January 21, 2008 The Guardian Robert Tait
The political authority of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, suffered a serious blow today after the country's most powerful figure sided with MPs by ordering him to supply cheap gas to villages undergoing power cuts amid an unexpectedly harsh winter.In a humiliating rebuff, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader who has the final say over all state matters, ordered the enactment of a law requiring the government to provide £500m of gas supplies from emergency reserve funds.Ahmadinejad had refused to implement the measure, accusing parliament of exceeding its powers in passing the bill in response to plummeting temperatures and gas cuts, which have left many areas without heating during the country's coldest winter in years.At least 64 people are reported to have died after gas supplies were turned off in sub-zero temperatures. The cuts, belying Iran's status as possessor of the world's second biggest natural gas reserves, have provoked public outrage and threaten to turn a mood of rumbling unhappiness into a winter of discontent for Ahmadinejad.The president, who was elected on a platform of economic justice for the poor, rejected parliament's measure on budgetary grounds and blamed the gas cuts on neighbouring Turkmenistan, which has stopped supplies to Iran over a payment dispute.But in a letter to the parliament's speaker, Gholamali Hadad-Adel, Khamenei unceremoniously overruled Ahmadinejad, writing: "All legal legislation that has gone through [the required] procedures stipulated in the constitution is binding for all branches of power."Khamenei's intervention is the latest in a series of recent signals that he is losing patience with a president to whom he once showed staunch loyalty, defending him whenever he came under fire from political opponents.
The leader once described Ahmadinejad's government as Iran's best since the 1979 Islamic revolution, but in a speech this month in the central city of Yazd, he conspicuously refrained from praising it.Instead, he put it on a par with previous administration, saying that "the government has certain unique characteristics, but like any other government there are mistakes and shortcomings".Reports from inside Iran suggest Khamenei has grown increasingly disenchanted with Ahmadinejad's economic record, which has been marked by surging inflation and dramatic rises in basic food and housing costs.Such misgivings have been given added piquancy by a report last month from 16 US intelligence agencies concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. The report appeared to ease the threat of American military strikes against Iran's uranium enrichment activities, which Ahmadinejad had used to silence opponents and clamp down on domestic dissent.The diminishing external threat appears to have emboldened the president's opponents in the run up to parliamentary elections on March 14. It may also have removed the need for Khamenei to keep his displeasure quiet.Previously the supreme leader had condemned criticism of Ahmadinejad as undermining national unity in the face of "enemy" threats.But in a possible sign of his changing attitude, Khamenei recently appointed Mohammad Zolghadr as deputy head of the armed forces for Basij just weeks after Ahmadinejad sacked him as deputy interior minister.
link to original article
IMPERIAL EMBLEM
PERSIA
Iranian Freedom Fighters UNITE
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Truth And Lies In The War On Terror Pt 1-4
Truth And Lies In The War On Terror Pt 1-4..Please Repost
Monday, November 12, 2007
US pension funds ask Shell to scrap £5bn Iran project : Steve Hawkes - July 26, 2007
Shell is coming under intense pressure to scrap a £5 billion natural gas project in Iran after a call from a group of leading US pension funds for energy companies around the world to cut their ties with the Middle Eastern state. Some of America’s most influential institutional investors have written to Shell and seven of its major rivals, including Russia’s Gazprom and Total, warning that there is an increasing risk that sanctions imposed on the country will hit their business.
In a two-page letter sent to Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, the funds have revealed they are even concerned that infrastructure developed by the company could be targeted in any future war. It stated: “Historically, regional conflict has exposed facilities and infrastructure to the risk of attack, as evidenced by the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.” The move threatens to overshadow what promises to be one of the best set of quarterly results from Shell for nine months today. Analysts expected the group to reveal second quarter profits of $6.7 billion (£3.2 billion). The concerned shareholders include New York City’s five main pension funds and the influential California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers), which has $700 million invested in Shell. The funds are coming under increasing pressure from State legislators in the US to divest their holdings in companies with ties to Iran. American oil and gas companies have already been barred from dealing with Iran, a stance backed by Lord Browne of Madingley, the former chief executive of BP, two years ago. He said: “Politically, Iran is not a flyer.” Shell has a long history with the Middle Eastern state, and three years ago signed a framework agreement to develop part of the giant South Pars gasfield and a liquefied natural gas plant with Spain’s Repsol. Mr van der Veer has continually refused to clarify Shell’s position regarding Iran, insisting that a final investment decision is more than a year away. A spokesman last night refused to comment on the letter except to confirm it had been received. He said: “When we come to deciding on Iran, we will take political considerations into account.” Iran holds the second-biggest gas reserves in the world behind Russia and is seen by analysts as a key part of Shell’s portfolio, given the company’s need to replenish its oil and gas developments. Other companies on the pension funds’ hit list include Repsol, Italy’s ENI, China National Petroleum Corp, ONGC of India and Japan’s Inpex Corporation. In total they hold $3.7 billion worth of shares in energy companies involved in Iran. Industry sources last night told The Times that pressure from the US is already making it harder for British exporters to bank letters of credit from Tehran. UK companies sell hundreds of products for oil pipelines in Iran. A spokesman for Calpers insisted that the letter sent to Shell and its rivals was little more than a “fact-find-ing mission” to establish the extent of their operations in the country. However, he admitted there was increasing concern about the companies’ ties to a “state sponsor of terrorism”. “It is increasingly likely that the worsening situation will negatively impact companies doing business there,” he said.
Iran’s pool
— Iran has 132.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves – 10 per cent of the world’s total
— It holds 970 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, second only to Russia
— The country is the second-biggest Opec member behind Saudi Arabia, producing nearly four million barrels of oil a day, more than either BP or Shell’s global daily output
— Oil exports generate more than $45 billion a year for Iran, half its annual budget
— Exports are up by 40 per cent compared with the level just three years ago
In a two-page letter sent to Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, the funds have revealed they are even concerned that infrastructure developed by the company could be targeted in any future war. It stated: “Historically, regional conflict has exposed facilities and infrastructure to the risk of attack, as evidenced by the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.” The move threatens to overshadow what promises to be one of the best set of quarterly results from Shell for nine months today. Analysts expected the group to reveal second quarter profits of $6.7 billion (£3.2 billion). The concerned shareholders include New York City’s five main pension funds and the influential California Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers), which has $700 million invested in Shell. The funds are coming under increasing pressure from State legislators in the US to divest their holdings in companies with ties to Iran. American oil and gas companies have already been barred from dealing with Iran, a stance backed by Lord Browne of Madingley, the former chief executive of BP, two years ago. He said: “Politically, Iran is not a flyer.” Shell has a long history with the Middle Eastern state, and three years ago signed a framework agreement to develop part of the giant South Pars gasfield and a liquefied natural gas plant with Spain’s Repsol. Mr van der Veer has continually refused to clarify Shell’s position regarding Iran, insisting that a final investment decision is more than a year away. A spokesman last night refused to comment on the letter except to confirm it had been received. He said: “When we come to deciding on Iran, we will take political considerations into account.” Iran holds the second-biggest gas reserves in the world behind Russia and is seen by analysts as a key part of Shell’s portfolio, given the company’s need to replenish its oil and gas developments. Other companies on the pension funds’ hit list include Repsol, Italy’s ENI, China National Petroleum Corp, ONGC of India and Japan’s Inpex Corporation. In total they hold $3.7 billion worth of shares in energy companies involved in Iran. Industry sources last night told The Times that pressure from the US is already making it harder for British exporters to bank letters of credit from Tehran. UK companies sell hundreds of products for oil pipelines in Iran. A spokesman for Calpers insisted that the letter sent to Shell and its rivals was little more than a “fact-find-ing mission” to establish the extent of their operations in the country. However, he admitted there was increasing concern about the companies’ ties to a “state sponsor of terrorism”. “It is increasingly likely that the worsening situation will negatively impact companies doing business there,” he said.
