Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. May Sanction India Over Level of Iran-Oil Imports

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's the fuss with Iranian oil in India.

    Let's see the bigger picture:

    Oil makes 24% of Indian energy consumption.

    Of that 30% is produced in India.

    Iran is not even #1 supplier of oil to India, but #2 with 11% of oil Imports, behind KSA with 18%.

    So, 11% of 24% = 2,5% of Indian energy is covered by Iranian oil.

    Is it that much and not obtainable from other sources?

    Source: India - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
      What's the fuss with Iranian oil in India.

      Let's see the bigger picture:

      Oil makes 24% of Indian energy consumption.

      Of that 30% is produced in India.

      Iran is not even #1 supplier of oil to India, but #2 with 11% of oil Imports, behind KSA with 18%.

      So, 11% of 24% = 2,5% of Indian energy is covered by Iranian oil.

      Is it that much and not obtainable from other sources?

      Source: India - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
      11%, no matter how you slice it, is big freaking deal considering the very fine line of extreme poverty and normal poverty in India. It does not take much to cause a 10% spike in food prices and other basic commodities.

      Comment


      • And one more thing, I got a very big trial case coming up and it is gonna take me three to four weeks to prepare so don't think anything less if I don't respond ASAP or take a while to respond to your posts. If I have the free time and energy, especially this case will be a nasty fight. The tiff between S2 and I is very tame and bush league by comparison. ;)

        So I am gonna take my leave for now. Cheers.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
          And one more thing, I got a very big trial case coming up and it is gonna take me three to four weeks to prepare so don't think anything less if I don't respond ASAP or take a while to respond to your posts. If I have the free time and energy, especially this case will be a nasty fight. The tiff between S2 and I is very tame and bush league by comparison. ;)

          So I am gonna take my leave for now. Cheers.
          Good luck.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
            What's the fuss with Iranian oil in India.

            Let's see the bigger picture:

            Oil makes 24% of Indian energy consumption.

            Of that 30% is produced in India.

            Iran is not even #1 supplier of oil to India, but #2 with 11% of oil Imports, behind KSA with 18%.

            So, 11% of 24% = 2,5% of Indian energy is covered by Iranian oil.

            Is it that much and not obtainable from other sources?

            Source: India - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
            But Doktor can you please direct me to some other oil source(s) that doesn't change it's stance if pressed by any super power ?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by commander View Post
              But Doktor can you please direct me to some other oil source(s) that doesn't change it's stance if pressed by any super power ?
              Don't know what to offer you.

              Being an Indian yourself, you should be able to find local sources you can trust.

              For me, EIA's report is good enough.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • S2 Reply

                Originally posted by S2 View Post
                Most of the reports quote the Bloomberg wire, which mentions that "Obama officials" have talked about it:
                U.S. May Sanction India Over Level of Iran-Oil Imports - Bloomberg
                Others are also talking about statements by "US officials"
                U.S. May Sanction India If It Doesn't Cut Iran Oil Imports"


                Do they quote the SAME Bloomberg wire over and over again? It would seem so. The officials are un-named. This constitutes public bullying by you? Really?
                This is what you said:
                More likely that Indian officials have taken private conversations and relayed them to the Indian press in abbreviated fashion to generate mob hysteria and xenophobia for which they're so famous.
                I am showing you that the US officials are the one who went public. The Bloomberg wire came out on March 6.

                After that it is quite feasible that the Indian officials were approached for comment and those comments/ responses came out on March 16 in the Times of India article that you quoted.

                Originally posted by S2 View Post
                As America should be careful of promises of "compliance".
                No compliance has been promised for US sanctions. Please explain what you mean by being "careful of promises". Do you mean to say that India will backtrack if she indeed does promise not to buy oil from Iran? If that is so, it is both offensive and foolish. Trade trasanctions such as these are easily tracked through global financial mechanisms.

                Originally posted by S2 View Post
                U.S. Threatens Sanctions With India Over Iran Oil-Times Of India March 16, 2012

                I'd say the journalism had a real tinge of "yellow". Not a single direct quote from an Indian official but they are everywhere highlighted. Certainly a fair amount of background. JMHO, of course.
                You are entitled to your own opinions. No one, of course has ever heard of hyperbole from US media outlets :whome:

                Originally posted by S2 View Post
                Hmmm...OTOH, Zhenrong is Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products. If you understand the importance of refined petroleum to Iran then this is not at all insignificant.

