Iran, Iraq sign oil pipeline deal

Iran, Iraq sign oil pipeline deal
Sat Aug 11, 5:51 AM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran and Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer of Iraqi crude oil and oil products, the state-run Iran news network Saturday quoted the oil ministry as announcing.


The 32-inch (81-centimetre) pipeline will bring crude from the southern Iraqi port of Basra to the southwestern Iranian port of Abadan. There will be a separately 16-inch one for oil products.

Under the deal, Iran would buy 100,000 barrels of Iraqi crude to be refined in the southern port of Bandar Abbas, then sell the product back to Iraq. The accord would have no upper limit on quantities.

The report did not say when the pipeline will be built or who will pay for it.

In August 2006, Tehran and Baghdad signed a memorandum of understanding for Iran to refine 100,000 barrels per day of Iraqi crude in return for two million litres per day of refined products.

Iraq has the world's third-largest proven reserves of crude but has faced chronic shortages of refined products ever since the US-led invasion of 2003, as insurgents have targeted its oil infrastructure.

The Iraqi government has been forced to import refined products from a number of neighbouring countries.

Relations between Iraq and Iran, which were at war from 1980-88 when Saddam Hussein was in power in Baghdad, have improved markedly since a Shiite-led full-term government took power this year.

The agreement was signed on Friday by visiting Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani and his Iranian counterpart, Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh.

Sharistani's visit to Tehran comes two days after one by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, in which he had talks with officials that reinforced growing bilateral ties.


AFP story, forwarded by Yahoo! News

----------

The United States has presented Iran with an economic colony.
A source for raw materials, and a market for finished product.

For the forseeable future, the cost of maintaining and defending the colony will be borne by the U.S.

The combined oil reserves of Iran and Iraq exceed those of Saudi Arabia.

Trading refined product for Iraqi oil gives Iran a competitive advantage over the Saudi's.

Expect to see increasing levels of violence from the Saudi-backed Sunni insurgents.

Contrary to statements made by the Bush administration, Iran supports
a stable democratic government in Iraq. A government that will certainly be
allied with, loyal to, and dependent upon Iran.

A thread started by Cobalt?????

That's amazing....

One of the purported goals of the invasion of Iraq was "to create a stable Middle East."

This is the sort of move that may ultimately result in precisely that.

Though not at all in the way that the Bush administration foresaw it.

How so, garamet?

Iran and Iraq as business partners? Our Dear Friends the Saudis reduced to second-string players? No sign of Haliburton anywhere?

Like when the Korean college students protest for a unified Korea, and kicking America out.

If we left Korea, they would be "unified" in a few days, but not in the way South Korea would enjoy.

Different scenario entirely.

Where did it say that Haliburton would have no seat at the table? Given their size and scope, it would be naive to assume they are out of any oil production loop.

But just having some involvement is not nearly as cool as having All the Toys.

Besides, is Iran no longer part of the Axis of Evil? I didn't get the memo.

More demogougery then?

The Iraqis are free to trade with whomever they choose, in spite of US occupation? I didn't get the memo.

WFDictionary:

demogougery (hom. of, but not to be confused with "demagoguery") n. Anything another poster says which contradicts your preconceived view, reality not withstanding.

So you're saying the U.S. is going to put the kibosh on this pipeline deal? How is that a win for Haliburton?

This might be a good thing in the long run really...

Edited.

Zip, right over your head....

I'm asking how can Iraq make economic deals on whilst under the thumb of American imperialism?

Yes, I believe it would. It might, if not stave off civil war, at least make the inevitable Iranian absorption of northern Iraq a little less bloody, as well as easing a lot of the tensions in the region.

And take the oil ace out of the sleeve of Saudi Arabia.

That, too. Which, in the short term, will increase tensions, because the Saudis despise Iran for (A) being Shi'ia and (B) not being Arab, so there'll be much at OPEC conferences.

But it might be a wake-up call to the Saudis that their days as Keepers of the World's Greatest Resource are numbered.

Or not. They tend not to pay attention to these things.

Perhaps the desired result is for heightened tensions between Iran and SA...

Hmmm, with the U.S. naturally siding with the Saudis. That's a backdoor way of starting a war with Iraq that some Americans seem to want Just Because It's There. Hadn't even thought of that.

And right on the cusp of the U.S. signing a $30 billion dollar military aid package with Israel, who doesn't have a friendly relationship with Iran...


Global Chess. It's fun to theorize.

Fun to theorize, scary to think of possible consequences.

Good talking with you. I like the new, more mellow you since the name change.

Tell me about it.

I'm working on it. Thanks.

Pretending that there's no reason for animosity between the US and Iran is just ridiculously obtuse. Both sides have reasons to legitimately hate one another.

Too bad it's the people of Iran who ultimately pay the price.

Come now Demi, the people of the middle east have been paying the price for global interest in the oil of the region sense before the second world war.

The Oil Cartels, and that is really what they are, have been in control of the region and every nation which uses oil is supporting them.

Yup, and that's why the US doesn't want democracy in Iraq. They're currently plotting to return Iyad Allawi to power.

Northern Iraq?

Yes it has all to do with the oil, and nothing whatsoever with the utterly corrupt nature of the current government. You miss the torture chamber the Brits found in the police station? The MoJ hitsquads? The purging of Sunni's from the armed forces?

Fuck man, what has the current government done right that you think they deserve to stay? Or does the fact that they are working with Iran simply good enough for you? If they signed a deal with Chavez and Kim Jung Il you'd be jizzing your pants wouldn't you?

I for one don't think the current government should stay.

However, I think this once again boils down to telling the truth about Iraq. We've gone through the whole "WMD" bit, and now apparently the idea is to win Iraq over for freedom and democracy. But if what you say is true, and I think it is, then that is again just empty rhetoric.

Freedom and Democracy don't have to be all or nothing, nor immediate.

It isn't up to me whether they deserve to stay. The Iraqi people ought to decide that. They certainly should have the right to work with Iran if they wish.