Iran’s pool
— Iran has 132.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves – 10 per cent of the world’s total
— It holds 970 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, second only to Russia
— The country is the second-biggest Opec member behind Saudi Arabia, producing nearly four million barrels of oil a day, more than either BP or Shell’s global daily output
— Oil exports generate more than $45 billion a year for Iran, half its annual budget
— Exports are up by 40 per cent compared with the level just three years ago
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Professor Saeedi: A catastrophic loss of 3.9 trillion Dollars in Iran's oil reservoirs
Professor Ali Mohammd Saeedi
ISNA, Tehran - Recent calculations and studies by professor Saeedi, expert in oil and gas reservoirs, Dr. Derakhshan, energy economist and several other engineers, on Iran's reservoirs proves that injecting gas to increase oil extraction is the most economic alternative of gas consumption. The Strategic Issues reporter of ISNA said these calculations is based on mathematical models run in three different scenarios to estimate the necessary amount of gas needed to extract oil. Professor Saeedi said: If gas is injected into our oil reservoirs, the volume of Iran's fossil energy resources would become more than Saudi Arabia in the long run and Iran can gain the first place in the world. He warned: Non-injection of gas would diminish Iran's oil production by two million barrels per day and we would be forced to import oil. Based on his recent calculations on Iran's oil reservoirs, Saeedi said: The amount of gas dedicated to exportation can prevent the destruction of 65 billion barrels of oil; this reservoir will be buried because of non-injection of gas and the decrease in pressure. To understand the full implications of this assessment it should be noted that assuming an exportation of four million barrels a day, the reservoir of 65 billion barrels would be the amount of oil exported in 44 years with a value of 3.9 trillion Dollars (based on 60 Dollars per barrel). It should noted that Professor Saeedi's studies in 1355 [1976] which has been published recently by Majlis Research Centre, shows that Iran's oil reservoirs needed an injection of 250 million cubic meters of gas in that period. This programme was approved by the Iranian oil company and all the necessary equipments were ordered and bought. Today, after a quarter of a century, only 100 million cubic meters of gas is injected to these reservoirs. According to estimations by Professor Saeedi the volume needed today is in the range of 560 million cubic meters. Several oil officials have recently claimed that the rate of oil retrieval in oil reservoirs has increased to 27 percent. Professor Saeedi denies this claim and said: The rate of retrieval is 21 percent in our oil fields. The oil ministry should explain how, without having injected gas in oil fields, it has increased the retrieval rates.
Professor Saeedi had published his important research and studies, entitled Oil and National Interests, regarding the necessity to inject gas in oil field to increase production of oil in 1381 [2002] (before the rise in oil prices) in Majlis Research Centre newsletter. In his report the attention is drawn to the fact that to maintain the production of 4 million barrels a day (with a real production of 3.5 million barrels) the Oil Company needs six thousand new oil wells within the next 20 years. This would require an investment of 33 billion Dollars. If gas is injected into the oil fields daily by 20 billion cubic pye, this number will be reduced by half and reach 3000 oil wells. The economy in this case is equal to the cost of production, transfer and injection of 20 billion cubic pye. He anticipated: In the year 2015 due to the inability of many oil exporting countries to export oil the prices would rise considerably and we can benefit from this situation if we invest sufficiently in marinating our oil fields. Note: Original article published in Persian by ISNA.
ISNA, Tehran - Recent calculations and studies by professor Saeedi, expert in oil and gas reservoirs, Dr. Derakhshan, energy economist and several other engineers, on Iran's reservoirs proves that injecting gas to increase oil extraction is the most economic alternative of gas consumption. The Strategic Issues reporter of ISNA said these calculations is based on mathematical models run in three different scenarios to estimate the necessary amount of gas needed to extract oil. Professor Saeedi said: If gas is injected into our oil reservoirs, the volume of Iran's fossil energy resources would become more than Saudi Arabia in the long run and Iran can gain the first place in the world. He warned: Non-injection of gas would diminish Iran's oil production by two million barrels per day and we would be forced to import oil. Based on his recent calculations on Iran's oil reservoirs, Saeedi said: The amount of gas dedicated to exportation can prevent the destruction of 65 billion barrels of oil; this reservoir will be buried because of non-injection of gas and the decrease in pressure. To understand the full implications of this assessment it should be noted that assuming an exportation of four million barrels a day, the reservoir of 65 billion barrels would be the amount of oil exported in 44 years with a value of 3.9 trillion Dollars (based on 60 Dollars per barrel). It should noted that Professor Saeedi's studies in 1355 [1976] which has been published recently by Majlis Research Centre, shows that Iran's oil reservoirs needed an injection of 250 million cubic meters of gas in that period. This programme was approved by the Iranian oil company and all the necessary equipments were ordered and bought. Today, after a quarter of a century, only 100 million cubic meters of gas is injected to these reservoirs. According to estimations by Professor Saeedi the volume needed today is in the range of 560 million cubic meters. Several oil officials have recently claimed that the rate of oil retrieval in oil reservoirs has increased to 27 percent. Professor Saeedi denies this claim and said: The rate of retrieval is 21 percent in our oil fields. The oil ministry should explain how, without having injected gas in oil fields, it has increased the retrieval rates.
Professor Saeedi had published his important research and studies, entitled Oil and National Interests, regarding the necessity to inject gas in oil field to increase production of oil in 1381 [2002] (before the rise in oil prices) in Majlis Research Centre newsletter. In his report the attention is drawn to the fact that to maintain the production of 4 million barrels a day (with a real production of 3.5 million barrels) the Oil Company needs six thousand new oil wells within the next 20 years. This would require an investment of 33 billion Dollars. If gas is injected into the oil fields daily by 20 billion cubic pye, this number will be reduced by half and reach 3000 oil wells. The economy in this case is equal to the cost of production, transfer and injection of 20 billion cubic pye. He anticipated: In the year 2015 due to the inability of many oil exporting countries to export oil the prices would rise considerably and we can benefit from this situation if we invest sufficiently in marinating our oil fields. Note: Original article published in Persian by ISNA.
Monday, September 10, 2007
GRAND OIL THEFT.... AT LEAST THE SHAH DID NOT STEAL IRANIAN OIL LIKE THESE MULLAH MAFIA'S
سایت حکومتی الف: حدود نيمي از ارزش نفت خام توليدي كشور به حساب خزانه واريز نمي شود. با وجود اينكه ساز و كار بهره مالكانه كه در لايحه برنامه چهارم توسعه آمده بود تصويب نشد، گزارشهاي تفريغ بودجههاي سالانه حاكي از آن است كه نيمي از ارزش نفت خام توليدي كه انفال حكومت جمهوري اسلامي و متعلق به بيتالمال مسلمين ميباشد در حسابهاي خزانه منعكس نميگردد كه مصداق نقض كامل اصل 53 قانون اساسي است. بر اساس "گزارش تفريغ قسمت سوم قانون بودجه سال 1383 كشور (تفريغ درآمدها)" ، در اين سال 1462 ميليون بشكه نفت خام توليد شده كه مقدار 887 ميليون بشكه صادر و 573 ميليون بشكه براي مصرف داخل تحويل شركت ملي پخش و پالايش شده است. درآمد حاصل از اين مقدار توليد به شرح زير است: با دقت در جدول شماره يك مشاهده مي شود، در حاليكه ارزش واقعي 573 ميليون بشكه مصرف داخل نفت خام از قرار هر بشكه 35.82 دلار با نرخ برابري 8650 ريال بالغ بر 177542 ميليارد ريال(حدود 20.5 ميليارد دلار) بوده است. اين سرمايه ملي با قيمت هر بشكه 25500 ريال به قيمت 14608 ميليارد ريال فروخته شده است.طبق گزارش هاي وصولي خزانه در حساب درآمد دولت، مبلغ 255790 ميليارد ريال بابت درآمد نفت خام واريز شده است در حاليكه ارزش نفت توليدي با تسامح 360958 ميليارد ريال بوده است؛ بنابر اين مبلغ 105168 ميليارد ريال از وجوه حاصل از توليد نفت به حساب بيتالمال مسلمين واريز نشده است. براي محاسبه ارزش واقعي توليد نفت در اين سال به جدول شماره دو نگاه مي كنيم: بر اساس "گزارش هاي خزانه داري كل كشور" در سال 83 چيزي حدود 29 ميليارد دلار از محل درآمد نفت به حساب خزانه واريز شده است. در واقع تقريبا 31.5 ميليارد دلار از ارزش توليد نفت به حساب خزانه واريز نشده است. همين روال در سال 84 نيز ديده مي شود. بر اساس "گزارش تفريغ بودجه سال 1384 وزارت نفت"، مقدار توليد نفت خام در اين سال 1468 ميليون بشكه بوده است كه 867 ميليون بشكه صادر و 601 ميليون بشكه در داخل مصرف شده است. با توجه با جدول شماره سه، ارزش توليد اين مقدار نفت خام چيزي حدود 76 ميليارد دلار برآورد شده است. با مشاهده مبالغ پرداختي از جانب شركت ملي نفت ايران به خزانه كل كشور ديده مي شود، درآمد دولت از نفت خام در سال84 چيزي حدود 42.5 ميليارد دلار است. بنابراين 33.5 ميليارد دلار از وجوه حاصل از توليد نفت به حساب بيتالمال واريز نشده است.البته بايد توجه كرد "شايد اين مبالغ حيف و ميل نشده باشد ولي مسلما غير قانوني هزينه شده است".