                Sooo...let me get this correct, no Indian company has yet been sanctioned for trading oil with Iran. At least three Chinese companies have yet you've the audacity to say this-

                "I may have missed it, but it is interesting to note that the biggest importer of Iranian oil China is not being threatened with sanctions. Maybe China os too strong to bully around?"

                You asked. You received and, predictably, you waffle.
                There is no waffling here but you seem unwilling or unable to consider the economic implications.

                If sanctions are levied on MRPL and HPCL then it is similar to what has been imposed on the chinese companies - in that they are symbolic but pointless.

                Sanctions against banks are a completely different and much, much more serious matter. This may prevent not only the banks doing direct business in the US but also jeopardize their counterparty and correspondent relationships with US banks, which in turn may make trade financing dificult for Indian importers and exporters. There are workarounds but they add costs to the whole operations.

                Originally posted by S2 View Post
                Diplomacy is rapidly failing. You understand that, of course. Sanctions are the last resort short of war. You understand that also, correct? Will oil prices likely rise or fall with war? Will Iranian oil be more or less plentiful with war? Do Indians believe they'll be the only nation bearing consequences to supporting a sanctions regime?

                You can support meaningful diplomacy but the Iranians have made a mockery of that. You can support sanctions but everybody will bear some portion of that burden.

                Or you can support war because that shall be the choice you've made if sanctions fail. Sanctions will fail if Iran can find enough customers for its oil to weather the storm until their capability is assured. In that respect, yeah, you'll be against all of us.

                That's the bare, hard logic.
                This feels like 2003 all over again.

                If you are so concerned about war then get UN sanctions in place, I am sure they will be scrupulously complied with.

                For my part, I see mixed messages coming out of Iran. Internally they seem to be playing red meat, but their negotiators seem to be open about entering into dialogue:

                Jalili, the nuclear negotiator has repeatedly reached out for talks
                This has been reiterated by some their internal officials:
                Can all this be a ruse? Of course, but why not use this to press Iran to open up for Nuclear inspections?
                Last edited by antimony; 19 Mar 12,, 21:20.
                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  And one more thing, I got a very big trial case coming up and it is gonna take me three to four weeks to prepare so don't think anything less if I don't respond ASAP or take a while to respond to your posts. If I have the free time and energy, especially this case will be a nasty fight. The tiff between S2 and I is very tame and bush league by comparison. ;)

                  So I am gonna take my leave for now. Cheers.
                  Hitesh,

                  I hate to tell you this but you're not going to win. Give up your dreams about a man cave and give your wife her walk in closet. I know you want that 75 inch TV but sleeping soundly at night should never be under-estimated. Ask John Wayne Bobbit.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                    The problem with Tronic's thinking is that GoI would have surrender the strategic initiative to China.
                    It's unclear to me what exactly you are disagreeing with

                    If India dumps Iran wholesale then India will be surrendering the strategic initiative to China.

                    But as I've understood it, we are instead moving to placate the Iranains. Therefore India's goal is to hold onto whatever we have with Iran into the future.

                    So where is the question of surrendering anything to China ?

                    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                    If China comes in and swoops up the oil contracts with Iran and bucks the sanctions and shrugs off USA and western world's threats, what does that show for India?

                    A very lightweight power. Therefore I do not agree with your thinking.
                    If being the operative keyword here

                    I'd like to understand better why you think China can buck the sanctions. It might look like they're doing that presently but what about beyond. US has got an even tighter grip on China than India.

                    Bottomline: A year from now do you see China importing more from Iran than they do presently ? this would be China shrugging off the US.

                    Oh! just noticed BM's done a bunk
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Mar 12,, 20:26.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Hitesh,

                      I hate to tell you this but you're not going to win. Give up your dreams about a man cave and give your wife her walk in closet. I know you want that 75 inch TV but sleeping soundly at night should never be under-estimated. Ask John Wayne Bobbit.
                      Dunno what's it like for BM in the US, but the other day i saw some posts on an Indian forum where people were lamenting the fact that their hard work to finance and select a big screen HD TV with the best specs had come to nought as said TV was being used to watch soap operas in standard defintion

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        What's the fuss with Iranian oil in India.

