(The linked story has changed, title too, since I wrote this... they now state that enrichment is still a contentious issue and something about an agreement, but no specifics. I'll keep the original text for comparison as it shows more US involvement. The old article continues...)
The decision reflected U.S. recognition that it was futile to try to block IAEA help to Iran on all eight projects because of opposition by most of the agency's 35-nation board. It also appeared prompted by an IAEA ruling that neither the reactor nor the other projects posed a proliferation threat.
Some diplomats accredited to the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog agency also suggested it could reflect a U.S. decision to tread relatively lightly while Washington weighs the possibility of direct dialogue with Iran on reducing violence in Iraq.
From the last piece in bold, we know how well that has been going considering that Iran doesn't need the US to initiate negotiations on their behalf as they have done so themselves. As reported elsewhere today, Iraq and Syria have restored relations after 20 years. The linked article mentions Washington's responce over the seemingly positive development:
The US administration gave a cautious welcome to news that the Iraqi president would be visiting Iran, but analysts say the US government has been more amenable to regional diplomacy since heavy losses for President George W Bush in 7 November mid-term elections.
A proposal that Washington talk directly to Syria and Iran about helping to reduce the violence in Iraq is being widely discussed.
(yeah, that has been obvious for several months) You may recall last week that the MSM was reporting the idea that Washington was mulling direct talks with Iran and Syria one day, then flip-flopping the next, which came shortly on the heals of what seemed to be threats directed at them for a supposed coup attempt in Lebanon.
...
In regard to negotiations dealing with Iran's nuclear power, (which have been almost entirely opaque,) there have been several articles of late that might give a closer idea on what has been going on behind the scenes, for example:
IT IS TIME TABLE SECURITY ISSUES WITH IRAN (link goes to FT, free link here)
By Selig Harrison
January 17, 2006
The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union were based on a bargain that the EU, held back by the U.S., has failed to honor. Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment efforts temporarily pending the outcome of discussions on a permanent enrichment ban. The EU promised to put forward proposals for economic incentives and security guarantees in return for a permanent ban but subsequently refused to discuss security issues.
So for the moment, lets abandon the standard talking point attached to every Iran article for the past year:
Tehran insists its intentions are purely peaceful, while the US and EU suspect it of seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
While we have been contemplating nuclear proliferation, providing nukes to terrorists, and battling the notions of recycling WMD pretexts and the implications under the NNTP, the primary issue (or perhaps a main factor) may be technological and economic dominance within the region. We all, well almost all, know oil is a contributing factor. Many of us think it is control or access, but a few recent articles dealing with the nature of the business side of Iran's oil shed some light on another aspect- the money at stake for exploration and development:
Iran offers new terms to lure foreign oil explorers
September 20, 2006
IRAN will put the exploration of 24 oil blocks out to international tender within the next two months after reviewing its energy development contracts to make them more attractive to cautious foreign investors.
...
That only four contracts were finalised from the last round was a result both of the fragile political atmosphere between Iran and the West — which has since worsened — and the nature of the tenders. The last of those four contracts, a $107 million (£57 million) deal with a Norwegian company, was signed only last Sunday.
“In any other country, the companies would be queuing up and competing,” Gerald Butt, editor of the Middle East Economy Survey, said. “Look at Libya. Companies are fighting each other to get in.”
Iran’s routine upstream contracts are based on its buyback scheme, whereby investment in developing a field is rewarded with a share of production for a short period before the State repurchases the field. Foreign firms often complain that the compensation period is too short and have been reluctant to come forward because of the high capital risk on the blocks.
Revisions to the buyback terms envisage longer involvement by foreign contractors in the production period to increase recovery rates and maintenance quality.
“We are looking for ways to increase the recovery rate alongside preserving the Government’s authority on oil reserves,” Mr Mohaddes has said previously, referring to Iran’s constitutional ban on foreign ownership of its oilfields.
Reportedly, the new terms may allow the presence of foreign companies for the whole life of a field.
“Even if the new terms are significantly better, many major companies would be reluctant to commit such huge investment in Iran until it’s absolutely certain there won’t be international sanctions,” Mr Butt told The Times.
NATIONAL WEALTH
Iran has proven oil reserves of 133 billion barrels, a tenth of the world’s known oil, but its output is below potential. Crude production last year averaged 3.9 million barrels per day, less than 5 per cent of world output.
In 1974, Iran produced 6 million bpd, but has not reached that level since its revolution in 1979. It aims to lift output to 5 million bpd by 2010.
Iran prohibits foreign ownership of oil, but has “buyback” contracts with foreign investors; the foreign company gets a fixed return and the project reverts to Iran after a few years.
