In a new in-depth study, Rystad Energy estimates that as much as $100 billion can be eliminated from E&P upstream budgets through automation and digitalization initiatives in the 2020s. Service companies are reinventing themselves to help operators unlock these savings.
In 2018, $1 trillion was spent on operational expenditures, wells, facilities and subsea capital expenditures across more than 3,000 companies in the upstream space. There are varying degrees of potential savings within offshore, shale and conventional onshore activity budgets, but in total, around 10% of this spend can be erased through more efficient and productive operations thanks to automation and digitalization.

“Many key industry players are setting optimistic goals, but the realization of these initiatives largely depends on how freely data is shared amongst companies and how commercial strategies are deployed to drive this development. Because of this, it could be years before we see full adoption. However, based on our analysis of 2018 capital spend and operational budgets, we believe savings could easily reach $100 billion,” says Audun Martinsen, head of oilfield services research.

The amount of savings has the potential to be significant and several operators expect automation and digitalization to reduce drilling costs by 10% to 20%, and facility and subsea costs by 10% to 30%. However, not all field developments or drilling operations have the same capacity to reduce costs. Adoption across the entire value chain of suppliers from national oil companies (NOCs) to majors to smaller E&Ps will vary, so the realistic efficiencies and synergies will be closer to 10% by the end of the next decade.
“In addition to cost savings, digitalization initiatives can also increase productivity by increasing uptime, optimizing reservoir depletion strategies, improving the health, safety, and environment of workers and minimizing greenhouse emissions – all of which have significant value creation,” Martinsen added.

The painful oil market downturn has given upstream operators and service providers a strong incentive to adapt and become more efficient or be forced to close down shop.
A race among suppliers is currently underway as companies roll-out new digital products; the last three months alone have seen major releases by Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and TechnipFMC. One of the largest digitalization initiatives to date was recently launched on 17 September 2019, the result of a collaboration by Schlumberger, Chevron and Microsoft. This ambitious project aims to visualize, interpret and ultimately obtain meaningful insights from multiple data sources across exploration, development, and production and midstream sectors. 
Another driver of digitalization is that data storage and processing have become significantly cheaper, and the increased connectivity through the so-called “Internet of Things” has allowed more data to be efficiently digested. Nonetheless, the digital systems of an offshore platform can have around 5,000 to 15,000 sensors, and connecting this myriad of data points is not a straight forward process. Given the complexity of digitalization efforts, it is likely that investments will be primarily aimed at new greenfield projects, while aging producing assets will not be a priority.

The post The Race To Save $100 Billion – A Digital Revolution In Oil appeared first on APADANA MEDIA.

Tehran, however, has broken confidence by the diffuse reactions of the G7 parties in Biarritz, France even after Islamic Republic foreign minister Zarif turned up unexpected. Islamic Republic and Iraqi officials have stated to the press that discussions currently are being held with regards to Mullahs’ desperate proposal to build a new oil pipeline from Iran to Syria, crossing Iraqi territory. At the same time, Baghdad and Tehran struggle as new on ground export routes.

In short, it seems that two options for the pipeline are on the table: a new 1,000 km pipeline running through Iraq into Syria, or repairs on the Iranian side of the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline, which is an 800 km pipeline. The new pipeline project is slated to target an overall capacity of 1.25 million barrels of oil per day. This project would take around 2 years to be completed. The goal of the official discussions is to find alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz for Iraq and Iran. Washington and its allies, however, will be looking at this in a totally different way.

Tehran will be banking on the support of those European partners, that are trying to keep the JCPOA deal alive. Analysts, however, expect that Washington, most probably backed by the UK, Australia and the main Arab states, will be trying to block and outright prevent the construction of the Iran-Iraq (Syria) pipeline.

The proposal to reopen the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline that runs through Iraq. It would be a crucial element in the creation of an oil supply system to Europe independent of the US, experts say.

Islamic Republic proposed to Iraq a project to reopen the pipeline to the Syrian port of Baniyas, in the Mediterranean Sea, to “circumvent US sanctions and not use the Strait of Hormuz, as there are increasing fears about its closure in case of clashes military between the United States and its allies against Iran,” the Iraqi television channel Al-Sumaria reported.

