India’s Iran Port Plans Languish Despite US Waiver

A year has passed since the US reimposed sanctions on Iran. During this time, the Trump administration exempted India’s investments in the Iranian port of Chabahar from sanctions in order to protect India’s strategic interests. Despite this accommodation, recent government data suggests that no new Indian investments have been made in the port project in the last two years.

Foreign aid expenditure figures released in July by the re-elected Modi government show that India has not spent any of its allocated funds for Chabahar since 2017. There is a conspicuous absence of spending even though roughly USD 20 million (150 crore rupees) was set aside each year. The government has now allocated a significantly lower, and perhaps more realistic, USD 6 million for the current year.

These figures confirm reports that India’s ambitions for Chabahar had hit a stumbling block even before Trump withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal. Evidently, the sanctions waiver has not been of much use either.

India’s Chabahar Ambitions

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, now in his second term, has declared regional connectivity as a primary foreign policy goal and injected momentum into major initiatives to India’s east and west. A part of this was certainly driven by the state’s concerns about China’s own mammoth connectivity drive—the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—that runs through its immediate neighborhood and traditional sphere of influence. The project ideas themselves, however, pre-date the BRI.

The main regional connectivity project to India’s west is the Iran-India-Afghanistan transit initiative that hinges on the development of the Chabahar port along with road and rail links connecting it to Afghanistan. With Pakistan denying land access to India, New Delhi intends to use Chabahar to engage with the Afghan market and support Afghanistan’s trade and economic development.

Four years after Modi injected fresh momentum into the project, development at Chabahar has been slow—largely owing to US sanctions against Iran.

As per Iran’s original four-phase development plan, India was to invest USD 85 million to upgrade, equip, and operate two terminals on a ten-year lease. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani oversaw the signing of this contract in May 2016 during the former’s visit to Iran.

Subsequently, Iran upgraded existing port infrastructure as per their agreed first phase of development. This upgraded port was inaugurated in December 2017 with great fanfare. The following year, India took over operations of the port but not much else went according to plan.

Ambitions vs. Reality

When it comes to sanctions, talk is never cheap.

Statements are more than enough to spook companies, heighten risk-aversion, and add further costs to proposed ventures. This was the case for Chabahar as early as Trump’s election campaign, long before the US president violated the nuclear deal.

The Indians first faced an investment chill at home. The Chabahar project calls for a private Indian firm to come on board as a strategic partner to manage, operate and maintain the port for ten years. The government entity created to oversee India’s foreign port projects—India Global Ports Limited (IGPL)—held two bidding rounds since 2016 with no result. It is now rewriting the terms a third time. Given the delay, the Indians signed on an Iranian firm (Kaveh Port and Marine Services) in the interim to take over operations.

A second task was to equip the port. European firms were Iran’s first preference but predictably after Trump’s win, they showed little-to-no interest in equipment bids. This left India with no choice but to work with Chinese firms. Interestingly, a Chinese company that won a bid to supply cranes in 2017 is blacklisted within India. Recent reports in the Indian media now suggest that some of these companies are reluctant to deliver equipment. Again, an environment of fear and uncertainty remains despite the US exemption.

A third aspect is the larger regional project on connectivity between India, Iran, and Afghanistan. As things stand, all parties are working with existing port infrastructure, roadways and operational capacity on this transit project. The route was tested successfully in October 2017 when Indian shipments of wheat arrived at Chabahar from Kandla (Gujarat) and made their way into Afghanistan. There is much left to be done, including the building of a new railway route, but Trump’s sector-specific sanctions pose new complications.

Making Do and Muddling Through

Three years on, Chabahar’s progress does not match India’s original expectations and Trump’s exemption has proven to be inadequate.

This project was touted to be India’s first foreign port development endeavour. For many assessing New Delhi’s record on infrastructure development abroad, the Chabahar project is no longer a useful indicator. It continues to rely heavily on stopgap measures with neither Indian nor foreign companies coming on board. It was a venture that New Delhi could have fought harder to preserve. But the reality is that it chose not to—a decision that merits an entirely separate discussion on the nuances of the India-US partnership and Iran’s reduced place in it.