                        Let's see the bigger picture:

                        Oil makes 24% of Indian energy consumption.

                        Of that 30% is produced in India.

                        Iran is not even #1 supplier of oil to India, but #2 with 11% of oil Imports, behind KSA with 18%.

                        So, 11% of 24% = 2,5% of Indian energy is covered by Iranian oil.

                        Is it that much and not obtainable from other sources?

                        Source: India - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
                        With enough time & effort it should be.

                        The point is what about afterwards. We don't want the Iranians to boycott us.

                        That is the difference.

                        Comment


                        • The Western powers are no strangers to this for they overthrew the democratically elected government of PM Mossedeq in the early 1950s with the help of the CIA and MI6 (in Operation Ajax). Ironically, it was the Western powers that at first encouraged Iran’s nuclear ambitions when the Shah was ruling in Tehran. Under America’s ‘atoms for peace’ programme the Shah was allowed in 1967 to buy a 5MW light water research reactor and, interestingly, the Bushehr nuclear facility was built, not by the Russians but by Siemens.

                          There was no word of protest then from the Western powers as they deemed the Shah as ‘our man’ and euphemistically dubbed him the ‘Guardian of the Gulf’. When Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power after the overthrow of the Shah and formed the new Iranian republic, he ordered the closure of the Iranian nuclear facilities terming them as the ‘work of the devil’. It took the Western-encouraged invasion of Iran by the then ‘friend’ Saddam Hussein for the Iranians to realise that if they had to survive his onslaught, they too would have to develop weapons of mass destruction. They had seen the havoc and the utter devastation caused by Saddam’s Western-supplied chemical weapons. It was indeed a very painful lesson.
                          Source: Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine

                          Well I just read this and if it is true I am surprised to see people complaining about the Iranian Nuclear program when the same countries that oppose the Iranian Nuclear program were the one's that encouraged Iranian Nuclear program.

                          Disclaimer: I haven't checked the validity of the statement but the Magazine that published the article , is a reputed one so I am going by the article. If anybody can prove it wrong they are most welcome and I am ready to stand corrected.
                          Last edited by commander; 19 Mar 12,, 20:56.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            With enough time & effort it should be.
                            From what I understand USA is willing to help India find anothe sources to close the gap.

                            The point is what about afterwards. We don't want the Iranians to boycott us.

                            That is the difference.
                            I understand that, but when the current regime in IRI falls, will you be the good or the bad guys?

                            "Little Satan" had excellent ties with Iran, they even developed missiles together, even more they helped IRI against Iraq, look where these two are now.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by commander View Post
                              Source: Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine

                              Well I just read this and if it is true I am surprised to see people complaining about the Iranian Nuclear program when the same countries that oppose the Iranian Nuclear program were the one's that encouraged Iranian Nuclear program.
                              What is not witten there is that those countries who sold light water and reactor to Iran did so under NPT and for civilian purposes.
                              No one is denying the right to Iranians to develope peacetime nuclear program, they just can't have the bomb.
                              Since many are worried if the program is purely civilian visits fom IAEA are asked from the Westerners and denied by Iran. And that's where it becomes muddy.
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by commander View Post
                                Source: Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine

                                Well I just read this and if it is true I am surprised to see people complaining about the Iranian Nuclear program when the same countries that oppose the Iranian Nuclear program were the one's that encouraged Iranian Nuclear program.
                                Pre-revolution, enrichment ok
                                Post shah, enrichment not ok

                                NPT says nothing about the nature of the regime but the powers that be prefer that the regime in question is not anti-american. US has been blocking Iranian efforts to acquire ENR since '83.

                                Originally posted by commander View Post
                                Disclaimer: I haven't checked the validity of the statement but the Magazine that published the article , is a reputed one so I am going by the article. If anybody can prove it wrong they are most welcome and I am ready to stand corrected.
                                Its valid, but looks suspiciously similar, word wise to the wiki entry of the same.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Mar 12,, 21:25.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X