For a long time, a land hydrocarbons corridor in the Mediterranean region is very important for Iran, says political scientist and professor at the Russian Financial University, Leonid Krutakov said, as quoted by the Russian newspaper Vzglyad.

The expert recalls that the war against Syria began shortly after Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a memorandum on the construction of a gas pipeline from the Iranian South Pars site to Europe in July 2011.

This route would allow Europe to dispense with the liquefied gas promoted by the US in the European market, explains Krutakov.

However, due to the war in Syria, plans to build the pipeline were suspended. Approximately at the same time the perspectives of the Kirkuk-Baniyas route were discussed, but after the deterioration of the situation in Syria and northern Iraq, these negotiations were postponed.

First indicators show that the Trump Administration will be putting all its force on Baghdad to reconsider the deal. Baghdad’s position is precarious, as it needs to navigate between a wide range of political pressure groups, Islamic Republic backed militias, Kurdish politics and its neighbors. At the same time, Baghdad doesn’t want to become a victim of the Islamic Republic-US confrontation, as its main crude oil export route is still the Strait of Hormuz. Walking a very tight rope, Baghdad has still been able not only to expand its oil and gas production, while keeping markets interested to take off the product.

The rising export volumes are met with skepticism, as it is not always clear if volumes are 100% Iraqi crude or mixed with Iranian crude. European and Asian customers have still shown a large interest, but an increased official Iranian involvement in oil volumes transportation in the country could cause a stir. US sanctions on Iraqi operators or government owned entities would for sure put a stop on other deals in the EU or Asia too.

At the same time, the Syria route being addressed by Baghdad and Tehran also will cause some political issues. The Syrian situation has stabilized somewhat, and with Assad in power, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah are desperately trying to reinforce their positions, while Western players are keeping out of the area at present. For Arab countries the situation seems to have changed. After a reestablishing diplomatic ties with Syria, Persian Gulf states and Egypt are considering their options. Iraq has a vast interest, as Syria is a potential market, but also a short route to export Iraqi oil and gas to European markets. Baghdad will for sure get the full backing of Islamic Republic for these adventures, even if it puts the country in the crosshairs of the U.S. Sources also have indicated that the Iraqi approach is not in-line with the interests of the other Arab countries, as they feel circumvented by Baghdad.

A heated confrontation between Baghdad and Washington will spell more pressure for Islamic Republic. Baghdad is currently facing internal unrest, economic crisis and growing external interference. Islamic Republic pressure to block US interests in Iraq already have resulted in attacks and threats by militant groups. At the same time, IRGC power bases in the country are being targeted by Israeli and unknown other adversaries. With the US very blunt political, approach IRGC has lost much of its base support in Iran and developing significant division inside. In addition, sanctions on Islamic Republic and declaring Islamic Republic Guard Corps as a Terrorist Organization have made relations quite thin and distant with neighboring countries. Arab interference is also on the rise, as the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are trying to mitigate Iranian influence, are still struggling opening up economic and military discussions for the future.

Iraq, in the meantime should consider its other export options. The most realistic one is to expand the Iraq-Jordan pipeline volumes. No Arab, Western or even Israeli opposition is to be expected. Whatever decision Iraq makes; it should understand that taking the wrong approach could fuel conflict in the already unstable region.

The post Islamic Republic Desparate Revival of Iraq Pipeline Proposal: Deception to Survive appeared first on APADANA MEDIA.

Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea

The Office of Legal Affairs

Room DC2-0450, United Nations

New York, NY 10017, US

Dear International Community:

Whereas numerous letters and petitions from Iranians from inside and out side Iran have been issued regarding Iran’s Caspian Sea, the international community has remained regrettably seemingly silent. Iranians are deeply concerned about mischievous Islamic Republic Occupied Iran behavior that has continued to dwindle Iran’s natural resources with catastrophic consequences of more than 50% of Iranians living under poverty line with some resorting to graves as homes.

