callaght

Iran Halts Oil Supplies To Uk And France

32 posts in this topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17089953

That's a bit bad isn't it?

Have they called our bluff?

The EU is going to stop trading with Iran on the 1st of July so it makes very little difference.

It's just a way for Iran to show its people that it's "in charge" of the situation and that it can punish the West.

So long as oil keeps flowing out from Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc then it will make very little difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the Chinese will happily take all of the supply Iran is not going to ship to us.

And India - paying in gold.

More and more people are moving away from the petrodollar. The dollar is slowly dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the Chinese will happily take all of the supply Iran is not going to ship to us.

And Greece, who, incidentally, have been getting an increasing proportion of their oil from Iran since they stopped being able to afford it from more conventional sources. A long article I read a few weeks ago (can't remember where, sorry) documented how Iran were starting to buy up Greek businesses and infrastructure with in-kind oil payments, all under the radar of the troika and everyone else. That will present quite a major headache for the EU if Greece leaves the euro and then becomes in effect an Iranian satellite right in their backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran has stopped selling crude to British and French companies, the oil ministry said on Sunday, in a retaliatory measure against fresh EU sanctions on the Islamic state's lifeblood, oil.

"Exporting crude to British and French companies has been stopped ... we will sell our oil to new customers," spokesman Alireza Nikzad was quoted as saying by the ministry of petroleum website.

The European Union in January decided to stop importing crude from Iran from July 1 over its disputed nuclear program, which the West says is aimed at building bombs. Iran denies this.

Iran's oil minister said on Feb. 4 that the Islamic state would cut its oil exports to "some" European countries. The European Commission said last week that the bloc would not be short of oil if Iran stopped crude exports, as they have enough in stock to meet their needs for around 120 days.

Industry sources told Reuters on Feb. 16 that Iran's top oil buyers in Europe were making substantial cuts in supply months in advance of European Union sanctions, reducing flows to the continent in March by more than a third - or over 300,000 barrels daily.

France's Total [TOTF.PA 41.68 0.40 (+0.97%) ] has already stopped buying Iran's crude, which is subject to fresh EU embargoes. Market sources said Royal Dutch Shell [RDSA.L 2293.00 -1.00 (-0.04%) ] has scaled back sharply. Among European nations, debt-ridden Greece is most exposed to Iranian oil disruption.

Motor Oil Hellas of Greece was thought to have cut out Iranian crude altogether and compatriot Hellenic Petroleum along with Spain's Cepsa and Repsol were curbing imports from Iran. Iran was supplying more than 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the EU plus Turkey in 2011, industry sources said.

By the start of this year imports had sunk to about 650,000 bpd as some customers cut back in anticipation of an EU ban. Saudi Arabia says it is prepared to supply extra oil either by topping up existing term contracts or by making rare spot market sales. Iran has criticized Riyadh for the offer.

Iran said the cut will have no impact on its crude sales, warning that any sanctions on its oil will raise international crude prices.

Brent crude [LCOCV1 119.95 --- UNCH (0) ] oil prices were up $1 a barrel to $118.35 shortly after Iran's state media announced last week that Tehran had cut oil exports to six European states. The report was denied shortly afterwards by Iranian officials.

"We have our own customers ... The replacements for these companies have been considered by Iran," Nikzad said.

EU's new sanctions includes a range of extra restrictions on Iran that went well beyond U.N. sanctions agreed last month and included a ban on dealing with Iranian banks and insurance companies and steps to prevent investment in Tehran's lucrative oil and gas sector, including refining.

The mounting sanctions are aimed at putting financial pressure on the world's fifth largest crude oil exporter, which has little refining capacity and has to import about 40 percent of its gasoline needs for its domestic consumption.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46445889

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a way for Iran to put the best face on it. Why not embargo the UK/France? Beat them to the punch and all!

Does it matter? Maybe, Saudi Arabia is always saying how they can cover any shortfalls, well now they can step up and do it.

NATO has secured Iraqi production and now Libyan production. This move is either a prelude to a war which secures Iranian oil or it is an opening for China to step in an seriously back Iran. Where I Chinese, I would say "Step in with 100% backing of Iran". With NATO roaming the world attacking at will, China would be mad not to call NATO's hand on Iran sooner rather than later.

