Daily Kos

A Story About Oil You NEED To Hear

Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 08:57:25 AM PDT

Some news stories are screamed in 100 headlines in 100 different newspapers and media outlets.  This one however is so quiet it's almost a whisper, yet it may be one of the biggest stories next year.
It all begins here, with a blurb so tiny that I'll reprint the entire thing.  From the Federal Reserve's website, November 10, 2005:

On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars. The Board will continue to publish institutional money market mutual funds as a memorandum item in this release.

To fully understand how the "Federal Reserve" is neither federal nor a reserve of anything of value, see my full-length story here.

But what is the M3? And how is it relevant?

The Fed collects data on how much money is in circulation, where it's being stored (as cash, as stocks, etc) and prints these statistics on a quarterly basis.  These are the "M" series of reports.

M0 (M Zero) is simply how much physical American money is in circulation, both coins and bank notes.  M1 is M0 plus all the money that's in a bank that someone could withdraw immediately (usually known as "checking" accounts).  M2 is M1 plus other types of accounts, including money markets and smaller CDs (under $100,000).<br</p>

M3, the one that will no longer be printed, is M2 plus Eurodollars.  While Eurodollars sounds like plastic money used at EuroDisney, it actually refers to dollars being held in non-American banks (originally most dollars held overseas were in European banks, but "eurodollars" could just as easily be held in China).

I for instance have some "eurodollars" since I live in Romania and have a few bucks in the local bank.  But 99% of American money being held outside its borders are actually under the control of central banks and large institutions.

Why does this matter?  Why would keeping track of how many dollars are being held overseas matter to anyone except perhaps some bankers?

The answer has to do with oil.  Texas tea.  Black gold.  The stuff which wars are fought over, and alliances made to crush human rights in order to obtain a steady supply of it.

While oil can be drilled and refined and transported anywhere, there's only two places where it can be officially purchased.  One is in New York City on the NYMEX stock exchange and the other in London on the IPE exchange.  I should mention that London's IPE is actually now owned by an American country named "ICE".

This doesn't mean that oil actually has to be transferred from say, Saudi Arabia, to New York where it sits in a real barrel until it's sold to a customer in Japan.  What it does mean however is that oil is traded like any commodity, via these two (and ONLY these two) stock exchanges.  There are also "futures" or promises of future oil deliveries sold and traded as well.

So the customer in Japan, perhaps a large oil refinery company, buys the oil "shares" via one of the two exchanges from one of the oil owners, a company such as ExxonMobil or Saudi Arabia's ARAMCO.  And while the oil itself never actually gets to London or New York, all the money involved flows through those two cities.  And every single barrel of oil is bought and sold in American dollars.

This means that every single country which wishes to buy oil has to own dollars to do it.  Since these dollars are held overseas, they are referred to as Eurodollars, although once again they don't have to be in Europe.  A dollar in China is a dollar in America too - they aren't valued any differently.

The world sells and buys billions of barrels of oil per day, and every single one of those billions is in the form of an American dollar.  The effect of this is that every single country in the world which holds large reserves of dollars (for the purpose of buying oil) is essentially propping up the American economy on a huge scale.

If you read my full-length article on the dollar, you will know it's not worth anything of intrinsic value.  It isn't backed by gold, or even by the American government.  It's simply a piece of paper (or blip on a screen) that everyone "believes" has worth.  So a country like Saudi Arabia ends up selling their tangible resource (oil) in exchange for billions of pieces of green paper (dollars).

Those little pieces of green paper, in order to make them worth anything, must then be traded for something of value.  That could be anything from food to cars to high-tech weaponry.

Think of it this way.  Imagine that the world was one very large casino.  Players could trade in oil or food or electronic equipment for chips that are manufactured and designed by the casino itself.  The chips aren't worth anything by themselves, as they're just painted pieces of plastic.  But for any player to cash out, they need to redeem the chips for tangible goods made by the casino, at the rate that the casino sets.  If you swap "casino chips" for "dollars", that's a pretty good way to understand how the system works.

Another way to think of it is that every drop of oil is worth a portion of a dollar, meaning oil is dollars and vice versa.  Which means that all the vast wealth that is oil is in effect, also adding that wealth to the United States.

So back to the Fed and their decision to stop reporting the holdings of dollars overseas.  Why does that matter?

There is a lot of speculation out there, but one good guess is that Spring 2006 is when Iran's oil bourse will debut.

I wrote an entire article about it which you can find here but here is an excerpt:

Iran is a member of OPEC, which currently restricts all foreign sales to the American dollar. So is there any way for Iran to start selling its oil without having to resort to the currency of its foe?

The answer is close to completion and yet I've seen almost no mention of it in the American mainstream media. If it wasn't for the trade journals, I'd never even have heard of what Iran has planned.

In June 2004, Iran announced it was creating an oil bourse. The word "bourse" is a French word which means "exchange" and refers to an international market exchange where oil can be traded. Currently the only two oil bourses are in London and New York.

Should Iran's oil bourse be successful and sales be denominated in Euros, this will induce hedging of the Euro versus the dollar and fundamentally alter the prices of oil. Some reports show that both China and Russia, large trading partners with Iran, have begun to increasing their holdings of Euros.

Iran had originally scheduled to open its bourse (or stock exchange where oil could be sold and bought in Euros) in 2005.  That obviously hasn't happened, but now the date is set for Spring 2006.  Exactly when the Fed says it will stop printing statistics of how many dollars are in existance overseas.  In fact, just this week the Iranian government has issued preliminary licenses to trade on that bourse.

What's not well known is that Saddam Hussein decided to switch from selling Iraq's oil in dollars to Euros in November 2000.  This was not widely reported.  At the time, Iraq's oil sales were limited and were under UN supervision (as part of the "Oil for Food" program) so the sale in Euros did not have a major impact.

