NrgEdge Editor

Sharing content and articles for users
Last Updated: November 8, 2019
1 view
Business Trends


South Sudan was officially recognized as an independent nation state in July 2011 following a referendum held in January 2011. The South Sudanese voted overwhelmingly in favor of secession, which led to Sudan losing 75% of its oil reserves to South Sudan. Although South Sudan now controls a substantial number of the oil–producing fields, it is dependent on Sudan for transporting oil through its pipelines for processing and export. The transit and processing fees South Sudan must pay to Sudan to transport its crude oil are an important revenue stream for Sudan.[1]

After an agreement was reached on the transit dispute that led to a temporary shutdown of crude oil production, the governments of Sudan and South Sudan shifted their focus from border conflicts to the mitigation of their respective domestic opposition factions. The domestic political dynamics and the security situations in both countries will continue to be a potential risk for disrupting the countries’ oil supplies and exports.

In Sudan, the economic shock of the secession has had a significant effect on the economy, which has been hurt by economic mismanagement, corruption, and unsustainably high levels of spending on the military. The partial lifting of U.S. sanctions on Sudan in October 2017 has allowed for increased foreign investment, but Sudan has made little progress toward developing the upstream sector.[2] In August 2019, Sudan’s military and civilian leaders signed a power-sharing deal that paved the way for a transitional government led by Abdalla Hamdok, an economist, to take power in the hope this government would address the country’s problems. However, Sudan remains on the U.S. government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, which prevents the country from receiving debt relief through the World Bank-International Monetary Fund’s Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC).[3]

In South Sudan, President Salva Kiir and the leader of the main opposition faction, Riek Machar, reached a peace agreement in September 2018, which led to reduced violence from the civil war in South Sudan. Although the peace agreement indicates progress, whether the agreement will bring prolonged stability and an inclusive and stable form of governance is unclear. The current agreement is similar to the previous one, which was signed in 2016 and collapsed after two months, and the current iteration does not address crucial elements such as power sharing between the factions and security arrangements that would allow Machar to safely return from exile.[4] Without significant progress in improving the security and political environment, South Sudan’s ability to attract investors and restart production at its fields to increase production will be limited.

Sector organization

  • Asian national oil companies (NOCs) dominate the oil sectors in both countries. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), and Malaysia’s Petronas hold large stakes in the leading consortia operating in both countries: the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, the Dar Petroleum Operating Company, and the Sudd Petroleum Operating Company.
  • The state–owned Sudanese Petroleum Corporation (SPC) was dissolved in March 2019, by order of Prime Minister Mohamed Tahir Ayala, and all assets and employees were transferred to the Ministry of Petroleum. The SPC was responsible for the exploration, production, and distribution of crude oil and petroleum products. The reason for the dissolution of the SPC has not yet been released.[5]

Petroleum and other liquids

Exploration and production

  • The lifting of U.S. sanctions imposed on Sudan has led to a renewed push by the Sudanese government to attract foreign investment in the upstream sector during the past few years, but Sudan has not made any substantial progress toward developing new fields that would lead to increased production.
  • In March 2019, an offer of 10 oil and natural gas exploration blocks in the Red Sea’s Halayeb triangle sparked a dispute between Egypt and Sudan. Egypt controls the territory, but Sudan has claimed the territory as Sudanese since the 1950s.[6]
  • South Sudan has restarted production at some of its previously shut-in fields in the Toma South and Unity fields in September 2018 and January 2019, providing a marginal increase to its total production. South Sudan seeks to increase total production to more than 200,000 b/d by the end of 2019. However, uncertainty remains on whether Sudan can do so under the export licensing restrictions the U.S. Department of State imposed on South Sudan’s Ministry of Energy, Nilepet (the National Oil and Gas Corporation of South Sudan), and the three major oil field operators in the country: DPOC, GPOC, and SPOC.[7] The licensing restrictions hinder the operators’ ability to secure the equipment and services required to develop or re-start production at its fields.[8]
  • In 2018, the government withdrew from negotiations to explore and develop blocks B1 and B2, and it is reportedly in talks with CNPC to acquire the blocks.[9]

Midstream infrastructure

  • Plans for the construction of a separate pipeline have been reported that would allow South Sudan to export crude oil through neighboring Kenya or Djibouti through Ethiopia to avoid transit fees.[10] However, the pipeline is not likely to be built in the near future because of the overall weak security environment and resulting supply disruptions to crude oil production in South Sudan.