Since August 11,2018, Iranians through various media have vehemently voiced contest to the recent treaty orchestrated by the Russian government; without any Iranians’ consents and signed behind closed doors with the occupying regime relinquishing most of Iran’s Caspian Sea right to Russia.  Many have emphasized this treaty was signed absent any legitimate Iranian representative While the nation is under severe duress due to forty year failure policies of occupying regime’s  Shi’a expansionism.  The Islamic Republic has  created ecological and environmental disasters for Iranians by allowing illegal oil drilling’s by Russia from the  Caspian basin with the most pollution dumping into the sea from Russians industrial escapades without any accountability. the occupying regime has never protected Iran’s interests due to their ideological mission for  global theocracy and innate lack of National Territorial concept to act on behalf of Iranians. Islamic Republic Occupied Iran explicit foregoing of iran’s territorial integrity to Russia while Iranians Rights could have  been very well protected under international treaties and specifically under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a violation of Iranians basic access to human Rights to their natural resources.

According to Rajab Safarov, an advisor to Russia’s special Caspian Sea working group, it was The Islamic Republic Occupying Regime that offered to reduce Iran’s share from 50 percent to 10 Percent whereby only the Russian Navy will sail the Caspian Sea. Iranians , emphatically implore the international community to hear their outcry regarding their basic human rights access to their resources and are Nation without Representation in any such treaties. Declaring  the Islamic Republic Leaders and its illegitimate Parliament subject to treason and Human Rights violations must be considered due to many lives impacted by their criminal activities.

Legal solution has been proposed on prior letters and petitions to establish grounds to enforce Iran’s true Constitution 1906 and its reforms of 1963 (the White Revolution) and empower Iranians to preserve  Iran’s territorial integrity and prevent another global catastrophe.

With Respect,

Signatories:

Marjaneh Rouhani, MD, Political Activist, USA

Nahid Shahin, Political Activist, Canada

Shabnam Assadollahi, Former child prisoner in Iran, Human Rights Activist, Freelance, Canada

Mahboubeh Hosseinpour, Political Activist, USA

Soheila Kamali, Political Activist, England

Moj Banks, PharmD, USA

Mina Rezvani, Political Activist, USA

Rozita Manteghi, Women’s Rights Activist, France

Shokouh Ershadi, Human Rights Activist, Journalist, Sweden

Pari Askari, Political Activist, Journalist, Holland

Sima Tajdini, Human Rights Activist, Canada

Roxanne Ganji, Political Activist, Journalist, USA

Pouran Giti Behi, Political Activist, USA

Sara Basti, Ploitical Activist, Germany

Faranak Azad, Political Activist, USA

Rouya Abdi, Political Activist, Journalist, Germany

Sara Safiri, Political Activist, England

Maliheh Rouzbeh, Women’s Rights Activist, USA

Fatemeh Minayee, Women’s Rights Activist, USA

Firouzeh Ghaffarpour, Political Activist, USA

Fariba Majdnia, Women’s Rights Activist, Denmark

Zahra Aziz, Human Rights, Activist, Germany

Mehnoush Bakhtiari, Author and Human Rights Activist, Sweden

Sefideh Sami, Women’s Rights Activist, Norway

Vida Tehrani, Women’s Rights Activist, Sweden

Rozita Ras, Political Activist, UK

Tatiana Mahmoudi, Child Educator, Canada

Masoumeh Alavi

Delnavaz Jahankhah

Soheila Flatoun

Soudabeh Tadj

Laleh Bani-Saeid,

Mahnaz Ganjali, Political Activist, Author and Journalist, USA

Golnaz Soroush, Political Activist, Australia

Mahnaz Abbaspour, Canada

Sara Arjand, Political Activist, Germany

Fariba Shirvani, Political Activist, France

Shamsi Famil, Political Activist, USA

Donya Azad, Political Activist, Holland

Faranak Mah, Political Activist, USA

Parisima Pashayie Raad- Nelson, Political Activist, Canada

Parvaneh Tavali, Political Activist, USA

Satggin Jalali, Political Activist, USA

Fariba Mansourian, Political Activist, France

Maryam Hemmati, Political Activist, Canada

Kendra Malczyk, Human Rights Activist, USA

Dr Hooshang Lahooti – Principal Scientist and Lecturer, Sydney Medical School, Nepean Campus, the University of Sydney, Australia