According to the Ithaca News, one of the top 10 stories that the press should've reported in 2005 but didn't was Iran's oil bourse:

The Bush administration has been paying a lot more attention to Iran recently. Part of that interest is clearly Iran's nuclear program - but there may be more to the story. One bit of news that hasn't received the public vetting it merits is Iran's declared intent to open an international oil exchange market, or "bourse."

Not only would the new entity compete against the New York Mercantile Exchange and London's International Petroleum Exchange (both owned by American corporations), but it would also ignite international oil trading in euros.

"A shift away from U.S. dollars to euros in the oil market would cause the demand for petrodollars to drop, perhaps causing the value of the dollar to plummet," Brian Miller and Celeste Vogler of Project Censored wrote in Censored 2006.

"Russia, Venezuela, and some members of OPEC have expressed interest in moving towards a petroeuro system," he said. And it isn't entirely implausible that China, which is "the world's second largest holder of U.S. currency reserves," might eventually follow suit.

"Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran's euro-dominated oil bourse will open in March, 2006," Miller and Vogler continued. "Logically, the most appropriate US strategy is compromise with the EU and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades."

I'm not enough of an economist to be able to predict the impact on the removal of the dollar as the sole currency for the purchase of oil, but there are plenty of experts who predict some pretty scary things, the least of which is a massive destabilization of the American economy.

What's interesting is that plenty of people will tell you that Iran's bourse is of no threat, and not even financially viable.  This however reminds me of a Radio Free Europe story on Saddam Hussein's move back in 2000:

Iraq is going ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business in spite of warnings the move makes no financial sense.

Baghdad this week insisted on and received UN approval to sell oil through the oil-for-food program for euros only after 6 November. Iraq had threatened to suspend all oil exports -- about 5 percent of the world's total -- if the body turned down the request.

The move comes despite repeated cautions that Baghdad's departure from the oil industry standard of the dollar will cost the country millions in currency conversion fees. UN officials have said Iraq will have to reduce the price of its crude oil by about 10 cents a barrel in order to compensate buyers for the additional costs.

But Saddam Hussein profited handsomely on the conversion, especially because the Euro rose approximately 17% in value.  The Euro, which at the time was 82 cents to the dollar, is now worth about $1.25 and could easily rise if its value becomes connected to oil on a large scale.

As I've written about extensively, there are plenty of reasons for the Iranian and American government to be at loggerheads.  They certainly represent wildly different political ambitions and they will clash for a number of different reasons, not solely due to the threat of selling oil for euros.

That being said, it does seem ominous that the Fed wants to stop printing the statistics of how many dollars are being held overseas precisely when those amounts may go down dramatically.  So far this story has been restricted to a few financial websites and "tinfoil hat" locations but definitely needs to be brought into the mainstream so it can be analyzed and debated.

For a more financially-based interpretation of the Fed's ending of the M3, see here, including this:

M3 is very important. Indeed of the Fed's monetary numbers only M3 was of major importance and in other G7 countries we also focus on M3 including our own Bank of Canada. No word that they intend to follow. So why are they dropping M3? Well we have seen nothing to tell us why we only know they are doing it. Oh it's not that the numbers will completely disappear. For those that wish to take the time they can pore through the Flow of Funds accounts (released quarterly as Z.1 release and the H.8 bulletin released weekly for commercial banks) and piece together the former M3. Painstaking, but that is not the way it is supposed to be. European Central Bankers put great stead in M3 so why has the Fed after all these years decided to cease publication?

Some of the reasons we have seen floated around are as follows:

  • History has shown that only failing economies e.g. Soviet Union keep data secret (Financial Sense - Toni Straka - Unpleasant M3 Trend, November 12, 2005). An interesting premise and a theme we saw woven amongst a number of writers is that they have something to hide. The claim is that the Fed should be transparent and by not publishing the number the Fed now lacks transparency.

  • The end of publishing of M3 in March 2006 coincides with the start of the Iranian Oil Bourse. The premise here is that the with the oil bourse trading in Euros there will be a rush out of US$ into Euros and that M3 could drop sharply. A sharp drop in M3 would of course presage a recession as falling M3 is a characteristic of weak economic periods.

  • M3 is a measure of inflation in the economy. A somewhat unproven rule of thumb is GDP + inflation = M3. Will be able to properly measure inflation going forward if we don't know what M3 really is.

  • We are about to enter a period of hyperinflation and by eliminating M3 we will not know how much liquidity the Fed is pumping into the system. Remember the Fed doesn't really print money it is the banking system that expands money supply. But the Fed influences it through open market operations. We will have to watch daily Fed repo action very carefully irrespective of whether they are going to publish Repos (RPs) as noted in the bulletin above. The Fed doing repos puts money into the system and the Fed doing reverse repos takes money out of the system. Of course as well this is the exact opposite of the collapse in M3 premised with the oil bourse above.

  • Further on the theme above a period of hyperinflation would occur as the Fed tries to save us from a collapsing housing market and softer consumer demand. The Fed adds more and more liquidity to the system to stave off a sharp economic decline. By not publishing Repos (RPs) as noticed in their bulletin above the Fed again is hiding what they do on a day to day basis. This will make it difficult for both currency traders and equity traders to know what the Fed is up to.

  • The conclusion is that the Federal Reserve will be hiding a debasement of the US$.

All of the above are quite troubling.  And that's not the words of any kook, but from an experienced industry insider.

The U.S. has certainly interfered in Iranian politics before, overthrowing an elected government and installing a dictator, all in the name of oil.  And it certainly has been making lots of rumbling noises about removing the government.  From this week:

Bill Frist, the leader of the Republican majority in the US Senate, has called for action against Iran before it is too late.