Be Jooneh Ammat... Khodet Boro Beh Jangeh Amrikaei ha
سرلشگر رحیم صفوی با اشاره به آمادگی سپاه برای مقابله قدرتمندانه در برابر تهدیدات دشمن گفت: امیدواریم دشمنان نخواهند بخت نگون خود را یک بار دیگر بسنجند. به گزارش مهر، سردار سرلشکرسید یحیی صفوی مشاور عالی فرمانده کل قوا در امور نیروهای مسلح که در هجدهمین همایش فرماندهان و مسئولین سپاه سخن می گفت با بیان این مطلب اظهار داشت: دشمن بداند سپاه و بسیج با فرماندهی رهبر معظم انقلاب آماده دفاع همه جانبه از انقلاب است و در صورت وقوع تهدید مقابله قدرتمندانه ای را به دشمن نشان خواهد داد.سرلشگر صفوی خطاب به فرماندهان حاضر در این همایش گفت: شما فرماندهان ارشد سپاه باید با هوشیاری سیاسی و اطلاعات وآمادگی عملیاتی، دشمن را از هرگونه توطئه باز دارید و در صورت وقوع هرگونه تهدید با قدرت کامل و تدبیر موثر به مقابله با دشمن بپردازید.
کشف بمب در دانشگاه تهران
خبرگزاری حکومتی فارس: "مقارن عصر امروز يك بمب دست ساز كه در ضلع شرقي دانشگاه تهران جاسازي شده بود توسط سربازان گم نام امام زمان كشف و خنثي شد. پس از آنكه مقامات مربوطه از جاسازي يك بمب دست ساز در محوطه شرقي دانشگاه تهران مطلع شدند با آگاه سازي نيروهاي امنيني و انتظامي و اقدام به موقع از انفجار آن جلوگيري كردند.
هنوز هيچ گروه و يا تشكيلاتي خاص مسئوليت اين بمب گذاري را به عهده نگرفته و انگيزه عاملان آن مشخص نشده است."
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
DOZARI appoints his mate to get investment for the oil industry from his friends abroad !
Iran seeks foreign oil investment : By Gareth Smyth in Tehran : Published: August 20 2007 22:31
Iran appointed a new deputy oil minister for international affairs on Monday as part of a government reshuffle. Hossein Noghrehkar-Shirazi, who will take over responsibility for liaison with foreign companies, was appointed by the acting oil minister, Gholam-Hossein Nozari. The oil ministry said Mr Noghrehkar-Shirazi had previously been a diplomat in Austria and had studied in the US.
see here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/922df29c-4f60-11dc-b485-0000779fd2ac.html
Ignoring the Fire-Ship
Many centuries ago, in naval warfare, ships were set ablaze and floated into the midst of opposing fleets resulting in all-consuming conflagrations of destruction and doom for the unprepared opponents. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged an unrelenting, covert and at times overt war against the US and the West in general. From the Hostage Crisis, to the massacre of 240 Marines in Beirut, to the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, to the funding and training of Mohamad Atta and other 911 bombers in Bosnia, to the training, arming, funding and participation in the killing of US and coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at innumerable times and locations in between, the Islamic Republic has been a vital and integral leader in these terrorist activities culminating in the shedding of American blood and that of her allies. These activities have not only shown no sign of remission since the initiation of a new round of "security-roundtable discussions" with Iran, but they have increased dramatically...
By Kevin Fatemi
Read The article : http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2007&m=08&d=21&a=1
Mother Accuses Iran of Torturing Students
A mother of one of the three Iranian students still held in jail after an incident in May on Monday publicly accused the authorities of torturing the young men to obtain confessions. Azam Tajik, mother of Ehsan Mansouri, a student detained for the past four months on suspicion of publishing material offensive to Islam in university newspapers, said her son had been held in solitary confinement in Tehran's Evin prison. more By Agence France-Presse
U.S. Undersecretary of State: 'We Have Time For Diplomacy' With Iran
WASHINGTON -- Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns today said the diplomatic option must ‘be exhausted’ before other methods of persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program are considered. more By Radio Free Europe
Iran Seeks Foreign Oil Investment
Iran appointed a new deputy oil minister for international affairs on Monday as part of a government reshuffle. Hossein Noghrehkar-Shirazi, who will take over responsibility for liaison with foreign companies, was appointed by the acting oil minister, Gholam-Hossein Nozari. more By The Financial Times
Larijani Warns Against New UN Resolution Against Iran
Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) warned Westerners seeking new resolution against Iran any 'illogical action' would make Iran's cooperation with IAEA and negotiations 'futile.' more By Islamic Republic News Agency
U.S. Marine Seeking Damages from Iran
It was Oct. 23, 1983, when the largest non-nuclear explosion ever detonated sent Marine Lance Cpl. Terry Valore, of Slickville in Westmoreland County, flying into a wall as his barracks disintegrated around him in Beirut, Lebanon. more By Pittsburg Tribune-Review
Iran appointed a new deputy oil minister for international affairs on Monday as part of a government reshuffle. Hossein Noghrehkar-Shirazi, who will take over responsibility for liaison with foreign companies, was appointed by the acting oil minister, Gholam-Hossein Nozari. The oil ministry said Mr Noghrehkar-Shirazi had previously been a diplomat in Austria and had studied in the US.
see here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/922df29c-4f60-11dc-b485-0000779fd2ac.html
Ignoring the Fire-Ship
Many centuries ago, in naval warfare, ships were set ablaze and floated into the midst of opposing fleets resulting in all-consuming conflagrations of destruction and doom for the unprepared opponents. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged an unrelenting, covert and at times overt war against the US and the West in general. From the Hostage Crisis, to the massacre of 240 Marines in Beirut, to the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, to the funding and training of Mohamad Atta and other 911 bombers in Bosnia, to the training, arming, funding and participation in the killing of US and coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at innumerable times and locations in between, the Islamic Republic has been a vital and integral leader in these terrorist activities culminating in the shedding of American blood and that of her allies. These activities have not only shown no sign of remission since the initiation of a new round of "security-roundtable discussions" with Iran, but they have increased dramatically...
