I could see that and China has been screwing us over a lot lately.
You said in another thread that it would probably be 2017 before we starting seeing any oil from them so I'm sure investment for shale oil will be very low knowing this.
That sucks since I liked seeing us being a bigger producer of oil and not being so dependent on foreign oil.
What I meant was it will be a few years until we know just how much they can produce on a regular basis. Who knows what could happen in that region between now and then.
But right now their operations aren't setup to produce at maximum capacity. I think they produce like 400k barrels now, if all goes well it could be 2-3 million a day.
We're not really becoming more dependent on foreign oil with this deal but certainly the world is becoming more dependent on Iran which makes it a great deal for them.
India awaits windfall from Iran nuclear deal
As the world readies to do business with an Iran free of sanctions, one country in particular is watching closely: India.
As a major net importer of oil, India has already benefited from the U.S.-led nuclear deal with Tehran. Oil prices have declined in recent days, driven largely by expectations of more Iranian crude hitting the market. According to India's Finance Ministry, power-hungry India saves nearly $1 billion in import costs for every dollar drop in global crude prices.
India is particularly well positioned to benefit because many of its refineries are designed to receive Iranian-grade crude, analysts said. On Wednesday, after the agreement was signed, Mumbai's Sensex closed up 1% on hopes of cheaper fuel. Shares in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited are up 5% since Tuesday.
India primarily imports oil from Iran.
Due to the sanctions, India has been paying Iran in Indian rupees, with the money kept in an Indian account. In fact, the country is yet to release an estimated $6bn in pending oil payments to Iran.
Now Delhi, which is the fourth largest consumer of oil in the world, is free to import Iranian oil but will have to pay in dollars.
As the world readies to do business with an Iran free of sanctions, one country in particular is watching closely: India.
As a major net importer of oil, India has already benefited from the U.S.-led nuclear deal with Tehran. Oil prices have declined in recent days, driven largely by expectations of more Iranian crude hitting the market. According to India's Finance Ministry, power-hungry India saves nearly $1 billion in import costs for every dollar drop in global crude prices.
India is particularly well positioned to benefit because many of its refineries are designed to receive Iranian-grade crude, analysts said. On Wednesday, after the agreement was signed, Mumbai's Sensex closed up 1% on hopes of cheaper fuel. Shares in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited are up 5% since Tuesday.
India primarily imports oil from Iran.
Due to the sanctions, India has been paying Iran in Indian rupees, with the money kept in an Indian account. In fact, the country is yet to release an estimated $6bn in pending oil payments to Iran.
Now Delhi, which is the fourth largest consumer of oil in the world, is free to import Iranian oil but will have to pay in dollars.
Everyone should realize these negotiations, for a lack of a better term, started in 2003.
That’s 12 years of dicking around. Iran has played the US and the other leaders of the world like a Stradivarius and beat them like a drum.
This is a perfect example of ineptitude of the “free world leaders.”
Here’s a history of what went down.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/kerry-we-brought-captive-americans-every-meeting-iran
Does anyone believe what Kerry said?
Secretary of State John Kerry says there was "not one meeting that took place" during the recent Iranian nuclear talks at which the U.S. didn't raise the issue of four Americans still held captive by Tehran.
In fact, Kerry adds, the issue was discussed during his last meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, before they announced the landmark deal that is meant to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for sanctions relief.
Wednesday, Obama addressed the issue of the captive Americans. After scolding Garrett for daring to suggest that Obama seems "content" with the deal despite the failure to obtain release of the U.S. citizens, Obama said that it would have been dangerous to "tie the negotiations to their release," saying Iran would then believe it could "get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals."
The president's comments raise a few questions: If the release of the prisoners was dangerous to tie to the deal, why were they, according to Kerry, brought up in every meeting during the negotiations process? And why, if we were negotiating from a "position of strength," had Iran won concessions in the first place, not to mention being poised to win "additional" concessions?
I myself do not believe a word he says.
Does anyone believe what Kerry said?
Secretary of State John Kerry says there was "not one meeting that took place" during the recent Iranian nuclear talks at which the U.S. didn't raise the issue of four Americans still held captive by Tehran.
In fact, Kerry adds, the issue was discussed during his last meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, before they announced the landmark deal that is meant to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for sanctions relief.
Wednesday, Obama addressed the issue of the captive Americans. After scolding Garrett for daring to suggest that Obama seems "content" with the deal despite the failure to obtain release of the U.S. citizens, Obama said that it would have been dangerous to "tie the negotiations to their release," saying Iran would then believe it could "get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals."
The president's comments raise a few questions: If the release of the prisoners was dangerous to tie to the deal, why were they, according to Kerry, brought up in every meeting during the negotiations process? And why, if we were negotiating from a "position of strength," had Iran won concessions in the first place, not to mention being poised to win "additional" concessions?
I myself do not believe a word he says.
Friday at the White House press briefing, press secretary Josh Earnest said if the United States Congress successfully kills the Iranian nuclear deal, it would be “devastating to our standing in the world.”
Earnest said, “The fact is, if the United States Congress were to successfully kill this agreement, it would have a terrible impact on the standing of the United States in the world.”
He added, “this is an agreement, that is enthusiastically supported by, as the president said, 99% of the international community, and for the United States, because of a congressional action, to isolate our country on such an important issue, would be devastating to our standing in the world.”
Devastating? Our standing in the world was devastated long before this agreement.
Earnest said, “The fact is, if the United States Congress were to successfully kill this agreement, it would have a terrible impact on the standing of the United States in the world.”
He added, “this is an agreement, that is enthusiastically supported by, as the president said, 99% of the international community, and for the United States, because of a congressional action, to isolate our country on such an important issue, would be devastating to our standing in the world.”
Devastating? Our standing in the world was devastated long before this agreement.
CNN)Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that a newly negotiated deal on his country's nuclear program would not alter Iran's policies toward the United States.
In a televised address marking the start of Eid al-Fitr, the festival that follows the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei said the agreement signed Tuesday on the nuclear issue would not affect Iran's stance on other regional or bilateral matters.
"Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all," he said.
Khamenei said the negotiations with the United States and other world powers on Tehran's nuclear program were an exception because they served Iran's national interest.
The supreme leader (centre) told supporters that US policies in the Middle East are diametrically opposed to Iran's policies
Many Iranians support the president's stance over the Palestinian issue and the plight of Shia Muslims in Bahrain and Yemen
'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' slogans were chanted during Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus in spite of the nuclear deal agreed earlier this week
In a televised address marking the start of Eid al-Fitr, the festival that follows the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei said the agreement signed Tuesday on the nuclear issue would not affect Iran's stance on other regional or bilateral matters.
"Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all," he said.
Khamenei said the negotiations with the United States and other world powers on Tehran's nuclear program were an exception because they served Iran's national interest.
The supreme leader (centre) told supporters that US policies in the Middle East are diametrically opposed to Iran's policies
Many Iranians support the president's stance over the Palestinian issue and the plight of Shia Muslims in Bahrain and Yemen
'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' slogans were chanted during Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus in spite of the nuclear deal agreed earlier this week
