SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : ARAKIS: HIGH RISK OIL PLAY (AKSEF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: alan w who wrote (7876)3/6/1998 6:18:00 PM
From: J. M. Burr  Respond to of 9164
 
The interesting aspect about this pipeline plan is that it will be about 15% longer, I estimate, than the 1,000 mile project contemplated by Chevron. As I recall, the Chevron project would have used the railroad bridge at Kosti to cross the Nile. However, this new project, IMestimation, entails the construction of a pipeline trending almost northwest from the oilfields to Muglad, and from Muglad to El Obeid refinery in a straight line. It cannot be built due north as it would intersect the Nuba Hills which have been the scene of fighting (and atrocities) for eight years. From El Obeid there is talk of laying pipe to another refinery somewhere near Khartoum, and I would rather imagine it would be a little north of Omdurman so that it has the protection of nearby military bases. From that point on seems to be anyone's guess. My own feeling is that it would be wise to continue the pipeline west of the Nile to a point just north of the Atbara junction and cross there. From that point to Port Sudan there are many possible routes, but most of them are north of the insecure area west of the Eritrea border. There are certain things to keep in mind; one, Sudan infrastructure is not conducive to the movement of anything big, let alone huge ditchdiggers, etc. Second, the Chinese will undoubtedly provide the labor, and if there is one thing the Chinese have it is a lot of labor. Tumbleweed.