• 2 days PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 2 days Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 2 days Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 2 days Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 2 days Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 2 days Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 2 days Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 3 days New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 3 days Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 3 days Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 3 days Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 3 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 3 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 3 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 3 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 3 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 3 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 4 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 4 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 4 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 4 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 4 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 5 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 5 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 5 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 5 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 5 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 5 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 5 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 5 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 6 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 6 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 6 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 6 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 6 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 6 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 6 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 7 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 7 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 7 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
Alt Text

Kurdistan Accuses Baghdad Of Planning Oil Field Seizure

Kurdistan authorities have accused the…

Alt Text

Trump Just Made Iran A Wildcard

The impact of Trump’s decision…



IWPR helps people in the world's most challenging environments have the information they need to drive positive changes in their lives — holding government to…

More Info

Iran’s Decision to End Loss Making Oil Swaps Could Reduce its Influence in the Caspian Region

Iran’s Decision to End Loss Making Oil Swaps Could Reduce its Influence in the Caspian Region

Three months since Iran’s oil ministry announced it was ending an import deal with three Caspian states, future plans remain unclear.

The ministry announced in June that it would not be renewing contracts with four companies that had been bringing in oil from Kazakstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. Under an arrangement known as an oil swap, the imported crude was refined locally in northern Iran, and an equivalent amount of Iranian oil was then made available for export from seaports in the south.

The oil swap deals were managed by Germany’s Select Energy Trading GmbH, the Swiss energy trader Vitol, Dragon Oil from the United Arab Emirates, and the Ireland-based Caspian Oil Development.

The first oil swaps began in 1997, allowing Caspian states with limited export options to go through Iran.

The oil ministry’s decision to stop them came as a surprise because only a few months earlier, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted that the volume of oil swaps – currently between 70,000 and 100,000 barrels per day – could rise to nearly 320,000 bpd by 2015.

Explaining the decision, officials said Iran was not making money because receipts from the swap – about one US dollar per barrel – had not increased in line with spiraling oil prices over the past decade or so.

Seyyed Abdolmajid Shoja, formerly of the Iranian parliament’s energy affairs committee said revenue from the 115 million barrels exchanged between 1997 and 2006 came to just 146 million dollars.

Asked by reporters why the oil swaps had ended, Oil Minister Massoud Mir-Kazemi said the deal had been a loss-maker rather than generating a profit.

He noted that any oil moved from southern ports on behalf of Caspian states counted towards Iran’s total exports, and domestic production had to be curbed accordingly to keep within OPEC quotas.

Since these exports earned Iran only a small flat fee instead of the going rate for oil, Mir-Kazemi said that “it was as if we were losing 69 dollars on every barrel, which was completely disadvantageous for us”.

The minister has indicated that the contracts could be renewed, but with the fee increased “from one to five dollars” per barrel.

Months before oil swaps were suspended, Swiss energy trader Vitol had already made it clear it wanted to end its arrangement with Iran. At the time, its decision was seen as a desire to avoid falling foul of United States sanctions.

Meanwhile, Dragon Oil made arrangements to ship its oil from Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan, where it could go into the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

The oil swap was of mutual benefit to Iran and its northern partners. Kazak oil has traditionally had to go through Russia, which can dictate volumes and transit fees, and an eastward route to China opened up only recently. Azerbaijan has a major pipeline running via Georgia to Turkey’s Ceyhan terminal, but the Russian-Georgian conflict in 2008 showed the advantages of having alternative options to hand. Finally, Turkmenistan is mainly a natural gas producer and has no easy way of exporting its crude oil, except to neighbouring Iran.

For Iran, the swaps with nearby producers meant it could supply northern areas from oil processed at the Tehran, Tabriz and Arak refineries without having to transport it all the way from wells in the south.

Just as importantly, the arrangements provided Tehran with opportunities to position itself as a player in the Caspian energy market.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, successive Iranian governments tried to attract investment in pipelines to take Caspian oil and gas to the Persian Gulf – an easier route to international markets than going through Russia.

But mounting international sanctions meant this never happened, and the Baku-Ceyhan oil route and the projected Nabucco gas pipeline through Turkey and southeast Europe reduce Iran’s ability to sell itself as the shortest and cheapest route.

For geopolitical reasons, the firms involved in oil swaps now appear less motivated to maintain the arrangement, especially if Tehran is going to demand higher fees.

Although Iranian oil officials say they are open to negotiations, an oil expert in Tehran, speaking on condition of anonymity, said this is looking less likely than ever, as the latest UN sanctions “create new obstacles”, so that “bringing these companies back is a difficult task”.

Speaking on the sidelines of an oil and foreign policy meeting held in Tehran in March, energy expert Nersi Ghorban said the former Soviet Caspian states now viewed Iran as something of a liability because of sanctions.

The Iran advisor for a major western oil firm, who asked not to be named, says Iran’s peremptory decision to shut off oil swaps was an error of judgement, coming as it did at a time when the country is increasingly hemmed in by economic sanctions, the latest of which were imposed by the United Nations and the US in early June.

Instead of simply ending the deal, he said, Tehran could have warned its partners in advance and then entered into negotiations about raising the fee per barrel.

Hasan Mansoor, a professor at the Schiller International University in Paris, says Iran could have followed Russia’s example by asking intermediaries to pay a tax instead of bumping up the fee itself.

“It appears that Iran was not levying specific taxes on its contractors,” he added.

By. Ebrahim Gilani

This article originally appeared in IWPR.net and is produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, www.iwpr.net 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News