Javid Javan, PhD, Political Activist, USA

Nik Jafarzadeh , Political Activist, Germany

.Sia Ayrom Houston TX

Ahmad Mostafalou, MD, Political Activist, Canada

Babak Heravi, Political Activist, Multi-Media, USA

Kaveh Taheri, Turkey-based Iranian journalist and former political prisoner in Iran

Farnoosh Aghili, Turkey

Fereydon Abdollahyan, Political activist, Human Rights activist, UK

Arash H. Hourmaznia, Human rights advocate, Netherlands

Maj. Mostafa Arab,PhD

Kamran Alford

Reza jayez

Shahriar Hashemi Beverly Hills, California, USA

Reza Rafati

Slater Bakhtavar, Attorney, Foreign policy analyst, Political activist

Poupak Pournazari, Canada

Ali kimiai, Political activist, USA

Vahid Abazari, UK

Saeed Ahmadi, Political activist, USA

Farah Sanei, Deutschland

Fardosht Amirpanahi

Firooz Behseresht

Parviz Khazaei,  member of Amnesty International Liechtenstein and Switzerland

Dr. Abbas Akrami, Political Prisoner and Political Activist, Iran

Ali Rafei, Political Prisoner and Political Activist, Dubai

Ali Shahabi, Political Activist

Nooshin Khajeh

Farhad Zibabeen

Ahmad Mardani

Khosro Sheyda, Musician and Producer London, UK

Alfred Abramian, Political Activist, Sydney, Australia

Siavash Harart

Ahmad Namdari

Naser Diako

Amir Shafiy,  Director of CSC company management consultant,UK

Bahram Kondori, Political Activist, USA

Kaveh Khosromehr, Political Analyst, Europe

Mehrang Moradi, political Activist/Business man USA

Gary Izad Panah, Paltical Activist USA

Shahryar Hashemi_political Activist/Business Man USA

Siavash Azari, Political Activist, Journalist USA

Cyrus Falatoon, Political Activist, Production Engineer USA

Alireza Vafaei, University Lecturer, Australia

Sharar konourTabrizi, Political Activist Cyprus

Anna S

Afahin Payravi

Saied Moradi

Fateh Slaehi Raz

Kaveh Khosromehr, Political Analyst, Europe

Mehrang Moradi, political Activist, Businessman USA

Gary Izad Panah, Political Activist USA

Shahryar Hashemi, political Activist, Businessman USA

Siavash Azari, Political Activist, Journalist USA

Cyrus Falatoon, Political Activist, Production Engineer USA

Ali Mohseni , PhD

Sonya Mohseni,  PhD

Nathan Mohseni, MD

Hossein Tasbaz

Nazanin Danesh

Reza Jayez

Ramin

Matt Behi

To add your name to this letter, please visit apadanamedia.organd simply put your name in the comment box. Thank you!

The post Iranians’ Outcry #RussiaGetOutOfIran appeared first on APADANA MEDIA.

In 2015 when President Hassan Rouhani advertised his “nuke deal” with the Obama administration as “the greatest diplomatic victory in the history of Islam,” few people realized that he had, in fact, endorsed a neo-colonial document that put key aspects of Iran’s economic, industrial, scientific and security policies under the tutelage of six foreign powers led by the United States.

For several reasons, the “nuke deal” did not provoke the popular explosion in Iran that some analysts expected. To start with no one had signed that deal which meant it was neither a treaty nor a binding international agreement but a wish list. Nor was it put through the legislative process to give it legal authority. More importantly, perhaps, the text did not offer a readily recognizable and concrete image of the humiliation the “Islamic Republic” had accepted in the name of Iran.

Rouhani’s euphoria that “even the Americans have recognized our right to enrich uranium” sounded good to some who did not know that the right to enrich uranium is recognized for all nations by international law. Having got away with that odious exercise, Rouhani and his team decided to do a similar favor to Vladimir Putin. This came last year when Rouhani flew to Kazakhstan to sign a Russian text on the Caspian Sea.

The text, in 24 articles, suffers from a crisis of identity.

It is not clear whether it is a treaty or a draft for a future accord. It offers no definition of the Caspian, either as a lake or a sea – a definition that would automatically establish its status under existing international maritime laws and conventions. It pretends to establish the legal status of the Caspian Sea without tackling the crucial issue of sovereignty.