All signs today point to the stakeholders behind the Chabahar project muddling through with what exists on the ground in Iran. As one Indian official involved with the project since its origins lamented, “This was not what we hoped to achieve. Chabahar is only about photo-ops now, not substance.”

Photo; Logiscm.ir

Squeezing Gas Prices or Iran? Trump Must Choose

The deadline for the US administration to decide whether to extend sanctions waivers granted to buyers of Iranian oil is now less than a month away, and President Donald Trump faces a tricky decision. He undoubtedly wants to increase pressure on the Persian Gulf nation, but in doing so he risks stoking oil prices and with them those all-important gas prices in swing states back home.

Brian Hook, the US Special Representative for Iran, believes oil market conditions are better this year than they were in 2018 for accelerating the goal of “zeroing out all purchases of Iranian crude,” or so he told reporters last week. But the numbers tell a different story.

That is going to make it more difficult for Trump to go in hard on the remaining buyers of Iran’s oil.

Crude prices have risen nearly 50 percent since Christmas, with WTI popping above USD 62.50 a barrel last week for the first time in almost five months. Retail gasoline prices are on a tear, too. The latest data from the Department of Energy show gas prices up by 18 percent since late February, bringing them back to where they were this time last year. 

Meanwhile, in the Persian Gulf, Iran’s visible exports of crude and condensate—a light form of oil produced from gas fields—have been rising steadily since the start of the year. Part of this increase may be due to more of the nation’s oil tankers sending out the radio signals that allow them to be tracked, after much of the fleet turned off transponders to disguise their movements immediately after sanctions were re-imposed. But customs data from importing nations show a similar upward trend.

America’s squeeze on Iran nevertheless allowed some nations to purchase its oil, under a series of six-month-long waivers. These were granted to eight countries, including China, South Korea, Iran, Japan and Turkey, as the restrictions were imposed in November. An estimated 1.76 million barrels a day of crude and condensate left Iran for those five countries in March, up from 1.42 million in February, according to Bloomberg tanker tracking.

This trend contradicts Hook’s assertion that the US is “on the fast track to zeroing out all purchases of Iranian crude.” Three countries that got waivers have cut their purchases to zero, he added. In fact, those three countries—Taiwan, Greece and Italy—haven’t exercised their wavers at all since they were granted. Refiners in Greece and Italy have not received any Iranian cargoes since October, while Taiwan took its last delivery in September.

President Trump’s sanctions have been only slightly tougher than those imposed by his predecessor, despite offering fewer waivers. That will no doubt act as an additional spur for him to heap pressure on the country. But he is going to face difficulties if he wants to get much tougher on Iran next month.

Gas prices remain important to the president and their recent rise must be a source of concern.

The deteriorating situation in two of the “Shaky Six” oil-producing countries I identified a couple of weeks ago is also going to make toughening up the Iran sanctions more difficult.

Venezuela’s oil production is said to have plunged by half during blackouts that rolled across the country last month. Heavy tar-like oil began to solidify in pipelines and tanks after heating systems lost power, causing substantial damage that could take months to fix.

Sanctions imposed on Venezuela’s state oil company have accelerated the output decline, depriving Petroleos de Venezuela of its biggest buyer and the supplier of the light oil it needs to dilute the extra-heavy crude it produces. Output will fall further as the political crisis drags on.

Libya’s production is also at risk again as forces loyal to strongman Khalifa Haftar advance on the capital, Tripoli, threatening a major escalation in violence. Output rose above 1 million barrels a day last month for the first time this year, after the country’s biggest oil field was restarted following a three-month armed occupation. That recovery is now at risk again.

There are two things Trump can do, and his national security team is divided on the course he should follow.

He can allow the unused Iran waivers to expire, claiming a tougher stance without actually affecting oil flows, and perhaps trim the volumes that the remaining countries are permitted to import. Expect particular pressure on Japan and South Korea, who may be more willing than the others to acquiesce to US demands. 

He can also continue to lean on Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC+ group to raise output. The Saudis would be very happy to boost production at the expense of their rival, but they will be much less willing than they were last year to do that before seeing Trump actually impose tougher sanctions.