As for Russia, they have caved in to NATO at every step for years now. Somehow the west has been ably to bully Russia on Iran as well. Like the failure to deliver S-300 anti aircraft missiles under contract. NATO complained and Russia backed down.

As for oil, the tensions can cause price rises, even if the supply remains constant. After all, markets work on sentiment, and any fears about Iran's status as a major producer going forward will spike prices.

On a side note, a major US military figure was on American CNN today and he threw cold water on any US attack on Iran. He also said USA was pushing Israel not to attack either. If this general is to be believed, the US administration has deep reservations about plowing into Iran with military attacks. I can only conclude that Iran has more defense ability than most people realize ,or more backing from Russia and China than we know of, or they already hold several nuclear weapons. After all, it is 2012, once you got the enriched material, making a bomb is easy. NK has done it, Pakistan has done it and I would argue Iran is better equipped and more modern of a power than wither of those two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO has secured Iraqi production and now Libyan production.

Bombing the country, destroying the government and leaving them on the verge of civil wars doesn't sound much like 'securing' to me.

The whole thing is silly, anyway. Iran will sell more oil to China and Europe will buy from other countries. Greece is probably extra-******ed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, a major US military figure was on American CNN today and he threw cold water on any US attack on Iran. He also said USA was pushing Israel not to attack either. If this general is to be believed, the US administration has deep reservations about plowing into Iran with military attacks. I can only conclude that Iran has more defense ability than most people realize ,or more backing from Russia and China than we know of, or they already hold several nuclear weapons.

Either that, or Obama doesn't want to get into a another unpopular war during an election year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a side note, a major US military figure was on American CNN today and he threw cold water on any US attack on Iran. He also said USA was pushing Israel not to attack either. If this general is to be believed, the US administration has deep reservations about plowing into Iran with military attacks. I can only conclude that Iran has more defense ability than most people realize ,or more backing from Russia and China than we know of, or they already hold several nuclear weapons. After all, it is 2012, once you got the enriched material, making a bomb is easy. NK has done it, Pakistan has done it and I would argue Iran is better equipped and more modern of a power than wither of those two.

Or more to do with the US army being already overstretched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or more to do with the US army being already overstretched.

They've substantially drawn down forces from Iraq and also scaled back in Afghanistan. They have plenty of spare capacity to feck over another Middle Eastern country on behalf of their friends in the Promised Land, especially if it means big US interests getting control over more oil reserves.

It'll be more down to Obama not wanting to get embroiled in an unpopular conflict in election year as pepactonius pointed out. Unless of course the Israelis go ahead anyway and the yanks are forced to take their side, as they unfailingly do whenever the tail wags the dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've substantially drawn down forces from Iraq and also scaled back in Afghanistan. They have plenty of spare capacity to feck over another Middle Eastern country on behalf of their friends in the Promised Land, especially if it means big US interests getting control over more oil reserves.

It'll be more down to Obama not wanting to get embroiled in an unpopular conflict in election year as pepactonius pointed out. Unless of course the Israelis go ahead anyway and the yanks are forced to take their side, as they unfailingly do whenever the tail wags the dog.

I think it's less to do with oil ( that it isn't getting anyway) and more about an Islamic fundamentalist state obtaining nuclear weapons?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU is going to stop trading with Iran on the 1st of July so it makes very little difference.

It's just a way for Iran to show its people that it's "in charge" of the situation and that it can punish the West.

So long as oil keeps flowing out from Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc then it will make very little difference.

Free money for Chinese/Indian then. Presumably these contraband crude will be cheaper and Ch/In will just buy them, refined them and the sell them

back to the world market and market prices and pocketing a health margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They've substantially drawn down forces from Iraq and also scaled back in Afghanistan. They have plenty of spare capacity to feck over another Middle Eastern country on behalf of their friends in the Promised Land, especially if it means big US interests getting control over more oil reserves.

You are kind of right.

They have plenty of grunts with guns, however they no longer have the skilled soldiers they need, particularly specialists such as medics and engineers. With good money to be made in the private sector, they weren't re-enlisting at the end of their tours.

