Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 3, 2014
Iran eases demands for nuclear capacity at Vienna talks
Iran has reduced demands for the size of its future nuclear enrichment program in talks with world powers although Western governments are urging Tehran to compromise further, Western diplomats close to the negotiations said on Thursday.
The diplomats, who spoke to Reuters at the start of a two-week round of negotiations between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, said that despite some movement from Tehran it would not be easy to clinch a deal by their self-imposed deadline for a deal of July 20.
Tehran’s shift relates to the main sticking point in the talks – the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges Iran will maintain if a deal is reached to curb its nuclear program in exchange for a gradual end of sanctions. Ending the decade-long dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is seen as instrumental to defusing tension and averting a new Middle East war.
“Iran has reduced the number of centrifuges it wants but the number is still unacceptably high,” a Western diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity and without further detail.
On Wednesday a senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran has refused to back down from its demand to maintain 50,000 operational centrifuges, a figure deemed by Western officials to be out of keeping with Iran’s stated need for a strictly civilian nuclear energy program.
Iran, a major oil producer, says it plans a future network of nuclear power plants to diversify its energy supply, though just completing one of them would take many years, analysts say.
“Iran needs at least 50,000 centrifuges and not 49,999,” the Iranian official said. “We will not compromise on that … The other party is talking about a few thousands and this is unacceptable for Iran.”
That figure has been in the public domain for some time. The head of Tehran’s atomic energy organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, said months ago that the Natanz enrichment plant alone would need 50,000 advanced centrifuges going forward.
But the Western diplomats said that behind closed doors Iran was no longer insisting on 50,000 machines. It had signaled it would settle for a lower figure but declined to be specify the number so as not to disrupt the negotiations.
Iran now has over 19,000 centrifuges, though only around 10,000 of those are running. The powers want that number cut to the low thousands, to ensure Iran cannot quickly produce enough high-enriched uranium for a bomb, should it choose to do so.
Tehran denies allegations from Western powers and their allies that it is developing a nuclear-weapons capability behind the screen of a declared civilian atomic energy program.
IRAN “WILL NOT KNEEL”
Iranian officials declined to comment directly on the reported concession on centrifuges.
“As we said, we are ready to assure the world that we are not after the bombs,” another senior Iranian official told Reuters. “We have shown our goodwill but will not yield to demands that violate our rights.
“A few thousand more or less centrifuges makes no difference,” he added. “Our right to enrichment has been accepted by all parties involved in the talks. … There are technical ways to assure both sides about securing their rights and removing concerns.”
Western governments are exerting pressure for Iran to compromise further in the interest of nailing down a deal by July 20, a deadline that Western officials say privately will be extremely difficult to meet.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry chided Tehran on Tuesday by saying in a Washington Post article that Iran’s “public optimism about the potential outcome of these negotiations has not been matched, to date, by the positions they have articulated behind closed doors.”
On Wednesday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague echoed Kerry’s criticism.
“We will not accept a deal at any price,” he said in a statement. “A deal that does not provide sufficient assurances that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon is not in the interests of the UK, the region or the international community.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in an apparent response to Kerry’s remarks, said Tehran was ready to take concrete steps to ensure its nuclear program is peaceful but will not “kneel in submission” to do a deal.
Centrifuges are not the only stumbling block in the talks. One of the more sensitive matters is Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is banned under U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on Tehran between 2006 and 2010 over its refusal to suspend enrichment and other activity with bomb applications.
The United States has insisted that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities be covered under the potential nuclear deal under discussion in Vienna but Tehran does not want that to be on the table, officials close to the negotiations have said.
Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, who along with Zarif is leading the Iranian delegation in Vienna, confirmed this by saying that “the two sides are divided on this topic.”
“Our position remains the same,” Araqchi was quoted as saying on Wednesday by the Iranian student news agency ISNA. “Iran’s defense system is not up for negotiation.”
Other disputes include the duration of any nuclear deal, the timetable for ending the sanctions, and the fate of a research reactor that could yield significant quantities of plutonium, an alternative fuel for nuclear weapons.
The current round of talks in the Austrian capital will run until at least July 15.
8 Comments on "Iran eases demands for nuclear capacity at Vienna talks"
bobinget on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 4:05 pm
Iran has US by the short hairs in Iraq. We need their help just to preserve oil exports at least till years end.
