Mediaboss Marketing

When investing in oil, it helps to have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to looking at the data. Take Iran for instance. After freeing itself of onerous international sanctions, Iran has returned fully to the oil market.

Iranian oil production increased from an average of 2.8M bpd to 3.5M bpd, an increase of over 25% from 2015 to 2016. Once freed of international sanctions, 2016 output showed a healthy ramp in "oil production" from Q1 to Q4, with sequential quarterly increases (OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report 03/2017)

Iran (tb/d)

2015

2016

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q4 2016

Production

2,838

3,502

3,096

3,539

3,646

3,725

The robustness of Iran's production was such that as OPEC settled into negotiating production cuts in Vienna last year, Iran was adamant that it be granted a higher production quota after emerging from years of sanctions. OPEC subsequently relented, and allowed Iran to increase production to 3.8M barrels per day. Iran had originally argued for a 4M bpd cap, but the compromise was politically palatable for Iran's leaders and OPEC.

As we're now receiving full year data, a clearer picture is emerging of Iran's actual production capability. We're often bemused when reality pulls back the curtain and what you thought may have been happening was actually happening. Given the years of underinvestment in Iranian oil fields, we believed it was unlikely Iran was able to increase and sustain production at the Q3/Q4 levels of over +3.7M bpd. Even secondary sources in OPEC's March MOMR reported that Iran produced 3.778M bpd in January and 3.814M bpd in February in Q1 of 2017. Although some increase was inevitable given the lifting of economic sanctions, it was much more likely that part of Iran's oil "production" was really oil exports coming from offshore/onshore storage.

In a recent report by Energy Aspects, the firm included a chart that shows Iranian floating condensate levels. Notice anything?

Coinciding with the rise in Q3/Q4 "production", offshore inventories fell considerably. Today Reuters reported the following

"Prior to the lifting of sanctions, Iran stored unsold oil on ships, which peaked in 2015 at 40 million barrels on around 25 tankers. The country has up to 60 oil tankers in its fleet.

Iran's drawdown of floating storage gathered pace in September. By the start of 2017, Iran still held an estimated 16 million barrels of oil on ships. Since then, they have emptied."

We believe this explains in part Iran's statement last month that if OPEC agreed to extend the cuts in its May meeting, then Iran would agree to hold production at 3.8M bpd. This is essentially a "free" concession as Iran has little ability to actually increase production even if it wanted to. The most likely explanation for the recent increase in "production" is that offshore destocking is being misinterpreted as oil coming from incremental production.

As we've been wrapping up our quarter and reexaming the underlying data, it's also becoming clear that much of what the world attributes to production has really been inventory destocking by national oil companies and traders. In fact, the dearth of investments these past few years will likely lead to a reduction of overall Non-US/Non-OPEC production. We'll be following-up the next few weeks with additional articles addressing and updating our larger oil thesis, but for now, all signs continue pointing to an eventual oil shortage by 2018 and much higher oil prices than today.

As always, we welcome your comments. If you would like to read more of our articles, please be sure to hit the "Follow" button above.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Read more from the original source:
Iran's Oil Production: Fallacy Or Fallowed - Seeking Alpha

As someone characterized as part of the Iran Deal echo chamber in 2015, many might anticipate that I would oppose the sanctions against Iran presentlybeing developed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But, with modifications and in the right context, the bills being developed in theHouse and in the Senate may actually point the way for the kind of approach to sanctions against Iran that preserves and advances the common cause ofJPOCA proponents and skeptics alike.

Though sometimes lost in the public debates of 2015, the United States neither gave away all of its sanctions leverage over Iran in the JCPOA nor did itlose the right and the ability to impose targeted measures against Iran for actions incompatible with the JCPOA or outside its aegis. Under the JCPOA,what was agreed is that we would exchange nuclear relief for sanctions relief, offering Iran the promise of some economic renewal and securing for theUnited States the relief of Iran being unable to produce a nuclear weapon undetected and in less than a year.

Recognizing the very real threat such a development would pose, the House and Senate bills now under consideration would largely preserve the Obama-era approach. Modifications to the bills are necessary, particularly the Senate bills sweeping, mandatory sanctions on activities with Iran that pose a riskof contributing to Irans missile program, its mandatory terrorism designation of the IRGC (which adds nothing to the sanctions already in place against theIRGC but which military analysts fear could pave the way for retaliation against U.S. forces in the region), and language that could prejudice the ability ofthe U.S. to terminate in time some sanctions designations covered by the deal. These changes do need to be made to make the bill JCPOA compliant.But, by and large, both bills take the approach of imposing targeted sanctions for specific bad acts. They will engender caution in international businesses,but perhaps not outright fear. Iran will benefit economically, but lagging due to its policies.

