KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Oil inflamed Sudan's civil war for decades but
could now help seal the peace as the south becomes independent and
needs the north to refine its crude.
Rhetoric and tensions are rising between the former north- south foes
as Sudan hurtles towards the January 9 southern referendum on
secession -- the culmination of a 2005 peace deal which shared wealth
and power and promised democracy.
In Africa's largest country almost 75 percent of the current 500,000
barrels per day of crude output comes from wells in the south, but is
exploited, refined and transported by the north.
But that very equation, along with the fact that both governments in
the north and south are heavily dependent on crude revenues, could
draw a line which neither side is willing to cross and stop them short
of resuming full hostilities.
"Oil has a bad image -- corruption, fuelling war. But in the case of
Sudan, it's helped push for peace," said al-Sir Sidahmed, an energy
expert advising Sudan's petroleum ministry. "They simply can't afford
to have oil to stop even for one day."
The semi-autonomous southern government, formed in 2005, derives some
98 percent of its revenues from crude. Some 45 percent of Khartoum's
budget comes from oil, which makes up around 90 percent of its
exports.
Neither economy has moved to diversify away from oil dependency since
2005 and it will take years for either economy to do so in any
significant way.
This leaves no option but to continue -- in a form still open to
negotiations -- the sharing of oil wealth even in a likely
post-secession scenario.
The 2005 accord shared oil from the south roughly 50:50. The southern
ruling party, the SPLM, may well use its oil leverage to gain
political concessions from Khartoum's government -- likely in the
disputed central Abyei region.
Continued sharing of the landlocked south's oil with the north may
well be difficult to sell to a southern population bent on full
independence from the north they see as having oppressed them for so
long.
So a likely solution would be to rename the oil sharing as "rent" or
"fees" for the use of the pipelines, refineries and port in the north.
"As much as 40 percent of oil revenues could end up going back to the
north," deputy finance minister Marial Awour -- and a southerner --
told a news conference.
Southern officials have raised the possibility of building refineries
in the south and a pipeline to neighbouring Kenya's ports to be
independent from the north. But this would be a political solution,
rather than the most economically viable one, analysts say.
"It's techincally possible but they will simply spend so much," said
the deputy foreign minister Espen Barth Eide of Norway, which is
advising Sudan on its oil management. "The cost of a pipeline to Kenya
would be too high to warrant it... and you'd have to build a very
specialised refinery," he added, because of the low quality crude in
Sudan.
There is also a lack of technical oil expertise in the south which
would leave them dependent on foreign experts for extraction, an added
cost.
And time is a constraint given Sudan's oilfields are running low with
new discoveries over the years being less promising than hoped.
"If you look at the projection of oil revenues, the production is
peaking now - they know that it's decreasing," said William Battaile,
a senior economist from the World Bank.
Oil giants such as Total SA with the expertise and a contract to drill
in the south's massive swamps have been reluctant to begin work
because of the political uncertainty.
Others have been too prudent to enter Sudan at all despite the 2005
peace deal, worried that contracts signed with Khartoum might be
voided after the south secedes and that conflict with the north or
within the south could hinder work.
"If war starts and oil stops flowing - who's going to benefit from
that?" said Sidahmed.