Of course most of the saber-rattling is over Iran's nuclear program and the word "bourse" is never mentioned.  But the IAEA has consistently stated that Iran is in full compliance with its regulations and the conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  That doesn't negate Iran's political alignment and support for terrorism, but their nuclear energy program is hardly the threat it's made out to be.

Only time will tell whether regime change is in the cards for Iran, especially at the hands of the United States.  But the Fed's quiet decision to no longer print the M3 is definitely quite ominous.

This is cross-posted from Flogging the Simian

Peace

Tags: oil, disaster, economy, war with iran, bourse, exchange rate, Iran, Recommended, Federal Reserve, M3, Euros, COMEX (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 139 comments

  •  Have you been reading the news (none / 0)

    About Russia and OPEC?

    Russia will now be having annual meetings with OPEC and is trying to force the door to the G-8 open to  China, India, and Brazil.

    Is this a BRIC through the window of the G-8's grip on the world economy?  Is Russia going to join OPEC?

  •  No, no, Soj, no! (4.00 / 14)

    Your points about the linkage between the value of the dollar and oil are well made, and the fact that the Fed has stopped publishing M3 data is indeed strange, but the Iranian exchange has nothing to do with it.

    The Iranian exchange will NOT work because nobody will trade on it:

    • traders need a common currency to work together. Once they've set on one, it's really hard to make them change - hence the fact that a number of commodities are still traded in pound sterling despite the fact that the UK hasn't been the main market for quite a bit of time. The existence of a standard is more important that which one it is. Cf the dominance of Windows as an operating system: it's used because it's used. To switch, you need everybody to switch at the same time. Only a monopolist (or a monopsonist) can force that, and Iran is far from being one;

    • in addition, the oil market is not just about oil, today it is about all the financial instruments derived from oil - term sales, derivatives, structured products, etc... The same constraints as above apply to these markets, which are even more diverse and globalised than the oil markets. Also traders have all their references, price histories, and standard trading instruments based on the dollar. To change all this, again, would require massive effort and coordination (remember how much effort it took to switch to the euro in 1999);

    • the other thing you need to have a market is a stable and trustworthy regulatory and legal system. People will not go trade in Iran because the risks or abitrary interventions and meddling are too high. The euro can be an alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency because European rule of law and regulation is seen as acceptable, and the currency is backed by a real economy, but Iran stands no chance to impose any switch of any kind for trade, financial instruments or anything else.

    Please forget these ideas, they are totally cut from the reality of financial markets.
    •  Don't be suprised (4.00 / 2)

      While Iran would be taking a risk, I can see other countries going to this pretty easily.  I would think that Asian countries would be eager to do business directly with the Iranians rather than going through the U.S., I could see nations like Venezuela being one of the first Latin American oil-producing countries to use it at least partially.  So while I agree with you that there isn't an overwhelming evidence that this could work, it's not as unlikely as you seem to think.
      •  It's NOT going to happen (4.00 / 3)

        Even if all of OPEC got together to push it, it would not happen.

        Nobody will trust Iran (or any other OPEC country, for that matter) as a fair regulator of contracts.

        Nobody will want to switch to another currency unless everybody else does, and a minority of market participants will not trigger it (and believe me, the selles of physical oil are only a minority of the market).

        Iran cannot unwind all the existing positions on the market, and thus they will continue.

        •  There will be significant arbitrage opportunities (none / 1)

          The buy/sell contracts on the two exchanges will be of different price.

          If there is a profit to be had, someone will make it, and unless this market is deemed 'illegal' it will happen.

          Capitalism is beautiful, is it not?

          •  Doubt it (none / 0)

            How does one arbitrage between paper markets?

            You can trade the spread perhaps, but the two markets settle separately and there's just no way the Iranians are going to offer a physical delivery FOB the Persian Gulf to whoever ends up with the contracts at expiry with free reign to take them whereever they please.  NFW.

            •  While it may not be a powerhouse market (none / 1)

              iran's plans do in some respects seem as a 'threat' to 'murka as the bu$hCo oilmen see it, and thus will require an 'intervention'

              But i do think it will be somewhat popular, if only among muslim nations who do not want to trade in dollars anymore (and who represent about 50-60% of all oil supply).

              So it seems that China and it's vast holdings of US dollars (and dollar-denominated holdings like OUR DEBT) could be the butterfly that sets this chaos in motion.

              Seeing as how a successful Iranian oil market could cause China's dollar denominated-assets to potentially decrease in value (due to increased demand for euro's in order to trade on this new market) some major selling pressue on the dollar due to the Chinese unloading our currency (AND DEBT) could result in a spike of interest rates, a crash of the value of our dollar AND possibly a major spike in the price of OIL, denominated by an already over-valued (relative to the dollar) Euro.

              A nightmare scenario, yes but only IF their market is a success.  Time will tell of course, but I would imagine that other nations like Venezuela, and now Bolivia, would be interested in trading THEIR oil using the Euro instead of the dollar.  Possibly even some European/nordic nations such as Iceland, Sweeden and others with some oil production could also take notice since they are directly affected by the Euro and the European market.

              As for arbitrage, it's so long to get into but basically the price of oil in Dollars fluctuates.  It also fluctuates in terms of the Euro but it's STILL a barrel of oil worth SOMETHING.

              If it falls dramatically in dolllar terms and the dollar's value relative to the Euro falls by a greater amount, that difference between the inherent currency-denominated value of that barrel of oil and it's "market value" on the exchange could provide a possible profit opportunity to either a buyer or a seller...IF you take advantage of it before the "market" realizes this opportunity and also acts on it, pushing the price "back" to it's "normal level"
              The gall of Iran to keep all of our natural gas under their soil.

              •  sorry, can't agree at all (none / 0)

                You are making a bunch of assumptions.