Iran has the world’s second-largest gas reserves, totalling 960 trillion cubic feet. The South Pars gasfield is being developed with Total (France), ENI (Italy) and Statoil (Norway)
UPDATE 1-ABB Lummus in deal to expand Iran refinery-report
TEHRAN, Nov 19 (Reuters) - A consortium including ABB Lummus signed a 400-million-euro ($512-million) contract on Sunday with Iran's state-owned oil company to expand a refinery in the south of the country, the Oil Ministry Web site reported.
Heavy engineer ABB said in May a German unit of ABB Lummus Global was a sub-supplier in a planned $451 milion contract for Iran's Abadan refinery in the southwest Iran.
The Oil Ministry's Web site SHANA said ABB Lummus -- which it said was German but did not identify further -- had signed a deal with Iranian firms to expand the refinery in Bandar Abbas, a port city in the south of the country.
Iran is seeking to expand gasoline production because the world's fourth biggest oil producer currently lacks refining capacity and imports some 40 percent of the 60 to 70 million litres of subsidised gasoline it burns each day.
One does wonder, possibly, who else could be involved in such a deal and why someone would try to obscure providing that information. Do you remember...
Iran's Navy Attacks and Boards Romanian Rig in Gulf
Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Iran attacked and seized control of a Romanian oil rig working in its Persian Gulf waters this morning one week after the Iranian government accused the European drilling company of "hijacking'' another rig.
...
Grup said it recovered its rig last week because of a contractual dispute with its Iranian client, Oriental Oil Kish.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suspended Oriental Oil's activities in 2005 on alleged corruption activity and ties to Halliburton Co. of the U.S. The U.A.E.-registered drilling company had signed a preliminary contract with Halliburton after winning an estimated $310 million contract to develop phases 9 and 10 of Iran's offshore South Pars gas reservoir.
Needless to say, what is at stake is billions of dollars in revenue and Haliburton has been focused for a long time to establish itself in Iran- to the point of circumventing US law by establishing (if not primarily for a tax shelter) offshore subsidiaries that could, in theory, evade US sanctions barring buisness with Iran.
As is mentioned in the new Houston Chroncle piece, Iran is requesting help for 7 new nuclear projects. It was also reported during talks between the US and India on the matter of referring Iran to the Security Council that India's referral vote was tied to an American nuclear deal:
US warns Delhi over vote on Iran
Washington on Wednesday warned India that its nuclear deal with the US could be ditched if the Delhi government failed to back efforts to refer Iran to the United National Security Council, raising the stakes in the confrontation over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
Simultaneously, Robert Zoellick, US deputy secretary of state, increased the pressure on China to fall into line when he said that Beijing's access to energy resources depended on cracking down on Tehran's nuclear programme.
...
In comments reported by the Press Trust of India news agency, David Mulford, US ambassador to India, said that if India decided not to vote against Iran, the US-India deal on nuclear energy cooperation would die.
“The effect on members of the US Congress with regard to the civil nuclear initiative will be devastating," he said.
...
“We categorically reject any attempt to link this to the proposed Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation, which stands on its own merits," it said.
But few believe India will miss the chance to do a deal that addresses its chronic energy shortage.
Delhi is particularly important as a leader of the non-aligned group of countries, which the US and EU are anxious to win over as a sign of international consensus on Iran.
But Washington and Europe also need to win over opinion in China and Russia, which both have vetoes in the Security Council, and strong energy links with Tehran.
“If you are concerned about energy security, one might conclude that developing a nuclear capability in a sensitive political region which is the heart of the world's energy resources would be extremely dangerous,” Mr Zoellick said on Wednesday at the end of a trip to China.
The US has also been competiing with Russia in a possible deal to provide nuclear technology to Egypt-there may as well be others. As a rough estimate, a recent Finnish reactor cost somewhere around 3-4 billions Euros (appx $4-5b in today's $) so, perhaps we can imagine that number x 7 for a rough estimate.
During a recent lecture by Professor Ardeshir Larijani, brother to Iran's chief diplomat in the nuclear negotiations, he briefly touched upon the idea that the leading powers wanted to try to control what technologies Iran could or could not have. He mentioned that over the course of decades after WW2 that four nations, starting with the US, France, Germany, and Russia had all proposed/begun nuclear projects with Iran but had all been abandoned- I believe with exception to at least one research reactor.
(stolen from LondonYank)
Now it appears Iran has the technological know-how in a variety of fields (possibly excluding nuclear and oil) and is willing toexport their expertise in the region.
So, we'll see in the future what all this entails.
Permalink | 26 comments