If he has to choose between lower gas prices and tougher Iran sanctions, domestic considerations will probably hold sway. Expect more tweets aimed at Saudi Arabia and OPEC, followed by an extension of five of the eight the waivers, probably permitting reduced volumes of purchases for some, if not all.

Photo Credit: IRNA

Iran Oil Exports: 8 Waivers and the OPEC Meeting

This article was originally published by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Last month, the Trump administration reimposed sanctions on Iran’s energy sector as part of its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign against Iran. But it nevertheless sought to prevent an unhelpful spike in oil prices ahead of the midterm elections. As a result the United States issued eight waivers to importers of Iranian oil: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy, and Greece. The waivers allow these countries to import a limited amount of oil from Iran without falling foul of US sanctions.

The ‘waiver effect’ was visible from the outset: oil prices dropped the day the waivers were announced. At the same time the market expected other oil producers—particularly Saudi Arabia and Russia—to cut back their temporary production, which had increased over the previous few months to cover Iran’s drop in production. Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to this at the 7 December OPEC meeting.

The waiver decision initially appeared to be a major setback for the US ‘zero oil’ policy. Yet these eight waivers had a significant impact on the psychology and expectations of the oil market. They have created a perception that there will be an oversupply in the market in the short term, and at least through to the end of 2019.

Now, weeks on from the granting of the waivers, no guidelines or details have been announced publicly with regard to how much these countries will be able to import. This has created confusion in the market as to how much Iran will produce up to April 2019, when the 180-day waiver issued for most of these countries is set to end. Upon the announcement of the waivers, many market analysts had anticipated that Iran’s oil exports would increase to 1.5 million barrels per day (mbpd).

However, the reality could be more complicated. Iran’s oil exports are actually unlikely to increase beyond 1.1 mbpd. At most, they could increase to 1.3 mbpd if market conditions are tight and there is not enough supply in the market. And if China decides to ramp its imports back up to 500,000-560,000 barrels per day (bpd) Iran’s oil exports could increase even further, up to 1.5 mbpd.

Several factors prevent Iran oil exports from increasing significantly over the 180-day period.

China

Under the 2012-15 Obama-era nuclear sanctions, China imported roughly 440,000-530,000 bpd from Iran. However, in October 2018, in light of incoming US sanctions, its imports dropped to about 300,000 b/d. Chinese companies heavily invested in the US are worried and cautious about compliance with the sanctions. China National Petroleum Company—Iran’s largest oil consumer in China—reportedly halted its imports in October and November in order to prevent any potential risk against its business and investment interests in the US. Even though the company announced that it might resume imports from Iran, the market does not expect imports to exceed more than 300,000-360,000 bpd. Adequate market supplies provided by Saudi Arabia’s and Russia’s production mean the Chinese are disinclined to import more ‘problematic’ Iranian oil.

Besides US sanctions exposure for Chinese companies, the ongoing trade negotiations with the US are likely to influence China’s decisions. The US government is granting—on a case-by-case basis—waivers on export tariffs to Chinese companies for their trade with, and exports to, the US. It is likely that major companies and the Chinese government are exercising caution with their oil imports from Iran to avoid other sources of tension with Washington. CNPC has also recently suspended its investment in Iran’s South Pars giant gas field in order to minimise tensions over the trade negotiations. It is noteworthy that Saudi Aramco recently singed five new crude oil supply contracts with China to supply its new refinery capacity in 2019. This will significantly increase Saudi Arabia’s market share in China, reaching a total of about 1.6 mb/d. Saudi Arabia exported an average of about 1 mbpd of oil to China in first 10 months of 2018. This will increase Saudi Arabia’s market share in China by about 11 percent on 2017.

Simply put, China is using its Iran oil imports as part of its tariff negotiations with the US. This is spilling over into China’s own negotiations with Iran. Knowing Iran’s limitations for export, Bejing is bargaining hard and strong with Tehran over prices and delivery conditions. China was very late to issue oil purchase orders to National Iranian Oil Company for the month of November. Chinese refineries waited late – the third week of October—to submit their purchase orders to Iranian authorities.

