A country like Iran which enjoys the world’s second biggest gas reserves is always capable of actively exporting gas. However, certain conditions should be provided which, at present, are not extant. We can only think about gas exports when domestic need has been totally met. Of course, domestic demand should be assessed in relation to production. During the past years, gas production in the country has not matched domestic and industrial consumption and most figures presented in this regard have not been true.

At present, 400 million cubic meters of natural gas is allocated to houses in the wintertime and only 35 million cubic meters is given to industries. However, in view of the 20-Year Perspective Plan, Iran should be the region’s number one economic power by 2025. Therefore, gas supply to people’s homes should be adjusted in the benefit of the industrial sector and gas production should be increased in order to both meet domestic demand and pave the way for exports. In fact, the country needs an active gas diplomacy which has been lacking for many years.

Officials who wasted investment opportunities in 1980s should now be held accountable. At that time, they could both increase production and clear the way for exports, but opposition from non-expert groups caused us to lag behind because we lacked a well-defined diplomacy for the sector. Therefore, Qatar sheikdom is 45 billion dollars ahead of Iran in terms of exploitation of South Pars gas field which is shared by Iran and Qatar.

At the same time, a certain group was thinking about trading water, instead of gas, with Qatar. In fact, we had water diplomacy instead of gas diplomacy. At present, we need more gas to meet domestic demand. However, we must also change consumption model, so that, instead of 400 million cu. m., we would be able to give 350 million cu. m. gas to houses and allocated 50 million cu. m. more gas to industries.

As long as gas consumption at homes is tenfold the industrial sector, talking about gas exports is a joke. Even if they insist on exporting gas under these conditions, necessary investments for gas extraction as well as construction of pipelines to export it should be undertaken by consumers. For example, if we are going to export 100 million cu. m. gas through the Peace Pipeline (Iran-Pakistan-India), a consortium should be formed to invest in gas and produce 200 million cu. m. of natural gas. Its members should undertake all costs and sell gas to earn planned profits. Finally, Iran will be the main beneficiary because gas condensate is the main source of revenue. In fact, the primary plan of the pipeline was based on this scheme, but after many years of negotiations we have not reached a positive result because we lack coherent gas diplomacy.

As for consumption, we maintain that household consumption is currently 10 times that of industrial sector. We must give priority to supplying industries with needed gas and reduce gas consumption at houses to send more gas to industrial plants.

At that time, we stressed that negotiations should be carried out in such a way as not to impose investment commitments on Iran. In fact, we meant for those who wanted Iran’s gas to undertake investments and build a relevant refinery too. In this way, consumers would have invested in gas production in Iran and would have given gas condensate, which is the main revenue item, to Iran.

I never remember a time when we had urged the Iranian government to invest in this plan. The government should not be involved because it has not enough money to build schools and other needed items, let alone to invest in oil extraction or building refinery. This should be left to investors who want Iran’s oil and gas and the government should only supervise their activities.

The same has happened to the Crescent contract in which despite all problems surrounding the contract, Iran has undertaken to build the needed pipeline for taking gas to the United Arab Emirates while this should have been carried out by a consortium of domestic and foreign investors.

The pipeline was to become operational in 1996 because we were not under economic sanctions and we were not faced with current investment problems. At that time, many investors had declared their readiness to take part in developing South Pars gas field and help gas flow to India and Indians were quite positive about the plan. However, issues related to India’s nuclear program and US opposition to the pipeline emerged later.

This is demagoguery because their performance has taken us away from the goals of the 20-Year Perspective Plan and this is a kind of treason. In fact, when a person prevents us from achieving objectives of the 20-Year Perspective Plan, he should be considered a traitor. Don’t they claim that they follow Supreme Leader’s viewpoints on the 20-Year Perspective Plan? So, why their actions do not match their words? When a person’s actions contradict his words, he is not an honest person.

I was the initiator of the plan. I hold a doctorate in energy economy, and I have been Iran’s energy envoy. However, now a group of engineers have taken charge and have wasted those efforts. No distorted plan will bear fruit. The primary formula was very simple. We were planning to establish a consortium to transfer 100 million cu. m. of natural gas; and powerful domestic companies, if any, could have taken part in it. The consortium was supposed to produce 200 million cu. m. gas and also take action for construction of the relevant refinery and pipeline. This company was to be run privately and major foreign oil companies were to take charge of the plan. Iran would have enjoyed sovereign rights and in addition to selling gas, we would have owned gas condensate which is the main moneymaker.

Now, the incomes through implementing this pipeline project at the same price that we have considered for selling gas to Turkey would amount to one million dollars, while revenues through selling condensate would stand at 5 million dollars. On the other hand, prices determined by the contract were to be revised every six month and modified on the basis of oil price fluctuations.

At present, the Russians are using the same method and have established a European gas consortium to send gas to European countries that want Russia’s gas without undertaking expenses. In fact, the Peace Pipeline project should not have been implemented by the government.

On the other hand, India needs Iranian gas more than Pakistan and if we had acted correctly in the past three years, the project would have been implemented in a suitable manner by now. However, now that the Americans have given promises to India about cooperation with New Delhi over its nuclear program, India is dawdling. The Indians are aware of their need for the Iranian gas. During past years they have been passing time with Iranians while obtaining concessions from the Americans for procrastinating the Peace Pipeline project.