can possibly build another pipeline through Ethiopia to Djibouti.”

“Actually, Djibouti is closer to South Sudan by nearly 400 kilometres nearer than Mombasa or Lamu,” he said. “We can build from here and join the pipeline of Uganda, which is another route. The fourth route, we can actually build another pipeline through Democratic Republic of Congo to Congo Brazzaville and then Port Sudan which is giving us problems”.

According to Marial the, first option is constructing the pipeline through East Africa. “So, we are going to find medicines, let’s begin with the first and that is through East Africa which we started discussing since 2004, even before the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). So, we know what we have planned for our future,” he explained. On the question of how the new nation will cope without the oil revenue, the government spokesperson said the country will function normally because there are lots of alternative resources.

“The government has the confidence that it will continue to function. You know this country is endowed with a lot of resources, the agricultural potential and the tremendous mineral resources. This is a blessing in disguise that people of South Sudan have a wonderful land to live on,” said the information minister

By Isaac Kot Dut