Tom Whipple Puts a period to Peak Oil
The daily newspapers are now full of stories predicting that Iraq, as we know it, will soon disintegrate into three or more warring states. In the last two weeks Sunni insurgents led by the extremist ISIS have routed a good part of the Iraqi army, taken over much of northern Iraq not controlled by the Kurds, and now are moving close to Baghdad. Despite the dispatch of American and Iranian military advisors to at least assess the situation, most observers say government forces are too weak to drive back the insurgents and retake the lost territory. Washington is refusing to get involved unless the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government makes radical changes in its relations with the Sunnis and Kurds.
Our concern here, however, is what all this has to do with the world’s oil supply and, closer to home, our gasoline prices. In recent days we have been told innumerable times that most of Iraq’s oil is way south of Baghdad where it is relatively immune from the turmoil in the north – so there is little chance that Iraq’s 2.5 million barrels a day (b/d) of exports will be affected. While this may true for the next few weeks or even months, the Sunni resurgence in the north is not a short-term problem and in the past week the ISIS has captured some formidable assets which could bring heavy pressure on, if not strangle, Baghdad.
ISIS now has control of one of three major refineries in Iraq which supplies the motor fuel and oil for power stations for the northern part of the country. [As of 6/30/14, control of the Baiji refinery appears to remain in dispute. -Ed.] Lines are already forming at gas stations. The ISIS controls the Euphrates and will likely gain control of the Haditha power dam, which supplies 360 MW to the national power grid. With control of the river dams, reduced flows of water could make life very difficult in southern Iraq before the summer is over. It is doubtful if the thousands of foreign oil workers that are expanding and overseeing Iraq’s oil production would stick around too long. Some non-essential-to-production foreigner oil workers are already leaving the country or moving to safer areas.
Another facet of last week’s developments is that the insurgent forces in Anbar province are getting very close to Baghdad’s airport. All it would take would be a few of the howitzers they captured from the Iraqi army and air travel into Baghdad could be restricted.
While it may be impossible for insurgent forces even of the fanatical variety to fight their way through thousands of Shiite militiamen to the southern Shiite shrines and oil fields, in a prolonged standoff (and this one has been going on for 1,400 years) serious harm is likely to be done to Iraq’s current and prospective oil production. Some observers are already saying that large increases in Iraqi oil production in the immediate future are unlikely, but as yet few are writing off the current 3.3 million barrels of daily oil production.
Let’s assume, however, that before this year or next is out, Iraqi oil exports drop substantially as it has in several other oil-exporting states undergoing similar political trauma. Just what does this mean for the world’s oil supply?
With 2.5 million additional barrels of oil disappearing from the market added to the 3.5 million that have already been lost due to lower production in Libya, Iran, Sudan, and Nigeria, the world markets would clearly be stressed.
The Saudis could probably come up with an extra million b/d for a while, but that is about it. Iran could sign a nuclear treaty this summer and be out from under sanctions, but it will take a while to develop significant increases in production. Libya, Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Yemen show no signs of settling their internal political problems and start exporting significantly larger amounts of crude in the foreseeable future.
Keep in mind that global demand for oil has recently been increasing at a rate of about 1.2 million b/d or so every year, while depletion of existing oilfields requires that another 3-4 million b/d be brought into production each year just to keep even.
Many people, including government forecasters, are looking to increasing U.S. shale oil production and more deepwater oil from the Gulf of Mexico to keep the world’s supply and demand in balance without sharp price increases. Somewhere down the line there may be more oil produced from the Arctic; from Kazakhstan; from off the coast of Brazil; from East Africa; and even significant shale oil production from other than in the U.S. But it will be many years before these new sources can start producing significant amounts of crude, and none of these are likely to make up for any shortages that develop in the next few years.
Deepwater oil production from the Gulf of Mexico has been flat recently, and we are starting to get indications that the rapid increases in U.S. shale oil production, which have kept prices under control for several years, may be drawing to a close. The geology of shale oil production dictates that once it stops growing, a rapid decline in production is likely.
In sum, it looks as if there will be higher and possibly much higher oil and gas prices coming soon. If ISIS decides that the way to finish off the Shiite “infidels” is by cutting their oil revenues, then a bombing and terror campaign against southern Iraqi oil installations and oil workers would be a likely result. It would not take much to send the foreigners running. The Chinese are already moving out some of the 10,000 oil workers they have in southern Iraq, and others are likely to follow as we have seen in so many other places.
