|
Do Not Threaten Tehran, Lavrov Says
By Vladimir Isachenkov
The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 7, 2006. Issue 3347. Page 3
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/02/07/012.html
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday warned world powers against threatening Iran and said the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program must be resolved through negotiations.
"I think that at the current stage, it is important not to make guesses about what will happen and even more important not to make threats," Lavrov said at the start of a two-day visit to Athens. Lavrov was responding to a request for his reaction to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments to a German newspaper that a military option for dealing with Tehran should be kept open.
"What we must underline is that there are the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN Security Council has been informed and will not take any action in the immediate future," Lavrov said after talks with Greek counterpart Petros Molyviatis.
Meanwhile, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said Monday that it would be possible to create a joint venture to enrich uranium for Iran in Russia only if Tehran resumed its moratorium on enrichment activities.
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors voted Saturday to report Iran to the UN Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions. Tehran responded by saying it would start full-scale uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities. But Iran said it was willing to discuss Moscow's proposal to shift large-scale enrichment operations onto Russian territory in an effort to allay suspicions it is pursuing a weapons program. Talks on the project were scheduled for Feb. 16 in Moscow.
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine daily that he was "still hoping for a sensible compromise that Iran would engage in for the sake of its own interests."
"We have made a good proposal. The Iranian leadership must decide shortly," Ivanov said. He added that "the idea that Russia plays the decisive role is inaccurate. We have good relations with Iran. But we cannot assume that Tehran will follow all Moscow's advice."
Radzhab Safarov, a Moscow-based expert on Iran, said that this month's talks in Moscow could produce a breakthrough because some Iranian politicians had questioned the wisdom of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's harsh, uncompromising course and had grown increasingly worried about growing international isolation.
He added, however, that Iran wanted to retain a small-scale Iranian enrichment effort and engage a third nation, preferably China, in the uranium enrichment effort on Russian territory to have a hedge against Moscow's using the project to pressure Iran or denying it access to fuel under international pressure.
Lavrov and Molyviatis also discussed diplomatic efforts to reunite the island of Cyprus ? divided between Greek and Turkish Cypriot sectors since a Turkish invasion in 1974 ? and the Kosovo peace talks.
Lavrov said that in both cases negotiations were key to a settlement. "Decisions must not be imposed by external forces," he said.
Kosovo, a province of Serbia-Montenegro, has been run by the United Nations since 1999, when a NATO air war ended Serbia's crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists.
Will Iran dispute push oil to $130?
While the U.S. imports no Iranian crude, worries about Tehran's nuclear program are boosting prices. It could get a lot worse if the spigot is shut off.
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 7, 2006: 3:12 PM EST
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/07/news/international/iran_oil/index.htm
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Not a drop of oil from Iran reaches the nation's gas pumps. But escalating tensions about Iran's nuclear program are already being felt in oil and gas prices in the United States.
That's because even though the United States has banned oil imports from Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution, some 4 million barrels of Iranian crude are shipped around the world each day, accounting for about 5 percent of global supply. That has an effect on prices everywhere, no matter how much or how little Iranian oil reaches U.S. refineries.
And the growing dispute over Iran's nuclear program is one key reason oil prices have jumped since late December back near $65 a barrel.
Some experts say oil would be closer to $60 a barrel absent worries about possible broader sanctions against Iran, and at least one analyst says oil could shoot to more than $130 a barrel, if Iranian oil stopped flowing altogether.
Fortunately for world oil markets, most experts see little chance of a complete shutdown of Iranian oil due to the dispute over its nuclear program.
"Iran is the only major oil-producing country that still has a budget deficit," said A. F. Alhajji, a professor of economics at Ohio Northern University. "History tells us since the Iranian revolution, they always talk about cutting production, but they've never cut it."
Still, uncertainty about Iranian production is what is lifting oil prices today.
"If this leads to the shut-off of Iranian oil, I think it would probably mean we've got bigger problems than the price of oil," said Jason Schenker, an economist with Wachovia. "But if we end up with a 1970s-style oil embargo, we could see prices go markedly higher into uncharted territory."
The dispute grew further on Saturday when the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution to report Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the government would cease all cooperation with the international nuclear watchdog agency. Tuesday a report out of Iran said the country had demanded the IAEA inspectors remove their surveillance cameras and other equipment from its nuclear sites by mid-February.
The estimate for the biggest jump in oil prices if Iran turns off the taps? A doubling to more than $130 a barrel, says Bill Browder, who runs the $4 billion Moscow-based Hermitage fund, which invests in Russian oil companies.
Browder cautions that he's not predicting a cut-off of Iranian oil, only suggesting what his historical analysis projects is likely to happen if 5 percent of world oil supplies suddenly disappear from the market.
"You have almost no spare capacity in the market. OPEC has only about 1.7 million barrels a day (of excess capacity)," he said. "I think it's highly unlikely they would stop supplying oil. But if the situation escalates, and Israel bombs Iran, it may not be their choice."
Ohio Northern's Alhajji said he doesn't think prices would double even with a complete shut-off of Iranian oil. He notes the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) already has a supply of oil equal to about 175 days worth of Iranian production, and Europe has its own strategic reserves.
"The SPRs are not efficient, but they do work as a cap on prices," he said. "Traders would realize President Bush would release as much oil as he can in that scenario."
But even Alhajji says he can't predict what would happen to Iranian oil production or world prices if there is some kind of military action against Iran.