                1. that the muslim countries prefer euros to dollars.  no sign of that.  The ones with large forex reserves are not dumping dollars that I've heard of.  They have diverse holdings now and I doubt they'll exclude investments in the largest economy on earth.

                2.  What Muslim countries are serious oil importers? Few other than perhaps Egypt.  The bulk of Muslim oil producing nations oil flows to the EU, USA, Japan etc.  This crowd isn't going to rush to trade in Iran on an easily manipulated market.  same applies to the Scandis, they sell a lot to the US.  

                3. the the Iranian oil bourse is anything beyond a figment of some Iranian bureaucrats imagination.  I can't find any details at all as to how it would work.  Until they at least come out with some framework proposal, they're just jerking us all off.

                There is no hard evidence behind the idea that stopping oil trade in dollars would make the dollar tumble in value.  Unless the holders of US denominated instruments overseas dump them and stop buying stuff from the US or buying our bonds, what difference does it make?  

                This whole arguement sounds like a great big, tin hat, boyIwishtheUSDwouldgethammeredsoBushwillsweat wet dream.  Sorry to be rude, but I don't see any real data or even a coherent argument as to why the butterfly's wingbeat will cause the US to crash rather than any other wild scenario.

                as for:

                As for arbitrage, it's so long to get into but basically the price of oil in Dollars fluctuates.  It also fluctuates in terms of the Euro but it's STILL a barrel of oil worth SOMETHING......

                you lost me.  I used to arb oil for a living for 10 years.  I wouldn't have cared what currency you started me with.  I'd have just gotten a quote from the boys over the next aisle on how to flip in/out of whatever currency I needed to play.  What you appear to be describing is a market call on oil plus a market call on currency.  No need to play them together unless you just want to.  Have you ever traded this kind of stuff or are you fingerpainting?

        •  I was hoping Jerome would comment (none / 1)

          Glad to read a comment from you.  I never know how to judge these articles until I hear from you or bondad.  

          Thanks!  

          "You underestimate Bush at your peril: it takes a brilliant man to feign utter and complete globe-spanning stupidity." Hunter of DailyKos

          by mrclean on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:15:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  OKAY...... (none / 0)

          Well, how did Iraq pull off their conversion to euros even while their country was under military occupation (no-fly zones) for 10 years?  And who says that Saudia Arabia isn't just chafing for some leverage against us to balance the playing field in the middle-east?  Do you really think they're that happy with the US, and its support of Israel?   Isn't SA the home of Bin Laden?   Weren't 15 of the 19 hijackers from SA?   Don't they want the US military bases out of their country?   Don't all of these things sound like the behaviors of a country none too happy with the way things are?

          Although I realize that derivatives make us a vast majority of any commodity trading, the underlying suppliers of the physical product must have some type of leverage.  In fact, it would seem that they are actually in the driver's seat.  All of the derivatives are based on the underlying, and if you have some type of control of the underlying, then you can really mess with the derivatives, right?   And you can also, it seems, really profit quite handsomely from doing so.......

          It seems that this is just another nail in the coffin being prepared, not the final blow.  That depends on what the US does or doesn't do.  So far, it seems that "more professional bunch" over the Fed are banging away with all their hammers as hard as possible at those nails.  And "Helicopter Ben" ain't the answer.

          What you are seeing is an entire world looking for a way of protecting themselves against the arrogant, out-of-control bully-child of the known universe, us.   That day will come, eventually, and it won't be pretty.  They've got the numbers, we've got the missiles, remember that McArthur wisely stopped pursuing the Korean campaign for his nightmare of seeing seething walls of Chinese soldiers streaming towards him.  Sometimes the missiles win.  Sometimes there is safety in numbers.   The real question is who is willing to be more ruthless and inhumane.   Perhaps, just like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, we want George and Dick and Rummy et al. on that wall, we need them on that wall.....

        •  Question for Jerome or any Economist... (none / 1)

          I can see what you guys are saying about the Iranian Exchange not being very influential.

          However, now that you guys have said that, can you tell us why the fed would be getting rid of the M3? At least the public version of it. Is it simply to hide what a fucked up shambles Bush and the Grand Theft Party are leaving this country in?

          The sleep of reason produces monsters.

          by Alumbrados on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 04:01:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  IANAE*, but... (none / 0)

            I would say that's probably pretty likely. Remember all that talk about how much money China owns? I'm guessing some focus group turned up some ugly results ("Oh my god! They're killing us with this!", particularly in the "OH NO! Yellow men have our red-white-and-blue money!" category) and now we don't get those numbers anymore. This is if i understand what makes up M3 correctly. They probably said "Well damn, we don't have to give them stuff to hit us over the head with!" And here we are.

            (*: I Am Not An Economist)

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 07:21:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Jerome, I WANT to believe (none / 1)

          You yourself mentioned the inauguration of the Euro. Yes it was "difficult" but it was a long-term decision that they did manage to pull off. Who knew the fractious nations of Europe could?
          Perhaps, also long term, America has spoiled its' relations with too many nations. (?)
          Randy Newman said "They all hate us anyhow" in 1972...
          I don't think our standing has improved much in the last 5 years....
      •  Oil exchange in Iran (none / 0)

        is just a fantasy.

        What's the use of happiness? It can't buy you money- Henny Youngman

        by sheep in wolf clothing on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 03:38:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  right yet wrong (none / 1)

        The Asians already purchase Iranian crude directly.  What i doubt they do to any great extent is use some goofy Tehran based crude futures contract to set the price.  

        If the Iranians force them, they might dabble a bit, but I'd bet pretty large that price discovery remains off of Platts/Argus price estimates of Brent or other Asian marker crudes.