By Kevin Fatemi
Read The article : http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2007&m=08&d=21&a=1
Mother Accuses Iran of Torturing Students
A mother of one of the three Iranian students still held in jail after an incident in May on Monday publicly accused the authorities of torturing the young men to obtain confessions. Azam Tajik, mother of Ehsan Mansouri, a student detained for the past four months on suspicion of publishing material offensive to Islam in university newspapers, said her son had been held in solitary confinement in Tehran's Evin prison. more By Agence France-Presse
U.S. Undersecretary of State: 'We Have Time For Diplomacy' With Iran
WASHINGTON -- Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns today said the diplomatic option must ‘be exhausted’ before other methods of persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program are considered. more By Radio Free Europe
Iran Seeks Foreign Oil Investment
Iran appointed a new deputy oil minister for international affairs on Monday as part of a government reshuffle. Hossein Noghrehkar-Shirazi, who will take over responsibility for liaison with foreign companies, was appointed by the acting oil minister, Gholam-Hossein Nozari. more By The Financial Times
Larijani Warns Against New UN Resolution Against Iran
Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) warned Westerners seeking new resolution against Iran any 'illogical action' would make Iran's cooperation with IAEA and negotiations 'futile.' more By Islamic Republic News Agency
U.S. Marine Seeking Damages from Iran
It was Oct. 23, 1983, when the largest non-nuclear explosion ever detonated sent Marine Lance Cpl. Terry Valore, of Slickville in Westmoreland County, flying into a wall as his barracks disintegrated around him in Beirut, Lebanon. more By Pittsburg Tribune-Review
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Why oil is the enemy of democracy : By Daniel Hannan
The anti-war crowd is right. It is all about oil - although perhaps not in the way it means. Consider some of the current threats to global stability: Russia's contempt for international norms, Iran's nuclear ambitions, the massacres in Darfur, the descent of South America into Leftist authoritarianism. All these crises are oil-fuelled. The six-fold rise in the price of a barrel, and the commensurate boost it has given to the petro-kleptocracies, is the central fact of our age. Russia is ceasing to be a democracy in any meaningful sense: opposition politicians are harassed, independent media closed, journalists murdered. Almost every contiguous state has felt the force of President Putin's oil diplomacy: Estonia, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine and, above all, Georgia, which is being asphyxiated by a semi-official blockade. Nor does it stop there. Alexander Litvinenko, let us remember, was a British subject living under the Queen's peace. At best, his murder was an act of terrorism; at worst, an act of war. Yet Vladimir Putin calculates that he can mock us because, as his defence minister cheerfully puts it: "The West keeps buying our energy." Russian revanchism correlates remarkably closely to the price of a barrel. When oil last peaked, at the end of the 1970s, the Red Army poured into Afghanistan. When prices collapsed at the end of the 1980s, so did the USSR. advertisementSimilarly, see how Teheran is throwing its weight about, sponsoring militias in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the old Silk Road khanates, supplying its Lebanese and Palestinian proxies with rockets, orchestrating attacks on our soldiers in Basra, even seizing Servicemen in the Gulf. Meanwhile, the ayatollahs have given up even pretending to collaborate with the international nuclear authorities. Oil again. At the same time, largely unnoticed, South America is retreating from the pluralism of the 1990s into a malignant neo-caudillismo. The modern Latin dictator does not seize power with tanks. Rather, he gets himself more or less fairly elected, then promptly sets about dismantling every check on his power, closing down parliament, nationalising the media, stuffing the judiciary, vitiating the electoral commission, rewriting the constitution. And where has this process gone furthest? In the region's three hydro-carbon exporters: Bolivia, Ecuador and, worst of all, Venezuela, whose foul-mouthed autocrat, Hugo Chávez, has now decreed that foreigners who criticise him will be immediately deported. And, while we're about it, what do you suppose gives the Sudanese government the confidence to defy world opinion in Darfur? Chiefly the fact that its revenue is secure as long as China keeps buying its petrol. An oil strike could well be the worst thing that can happen to a country. By giving the regime an independent income stream, it breaks the link between taxation and representation. States that do not depend on a single natural resource can develop free economies, in which property rights are adjudicated by independent courts. But states where there is one overwhelming source of wealth tend to become oligarchies, whose leaders squabble to get their hands on fabulous riches. There are exceptions. Norway has found a way to put its oil wealth beyond the reach of its politicians, placing its revenues in a special fund. But for every Norway there are a dozen Nigerias - states whose rulers have lost the habit of consulting their citizens. Israelis like to joke that they spent 40 years wandering the wilderness, and managed to wind up in the only part of the Middle East with no oil. Perhaps this is connected to another thing that Israelis are quick to tell you, namely that theirs is the only democracy in the neighbourhood. Even the most quiescent oil producers often turn out to have bought internal stability at the price of foreign instability. It is striking how many suicide bombers come from repressive Gulf monarchies. To borrow a metaphor from chaos theory, these states are drinking order from their environment. Or, in Leninist terms, they are exporting their internal contradictions. All because they have been cursed with unearned wealth. So, a piece of advice to the Scottish Nationalist Party leader, Alex Salmond, who is about to publish his plans for an independence referendum. Stop droning on about the £200 billion of oil revenue that you think a separate Scottish state should have received. Scotland has suffered enough from subventions. Scots, like other Britons, are a restless, mercantile, inventive people. They rose by relying on themselves, not by trusting their leaders to sign back-room deals with multinationals. In any case, North Sea extraction is now definitively dwindling - and not before time.
Have your say Read comments
Have your say Read comments
Friday, May 11, 2007
MONEY MASTERS, DOLLER, GOLD, AND NOW THE BLACK GOLD ' OIL'.
THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE IN 1996/7 - WELL BEFORE 9/11.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Total CEO Held for a Second Day of Questioning Over Iran Deal
PARIS -- The chief executive of oil giant Total SA was held for a second day of questioning Thursday in an investigation into the group's activities in Iran, while two other executives were released with no charges filed, the company said. French police are investigating whether Total paid bribes to win a contract to develop the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf in 1997, as well as other allegations of wrongdoing, judicial officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of laws requiring that details of investigations be kept secret. Total Chief Executive Christophe de Margerie was still speaking to investigators Thursday morning, said company spokesman Paul Floren. De Margerie was head of exploration and production of Total predecessor TotalFina at the time of the Iran deal. Two others questioned in the case — Total Chief Financial Officer Robert Castaigne and the company's upstream operations executive, Philippe Boisseau — were back at work Thursday, Floren said. De Margerie has already been targeted in a French probe over the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program in Iraq.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
پنجشنبه، 24 اسفند ماه 1385 برابر با 2007 Thursday 15 March
كارگران شركت نفت در گچساران اعلام كردند : به زودي جلوي فرمانداري اين شهرستان تجمع مي كنيم.
به گزارش خبرنگار گروه كارگري ايلنا، اين كارگران گفتند: براي دريافت مطالبات خود بارها به مسوولان شركت نفت مراجعه كرده ايم ولي هيچ كسي پاسخ نمي دهد. اين كارگران از بيان نام خويش خوداري كرده و افزودند: اگر نام ما را بنويسيد كه اخراج مي شويم زيرا مسوولان شركت نفت نه حرف هاي سازنده كارگران را مي شنوند و نه اهميتي براي نقدهاي ما قائل هستند. بگفته اين كارگران وضعيت معيشتي برخي از كارگران شركت نفت گچساران بحراني است كه فرارسيدن شب سال نو اين وضعيت بحراني تر مي شود.اين افراد مي گويند: مسوولان شركت نفت گچساران با اطلاع از مشكلات كارگران، فقط وعده پرداخت مطالبات را مي دهند درحالي كه از دو ماه قبل حقوق و مزاياي نقدي كارگران پرداخت نشده است. اين منبع آگاه نیز با اظهار تاسف از پاسخگو نبودن مسوولان شركت نفت گچساران به معضلات كارگري اين شركت ، افزود: وضعيت كنوني كارگران شركت نفت گچساران واقعا نگران كننده است.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
First Deny it than lie about it and if all else fails then turn the lie into a massive BIG lie
Nuclear energy Iran's 'future and destiny': Khamenei
Supreme (Dictator) leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given his unequivocal backing to Iran's nuclear programme, saying it was the "future and destiny" for a country whose fossil fuels would one day run out. Khamanei also lashed out at "superficial and narrow-minded" critics who have warned the drive could come at too great a cost for Iran, saying such comments only served to encourage the enemy. "Nuclear energy is the future and destiny of the country," state television quoted him as saying in a speech in Tehran on Saturday.
The television said Khamenei "criticised some who, with superficial and narrow-minded views, say that nuclear energy is not necessary for the country at this cost." He said Iran's huge oil and gas reserves "would not last forever". (They will last for another 200 year at lest). "If a nation does not care about the future of its energy, it must remain dependent on the domineering powers," he said in allusion to Western governments. ( What about all the other countries in the world that do not posses any Oil. are they all siting down and crying about it. No. They find a way of dealing with realaties not like you ). Iran is the world's fourth biggest producer of crude and has the second largest natural gas reserves after Russia, although it lags well behind other countries in terms of gas exports. "The reason for the powers' objection to the Iranian nation's achievement of nuclear energy, even though they use it themselves, is that they want to take hold of the destiny of the world's energy," said Khamenei. A widely reported study published in December by the academic Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University in the United States said Iran could soon face its own energy crunch owing to failing infrastructure and lack of investment. Khamenei's intervention comes as pressure mounts from Western countries for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can be used both to make fuel for nuclear power stations and the core of an atomic weapon. "In this path, one should not be frightened by the enemy... One should be strong against the enemy. Any expression of weakness will make the enemy bolder," said Khamenei. Voices have been raised in parliament and the press in recent weeks over the confrontational stance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the nuclear issue, which they said has come at too great a diplomatic cost. "Some people with their comments exaggerate problems that do not exist in the country. This encourages the enemy. This is wrong," said Khamenei.
