EDITORIAL: The latest outcry by the Oil Tankers Contractors Association (OTCA) alleging a “threefold crisis” and warning of yet another potential disruption in oil transport should be seen for what it is: an attempt to strongarm the system once more. This is not the first time the transporters’ lobby has sought to exert pressure on regulators and oil marketing companies by threatening to halt supplies or mobilise nationwide protests.
Each episode is dressed differently — automation issues, unfair distribution, or alleged quota violations — but the underlying intent remains consistent: to extract concessions and preserve a disproportionate share in an increasingly obsolete logistical model.
The OTCA’s latest set of grievances include “automation errors,” “illegal loading,” and “unfair distribution.” Yet scratch the surface, and the real issue becomes clear — the transporters are resisting the gradual but necessary shift toward pipeline-based fuel movement. The Association’s demand for restoration of a so-called 55 percent “quota” for road tankers, and its objection to pipelines being “used beyond their share,” betrays a deeper unwillingness to adapt to a more efficient, safer, and environmentally responsible mode of fuel transport.
It bears repeating that pipelines are globally recognised as the most efficient and secure means of transporting fuel. They are faster, cheaper, and far less prone to accidents, theft, and pilferage. Above all, they minimise carbon emissions compared to fleets of oil tankers that ply thousands of kilometres across the country. Pakistan, as a signatory to the Paris Agreement and under its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), has committed to reducing emissions intensity of its economy — and that commitment cannot be squared with a policy of appeasing road transport lobbies.
The numbers tell the story better than rhetoric. According to the Oil Companies Advisory Council’s (OCAC’s) Pakistan Oil Report, of the 18.3 million tons of white oil transported in FY2023-24, a staggering 11.78 million tons — nearly two-thirds — was carried by road, while only 34 percent was moved through pipelines. The previous fiscal year showed a similar pattern. In other words, despite the existence of a robust pipeline network, road-based transportation continues to dominate, contributing to congestion, higher logistics costs, and increased risk of environmental hazards. Industry insiders have long pointed out that pipeline capacity often remains deliberately underutilised, partly due to persistent lobbying and bureaucratic inertia encouraged by the transporters’ influence.
It is in this context that OTCA’s repeated claims of being “disadvantaged” or “excluded” must be viewed sceptically. The so-called “quota” argument is not only outdated but counterproductive. The transporters’ business model thrives on inefficiency — and inefficiency is precisely what the energy sector can no longer afford. Pakistan’s fuel logistics chain already suffers from systemic leakages, high distribution margins, and excessive road exposure that raises both financial and environmental costs. Continuing to privilege road transport at the expense of pipelines is tantamount to subsidising inefficiency.
It is also important to remember that OTCA has a history of using brinkmanship as leverage. In recent years, it has repeatedly threatened to suspend oil transport, effectively holding the downstream supply chain hostage. Each time, authorities have scrambled to defuse the situation — often by offering temporary accommodations. This cycle of appeasement has emboldened the Association, which now routinely couches its demands in the language of equity and “rights” even when the data shows otherwise.
The government and the regulator — in this case the Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) — must resist this pressure with a clear policy direction. The automation system being criticised by the OTCA was designed precisely to introduce transparency, traceability, and accountability into oil movement. If there are implementation flaws, they should be fixed, but the principle of digitisation should not be reversed merely to placate vested interests. Similarly, the question of transport allocation should be determined by operational efficiency and national interest, not by informal “quotas” negotiated under duress.
For Pakistan, the stakes extend beyond mere logistics. The underutilisation of pipelines undermines energy security, economic efficiency, and environmental goals. Every additional ton of fuel moved by road instead of pipeline represents higher costs, higher emissions, and greater risk of accidents. With fiscal space already tight and climate financing increasingly tied to demonstrable green transitions, Pakistan cannot afford to be seen compromising on even modest decarbonization opportunities.
The climate argument is not incidental. Transport emissions account for a growing share of Pakistan’s overall greenhouse gas profile. Expanding the use of pipelines, which requires no combustion engines and minimal operational energy, is one of the easiest ways to cut transport-related emissions without requiring major technological breakthroughs or foreign investment. In contrast, the road-based fuel supply chain remains dependent on thousands of aging, poorly maintained tankers burning diesel on long-haul routes — an environmental liability in every sense.
The government’s role, therefore, must be twofold: firstly, ensuring that pipelines are operated at optimal capacity and progressively expanded wherever commercially viable; and secondly; enforcing strict compliance among road transporters to prevent illegal loading, overhauling, and tampering practices that compromise both safety and integrity of supply. The OTCA’s concerns about fairness and digital errors can be reviewed through formal channels, but they cannot be allowed to morph into policy blackmail.
In the long run, Pakistan’s energy transition depends on making rational, efficiency-driven choices — not on yielding to pressure groups whose relevance is fast fading in a modern energy economy. The sooner the authorities make that clear, the better for all stakeholders, including, ultimately, those in the transport sector who must evolve or risk obsolescence.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025