        The root of the problem will be how they settle the price.  If it's a cash settlement, why bother.  Just stick with 3rd party (Platts etc) estimates.  

        If you can have physical delivery (like NYMEX WTI), there is really only 1 seller who has complete control of the facilities/crude coming from Iran.  How can you have a fair market with only one seller?
        and there's no way the Iranians are going to set up a system where any Tom, Dick or Abdul can arbitrage their crude using their own system.  They are control freaks.

    •  It's not just about economic costs (none / 1)

      I think the key question about the Iranian bourse is whether there are enough countries out there with a political reason to move away from petrodollars. Think of it as the Linux revolution for oil.

      Russia and China could both benefit strategically from a shift to the Euro, as it would weaken the U.S. in their spheres of influence and it could lead to a potential economic benefit (if they get a reduced price as a result of the switch). Venezuela and like minded regimes elsewhere in South America also have strong political reasons to swtich, although their tight integration with the U.S. economy make the move harder.

      Your caution is certainly warranted, as the deck is stacked against Iranian bourse. But I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

      - "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?"
      - REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX.

      by Hoya90 on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 09:37:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like Venezuela? (none / 0)

        Who else?

        (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

        by doorguy on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:44:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bolivia for starters (none / 0)

          Evo Morales has already made it clear he will nationalize the oil and gas industry currently dominated by European firms.

          Should Ollenta Humala win later this year in Peru, he'd likely pursue a similar path.

          Realistically, none of the South American nations can avoid dealing in dollars, as most of their oil and gas exports stay in the Western Hemisphere.

          - "You're Hells Angels, then? What chapter are you from?"
          - REVELATIONS, CHAPTER SIX.

          by Hoya90 on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 01:22:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Morales (none / 0)

            has indicated this will be a compensated buy out, not an expropriation, so ironically, this could require Bolivia to buy a large number of dollars to natinonalize the industry.
            •  Well, then, he's a fool (none / 1)

              By the same logic, he might as well compensate Vivendi for the rainwater that his people "stole" in the major cities that suffered from private water ownership.  And what difference does it make whether he compensates or expropriates the oil/gas industries?  Either way they'll just help sponsor the coup that seeks to put him in an unmarked grave.  By expropriating, he'll at least have more money left over for his people--if, of course, that's his purpose.
    •  one word (none / 0)

      China.

      China had 3 suppliers of oil prior to the Iraq war and now has 48.  Their recent attempt to purchase the Khazak oil co (can't remember the name off the top of my head) were denied.

      Their economy grew an astounding 17% last year.  They need the oil to drive the machine.

      There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

      by Inverted on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 09:42:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not enough (none / 1)

        As I wrote, a number of commodities are STILL traded today in London in pound sterling despite the emergence of the USA in the past century. China will not be the undisputed superpower alone as the USA swere, so that alone will not be enough.
        •  China (none / 0)

          can make a difference, if even in the attitude of other buyers.

          France and Germany could follow suit.

          Plus, if even they can get 1% of market to trade in euros, then 1% of a large amount of money is a pretty big amount of money.

          There are many people who are situated to do great things. Most of them don't.

          by Inverted on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:00:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What about the repurchase agreements? (none / 1)

          I'm more concerned with the new Fed chairman's purported fondness for using repos to expand the money supply. I recall someone asking you to address this some time ago, but I missed the reply.

          The question is, can Bernake inflate away US debt using repos while hiding the fact through the non-publication of the M3 numbers; and if so, is there another set of indicators that can give one a heads-up as it is happening?

          -6.38/-3.79::'A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenues.' Descartes

          by skrymir on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Jerome (none / 0)

          I'm glad you are on this; I was waiting for your comments.

          In your opinion, what is the reason for the termination of M3 publication? Would it be possible for someone besides the fed accurately to calculate M3 and publish it?

          As far as Iran goes, I suppose we will soon see what actually happens. What are the methods by which the US and other interested parties could cause the failure of the Iran bourse (other than a war, that is)?

          Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com

          by MarkInSanFran on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:24:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If the US Debases It's Currency... (none / 0)

          the escape hatch will be created somewhere. Positions that lose money will be unwound and no new positions will be taken.

          Perhaps the Iranians will set up their HQ in some other commercial hub with a stable judicial and property rights system, like Zurich or Belgium.

          I leave out Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore, but there is no reason to be euro-location centric, either.

          China is going to start paying its' workers better and create a domestic market. And China and many other countries are going to diversify in every way they can out of the dollar,too.

          Recent history shows market fragmentation not consolidation to be the trend. And frankly, who cares where the computers are?  

          The only thing proping up the US economy right now has been the williness of our trading partners to still accept debt denominated in dollars. When they stop doing it the loans stop, the markets collapse and the US is forced to pay for it's purchases like everybody else.

          If the US continues to borrow and squander, and the Bushiters are TELLING US they are going to stop being open financially!

          The world will move to a safer distance as fast as they can and watch the Bushit dream of empire collapse.

          LL

          "No AMERICAN requires authorization to do the right thing."

          by LeftyLimblog on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:32:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Such As? (none / 0)

          As I wrote, a number of commodities are STILL traded today in London in pound sterling despite the emergence of the USA in the past century.

          Such as?  Cocoa?  London Wheat?  The metals on the LME?

          Those are the only remnants I know of London's erstwhile dominance in global commodities trade, and they seem paltry to me.

          For that matter, it's an open question whether the first two are still "traded in London," given that LIFFE is now part of Euronext.

          Socialism is to capitalism as training a dog is to worshipping a wolf

          by Irfo on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 11:17:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A Chinese company bid on (none / 1)

        Unocal. Is that who you are thinking of?