Supreme (Dictator) leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given his unequivocal backing to Iran's nuclear programme, saying it was the "future and destiny" for a country whose fossil fuels would one day run out. Khamanei also lashed out at "superficial and narrow-minded" critics who have warned the drive could come at too great a cost for Iran, saying such comments only served to encourage the enemy. "Nuclear energy is the future and destiny of the country," state television quoted him as saying in a speech in Tehran on Saturday.
The television said Khamenei "criticised some who, with superficial and narrow-minded views, say that nuclear energy is not necessary for the country at this cost." He said Iran's huge oil and gas reserves "would not last forever". (They will last for another 200 year at lest). "If a nation does not care about the future of its energy, it must remain dependent on the domineering powers," he said in allusion to Western governments. ( What about all the other countries in the world that do not posses any Oil. are they all siting down and crying about it. No. They find a way of dealing with realaties not like you ). Iran is the world's fourth biggest producer of crude and has the second largest natural gas reserves after Russia, although it lags well behind other countries in terms of gas exports. "The reason for the powers' objection to the Iranian nation's achievement of nuclear energy, even though they use it themselves, is that they want to take hold of the destiny of the world's energy," said Khamenei. A widely reported study published in December by the academic Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University in the United States said Iran could soon face its own energy crunch owing to failing infrastructure and lack of investment. Khamenei's intervention comes as pressure mounts from Western countries for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can be used both to make fuel for nuclear power stations and the core of an atomic weapon. "In this path, one should not be frightened by the enemy... One should be strong against the enemy. Any expression of weakness will make the enemy bolder," said Khamenei. Voices have been raised in parliament and the press in recent weeks over the confrontational stance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the nuclear issue, which they said has come at too great a diplomatic cost. "Some people with their comments exaggerate problems that do not exist in the country. This encourages the enemy. This is wrong," said Khamenei.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
N. Korea agrees to nuclear disarmament
By BURT HERMAN, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago
North Korea agreed Tuesday after arduous talks to shut down its main nuclear reactor and eventually dismantle its atomic weapons program, just four months after the communist state shocked the world by testing a nuclear bomb. The deal marks the first concrete plan for disarmament in more than three years of six-nation negotiations, and could potentially herald a new era of cooperation in the region with the North's longtime foes — the United States and Japan — also agreeing to discuss normalizing relations with Pyongyang.
Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid. The agreement was read to all delegates in a conference room at a Chinese state guesthouse and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei asked if there were any objections. When none were made, the officials all stood and applauded. The main U.S. nuclear envoy said Washington was satisfied with an agreement on initial steps for North Korea to disarm but called it just the start of the process. "Obviously we have a long way to go, but we're very pleased with this agreement," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters. "It's a very solid step forward." Hill said that Washington had pledged to resolve financial restrictions against a bank where North Korea held accounts within a month. Washington's blacklisting of a Macau bank in September 2005 had been an obstacle to nuclear talks, leading the North to a more-than-yearlong boycott during which it tested its first nuclear bomb. "We will resolve the matter of the financial sanctions relating to (Banco Delta Asia) within 30 days," Hill said.
North Korea agreed Tuesday after arduous talks to shut down its main nuclear reactor and eventually dismantle its atomic weapons program, just four months after the communist state shocked the world by testing a nuclear bomb. The deal marks the first concrete plan for disarmament in more than three years of six-nation negotiations, and could potentially herald a new era of cooperation in the region with the North's longtime foes — the United States and Japan — also agreeing to discuss normalizing relations with Pyongyang.
Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil within 60 days for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid. The agreement was read to all delegates in a conference room at a Chinese state guesthouse and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei asked if there were any objections. When none were made, the officials all stood and applauded. The main U.S. nuclear envoy said Washington was satisfied with an agreement on initial steps for North Korea to disarm but called it just the start of the process. "Obviously we have a long way to go, but we're very pleased with this agreement," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters. "It's a very solid step forward." Hill said that Washington had pledged to resolve financial restrictions against a bank where North Korea held accounts within a month. Washington's blacklisting of a Macau bank in September 2005 had been an obstacle to nuclear talks, leading the North to a more-than-yearlong boycott during which it tested its first nuclear bomb. "We will resolve the matter of the financial sanctions relating to (Banco Delta Asia) within 30 days," Hill said.
Donkeys following donkeys
West Adds to Strains on Iran’s Lifeline created by the mullah's
Western political and economic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program has chilled foreign investment to the extent that it is now squeezing the country’s long-fragile energy industry, adding strains to a government that is burdened by sanctions and wary of unrest at home.The world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, Iran sits on the second-largest oil and gas reserves. But it has struggled in recent years to keep its oil production, currently running at about four million barrels a day, from falling.
Some analysts say that if this acute imbalance between stagnant production and rising demand at home continues unchecked, Iran will have no oil left over to export within a decade. Its oil exports, totaling $47 billion last year, account for half the government’s revenue. “They have a perfect storm of problems feeding into each other,” said Robert Murphy, an analyst at PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington. He estimated that Iran might have no more oil to export by around 2015 if it did not rein in runaway consumption and reverse the long-term decline in its oil production. “The domestic energy situation is as big as the international issue, and feeds into it in a very significant way,” he said. To curb demand, which has been driven in part by subsidies that keep the domestic pump price at a mere 35 cents a gallon, the government plans to begin rationing gasoline in March, a measure so unpopular, and potentially explosive, that rationing plans have been put off several times in the past.
Iran’s energy problem is in many ways at the heart of the nuclear controversy as well. Iran’s leadership says it wants to develop nuclear power generation to free its petroleum resources for domestic use or for exports (a big lie). The United States and other Western countries say Iran is using the program as a front for building weapons. At a time of relatively high prices, oil is clearly providing Iran’s government with enormous strength — but also with an Achilles’ heel. In December, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose limited economic sanctions on Iran until it halts its nuclear program. So far, American and European officials say they are not seeking to cut off Iran’s oil exports, because that would disrupt global markets and raise prices for Western consumers. Still, the pressure on Western energy companies not to deal with Iran may ultimately speed that outcome. Iran currently exports about 2.5 million barrels a day. In recent weeks, senior American officials warned several European oil companies that if they invested in new energy projects, they risked financial sanctions in the United States, according to a European energy executive who spoke on the condition that he not be identified because of the delicate nature of his company’s relations with Iran. Foreign investors, who have helped promote Iran’s oil development, have been scarce since the 1979 revolution, and the country’s oil industry has now suffered decades of economic, political and technical problems. Iran has signed no firm oil or gas contracts with foreign investors since June 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president and began flaunting the country’s nuclear ambitions and renewing tensions with the West.
At home, meanwhile, Iran has had to appease a population historically prone to unrest. It spends about $20 billion each year, or 15 percent of its economic output, to keep consumer prices low for gasoline, natural gas, electricity and other energy products, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund and others. Those subsidies have prompted double-digit growth in consumption in this country of 70 million people. Iran holds 11 percent of global oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. But each year, Iran has to find ways to make up for natural declines in production from existing wells, which in past years has dipped by 200,000 to 500,000 barrels a day. It has managed to hold its own, but just barely. Moreover, Iran’s refining capacity lags far behind its domestic needs, so the country is forced to import 40 percent of its gasoline. Because of delays in developing new fields, like Yadavaran, Azadegan and others, Iran has scaled back its targets; it now plans to increase oil production to 4.5 million barrels by 2010, down from 5 million barrels. But even that might prove challenging, according to analysts who cite the figures. Iranian production is now about 3.9 million barrels. It peaked at more than 6 million barrels a day in the mid-1970s, but plummeted to 1.5 million barrels just after the 1979 revolution. During the eight-year war against Iraq that followed, Iran’s oil infrastructure lining the Persian Gulf was a frequent target.
