Talk:Petroeuro

Relation to War Plans by the United States and United Kingdom
Energy, commerce and military expenditures by nations are all entertwined (see Military-industrial complex). A new International Oil Bourse will shift economic activity from the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX). During Iraq's Oil-for-Food Programme, Saddam Hussein attempted to switch to the euro and this switch was a principal factor contributing to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

A move away from the dollar towards the euro would affect the U.S. and U.K. economies - see balance of trade and reserve currency. Trading in other than petrodollars, would substantially devalue the dollar as the dominant currency on the world stage. The European Union, Iran and China have all signed trading agreements that exceed the value of U.S./U.K. trading. In purely economic terms, trade through a petroeuro makes the most sense for these countries. U.S./U.K. military supremacy and a foreign policy tending towards preemptive war might deter that.

United States nationalism would continue the dominance of the dollar in the world economy. High profile leaks originating from The Pentagon in 2005 indicate plans have been made to attack Iran in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil, regardless of involvement or not. China, Russia and India have all made substantial investments in Iran, and an attack on Iran would likely be construed, by these countries, as an attack on their own soil, and respond accordingly.


 * I removed this section since - although interesting and well written - it seems to be too speculative and POV to fix (as well as missing the obvious points that the UK is part of the EU and conducts more trade with the Euro Zone than with the US). Duncan Keith 18:20:06, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Where can I get info on this fabled Oil Bourse. Surely they have a website somewhere detailing how to get in contact in case I am representing a company interested in getting a data feed from them. I can't find such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.169.15 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 February 2006

sorting out the sources
We have about 20 or so sources and unless someone reads all of these, s/he has no way of trying to see the relevance of the different sources. It's dangerous to remove a source, since maybe it's necessary to justify one or more of the statements, but at the same time, the long list of sources discourages people from reading any of them.

Unless someone has some objections, i will sooner or later start making proper references in the way that it's possible to have several citations to a single reference, i.e. the wiki source text looks something like

in the text

another paragraph later on

External links
 * 1)   Santa's Iran Oil Bourse statement 25.12.2005

The ordering in the external links section is easy to make in numerical order - just add new sources at the end - the ordering inside of the text is, in general, not going to be in numerical - people may add new citations in between previously existing citations, and you don't want to have to reorder the whole thing.

See Footnote3 for more detail.

After some time, links which don't contribute anything could be shifted to the talk page in case anybody wants to "rescue" them.

Here i'm adding a few sources i find relevant, i don't want to put them on the main page without properly citing them in the text (and maybe some are already there...): Boud 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Speaking Freely: What the Iran 'nuclear issue' is really about, Chris Cook, Asia Times, Jan 21, 2006
 * 2)  http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html Krassimir Petrov, Jan 18, 2006
 * 3)  Preparatory measures taken to sell oil in euros Mehr News Agency, Dec 2, 2005

shifting most of text to International Oil Bourse?
Most of this text is about the Iranian plan to create an International Oil Bourse, and there's some debate about whether or not it will actually be focussed on the petroeuro: so IMHO probably a lot of this should shift to International Oil Bourse. Boud 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html

20 March 2006: is there a recent (or any?) source for this?
i found plenty of sources suggesting March 2006, but not many recent ones, and nothing anything like primary source saying explicitly 20 March. From the sounds of it, ahmadinejad had problems getting a minister of oil which the parliament would accept and on the principle that big government projects almost never run on time, it would be surprising to expect that this is a serious date if there is nothing public being said about it. In any case: does anyone have a source? Boud 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

http://republic-news.org/archive/120-repub/120_crawford.htm gives the 20 March date. A more recent source would still be nice. Boud 18:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

M3?
As someone who doesn't know much about the Petroeuro or its signifiance, I am left wondering: What does the section on the Fed not reporting M3 have to do with the Petroeuro? If there is a good reason why half the article should talk about M3, could someone who understands it add a connecting sentence or two, or explain why it's fine as it is? Thanks. NereusRen 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the connection is that the Fed stopping reporting on the M3 is considered to be a sign that it's worried about the effect of the International Oil Bourse (IOB) opening on 20 March (not recently confirmed, but published by at least one source - see above). Since the predicted effect of the IOB/petroeuro is that China, Japan, etc etc will shift their reserves from dollars to euros, information on the rate at which this happens risks causing a positive feedback effect - as news circulates that China, Japan etc are getting rid of dollars, other groups, institutions, etc will get rid of dollars by fear that they will lose their value and the effect could snowball. By making information on this more difficult to obtain, the Fed hopes to weaken the positive feedback. i'm just rewording Petrov's analysis here, though he doesn't say anything about the M3: http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

According to wikipedia principles of WP:NOR, we are allowed and recommended to collect together facts from primary and secondary sources, but we're not allowed to publish primary material itself on the wikipedia. So then the question is: does the information content on the possible link between IOB/petroeuro and M3 count as primary source material, or not?