In that case, he said, there would be great pressure inside Iran to shut down oil exports, even if the military action is limited to an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, leaving its oil infrastructure intact.
"There (would) be demonstrations in (Iranian) streets calling for the government to cut off oil exports," Alhajji said.
Right now Iranian government and oil officials are vowing to keep oil flowing no matter what action the U.N. takes against the country's nuclear program.
"They're saying that right now," Alhajji said. "The sentiment might change with military action."
Alhajji also estimates that oil prices could spike $10 a barrel if there is any military action taken against Iran, even if oil facilities are not affected and there are no immediate threats by the country's leaders to cut exports.
On the other hand, some kind of resolution of the Iranian nuclear dispute could cause a swift and sharp drop in the price of oil.
A number of experts estimate that about 10 percent of current pricing, or about $6.50 a barrel, is due to jitters over Iran.
"The saber-rattling on both sides of the table has led to some pricing in of risk, but it's quite conceivable we could see prices go back to $60, even the high $50s, if this dispute reaches a resolution or even a stalemate," said Wachovia's Schenker.
[In Mike Ruppert's recent FTW story, THE END OF THE GRID, it was explained that Mayo Shattuck and his Constellation corporation are engaged in a massive sweep of the deregulated power industry. Here we see the money begin to flood into that corporation's coffers. Enron didn't die, it just changed its stripes. --FTW]
Constellation fourth-quarter earnings jump 45 pct
Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:19 AM ET
Reuters
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=markets
News&storyID=2006-01-31T151746Z_01_N31165541_RTRIDST_0_
UTILITIES-CONSTELLATION-
EARNS-UPDATE-2.XML
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
NEW YORK, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Utility Constellation Energy Group Inc. <CEG.N> on Tuesday said fourth-quarter earnings rose 45 percent on strong performance at its merchant energy unit.
The company, which in December agreed to be acquired by rival FPL Group Inc. <FPL.N>, posted profit of $195.2 million, or $1.09 a share, compared with $134.9 million, or 76 cents a share, a year earlier.
Before one-time items, Constellation earned $1.07 a share, beating analysts' average forecast of $1 as compiled by Reuters Estimates.
For 2006, the company said it expects earnings per share of $3.65 to $3.95 on a stand-alone basis. Analysts expect $3.83.
In the fourth quarter, earnings at Constellation's merchant segment rose 46 percent to 82 cents a share, due mostly to improvements at its unit that sells power to utilities and large municipalities.
Earnings at its regulated utility, Baltimore Gas and Electric, rose to 25 cents a share from 17 cents a year earlier.
The company said it expects to complete all the necessary regulatory filings and a joint proxy statement for the FPL deal in the first quarter, with closing of the deal still expected sometime this year. Constellation has already filed with the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chief Executive Mayo Shattuck said the combined company, which will be known as Constellation Energy, would be large enough to be an end-player in the consolidating industry.
"From a standpoint of territorial reach, I think the new Constellation could go further, but it would not have to," Shattuck said in an interview. "It has a lot of natural growth drivers in its merchant business that I think will drive it for quite a number of years."
Shares of Constellation were off 14 cents at $57.88 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
[Whether this is done in the name of the Iraqi people whom the U.S. has killed and injured and humiliated, or in the name of the Americans who will soon be without power when they get priced out of Constellation's new paradigm, the significance is the same: people of insight are bearing witness against the economic tapeworm that threatens all life. --JAH]
Lights Out Chicago: Electricity Fast
February 15, 2005
Joel Gulledge: 773-878-3815
email: joel@vcnv.org
http://vcnv.org/lights-out-chicago-electricity-fast
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
CHICAGO - For the next thirty days, local activists for social justice will forgo electricity at home, choosing instead to shed light on the failure of reconstruction efforts in Iraq to create significant and reliable improvements in electrical power supply since the U.S. led invasion and occupation. Lights Out Chicago participants will maintain a vigil at the Federal Plaza in Chicago (Dearborn and Adams) each weekday from 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. and from 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. then on Saturdays and Sundays from 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Water Tower Park ( Michigan and Pearson).
Laura Gardiner and Leah Patriarco, roommates and Chicago teachers, prepared for the fast by purchasing food which will not require refrigeration and by stocking up on extra candles and blankets.
“We’re holding vigils and community activities by candlelight to illuminate the fact that the basic needs of Iraqi people continue to go unmet”, says Neil Brideau, artist and participant in the electricity fast.
IRIN, the U.N. news agency, reports that the current electricity supply remains lower than pre-conflict levels, though reconstruction goals planned to reach 6,000 Megawatts by July of 2004. Unreliable power supply and persistent outages affect many areas of life for Iraqi people, including health care, safe drinking water and education.
Lights Out Chicago coincides with “The Winter of Our Discontent”, a campaign to challenge and resist economic and military warfare against Iraq. Organized by the Chicago-based group Voices for Creative Nonviolence, participants will lobby, fast, and vigil at the US Capitol, the Pentagon, the White House, and the International Monetary Fund from February 15th to March 20th. Further information on The Winter of Our Discontent campaign is located at the website, http://www.vcnv.org
Voices for Creative Nonviolence seeks to build and strengthen active nonviolent resistance to the U.S. war against Iraq’s people; to foster international peace teams; and to challenge the United States’ “Global War on Terror”, which is a war OF terror far more than it is a “war ON terror”. Several members lived in Iraq before, during, and after the U.S. invasion in 2003.
|
Do Not Threaten Tehran, Lavrov Says