Iran currently uses 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, triple its consumption in 1980, and must import about 170,000 barrels a day of gasoline, which last year cost the government more than $4 billion.
Some Iranian fields are in dire need of foreign technical expertise to help reverse their natural decline rates, estimated at 8 to 10 percent a year. Modern methods of enhanced oil recovery, which involve reinjecting natural gas to flush out more oil from the fields, can greatly increase production rates but are both costly and difficult to perform without foreign assistance.
“Iran needs to invest more than it does,” said Manouchehr Takin, an Iranian energy analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. “It needs foreign companies to bring expertise, capital and technology.” But oil companies complain that the rewards are limited. Under Iran’s stringent buyback contracts, oil companies basically operate as contractors for the government for a limited time. They are not allowed to book the reserves as their own and gain little in extra profits when energy prices go up. Iran’s energy officials have already indicated they would sweeten buyback contracts. At a meeting held at a Hilton hotel in Vienna this month, they unveiled a new licensing round for 17 onshore and offshore exploration blocks. The conference was attended by dozens of European, Chinese and Russian oil executives. For Gholam Hossein Nozari, the managing director of Iran’s national oil company, continued interest from Europe and Asia is “a sure sign companies do not cower to U.S. pressure,” according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. Fereidun Fesharaki, an energy adviser to the Iranian government before the revolution, said, “For all its faults, the Islamic Republic is very flexible.” Not all countries or international companies have bowed to American pressure. India has rebuffed Washington’s efforts to cut off gasoline exports to Iran. New Delhi has also rejected American requests to cancel a planned pipeline project that would take Iranian natural gas through Pakistan to India.
But recent conversations with European energy executives and consultants, who spoke anonymously to protect their relations with Iran, suggest there is a new wave of concern about starting projects in the country. Even Chinese companies, which Iran is trying to lure with big oil and gas deals, seem to be acting with caution. Oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France, Eni of Italy and Repsol YPF of Spain, are playing for time in the hope that the political situation may somehow improve, energy analysts said. Shell and Repsol announced last month a preliminary deal for South Pars, the world’s largest natural gas field. But the project, estimated at $10 billion, has been delayed for more than a year. A final investment decision is not due until at least the end of 2007. Asked about the project at a news conference this month, Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Shell, expressed some embarrassment, saying, “We have a dilemma.” Iran’s oil and gas reserves are too big to ignore, he said, but “we have all the short-term political concerns, as you can see.”
Last year, Inpex, a Japanese oil company, agreed to sharply cut its stake in a $2 billion project to develop the Azadegan field, in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, near Iraq. Inpex cut its stake to 10 percent from 75 percent after problems with land mines left over from the Iran-Iraq war delayed development. But some analysts said the decision reflected Japan’s displeasure at Iran’s nuclear stance. Japan accounts for 20 percent of all Iranian oil exports.
“Oil companies are simply assessing risk, including what some see as the real risk of a military strike against Iran,” said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, and a former senior State Department official. “Some are deciding it’s not worth it.”
The United States is pressing Europeans to trim their government-backed loan guarantees, which amounted to $18 billion in 2005. European countries have recently said they would not issue guarantees for companies that the United Nations lists as tied to Iran’s nuclear or missile programs. But Washington is calling on Europe to make sure it is not dealing with front companies, possibly in the energy field.
Since opening up their energy sector to foreigners in the 1990s, Iran’s clerical leaders have sought to turn their energy riches into political alliances. In the mid-1990s, they tried to persuade an American company, Conoco (now ConocoPhillips), to develop an oil field in a strategic bid to thaw relations with the United States; when that failed, after President Bill Clinton banned American investments in Iran, Iran turned to Europe and Japan. More recently, Iranian leaders have set their sights on China and Russia.
But while China’s three main state-owned oil companies have been eager to sign preliminary agreements with Iran in recent years, drawing criticism from the United States, analysts say few projects have actually gotten off the ground.
Western political and economic pressure on Iran over its nuclear program has chilled foreign investment to the extent that it is now squeezing the country’s long-fragile energy industry, adding strains to a government that is burdened by sanctions and wary of unrest at home.The world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, Iran sits on the second-largest oil and gas reserves. But it has struggled in recent years to keep its oil production, currently running at about four million barrels a day, from falling.
Some analysts say that if this acute imbalance between stagnant production and rising demand at home continues unchecked, Iran will have no oil left over to export within a decade. Its oil exports, totaling $47 billion last year, account for half the government’s revenue. “They have a perfect storm of problems feeding into each other,” said Robert Murphy, an analyst at PFC Energy, a consulting firm in Washington. He estimated that Iran might have no more oil to export by around 2015 if it did not rein in runaway consumption and reverse the long-term decline in its oil production. “The domestic energy situation is as big as the international issue, and feeds into it in a very significant way,” he said. To curb demand, which has been driven in part by subsidies that keep the domestic pump price at a mere 35 cents a gallon, the government plans to begin rationing gasoline in March, a measure so unpopular, and potentially explosive, that rationing plans have been put off several times in the past.
Iran’s energy problem is in many ways at the heart of the nuclear controversy as well. Iran’s leadership says it wants to develop nuclear power generation to free its petroleum resources for domestic use or for exports (a big lie). The United States and other Western countries say Iran is using the program as a front for building weapons. At a time of relatively high prices, oil is clearly providing Iran’s government with enormous strength — but also with an Achilles’ heel. In December, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose limited economic sanctions on Iran until it halts its nuclear program. So far, American and European officials say they are not seeking to cut off Iran’s oil exports, because that would disrupt global markets and raise prices for Western consumers. Still, the pressure on Western energy companies not to deal with Iran may ultimately speed that outcome. Iran currently exports about 2.5 million barrels a day. In recent weeks, senior American officials warned several European oil companies that if they invested in new energy projects, they risked financial sanctions in the United States, according to a European energy executive who spoke on the condition that he not be identified because of the delicate nature of his company’s relations with Iran. Foreign investors, who have helped promote Iran’s oil development, have been scarce since the 1979 revolution, and the country’s oil industry has now suffered decades of economic, political and technical problems. Iran has signed no firm oil or gas contracts with foreign investors since June 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president and began flaunting the country’s nuclear ambitions and renewing tensions with the West.
At home, meanwhile, Iran has had to appease a population historically prone to unrest. It spends about $20 billion each year, or 15 percent of its economic output, to keep consumer prices low for gasoline, natural gas, electricity and other energy products, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund and others. Those subsidies have prompted double-digit growth in consumption in this country of 70 million people. Iran holds 11 percent of global oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. But each year, Iran has to find ways to make up for natural declines in production from existing wells, which in past years has dipped by 200,000 to 500,000 barrels a day. It has managed to hold its own, but just barely. Moreover, Iran’s refining capacity lags far behind its domestic needs, so the country is forced to import 40 percent of its gasoline. Because of delays in developing new fields, like Yadavaran, Azadegan and others, Iran has scaled back its targets; it now plans to increase oil production to 4.5 million barrels by 2010, down from 5 million barrels. But even that might prove challenging, according to analysts who cite the figures. Iranian production is now about 3.9 million barrels. It peaked at more than 6 million barrels a day in the mid-1970s, but plummeted to 1.5 million barrels just after the 1979 revolution. During the eight-year war against Iraq that followed, Iran’s oil infrastructure lining the Persian Gulf was a frequent target.
Iran currently uses 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, triple its consumption in 1980, and must import about 170,000 barrels a day of gasoline, which last year cost the government more than $4 billion.
Some Iranian fields are in dire need of foreign technical expertise to help reverse their natural decline rates, estimated at 8 to 10 percent a year. Modern methods of enhanced oil recovery, which involve reinjecting natural gas to flush out more oil from the fields, can greatly increase production rates but are both costly and difficult to perform without foreign assistance.