If we add some sentences describing the link, without external references, then this could be considered original research. After all, this might just be a coincidence, just happening by chance, that two seemingly related events happen at about the same time. On the other hand, it also seems reasonable (to me at least, though i'm not an economist) that the two events may be linked. To do: Ideally, the best solution would be to google a bit and find an external webpage where some reasonably identifiable analyst makes the link. The we could put something along the lines of According to X Smith, the Fed has already planned a response to the IOB by stopping M3. but of course it should be better written. Boud 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved that section to the inflation article where it is relevant; but it should be noted tha much of the recent rises in oil prices are most likely a result of M3 growth which is the broadest measure of money and includes M1 (all the minted coin and savings accounts) and M2 (all the long term deposits, CD's and so on) plus all the institutional depostits. If the Fed keeps increasing the M3 money supply and drives the value of the dollar down, this would be a perfect impetus for countries like those in Europe to switch to Euro denomitated oil.Carbonate 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky Link
I'm not clear on why Noam Chomsky's 2006 AI lecture is linked. I listened through it and while he does discuss the middle east, American policy, and Iran, I did not catch any directly related information. Good resource, but seems unrelated. -Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.64.126 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 March 2006
 * i was curious about this too. i'm unlikely to listen to check this. In Chomsky's written stuff there are generally links to (relatively) primary sources and/or sufficient precision in the statements that you can find primary sources. Maybe the Chomsky link could be shifted to U.S.-Iran relations and material from the talk added to the page (if there's anything important not already on the page). Boud 01:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

march 20th is old news
march 20th has come and gone and no iranian oil bourse has begun operation. at the very least the section that refers to march 20th being the start-date for the bourse should be amended so that it no longer reads as if march 20th 2006 is an upcoming day in the near future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.107.197.198 (talk • contribs).

Scaring potential traders off
Obviously, any recent 'revelations' about war plans will scare off potential traders. I hypothesize this is exactly the reason for war planning. Can you refute this hypothesis? -- Rwst 08:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Origination Note
(RKerver, original author) The impetus for the original post for Petroeuro came from my reading of Petrodollar Warfare by William Clark and subsequent study of the issues suggested by him. There was substantial citation there for a March 20th date, coinciding with the Iranian new year in 2006. There is now confirmation that this date was pushed back to July 2006, for reasons that may never be fully clarified. In light of reports that Russia plans on trading oil in rubles through an exchange located on Russian soil in the summer of 2006, and considering the close economic ties between Russia and Iran, we might surmise a coordinated attack on petrodollar hegemony. An attack by the U.S. to preserve such, while potentially successful against one exchange, is unlikely against two. See discussion also of the Shanghai Cooperation Alliance, an emerging trade agreement that includes Russia, Iran, China and other countries in Asia. It is the force of a persistent trade agreement that excludes the U.S., trades in other than dollars, has the backing of such economic power houses as China, and trades the critical petroleum resource, that is the real threat the U.S. can not well abide. It was the potential for this that the U.S., under the Bush administration, has struggled to prevent. 2006 will prove that the neoconservative project for a new American century, has failed. See William Clark's excellent synopsis of world petroleum trading and dollar hegemony. The importance for understanding these issues it to help push in the direction of multilateralism and an Oil Depletion Protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 04:31, 24 May 2006

Venezuela
Chavez in Venezuela announced something today about the euro - came here for more information. Anyone have an idea?--Shtove 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the estimates
The estimates (% euro (est.) in the tables) seem to be unsourced. If nobody can find sources from them, I'll probably remove them as WP:OR after a while. --SLi 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Petro what?
The article about "petroeuro" does not even cite the words European Union, Eurozone, or any other European country; referring simply the US external affairs. Petroeuro does not simply exist. The petrodollar system is much more than buying oil with dollars. Using this article as a basis you could create any other article in WP named petro(any currency).João Pimentel Ferreira 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)