        The prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad; For the multitude of thy iniquity, and the great hatred...

        by Tirge Caps on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:19:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  China is Key (none / 0)

        China has had economy growing in double digits for over a decade, from what I understand. I believe I also hear that did some deal on a natural Gas company in Canada together with India. They are extremely cash rich, that is as long the dollar is worth something. Their Strategy is not only to find the fuel to drive their expansion, but also diversify their holding to real gold-like substance. Russia is already in cahoots with Iran,, Venezuela would jump at any chance to scew the US. The ONLY thing holding this back is that the Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is really crazy. This has caused many to withdraw investments. Unless something is done to remove him, I cannot see this happening in the Spring. However, the nay-sayers who say this will NEVER happen, sounds like famous last words to me. Its just a matter of time.

        Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

        by marko on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 12:52:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The key point (none / 0)

      People will not go trade in Iran because the risks or abitrary interventions and meddling are too high.

      This is indeed the most likely show-stopper for the success of an Iranian oil exchange.  But it is not an absolute barrier.  Strong leadership in Iran could insure honest operation of a free market, and could start with a small number of traders.  If this market then demonstrates over 5-10 years that the risks of arbitrary interventions and meddling are low, then they are competitive with other markets.  Because there are traders who definitely want an alternative to US oil markets.  You might find Brazil, China, Venezuela, Russia marketing small lots through the Iran market just to test the waters.

      But this is not absolute but relative to other oil exchanges.

      Which raises a legitimate question.  To what extent are the existing exchanges subject to arbitrary interventions and meddling?  By any entity, government or private?

      •  An honest operation is not essential, but (4.00 / 2)

        a stable one is. Corporations love stability, as evidenced by how many times dictators have been installed at their behest. A little graft is a small price to pay compared to what guarding against the unknowns of a free society.
        •  From an Arab Viewpoint (none / 0)

          The US government has repeatedly seized the assets of Arab entities like Libya, Iran and Iraq.

          And the Arab nations have the oil, if enough of them want to diversify there will be vendors to supply them with a safe place to do business.

          Zurich strikes me as an excellent choice, because they are 'close' to Europe, Russian and the Middle East as well as having a sterling reputation for staying out of the affairs of other nations.

          If I was an Arab nation looking for a better deal, I would support a Zurich oil bourse, and let the 'gnomes of Zurich' guard my money.

          Of course, it might trigger the Helvetian War (for those Kossaks who are fans of David Brin), but the Swiss have been trusted for money transactions since... a long time before Granpappy Bushiter supported the Nazis.

          LL

          "No AMERICAN requires authorization to do the right thing."

          by LeftyLimblog on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:47:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  True. (none / 0)

          People do big business in Indonesia, the most corrupt Govt in Asia. Indonesian generals frequently sell purloined oil in Europe on the black market.
      •  Oil for food? (none / 0)

        Illegal trading with an unstable entity.

        I don't understand why people dont think this will happen, is it because that was outside the markets?

        •  This is different in this way (none / 0)

          The subject here is a commodities trading floor and associated back offices for oil trading located in Teheran.  Another oil exchange.

          The Oil for Food trading was direct buyer to seller transactions, not through a commodities market.

    •  jerome, i don't agree with you at ALL! (none / 0)

      it would be very easy to destabilize the seller's market by playing off the use of dollars and euros - the idea is to buy at the BEST price for the buyer - so buying from the iranian bourse could offer an excellent chance to DO that!

      also, there are enough nations that hate america that would relish the opportunity to buy elsewhere.

      once the initial fracture is made, then the customer benefits from the "competition" that will ensue.

      one seller (oil for dollars) equals controlled price.  two sellers (oil for EITHER dollars or euros) equal competition!

      you are assuming too much when you think that the market seeks "stability" - it doesn't.  it seeks profit.  period.

      •  sorry, this is silly (none / 1)

        The Iranians already sell all their crude.  There is no new crude that a consumer can buy whether they hate the US or not.  With no new production, how can prices change because of a decision to price in a different currency?

        There is nothing stopping the Iranians from instantly dumping dollars coming from Japanese buyers or asking for yen instead at the then current exchange rate.  So why would pricing them originally in a different currency make any difference?

        Trying to establish a floating, transparent (honest) market where crude price discovery occurs in Euros/metric ton instead of $/bbl will require overcoming an enormous inertia.  

        First, both buyer and seller must agree that this mechanism leads to a fair price.  There's no way anyone is going to trust a bourse run by the Iranian government when they are the sole supplier of the crude.  What group of idiots would agree to buy off of Tehran Bourse's Iranian Light quote for next August for the entire production rate when the Iranians can simply cut back production to squeeze their own market?

        Secondly, to repeat myself, I just don't see the Iranians physically settling their contracts giving any buyer the right to pull a tanker up to their loading terminal and take delivery for any market anywhere.  They will go nuts when the trading community starts using their own bbls to move their market around (and having been part of this game, they will make this market jump around like kangaroo on crack).

        There is no "one seller".  Crude producing countries are a fractious bunch with varying political and economic needs.  And I disagree, OPEC very much seeks stability.  Just like the oil majors, they fear big investments suddenly having a nil payback if prices crash.

        You seem to be basing your model on the idea that oil prices only go up.  History will tell you that the real pain for the oil industry/trade is when it collapses due to oversupply.  Bang, Zoom to the Moon on oil prices may be a popular theory on the left at the moment, but it won't be a straight line (hence the dearth of Countdown to $100 oil diaries of late -- apols to Jerome).