“Iran needs to invest more than it does,” said Manouchehr Takin, an Iranian energy analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. “It needs foreign companies to bring expertise, capital and technology.” But oil companies complain that the rewards are limited. Under Iran’s stringent buyback contracts, oil companies basically operate as contractors for the government for a limited time. They are not allowed to book the reserves as their own and gain little in extra profits when energy prices go up. Iran’s energy officials have already indicated they would sweeten buyback contracts. At a meeting held at a Hilton hotel in Vienna this month, they unveiled a new licensing round for 17 onshore and offshore exploration blocks. The conference was attended by dozens of European, Chinese and Russian oil executives. For Gholam Hossein Nozari, the managing director of Iran’s national oil company, continued interest from Europe and Asia is “a sure sign companies do not cower to U.S. pressure,” according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. Fereidun Fesharaki, an energy adviser to the Iranian government before the revolution, said, “For all its faults, the Islamic Republic is very flexible.” Not all countries or international companies have bowed to American pressure. India has rebuffed Washington’s efforts to cut off gasoline exports to Iran. New Delhi has also rejected American requests to cancel a planned pipeline project that would take Iranian natural gas through Pakistan to India.
But recent conversations with European energy executives and consultants, who spoke anonymously to protect their relations with Iran, suggest there is a new wave of concern about starting projects in the country. Even Chinese companies, which Iran is trying to lure with big oil and gas deals, seem to be acting with caution. Oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France, Eni of Italy and Repsol YPF of Spain, are playing for time in the hope that the political situation may somehow improve, energy analysts said. Shell and Repsol announced last month a preliminary deal for South Pars, the world’s largest natural gas field. But the project, estimated at $10 billion, has been delayed for more than a year. A final investment decision is not due until at least the end of 2007. Asked about the project at a news conference this month, Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive of Shell, expressed some embarrassment, saying, “We have a dilemma.” Iran’s oil and gas reserves are too big to ignore, he said, but “we have all the short-term political concerns, as you can see.”
Last year, Inpex, a Japanese oil company, agreed to sharply cut its stake in a $2 billion project to develop the Azadegan field, in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, near Iraq. Inpex cut its stake to 10 percent from 75 percent after problems with land mines left over from the Iran-Iraq war delayed development. But some analysts said the decision reflected Japan’s displeasure at Iran’s nuclear stance. Japan accounts for 20 percent of all Iranian oil exports.
“Oil companies are simply assessing risk, including what some see as the real risk of a military strike against Iran,” said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, and a former senior State Department official. “Some are deciding it’s not worth it.”
The United States is pressing Europeans to trim their government-backed loan guarantees, which amounted to $18 billion in 2005. European countries have recently said they would not issue guarantees for companies that the United Nations lists as tied to Iran’s nuclear or missile programs. But Washington is calling on Europe to make sure it is not dealing with front companies, possibly in the energy field.
Since opening up their energy sector to foreigners in the 1990s, Iran’s clerical leaders have sought to turn their energy riches into political alliances. In the mid-1990s, they tried to persuade an American company, Conoco (now ConocoPhillips), to develop an oil field in a strategic bid to thaw relations with the United States; when that failed, after President Bill Clinton banned American investments in Iran, Iran turned to Europe and Japan. More recently, Iranian leaders have set their sights on China and Russia.
But while China’s three main state-owned oil companies have been eager to sign preliminary agreements with Iran in recent years, drawing criticism from the United States, analysts say few projects have actually gotten off the ground.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced . Ewen MacAskill in Washington . Saturday February 10, 2007.
GuardianUS preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office. Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion. Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran." But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place." He added: "We are planning for war.
It is incredibly dangerous Deployment
Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made. Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action. In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled. The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf. Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording. "All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation." One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran? Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike. "I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force." Mr Bush is part of the American generation that refuses to forgive Iran for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. He leaves office in January 2009 and has said repeatedly that he does not want a legacy in which Iran has achieved superpower status in the region and come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The logic of this is that if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment then the only alternative left is to turn to the military. Mr Muravchik is intent on holding Mr Bush to his word: "The Bush administration have said they would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. That is either bullshit or they mean it as a clear code: we will do it if we have to. I would rather believe it is not hot air." Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organisation. Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the White House, state department and intelligence services, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK. If it comes to an air strike, he favours bunker-busting bombs. "I believe the only way to get at the deeply buried sites at Natanz and Arak is probably to use bunker-buster bombs, some of which are nuclear tipped. I do not believe the US would do that but it has sold them to Israel." Opposition support
Another neo-conservative, Meyrav Wurmser, director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, also favours supporting Iranian opposition groups. She is disappointed with the response of the Bush administration so far to Iran and said that if the aim of US policy after 9/11 was to make the Middle East safer for the US, it was not working because the administration had stopped at Iraq. "There is not enough political will for a strike. There seems to be various notions of what the policy should be." In spite of the president's veto on negotiation with Tehran, the state department has been involved since 2003 in back-channel approaches and meetings involving Iranian officials and members of the Bush administration or individuals close to it. But when last year the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent a letter as an overture, the state department dismissed it within hours of its arrival.
Support for negotiations comes from centrist and liberal thinktanks. Afshin Molavi, a fellow of the New America Foundation, said: "To argue diplomacy has not worked is false because it has not been tried. Post-90s and through to today, when Iran has been ready to dance, the US refused, and when the US has been ready to dance, Iran has refused. We are at a stage where Iran is ready to walk across the dance floor and the US is looking away."
He is worried about "a miscalculation that leads to an accidental war".
The catalyst could be Iraq. The Pentagon said yesterday that it had evidence - serial numbers of projectiles as well as explosives - of Iraqi militants' weapons that had come from Iran. In a further sign of the increased tension, Iran's main nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, cancelled a visit to Munich for what would have been the first formal meeting with his western counterparts since last year.
If it does come to war, Mr Muravchik said Iran would retaliate, but that on balance it would be worth it to stop a country that he said had "Death to America" as its official slogan.
"We have to gird our loins and prepare to absorb the counter-shock," he said.
War of words
GuardianUS preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office. Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr Bush had not yet made a decision. The Bush administration insists the military build-up is not offensive but aimed at containing Iran and forcing it to make diplomatic concessions. The aim is to persuade Tehran to curb its suspect nuclear weapons programme and abandon ambitions for regional expansion. Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran." But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place." He added: "We are planning for war.
It is incredibly dangerous Deployment
Mr Cannistraro, who worked for the CIA and the National Security Council, stressed that no decision had been made. Last month Mr Bush ordered a second battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Gulf in support of the USS Eisenhower. The USS Stennis is due to arrive within the next 10 days. Extra US Patriot missiles have been sent to the region, as well as more minesweepers, in anticipation of Iranian retaliatory action. In another sign that preparations are under way, Mr Bush has ordered oil reserves to be stockpiled. The danger is that the build-up could spark an accidental war. Iranian officials said on Thursday that they had tested missiles capable of hitting warships in the Gulf. Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former air force officer who has carried out war games with Iran as the target, supported the view that planning for an air strike was under way: "Gates said there is no planning for war. We know this is not true. He possibly meant there is no plan for an immediate strike. It was sloppy wording. "All the moves being made over the last few weeks are consistent with what you would do if you were going to do an air strike. We have to throw away the notion the US could not do it because it is too tied up in Iraq. It is an air operation." One of the main driving forces behind war, apart from the vice-president's office, is the AEI, headquarters of the neo-conservatives. A member of the AEI coined the slogan "axis of evil" that originally lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Its influence on the White House appeared to be in decline last year amid endless bad news from Iraq, for which it had been a cheerleader. But in the face of opposition from Congress, the Pentagon and state department, Mr Bush opted last month for an AEI plan to send more troops to Iraq. Will he support calls from within the AEI for a strike on Iran? Josh Muravchik, a Middle East specialist at the AEI, is among its most vocal supporters of such a strike. "I do not think anyone in the US is talking about invasion. We have been chastened by the experience of Iraq, even a hawk like myself." But an air strike was another matter. The danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon "is not just that it might use it out of the blue but as a shield to do all sorts of mischief. I do not believe there will be any way to stop this happening other than physical force." Mr Bush is part of the American generation that refuses to forgive Iran for the 1979-81 hostage crisis. He leaves office in January 2009 and has said repeatedly that he does not want a legacy in which Iran has achieved superpower status in the region and come close to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability. The logic of this is that if diplomatic efforts fail to persuade Iran to stop uranium enrichment then the only alternative left is to turn to the military. Mr Muravchik is intent on holding Mr Bush to his word: "The Bush administration have said they would not allow Iran nuclear weapons. That is either bullshit or they mean it as a clear code: we will do it if we have to. I would rather believe it is not hot air." Other neo-cons elsewhere in Washington are opposed to an air strike but advocate a different form of military action, supporting Iranian armed groups, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organisation. Raymond Tanter, founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which includes former officials from the White House, state department and intelligence services, is a leading advocate of support for the MEK. If it comes to an air strike, he favours bunker-busting bombs. "I believe the only way to get at the deeply buried sites at Natanz and Arak is probably to use bunker-buster bombs, some of which are nuclear tipped. I do not believe the US would do that but it has sold them to Israel." Opposition support
Another neo-conservative, Meyrav Wurmser, director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Hudson Institute, also favours supporting Iranian opposition groups. She is disappointed with the response of the Bush administration so far to Iran and said that if the aim of US policy after 9/11 was to make the Middle East safer for the US, it was not working because the administration had stopped at Iraq. "There is not enough political will for a strike. There seems to be various notions of what the policy should be." In spite of the president's veto on negotiation with Tehran, the state department has been involved since 2003 in back-channel approaches and meetings involving Iranian officials and members of the Bush administration or individuals close to it. But when last year the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent a letter as an overture, the state department dismissed it within hours of its arrival.