Limited Shipping Capacity and Payment Issues

Iran’s oil exports have dropped significantly since August 2018 following the implementation of the first round of US secondary sanctions. These put strict limitations on Iran’s oil insurance and shipping. Most of the oil shipped since then has gone through the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC), even oil shipments to China. Lack of access to adequate insurance has increased the risk of shipping. Most tanker owners are either unwilling to rent their tankers for shipping Iranian oil cargoes or are demanding very high leasing premiums. Hence, importers are mostly relying on NITC to deliver their oil cargoes. This has also impacted on Iran’s refined petroleum products and petrochemical export.

Historically, and in the months since August, NITC’s oil shipments stood at between only 1-1.1 mbpd; this too will prevent Iran from increasing its exports. This is especially the case for Iran’s allocated shipping export capacity to the European Union countries holding waivers (Italy and Greece), as most of its domestic shipping capacity is busy delivering oil to its customers in Asia. Meanwhile, like China, European countries will remain wary of the risks of importing Iranian oil even with the waivers in place.

Sanctions limit Iran’s access to its oil income in the form of cash and hard currency. Due to the latest US sanctions, importers of Iranian oil have to keep Iran’s oil revenues in an escrow account, and Iran can use this credit to purchase certain goods or services. Even for these clients, payment restrictions could also keep oil purchases lower than Tehran hopes. China, India, and Turkey have diverse trade relations with Iran and in theory could pay for Iranian oil with goods such as food and medicine. However, for countries such as Japan and South Korea, paying back Iran’s oil money is complicated. In the case of South Korea, Iran recently signed a food-for-oil agreement. However, there are limitations in terms of volumes and diversity of Iran’s required food from each particular country. Iran has not signed any similar contracts with Japan yet. Auto and electronics industry owners in Asian countries are highly hesitant to barter their products with Iranian oil money, again because they fear losing one of their largest markets: the US.  

OPEC

The uncertainty over Iran’s oil exports created a difficult decision-making environment for OPEC members and their non-OPEC allies during their 7 December meeting to finalise a decision over production cuts. This decision aimed to maintain market balance. OPEC and Russia finally agreed to cut their production by 1.2 m/bd, of which OPEC will cut 800,000 b/d and non-OPEC countries (mostly Russia) will cut about 400,000b/d. This volume is in line with Iran’s oil exports of 1.1-1.3 mbpd until the end of the 180-day period. Russian and Saudi Arabian oil production had increased to historic highs in the past few months.

Saudi Arabia in particular came under pressure to reduce its production and generate higher prices, to in turn maintain domestic budget balances. Given the recent warm political, energy, and investment ties between Russia and Saudi Arabia, Russia supported Saudi Arabia’s target for higher oil prices. If not Saudi Arabia’s oil price target of USD 70 per barrel, Russia is supporting at least price range of around USD 60-65 per barrel. Russia also agreed to join OPEC members in a further production cut.

Another significant outcome of this meeting was that Iran was excluded from any production or export cut as its production and export is already below its usual capacity due to the sanctions. In November, Iranian crude oil exports fell slightly below 3 mbpd. The sanctions have not only had a significant impact on Iran crude oil exports, but they have also had a negative impact on Iran’s petroleum product exports. This means that some Iranian refineries are unable to run at full capacity given their export limitations.

A variety of factors are set to impact on the oil market and Iranian oil exports. If the market is adequately supplied and prices remain relatively low, even importers that have received waivers will have little incentive to import oil from Iran. With the prospects of US export capacity rising in 2019 and Saudi Arabia’s and Russia’s own considerable export capacity, Iranian oil exports of 1.1-1.3 mbpd or even less may ensue. If prices remain low countries with waivers may still choose not to import oil from Iran even up to the level for which they received the waivers. Taiwan, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Japan might behave in this way if they are not convinced that the economic profit of importing Iranian oil is not greater than the risks related to shipping and insuring Iranian oil cargoes. Iran’s oil exports are likely to remain limited in 2019, and so the country’s annual budget for 2019 is based on an export of 1.5 mbpd. This could have a significant negative impact on Iran’s economy—particularly if oil prices remain relatively low throughout 2019.