        •  i'm not basing my thoughts on oil (none / 0)

          prices going up - i am looking at a theocracy that considers the u.s. an evil satan and any means that they can use to destabilize the u.s. economy is a win for their political side.  the seller's market is interested in one thing - profit.  the buyers are interested in one thing - lower prices that translate to profit.

          just as midlands texas manipulated the pricing structure over the last year and a half by pushing up the ppbl to the high mark - and successfully breaking the price band of opec, so could the iranians by selling BELOW market value for euros break the back of the u.s. market for light,sweet.

          the real test is who cries uncle first.  the desired oil is the light sweet, out of texas and the north sea - that is why it has been at premium.  easier to refine, easier to turn around.  texas has the refining capability to make light, sweet into gas - it doesn't have the refineries to convert the heavy, sour as readily.

          so, our light sweet (u.s. & britain) are the choice and easiest and most expensive.

          pushing the prices up caused the opec members who have light sweet to break out of the price band (pure greed/ if oil is at 55-60, selling at 39/bbl was too hard to take!, so the opec members broke out of their agreement to keep the oil market stable.)

          now, imagine the theocracy that wants to take out the u.s. with a vengeance.  how better than to try to destabilize the u.s. currency by pushing euros instead of dollars - and to do that, you need buyers.  how do you get buyers in euros?  undercut the price.  NObody will pay more than they have to pay - and if the u.s. loses, all the better.  it is TIME (according to many nations) that we have our arrogance handed to us on a platter.  

          this isn't about "profits" - it is about "control"... the u.s. is flexing too much muscle -and there are many countries just waiting to take us down.  the real terrorist threat is economic - 9/11 proved that - and is still proving it.

          remember, the folks who would do us harm are infintely patient.  selling a commodity they have much of for a loss is a small short-term price to pay.

          look beyond the surface and think like a very "old" enemy... one who hates america and would do anything to do the u.s. harm.

          •  sorry, I guess I'm dense (none / 0)

            but I find this mostly incoherent or wrong.

            First, you accept that Iran can actually establish a viable market and that pricing their oil in another currency even matters.  That's ID not science from my vantage.  I know you believe it, but where's the data?

            Second, how did "midlands texas" manipulate up WTI?  Looked like more demand than supply and a huge fear premium based on paranoia that the Mid East would go up in flames or some other geopolitical problem.  Not to mention hurricanes knocking a big chunk of supply off the market.  What basis do you have to claim "manipulation" other than the price went up and it pisses you off?

            Texas has huge capacity to refine horrible, heavy high sulfur crudes.  Your info is the common wisdom and wrong.  What is true is that at the margin, they can squeeze out slightly more product with lighter, sweeter crudes.  Older, simpler refiners (esp on the east coast) are more limited to lt. sweet.  The USG is the world center for heavy oil refineries.

            The best light, sweet crudes are African -- Nigerian, Angolan, Libyan.  Much better than WTI or Brent.   Both on gravity  and sulfur level.  There are small amounts of very sweet US crudes, but not like the flows from Africa.

            Iran undercutting price????  you have never watched OPEC.  Saudi's are the downers, Iran are the price hawks.  They're not going to discount just to switch currencies.  They could get the Japanese to pay in Yen tmw just by asking.  It's small beer on the world currency markets.  

            And by cutting the price on heavy sours, how does one break the back of the Lt. Sweet mkt?  The spread just widens leaving lt sweet up if the market is truly constrained by capacity to refine heavy sour.

            If Iran just wanted to fuck with us, all they have to do is pull 2 MMBD of oil off the market by faking a production problem (blow up a pipeline or loading facility).  Much more direct impact on us if crude spikes to $80/bbl.  Or if they want to provoke a war, block the straits of Hormuz.

            If it's so obvious that changing currencies will bring the US to it's knees, won't Busco just treat it as and act of war anyway?    We have troops on both their borders.  We could be in Teheran by Feb 1st (not that we could hold it).  Think down the chessboard, yourself.

            This whole tin hat, bring 'em down by currency speculation meme, reads more like a really bad novel with an evil cabal meeting in a Star chamber to rule the world.  This is the sort of crap that that makes the far left the butt of jokes.

            •  ok, i'll grant you incoherently written without (none / 0)

              backup - it was 2 am and i was exhausted.

              i am on my way out right now, but i will come back to this and do it as a diary soon.  i have followed this for over two years - watched the push by the wti standard while opec frantically tried to stop the price rise - did the research on peak oil in midlands and followed through the price push.  also with pnac and the neocon desire to break up opec's control - it never happened UNTIL the texas wti was "speculated" through the roof in the ny markets (followed by the asian and european buyers) AND followed by brent north sea.

              and i'll answer you more later...  one quick one, though...

              If it's so obvious that changing currencies will bring the US to it's knees, won't Busco just treat it as and act of war anyway?    We have troops on both their borders.  We could be in Teheran by Feb 1st (not that we could hold it).  Think down the chessboard, yourself.

              in my opinion and the opinions of OTHERS, that is exactly what bushco DID - he went to war with iraq when saddam was pushing for changeover to euros for his oil.  not that this was the only reason, but if you followed papers at the time, this was a serious concern when hussein first began talking the switch.

              secondly, iran has a viable fighting force and is willing to use it.  saddam did not have the capability to fight back! at least, in the traditional sense.  his was a world of "bluff" and for years, the "bluff" about chemical and other weapons kept iran at bay - that was his reason, NOT to keep the u.s. out.  and as for being in teheran by feb 1st.?  we can't even hold our own in iraq and afghanistan.  exactly what troops do you propose we use?  the national guard that is on it's third deployment?  the exhausted full-timers? do we raid the v.a. hospitals for those who already have their replacement limbs?  or do you think we could use all those new recruits - oh, i forgot - we don't have any.

              bush has decimated our military force and the world sees it - that, imho opinion, is one of the major reasons we will not go into iran - except by airstrike - but then all hell will break loose.  maybe we could pick on a small nation like syria - and i wouldn't put it past bush to try to flex his penismuscle to do so, but if we are lucky, the congress will block him.  if not, we will just be further in the toilet with a weakened military and discredited nation.  think "check" and it won't be us making the move...

              more later on oil.  can't pull two years of research together cogently in ten minutes.  but i WILL get back to you on this!