In its preamble, the text refers to “changes and processes that have occurred in the Caspian region at the geopolitical and national levels”, and insists on “the need to strengthen the legal regime of the Caspian Sea.”

Leaving aside the confusion between “Caspian region” and “Caspian Sea” the text implies that a legal regime already exists but needs to be strengthened.

So, what is that legal regime?

It is shaped by three treaties between Iran, the Tsarist Russia and, finally, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in the 19th and 20th centuries. Under those treaties, Iran and Russia (in its two epiphanies) have joint sovereignty over the Caspian Sea. The treaties do not mention the figure 50-50 and, in reality for many decades, the Caspian was a Russian lake for all practical purposes. Nevertheless, the treaties show that Iran and Russia were the only two sovereign powers in the Caspian.

That could be challenged with the internationally recognized legal principle of change, notably by the emergence of “successor states” or “rebus sic stantibus” in Latin.

The Russian text does not do so. For if it did it would have to accept that the four Caspian littoral states that emerged from the disintegration of the USSR would have to share their half of sovereignty among themselves, leaving Iran’s share as unchanged.

To muddy the waters, the text, which, according to its first article, is the exclusive work of The General Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, ignores the issue of sovereignty altogether and goes straight for ascertaining the share of littoral states in the ownership of the body of water.

In that context, Iran with the shortest coastline on the sea ends up with the smallest share, just around 11 percent.

However, sovereignty and ownership are two different concepts.

You may own an apartment in Paris and be recognized as proprietor. However, the sovereignty of the area in which your apartment is located belongs to the French Republic. Several Scottish islands are owned by individuals but are still under British sovereignty.

The relationship between sovereignty and ownership comes in numerous forms. The entire state of the Vatican is sovereign but located in the middle of the Italian capital Rome and subject to its municipal rules. The Republic of San Marino, on the Italian coastline has a similar status while Monaco’s real estate is 80 percent owned by foreigners without the princely family losing their sovereignty. Andora is owned by Andorans but under joint French and Spanish sovereignty. Initially, the Congo was the private property of Leopold I, the Belgian King, who, in the absence of a sovereign status, treated the vast territory as he pleased.

Sovereignty could also be exercised long distance. New Caledonia, in the Pacific Ocean, is under French sovereignty as are the Falkland Islands under the British, both being thousands of miles away from their respective sovereign authorities. Closer to the Caspian we have the Shah-i-Mardan enclave in Kyrgyzstan that is under the sovereignty of neighboring Uzbekistan to the west.

To make sure that this is an exclusively Russian document, the text uses Russian terminology, measurements and even pseudo-legalistic shibboleths instead of internationally recognized concepts, terms and references codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

What is the good of ownership, and property rights, if we do not know which sovereign authority shall enforce them?

Because this is a Russian text, in the preparation of which other littoral states played no part, the implication may be that Russia is the sole sovereign power, and thus ultimate arbiter of disputes in the Caspian Sea. If that assumption is correct, we may conclude that Russia has acquired a colonial advantage that it could not obtain even when Iran was weak, famine-stricken and war-broken under the Qajar Dynasty.

With this text, Russia secures two other advantages.

First, it gains control of pipelines transiting the Caspian Basin’s immense oil and gas reserves to world markets, notably Europe. That would push Iran, which is the economic route for those pipelines, out of competition. Russia will retain its principal card in facing Western powers.

Russia, already the only significant military force in the Caspian, will retain its monopoly by forbidding other littoral states to build a military presence with the help of non-littoral allies.

In trying to push this text through, President Vladimir Putin is acting like a tactician seeking quick advantage even though that may produce a strategic loss. Shaken by the consequences of their childish adventures, the mullahs of Tehran may swallow this Russian brew. However, I doubt that any future Iranian government worth its salt would not spit it out.

BY Amir Taheri Prominent Scholar Journalist. Mr. Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books. Mr. Taheri is the most sought after guest by Farsi speaking media. He promotes global peace and stability through his various publications and speeches around the world.

The post Putin and Mullahs appeared first on APADANA MEDIA.