Where do oil and gas prices go? The official forecasters are only talking about another couple of dollars a barrel this year, but this is clearly too low if significant shortages develop.
Tom Whipple
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-06-30/iraq-on-the-precipice
bobinget on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 4:09 pm
In the spirit of:
Never letting a good crisis go to waste, here is my comment:
Three years of a proxy “Civil” war in Spain, 1936/39. WW/2 followed.
Three years a proxy war centered around Syria. What could go wrong with the US, UK and Saudi Arabia arming, financing, one side, Iran, Iraq and Russia, supporting the other? No coincidence, all contenders are deeply oil involved nations, with V.Putin, shirtless, fly open, waving his baton instead of A.Hitler.
There are many similarities between today’s ME proxy war and Europe’s in 1936. Big powers testing new armaments, tactics. Both the Soviet Union and US distrustful of the Republican Government in
Madrid. Soviets concerned not all Republicans were Communists. America worried, many were. Neither side wanted to offend Hitler who
saw this inaction as weakness.
American/Canadian Communists formed ‘Brigades’ traveling to Spain to
fight ‘for the cause’. British Upperclass, Fascist young men fought for Franco. Volunteers from around Europe flocked to the killing grounds.
Today, we see Jihadists of BOTH sexes flocking to Turkey ready to die
for an Islamic ‘Victory’.
Tom Whipple is reticent to put a timeline on higher oil prices.. Wise man.
Because I recon Muslim men in the Mideast are more prepared to die for
Islam then mainly Christian fighting men in the 1930’s were ready to die for an economic system, this ‘proxy’ war’s outcome will be far worse then the worst of the 20th century.
We are now three years into the Syrian ‘Civil’ War.
Arthur on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 5:03 pm
“There are many similarities between today’s ME proxy war and Europe’s in 1936. Big powers testing new armaments, tactics. Both the Soviet Union and US distrustful of the Republican Government in Madrid.”
Read: both the US and USSR were conspiring to invade and crush Europe and were meddling in Europe whereever they could. The first thing Roosevelt did when he entered office was diplomatically recognize the USSR, the largest human slaughterhouse on the planet at the time. No civilized nation in the world had done that. That was the beginning of the US-SU alliance.
“Soviets concerned not all Republicans were Communists. America worried, many were. Neither side wanted to offend Hitler”
More baloney. Especially Roosevelt was beating the war drums at every opportunity. And the ruling US elite had declared war on Germany already in March 1933 in Madison Square Gardens.
But now the tide is turning.
“this ‘proxy’ war’s outcome will be far worse then the worst of the 20th century.”
Far worse for who? The future of the empire? You are correct in that case.
J-Gav on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 5:20 pm
Clinch the fucking deal, leave Iran alone for 10 minutes and attend to some real problems in the world, eh? U.S. geopolitical geniuses?
GregT on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 10:55 pm
“And the ruling US elite had declared war on Germany already in March 1933 in Madison Square Gardens.”
For anyone unfamiliar with what Arthur is referring to:
http://rense.com/general84/declare.htm
Also, sorry Arthur, the future of ‘The Empire’ perhaps, but I am not in the least bit convinced that this will mean the end for TPTB. They will simply move on to greener pastures.
GregT on Thu, 3rd Jul 2014 10:55 pm
Oh, and welcome back.
Arthur on Fri, 4th Jul 2014 12:38 pm
Greener pastures, such as? In my view the internet is a real game changer, perfectly suitable to review the events of the past 100 years, without anybody able to do something about it. From all angles this review is taken place and at some point the results will become mainstream.
GregT on Fri, 4th Jul 2014 1:21 pm
So, what percentage of the populous do you honestly believe have any idea as to ‘the events of the past 100 years”? Yes, the internet has allowed the story to be told, but very few are actually listening to it. This subject is even more difficult to discuss than peak oil. It is not on most people’s radar, and can actually land you in a prison cell in Canada for even talking about it.
Greener pastures? Empires have shifted before, and will shift again. The control is through monetary policy, not political systems.
There is nothing that I would like to see more than exposure, and an end to the corruption. I’m not holding my breath though. We shall see, I hope you are correct, and I am not.