Refining and refined oil products

  • Discussions between Sudanese and Chinese officials on a proposed second expansion to the refinery in Khartoum that could double the refinery’s capacity have been reported, but no significant progress has been made.[11]
  • Petronas signed a contract with the Ministry of Energy and Mining to expand the inactive Port Sudan refinery through a 50/50 joint venture and to add 100,000 b/d to its capacity, but development has been postponed as a result of rising costs.[12]
  • In South Sudan, two refineries were under construction: a 3,000-b/d refinery at Bentiu in the Unity State and a 10,000–b/d refinery at Thiangrial in the Upper Nile region. Plans to expand the Bentiu refinery to increase its capacity to 5,000 b/d have been reported. However, security issues have delayed completion, and unclear when or if the refineries will be operational is unclear.[13]

Petroleum and other liquids exports

  • According to ClipperData, Sudan and South Sudan exported about 114,000 b/d of crude oil in 2018. Although this level is higher than the 65,000 b/d exported in 2012 during the production shutdown, it is lower than the 182,000 b/d exported in 2014.
  • China is the largest export destination for Sudan’s and South Sudan’s crude oil. China received almost 60% of both countries’ total exports in 2018, although the total volume of exports has declined during the past few years. India and the United Arab Emirates have also imported relatively small volumes of Sudan and South Sudan’s crude oil.

Natural gas

  • Natural gas associated with oil fields is mostly flared or reinjected. Despite proved reserves of 3 trillion cubic feet, natural gas development has been limited. According to the latest estimates provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Sudan flared about 13.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 2017.[14]

Energy consumption

  • Petroleum consumption in Sudan and South Sudan peaked at 140,000 b/d in 2016 and has remained steady since then.[15]
  • In 2016, total primary energy consumption in Sudan was 0.357 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) and in South Sudan was 0.017 quadrillion Btu, according to latest estimates. About 80% of total primary energy consumption in Sudan is derived from petroleum and other liquid fuels, and the remainder comes from renewables such as biomass. In South Sudan, nearly all of the primary energy consumption was from petroleum and other liquid fuels.[16]



  • Total electricity generation in Sudan was 14 billion kilowatthours (kWh) in 2016, of which 57% was generated by hydropower.[17]
  • Although power generation has continued to grow in the post-independence era, only 39% of the population had access to electricity in 2016, according to latest estimates from the World Bank.[18] Urban populations benefit from a substantially higher level of access than rural populations, according to the most recent estimates from the African Development Bank (AfDB). People who are not connected to a grid rely on biomass or diesel-fired generators for electricity.[19]
  • Given its heavy reliance on hydropower to meet its electricity needs, the government of Sudan has sought to diversify its power portfolio mix with thermal and even nuclear power sources. However, it is uncertain whether there will be significant progress towards constructing power plants utilizing these fuel types.[20]

South Sudan

  • Total electricity generation in South Sudan was 0.4 billion kWh in 2016, nearly all of which was generated by crude oil.[21]
  • South Sudan has one of the lowest electrification rates in the world; only 9% of its population had access to electricity in 2016, according to the latest estimates from the World Bank.[22]
  • In 2018, the government of South Sudan commissioned a 100 megawatt (MW) thermal power plant in Juba, which could potentially meet a substantial portion of the country’s electricity needs. The plant is expected to reduce consumption of heavy fuel, upon which generators, the primary source of electricity in the country, rely.[23]
  • The government of South Sudan signed an agreement with the government of Uganda in October 2017 to construct an interconnection line between the two countries. The line will connect the electricity grid in Kampala, the Ugandan capital, and supply electricity to Kaya and Nimule, two of South Sudan’s border towns. The agreement is reportedly in line with the East African Power Pool agreement and should address the serious lack of access to electricity in the remote and rural areas of South Sudan.[24]