What is missing now is a reaffirmation that the objective of the United States is not to undermine the JCPOA. Both the White House and the Congressshould state clearly, publicly, and in advance of any movement of this legislation that the JCPOA is working and merits protection and implementation. Thelegislation should reflect this specifically and in the construction of its waiver provisions. U.S. sanctions experts at the State and Treasury Departmentsshould be authorized to continue conversations with international businesses and banks about how to take advantage of JCPOA relief within the sanctionsregime, and to give assurances that so long as Iran fulfills its commitments the rug will not be jerked from under their feet. Absent this reaffirmation, itwould be a mistake to move the bills and certainly to sign them into law.

Irans hardliners are desperate for the United States to walk away from the JCPOA and looking to capitalize on U.S. missteps. Though they may profit inthe short term due to the control they exert over the Iranian economy (made possible in part because of the exigencies imposed by sanctions), economicopenness is seen by hardliners as a wedge through which political change may one day be pursued. Domestic Iranian efforts at reform are based in largepart on demonstrating success being attained via access to the international economy. Instead of granting perverse relief to our opponents in Tehran bydoubling down on a hostile policy, we should avoid chest thumping and grandstanding, including in sanctions form. For example, an aggressive sanctionsapproach to the IRGC that harms the JCPOA will do the IRGCs work for it. Tehran wont scrap the IRGC because it has been designated or targeted. TheUnited States cannot sanction it into oblivion. Its role can only be curtailed by showing that, particularly in the economic space, its involvement does moreharm than good. We should impose some limited, targeted sanctions to be sure; abandoning sanctions altogether for fear of offending the Iranians easesthe pressure on the system to resolve the contradictions in Irans own policies and government management. But, we must tailor our measures in a waythat makes the necessity of reform easier to argue and keeps the pressure on the IRGC and on Iran where it counts: at home.

We must proceed carefully, sensibly, and with a measure of respect for the needs and requirements of our adversary, our partners, and our own nationalsecurity. After all, if the JCPOA is damaged or lost, we lose something as well. Far from being something Iran should be grateful for getting, the JCPOA isdelivering value to the United States. For the first time in a generation, U.S., Israeli, and Gulf Arab national security thinkers can imagine a Middle East inwhich the near term risk is not Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition. In todays Middle East, that is a win worth preserving.

Richard Nephew was the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. team negotiating with Iran from 2013-15 and before thatserved as Director for Iran on the National Security Council staff. He is now a Fellow at the Center on Global EnergyPolicy at Columbia University.

Continue reading here:
Sanctioning Iran while preserving the JCPOA - The Hill (blog)

The Hindu

15 fishermen return from Iran The Hindu The 15 fishermen released from an Iranian prison landed at the Chennai airport on Thursday night. They were arrested on October 22 last on charges of entering Iranian waters without permission. They reached Chennai by an Emirates flight from Dubai. Iran ordeal over, 15 fishermen reach ChennaiThe New Indian Express all 4 news articles »

See original here:
15 fishermen return from Iran - The Hindu

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

More specifically, the trio was charged with insulting the Prophet and insulting the Supreme Leader of Iran with text messages, per the UKDaily Mail.Evidently, insulting the Supreme Leader only gets you 16 months in jail but insulting Mohammed is a capital offense. The Center for Human Rights in Iran notes that if a person accused of insulting Mohammed claims his words were due to anger or a mistake, the court can reduce the sentence to 74 lashes instead of death.

Dehghan was sentenced to death, even though the CHRI says he was told he would receive a pardon if he confessed to his crimes and repented of his actions. The Center notes he only had four days remaining in his military service at the time of his arrest.

Asource told the CHRI:

Security and judicial authorities promised Sinas family that if they didnt make any noise about his case, he would have a better chance of being freed, and that talking about it to the media would work against him. Unfortunately, the family believed those words and stopped sharing information about his case and discouraged others from sharing it as well.

One of his co-defendants was given a seven-year prison sentence reduced to three years on appeal, while the other, Mohammad Nouri, has also been sentenced to death.

According to the UKIndependent,the exact content of the messages sent by the three defendants on the Line messaging application has not been made public.

Dehghan has been held in the notorious Arak prison where a source told the CHRI he is suffering from depression and often cries. The source also said Dehghan is held in a ward with drug convicts and murderers who broke his jaw a while ago.

He is running out of options to escape the death sentence, which was upheld by the Iranian Supreme Court in January. In an interview on March 28th, Dehghans lawyer said a request for judicial review of his sentence has been filed.

AccordingtoSinaslawyer, steps have been taken for a judicial review, and with the good news were hearing from him, God willing this case will come to end positively as soon as possible, said Dehghans mother.

However, another human-rights organization called Article 19 has complained Dehghans court-appointed lawyer failed to adequately defend him at trial.