Support for negotiations comes from centrist and liberal thinktanks. Afshin Molavi, a fellow of the New America Foundation, said: "To argue diplomacy has not worked is false because it has not been tried. Post-90s and through to today, when Iran has been ready to dance, the US refused, and when the US has been ready to dance, Iran has refused. We are at a stage where Iran is ready to walk across the dance floor and the US is looking away."
He is worried about "a miscalculation that leads to an accidental war".
The catalyst could be Iraq. The Pentagon said yesterday that it had evidence - serial numbers of projectiles as well as explosives - of Iraqi militants' weapons that had come from Iran. In a further sign of the increased tension, Iran's main nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, cancelled a visit to Munich for what would have been the first formal meeting with his western counterparts since last year.
If it does come to war, Mr Muravchik said Iran would retaliate, but that on balance it would be worth it to stop a country that he said had "Death to America" as its official slogan.
"We have to gird our loins and prepare to absorb the counter-shock," he said.
War of words
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly"George Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio ."The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in many ways. They are doing nothing to be constructive in Iraq at this point"Robert Gates . "I think it's been pretty well-known that Iran is fishing in troubled waters" Dick Cheney ."It is absolutely parallel. They're using the same dance steps - demonise the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux" Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter- terrorism specialist, in Vanity Fair, on echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq ."US policymakers and analysts know that the Iranian nation would not let an invasion go without a response. Enemies of the Islamic system fabricated various rumours about death and health to demoralise the Iranian nation, but they did not know that they are not dealing with only one person in Iran. They are facing a nation"Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
0
comments
Labels:
Ahmadinejad,
Bomb,
Iran,
IRI,
Khamanei,
Military engagment,
Oil,
Strikes,
US ARMY,
US Naval Vessel. Persian Gulf,
Us pressure,
War
Labels:
Ahmadinejad,
Bomb,
Iran,
IRI,
Khamanei,
Military engagment,
Oil,
Strikes,
US ARMY,
US Naval Vessel. Persian Gulf,
Us pressure,
War
Monday, February 05, 2007
IT IS OIL THAT DID IT...
IT IS OIL THAT DID IT...Iran's great weakness may be its oil / By : THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://signonsandiego.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Iran%27s+great+weakness+may+be+its+oil+%7C+The+San+Diego+Union-Tribune&expire=&urlID=21057552&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.signonsandiego.com%2Funiontrib%2F20070203%2Fnews_lz1e3friedman.html&partnerID=616 –
There may be only one thing dumber than getting addicted to consuming oil as a country – and that is getting addicted to selling it. Because getting addicted to selling oil can make your country really stupid, and if the price of oil suddenly drops, it can make your people really revolutionary. That's the real story of the rise and fall of the Soviet Union – it overdosed on oil – and it could end up being the real story of Iran, if we're smart. Read this very intersting story by following the link.
There may be only one thing dumber than getting addicted to consuming oil as a country – and that is getting addicted to selling it. Because getting addicted to selling oil can make your country really stupid, and if the price of oil suddenly drops, it can make your people really revolutionary. That's the real story of the rise and fall of the Soviet Union – it overdosed on oil – and it could end up being the real story of Iran, if we're smart. Read this very intersting story by following the link.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Another nonsense Article by The Guardian
As US Power Fades, it Can't Find Friends to Take on Iran
February 02, 2007 / The Guardian
A REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE.
Mr. Jonathan Steele
In your article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2004169,00.html , you say that "The dispute with Iran (IRI) is not as monumental as Washington claims". I assure you that the dispute of the Iranian Nation with the Fascist mullah Mafias ruling Iran is MONUMENTAL. its a case of life and death. Their survival and the slow death of a great nation. You obviously have been paid off handsomely by the IRI to write this drivel. YOU WILL BE FOUND OUT IN THE END LIKE SO MANY OTHERS WHO WERE IN THE PAYROLL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Read the full article by following this link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2004169,00.html
February 02, 2007 / The Guardian
A REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE.
Mr. Jonathan Steele
In your article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2004169,00.html , you say that "The dispute with Iran (IRI) is not as monumental as Washington claims". I assure you that the dispute of the Iranian Nation with the Fascist mullah Mafias ruling Iran is MONUMENTAL. its a case of life and death. Their survival and the slow death of a great nation. You obviously have been paid off handsomely by the IRI to write this drivel. YOU WILL BE FOUND OUT IN THE END LIKE SO MANY OTHERS WHO WERE IN THE PAYROLL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Read the full article by following this link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2004169,00.html
Thursday, February 01, 2007
U.S. Cautions the World
US Cautions the Europeans to Avoid Oil, Gas Deals With Iran
By Steven MufsonWashington Post Staff
The Bush administration is warning European oil and gas companies against investing in Iran, trying to head off a push by Tehran to attract new investment by international petroleum giants. see : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013102166.html
By Steven MufsonWashington Post Staff
The Bush administration is warning European oil and gas companies against investing in Iran, trying to head off a push by Tehran to attract new investment by international petroleum giants. see : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013102166.html
Monday, January 29, 2007
BAN SHELL, DO NOT BUY PETROL FROM SHELL
I call on all the peace loving people everywhere to help the world by boycotting and banning all the Royal Dutch Shell's products.
Do not buy petrol from Shell
Boycott shell products
Do not trade in Royal Dutch shell's shares
Join me in a campaign to stop Royal Dutch Shell to do this dirty deal with the IRI.
Islamic Republic will only use this money to kill and mime innocent people.
They are terrorist . DO NOT SUPPORT THEM.
STOP IT SHELL. STOP IT NOW!
Shell Says Signs Iran Upstream Deal
January 29, 2007 Reuters today.reuters.co.uk
LONDON -- Royal Dutch Shell said on Monday it had signed a deal with Iran that could see the oil major develop gas fields under a service agreement. "The upstream service agreement relates to the development of the upstream facilities under a buyback agreement," a spokeswoman said. "Implementation of the upstream service agreement is subject to taking a final decision to proceed with the midstream LNG (liquefied natural gas) project. A final decision is a year or so away," she added. Shell had earlier said it expected a final investment decision in 2007.
Join me in condemning SHELL.
Do not buy petrol from Shell
Boycott shell products
Do not trade in Royal Dutch shell's shares
Join me in a campaign to stop Royal Dutch Shell to do this dirty deal with the IRI.
Islamic Republic will only use this money to kill and mime innocent people.
They are terrorist . DO NOT SUPPORT THEM.
STOP IT SHELL. STOP IT NOW!
Shell Says Signs Iran Upstream Deal
January 29, 2007 Reuters today.reuters.co.uk
LONDON -- Royal Dutch Shell said on Monday it had signed a deal with Iran that could see the oil major develop gas fields under a service agreement. "The upstream service agreement relates to the development of the upstream facilities under a buyback agreement," a spokeswoman said. "Implementation of the upstream service agreement is subject to taking a final decision to proceed with the midstream LNG (liquefied natural gas) project. A final decision is a year or so away," she added. Shell had earlier said it expected a final investment decision in 2007.
Join me in condemning SHELL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
اخبار مربوط به زندانیان سیاسی و نقض حقوق بشر
Tulips in Holland