Renewable Energy Sources


  • Development of the Kajbar dam, located further north in the Nile Valley, has stalled. The dam was strongly opposed by local communities because of its potentially significant environmental impact, and there has been no sign of progress on its construction. The Kajbar dam, along with two other proposed hydropower projects, the Dal and El-Shireig dams, are heavily financed by the Saudi government.[25]
  • According to BMI Research, five hydropower projects have been identified as potential opportunities for development: Fula Rapids (42 MW), Grand Fula (890 MW), Shukkoli (230 MW), Lakki (410 MW), and Bedden (570 MW). However, construction has been delayed because of a lack of funding.[26]

Sudan South Sudan petroleum production supply oil products natural gas electricity renewable energy
2 0

Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today

Latest NrgBuzz

Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020

In 2020, renewable energy sources (including wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy) generated a record 834 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity, or about 21% of all the electricity generated in the United States. Only natural gas (1,617 billion kWh) produced more electricity than renewables in the United States in 2020. Renewables surpassed both nuclear (790 billion kWh) and coal (774 billion kWh) for the first time on record. This outcome in 2020 was due mostly to significantly less coal use in U.S. electricity generation and steadily increased use of wind and solar.

In 2020, U.S. electricity generation from coal in all sectors declined 20% from 2019, while renewables, including small-scale solar, increased 9%. Wind, currently the most prevalent source of renewable electricity in the United States, grew 14% in 2020 from 2019. Utility-scale solar generation (from projects greater than 1 megawatt) increased 26%, and small-scale solar, such as grid-connected rooftop solar panels, increased 19%.

Coal-fired electricity generation in the United States peaked at 2,016 billion kWh in 2007 and much of that capacity has been replaced by or converted to natural gas-fired generation since then. Coal was the largest source of electricity in the United States until 2016, and 2020 was the first year that more electricity was generated by renewables and by nuclear power than by coal (according to our data series that dates back to 1949). Nuclear electric power declined 2% from 2019 to 2020 because several nuclear power plants retired and other nuclear plants experienced slightly more maintenance-related outages.

We expect coal-fired electricity generation to increase in the United States during 2021 as natural gas prices continue to rise and as coal becomes more economically competitive. Based on forecasts in our Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we expect coal-fired electricity generation in all sectors in 2021 to increase 18% from 2020 levels before falling 2% in 2022. We expect U.S. renewable generation across all sectors to increase 7% in 2021 and 10% in 2022. As a result, we forecast coal will be the second-most prevalent electricity source in 2021, and renewables will be the second-most prevalent source in 2022. We expect nuclear electric power to decline 2% in 2021 and 3% in 2022 as operators retire several generators.

monthly U.S electricity generation from all sectors, selected sources

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review and Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO)
Note: This graph shows electricity net generation in all sectors (electric power, industrial, commercial, and residential) and includes both utility-scale and small-scale (customer-sited, less than 1 megawatt) solar.

July, 29 2021

Kindly join this webinar on production data and nodal analysis on the 4yh of August 2021 via the link below

July, 28 2021
Abu Dhabi Lifts The Tide For OPEC+

The tizzy that OPEC+ threw the world into in early July has been settled, with a confirmed pathway forward to restore production for the rest of 2021 and an extension of the deal further into 2022. The lone holdout from the early July meetings – the UAE – appears to have been satisfied with the concessions offered, paving the way for the crude oil producer group to begin increasing its crude oil production in monthly increments from August onwards. However, this deal comes at another difficult time; where the market had been fretting about a shortage of oil a month ago due to resurgent demand, a new blast of Covid-19 infections driven by the delta variant threatens to upend the equation once again. And so Brent crude futures settled below US$70/b for the first time since late May even as the argument at OPEC+ appeared to be settled.

How the argument settled? Well, on the surface, Riyadh and Moscow capitulated to Abu Dhabi’s demands that its baseline quota be adjusted in order to extend the deal. But since that demand would result in all other members asking for a similar adjustment, Saudi Arabia and Russia worked in a rise for all, and in the process, awarded themselves the largest increases.