Article 19 said the case demonstrates how Iranians are at the mercy of a system where forced confessions, false promises, and threats to family members undermine not only national judicial processes but the international standards Iran has signed up to.

View original post here:
Iran Sentences 21-Year-Old to Death for 'Insulting the Prophet' Online - Breitbart News

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has branded Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as "a war criminal,' who has been protected by Russia and Iran in the Security Council for far too long.

She told Fox News the Trump administration hopes Assad will be brought to justice for the overwhelming humanitarian crisis and continued carnage that has torn his nation apart.

She also blamed the Obama administration for not acting sooner to try and prevent the war.

"The previous administration needs to take responsibility for that, as well," she said. "First of all, Assadhe's a war criminal. He's used chemical weapons on his own people. He's not allowing aid to come in. He is very much a deterrence to peace. But then you look at the fact that the Security Council has to acknowledge when the chemical weapons -- we had proof that he used it three times on his own people. Why aren't we dealing with that?

"Then, you know, you have to look at the Iranian influence and the fact that we've got to get that out. Syria is in such sad shape, but it doesn't have to be that way. If you look back, so many things could have been done to prevent where we are today. And that's what we need to focus on now."

Haley, who resigned as governor of South Carolina when the Senate approved her nomination in January, has been a quick learner in her new arena, observers say, who has brought a blunt message from the Trump administration to the international diplomats at the world body on several issues.

She calls North Korea, "a threat to the world," and demands that Beijing impose sanctions on Kim Jong-un's regime for its continued nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

"It all comes down to China," Haley says. "They could put enough pressure on North Korea to get them to step back. Now it's time for them to prove it."

She is clear about her role at the U.N.

"I think that the United States has always been the moral compass of the world. And I think we are generous by nature. And we want to see people safe. We don't want to see people starve. We don't want to see people treated -- mistreated by their governments," she said, noting that her first goal is to bring American values...and the nation's voice...back to the organization that she says has gotten "stale."

Haley intends to focus on human rights, the U.N. budget, peacekeeping reform, and addressing the wrongs that have plagued the world body.

"Leadership is just letting them know what we're for, what we're against, have the backs of our allies and make sure they keep the backs of us, and then anyone that challenges us, call them out. Let them know what we think is wrong. That's all this is just making sure we're changing the culture to showing strength from the United States again, action and making sure that we show value in the United Nations. I think it's important for the American people."

The Trump administration has proposed deep cuts in the U.S. contribution to the U.N.'s budget. American taxpayers currently pay upwards of $2.8 billion to fund the world body's regular and peacekeeping operations. The White House has proposed slicing the U.S. contribution by almost half, $1 billion.

According to the U.N.'s own figures, the U.S. is responsible for just over 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget, which the Trump administration has sought to cut by 3 percent, for a total contribution of 25 percent. That amount, however, would still be more than double the next largest contributors, China and Japan...about four times more than Germany, France and Great Britain...and six times more than Russia.

Haley insisted any reductions will not harm the peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, denying the fears expressed by some that refugees could starve, children will not get UNICEF innoculations, and peacekeeping deployments would be crippled.

"What we want is for people to be safe. We want the aid to get in," she sayid, noting that her fellow diplomats share the same goals.

"All of the other countries are saying, 'yes we think that too.' They want to see peacekeeping reform. They want to see management reform. They want to see the U.N. become more active and go back to the mission."

On Friday, the Security Council unanimously voted to slightly reduce the troop level of the peacekeeping forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Haley told Fox News that the biggest surprise since her arrival two months ago, is what she called the U.N.'s "anti-Israeli bias," citing meetings on the Middle East that focus only on the Jewish State.

"They're not talking about we would care about. They're not talking about Syria. They're not talking about Iran. They're not talking about North Korea. What they are talking about is Israel. Every single month, for 10 years, they've been Israel bashing. And that was something that I just couldn't believe they put the time and energy into doing that, when we have so many threats around the world."

"I think she's great," Haleys Israeli counterpart, Israel's United Nations Ambassador Danny Danon, told Fox News when asked how he thinks she is doing.

"She comes with her values, her tools, and that's what we need at the U.N., to bring the U.N. back to its core values. The U.N. is a good institution, but it was kidnapped by evil forces and I believe with Ambassador Haley, and my team, we can work together, and maybe, maybe change the U.N. and bring it back to what it should be."

Haley points to several changes that have occurred under her watch, from preventing the appointment of a former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority until the P.A. engages in peace talks, to the resignation of a U.N. official who released a report branding Israel as an "apartheid state."

"Its changing, and the tone is getting better," she notes.

"And not only that, I think they're tired of me yelling at them about Israel bashing."

Ben Evansky contributed to this report.

Follow Eric Shawn on Twitter: @EricShawnTV

More here:
Haley: Assad a 'war criminal' protected by Russia, Iran - Fox News