The result was the US was forced to (ilegally) force medics and engineers to stay on past the end of their tours, sometimes even past the end of their enlistment, using bizarre antiquated or often made-up rules to prevent them leaving. The simplest was to just say there were no flights available... no, really, this actually happened a lot. And they couldn't make their own way home as they are considered to be "on duty" until stood down at the airport when they get home... if they had made their own way back they'de be counted as AWAL and arrested on arrival in the US and returned to operations. They couldn't even let them go home on leave/R&R as they would have refused to come back, and with the US court system it would be hard to force them. The suicide rate among those trained specialists skyrocketted as they were basically faced with being in a war zone indefinately.

All the reservists trained as medic and engineer were called up and they too were forced to stay in the operation area for well beyond the time they were supposed to. The fact was simply that the US needed these specialist so they had to make them stay until they could be replaced or were no longer needed.

As a result of what happened, the US army now has major shortages of these skills and simply is in no fit state to fight another major conflict... they would, essentially, need to have a draft to obtain the required specialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's less to do with oil ( that it isn't getting anyway) and more about an Islamic fundamentalist state obtaining nuclear weapons?.

I must admit that I always struggle to understand the moral logic of nuclear weapons restrictions. Why does one country with nuclear weapons get to tell another country that they can't develop their own? Where does the moral authority come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit that I always struggle to understand the moral logic of nuclear weapons restrictions. Why does one country with nuclear weapons get to tell another country that they can't develop their own? Where does the moral authority come from?

Thats a good question, but if we apply a bit of logic and common sense you can safely say that the nuclear capability of a secular western democracy with many avenues of checks and balances before such a weapon could ever be deployed is far less likely to lead to the extermination of civilization than say..a theocratic dictatorship which is openly hostile to it's neighbors and wishes to wipe them of the face of the earth. The moral question, in this case, is fairly easily resolved in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's less to do with oil ( that it isn't getting anyway) and more about an Islamic fundamentalist state obtaining nuclear weapons?.

So a country which has spent the last decade spreading Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East is now worried about Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East?

Even US intelligence agencies have said that Iran couldn't build nukes for years, and they would be totally out-matched by all the other nuclear powers in Europe and the Middle East. Using a nuke would be suicidal on their part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran Halts Oil Supplies To Uk And France

Well we and France could also halt Medical Supplies to Iran, that would shake them. Come on let us play the Mr Nasty game as well. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good question, but if we apply a bit of logic and common sense you can safely say that the nuclear capability of a secular western democracy with many avenues of checks and balances before such a weapon could ever be deployed is far less likely to lead to the extermination of civilization than say..a theocratic dictatorship which is openly hostile to it's neighbors and wishes to wipe them of the face of the earth. The moral question, in this case, is fairly easily resolved in my opinion.

Secular western democracy?

What about the USA where belief in an invisible god is a prerequisite for being president and the government is run by the corporate lobbyists? How many atheists without a billion dollars of campaign contributions have ever stood a chance? If you want a taste of religious extremism examine the views of Romney or Santorum.

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

In addition (and having done some reading up since I posted), it would appear that the US and most of the other countries with nuclear capability have not honoured the terms of the treaties they signed.

Don't get me wrong - I'm very happy that Iran (hopefully) doesn't have atomic weapons. I just don't see how trying to build them justifiably triggers sanctions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secular western democracy?

What about the USA where belief in an invisible god is a prerequisite for being president and the government is run by the corporate lobbyists? How many atheists without a billion dollars of campaign contributions have ever stood a chance? If you want a taste of religious extremism examine the views of Romney or Santorum.

To suggest that the USA has any more right to have nuclear weapons than Iran because their government is free from religious cranks or more responsive to the will of the people is disingenuous.

+1 agreed :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we and France could also halt Medical Supplies to Iran, that would shake them. Come on let us play the Mr Nasty game as well. ;)

CNN last night said UK and France take 0% of Iran's crude. There's no point resorting to sanctions for medical supplies. Isn't it all just a sideshow from Iran's elders to distract from their domestic problems, project power, cause problems to make themselves look like they are doing important jobs.

The EU oil embargo, agreed last month, was phased so member states that were relatively dependent on Iranian crude - notably Greece, Spain and Italy - had enough time to find alternative sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.