The net result of this won’t be that apparent in the short- and mid-term. The original proposal at the early July meetings, backed by OPEC+’s technical committee was to raise crude production collectively by 400,000 b/d per month from August through December. The resulting 2 mmb/d increase in crude oil, it was predicted, would still lag behind expected gains in consumption, but would be sufficient to keep prices steady around the US$70/b range, especially when factoring in production increases from non-OPEC+ countries. The longer term view was that the supply deal needed to be extended from its initial expiration in April 2022, since global recovery was still ‘fragile’ and the bloc needed to exercise some control over supply to prevent ‘wild market fluctuations’. All members agreed to this, but the UAE had a caveat – that the extension must be accompanied by a review of its ‘unfair’ baseline quota.

The fix to this issue that was engineered by OPEC+’s twin giants Saudi Arabia and Russia was to raise quotas for all members from May 2022 through to the new expiration date for the supply deal in September 2022. So the UAE will see its baseline quota, the number by which its output compliance is calculated, rise by 330,000 b/d to 3.5 mmb/d. That’s a 10% increase, which will assuage Abu Dhabi’s itchiness to put the expensive crude output infrastructure it has invested billions in since 2016 to good use. But while the UAE’s hike was greater than some others, Saudi Arabia and Russia took the opportunity to award themselves (at least in terms of absolute numbers) by raising their own quotas by 500,000 b/d to 11.5 mmb/d each.

On the surface, that seems academic. Saudi Arabia has only pumped that much oil on a handful of occasions, while Russia’s true capacity is pegged at some 10.4 mmb/d. But the additional generous headroom offered by these larger numbers means that Riyadh and Moscow will have more leeway to react to market fluctuations in 2022, which at this point remains murky. Because while there is consensus that more crude oil will be needed in 2022, there is no consensus on what that number should be. The US EIA is predicting that OPEC+ should be pumping an additional 4 million barrels collectively from June 2021 levels in order to meet demand in the first half of 2022. However, OPEC itself is looking at a figure of some 3 mmb/d, forecasting a period of relative weakness that could possibly require a brief tightening of quotas if the new delta-driven Covid surge erupts into another series of crippling lockdowns. The IEA forecast is aligned with OPEC’s, with an even more cautious bent.

But at some point with the supply pathway from August to December set in stone, although OPEC+ has been careful to say that it may continue to make adjustments to this as the market develops, the issues of headline quota numbers fades away, while compliance rises to prominence. Because the success of the OPEC+ deal was not just based on its huge scale, but also the willingness of its 23 members to comply to their quotas. And that compliance, which has been the source of major frustrations in the past, has been surprisingly high throughout the pandemic. Even in May 2021, the average OPEC+ compliance was 85%. Only a handful of countries – Malaysia, Bahrain, Mexico and Equatorial Guinea – were estimated to have exceeded their quotas, and even then not by much. But compliance is easier to achieve in an environment where demand is weak. You can’t pump what you can’t sell after all. But as crude balances rapidly shift from glut to gluttony, the imperative to maintain compliance dissipates.

For now, OPEC+ has managed to placate the market with its ability to corral its members together to set some certainty for the immediate future of crude. Brent crude prices have now been restored above US$70/b, with WTI also climbing. The spat between Saudi Arabia and the UAE may have surprised and shocked market observers, but there is still unity in the club. However, that unity is set to be tested. By the end of 2021, the focus of the OPEC+ supply deal will have shifted from theoretical quotas to actual compliance. Abu Dhabi has managed to lift the tide for all OPEC+ members, offering them more room to manoeuvre in a recovering market, but discipline will not be uniform. And that’s when the fireworks will really begin.

End of Article 

Get timely updates about latest developments in oil & gas delivered to your inbox. Join our email list and get your targeted content regularly for free.

Market Outlook:

  • Crude price trading range: Brent – US$72-74/b, WTI – US$70-72/b
  • Worries about new Covid-19 infections worldwide dragging down demand just as OPEC+ announced that it would be raising production by 400,000 b/d a month from August onward triggered a slide in Brent and WTI crude prices below US$70/b
  • However, that slide was short lived as near-term demand indications showed the consumption remained relatively resilient, which lifted crude prices back to their previous range in the low US$70/b level, although the longer-term effects of the Covid-19 delta variants are still unknown at this moment
  • Clarity over supply and demand will continue to be lacking given the fragility of the situation, which suggests that crude prices will remain broadly rangebound for now

No alt text provided for this image

Click here to view upcoming Energy Industry training courses

July, 26 2021