Photo Credit: IRNA

Iran Sanctions Hopes Fly on Possible Delivery of Eight ATR Aircraft

In a recent interview, French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire expressed optimism for the delivery of eight ATR turboprops to Iran as part of a contract with Iran Air, the country’s national airline.

The encouraging comments come after Le Maire disclosed two weeks ago that the United States had rejected a joint European letter requesting a broad range of waivers and exemptions that had been sent to Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in June.

In a change of tone, Le Maire spoke of being “hopeful that the United States will provide authorization to deliver these aircraft.” The ATR deliveries, like the three Airbus deliveries made prior to President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, are highly symbolic of the hope and expectations for increased trade and investment following the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Le Maire described the intention for ATR to deliver eight aircraft prior to the August 6 sanctions deadline. At least four ATR 72-600 aircraft have been registered to Iran Air. A further four aircraft have been photographed in Iran Air livery, but have not yet had their registrations altered. These eight aircraft can be identified as follows:

• F-WWEP (now EP-ITI)
• F-WWEU (now EP-ITJ)
• F-WWEF (now EP-ITK)
• F-WWEG (now EP-ITL)
• F-WWEC
• F-WWED
• F-WWEE
• F-WWEX

To date, Iran Air has received an initial eight ATR aircraft, having signed a contract in April 2017 for 20 planes. Iran Air is using these planes as part of a new regional service. 

The ATR contract, like so many others, was immediately put in doubt following President Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal on May 8 and the announcement that the US would be reimposing secondary sanctions that had been removed as part of the JCPOA. Having already manufactured the aircraft on specification for Iran Air, only to see delivery delayed by financing issues related to sanctions concerns, ATR announced it would seek a new license from the US Treasury to permit the delivery of the aircraft following the US withdrawal form the nuclear deal. 

In July, US Department of Treasury assistant secretary of terrorist financing Marshall Billingslea downplayed the likeliness of any such licenses being granted, telling FlightGlobal, "At this stage, I think we are not in a position to suggest we would be issuing such licenses.” Billingslea cited an inability to “show flexibility on transactions.”

But Le Maire’s comments will give rise to new hope that the US authorities may be adopting a more flexible stance. The French minister disclosed that he has been “negotiating for weeks” with his counterpart, Mnuchin, “fighting so that in the health sector, in the agri-food sector, which are now sanctions exempt, there may be funding channels that remain open."

In the context of this fight, the delivery of the ATR aircraft will prove the most clear indication of US flexibility. There are three reasons US authorities might decide to issue a waiver. First, ATR’s smaller aircraft are used for regional routes. This limits concerns of possible “dual use” of the aircraft for military applications. US authorities have sanctioned Iranian airlines and aircraft for conducting “resupply” flights to the conflict in Syria. Such concerns clouded the Airbus and Boeing contracts for larger commercial aircraft.

Second, unlike Airbus aircraft, ATR turboprops, manufactured under a joint venture between Airbus and Italian aerospace company Leonardo, have limited US parts content. According to ATR executives, US components account for “slightly over 10%” of total parts content, or just above the sanctions threshold. Additionally, the aircraft are already manufactured, meaning that there is no further activities necessary with US entities along the supply chain.

Finally, there is a clear humanitarian justification. As shown by the tragic crash of an Aseman Airlines ATR 72 in February, smaller aircraft are especially vulnerable to accidents caused by aging and poor maintenance. Improving air safety has been a primary consideration for Iranian authorities as they sought to acquire new aircraft following the lifting of sanctions.

A focus on delivering eight turboprops and protecting banking channels for sanctions exempt sectors does not equate to a full-defense of French business interests in Iran. It is clear that Iran contracts of leading French enterprises such as Total, Peugeot, Alstom, and Airbus remain outside the scope of compromise with the US Treasury.

However, even a small victory would be important for Le Maire, as it would push the Trump administration into a mindset of negotiated compromise rather than blanket rejection. The Trump administration is unlikely to announce any softening in their position. So the clearest indicator will be whether the eight ATR aircraft make their long-awaited flights to Tehran. The eyes of a nation will be watching.

Photo Credit: ATR