              •  please do (none / 0)

                my gut reaction is you are chasing a conspiracy theory with nothing behind it, but I've been wrong before.  I'd like to hear the argument.

                As for the WTI market being "speculated" through the roof, I think you are way off.  There are real, tangible reasons why crude oil is high at the moment.  Tops being that there is essentially no spare crude capacity left in the world and we are on the edge of having the Middle East in flames, Venz in revolution (ditto Nigeria) hurricanes knocking out US production, China sucking ever harder on the AG supply (ditto India).

                The world, especially the US, has been cutting inventory levels for years to improve return on capital (and to flush out the capital deemed to be wasted on "excess" inventories).  Now, with usage way up, and stocks still where they were 15 years ago, we just don't have enough cushion.  That leads to purchases/hoarding by refiners based on fear.  That tends to keep prices buoyed as they fear not having supply.  Management won't let them have more stocks so they keep paying up for supply.  

                Also, because there is more demand for US products than the worldwide refinery system can produce, margins on crude are huge.  So no problem to pay up for crude oil.  The profit is there so a refiner is much more likely to be bollocked by his bosses for running out of crude when margins are huge than for paying 5% too much.

                As a former speculator, working on the 2nd largest oil trading desk in NY, I can tell you one major point you are missing.  While a speculator can squeeze a contract pretty easily, it's damn near impossible to do it 2 months in a row.  Why?  Because you can't just eat the stuff.  you have to sell eventually.  Something the Hunts forgot back in the 80s....  For prices to stay up this high this long, the supply demand balance is pretty tight.  Even with the Saudis pumping near capacity.

                And as an aside, oil prices really aren't that high on an inflation adjusted basis.  We've been living high on free beer the last 20 years as far as energy goes.  $50/bbl for crude is still way cheap compared to what you'd pay if you had to to keep our transportation system working.

                As for invading Iran, we wont.  But we could easily if we wrote off Iraq.  Iran has no airforce any more.  We could rip up every bit of infrastructure in a month and waltz right in with the 175K troops we have in Iraq + Afghanistan.  As for an army, Saddam's was quite a bit larger, but regardless, either going up against the US Army is like 10 yr olds playing against Shaq.  We could easily slice into Western Iran and take their main oil fields.  Could we hold them for long?  Doubt it, for the reasons you propose.  Unless we have a draft which would be the last thing Bush did as president.  The mushy middle would oust him toute suite if their own kids had to go..

                As for your opinion that Bushco went to war over currency switches on crude sales, it remains an opinion with no hard evidence to back it up.  I doubt it was even in the top 10 of excuses.  You guys just dont seem to understand large scale finance.  Crude buyers can hold their own currency(or any hard currency) right up to the day they have to settle their oil purchases in USD.  And the seller can flip out of the dollars 5 min after the wire transfer.   Jerome has it right.  The risk is if China, Saudi, Taiwan, Korea, others dump our debt back on us.  THAT is the risk.  If the rest of the world decides to write off our currency as a dog our asses are grass.  Switching oil sales into another currency might be an indication of the loss of confidence, but it won't intrinsically cause havoc, IMO.

    •  Jerom is correct (4.00 / 6)

      up until 10 yrs ago I was an oil trader for 2 of the largest players.  Jerome's analysis here is right on target.

      No serious volume will trade on an Iranian exchange.  Perhaps a few folks trying to suck up to the Ayatollahs will dabble, but no serious players will move from effective markets like the NYMEX and IPE to an exchange in a country run by religious fundys (doesn't bode well for NYMEX).  Even contracts in real countries like Singapore can die due to lack of interest=liquidity.  

      In the past Dubai crude was used as a forward marker crude for the AG area.  The contract died due to lack of interest.  The Arabian Gulf players are content to use Brent or WTI as the main element of their pricing.  For example, Saudi might term up a sale into Italy or Japan at Dated Brent - X using the quotes as published in Platts either on B/L date +/-3 days or B/L + 25 days.  They used to price either off date of lifting or approx date of delivery depending on how both sides feel about the market.  (B/L = bill of lading = paperwork describing the cargo quantity)

      The X represents a market discount due to quality and location differences.  Saudi used to just impose this monthly.  And X varied depending on where in the world you were going.  They don't allow traders to arbitrage their oil.  For US markets, it was WTI - Z.  They could be very flexible on pricing formula when they needed to move crude.  I suspect those days are gone.

      I've seen term deals done off of assumed refinery yields so that the crude is priced to guarantee the refiner a margin (doubt this happens anymore -- it was a wheeze to move crude when the world was way oversupplied).

      Secondly, SOJ (as much as I like her) is dead wrong about how these markets work.  Very little "real" oil actually trades on the exchanges.  People hedge their physical trades there and speculate, but the wet stuff trades off the exchange via private contracts.  Especially the term business with Saudi, Kuwait, Venz, etc.
      The exchanges are where the market goes to hammer out the price.  many, many products have no counterpart on any exchange.  For example, naphtha traded in the Far East.  Their is a forward contract used to speculate/hedge, but to a great extent, the "market" is set by people jawboning the reporting services so that in the end, a 25 year old journalism major making $25,000/yr sets the last 3-5% of the price.  Braindead system.

      As for settling the cash component, it's true that most oil entities settle in USDs.  But as Jerome says, the same folks can trade the currencies in the next heartbeat.

      •  Dude, (none / 0)

        You should post more. Kos needs your brainpower.
      •  i have a question (none / 0)

        wouldn't a communist country like China that is a net importer of oil and a net exporter of most other products want to match a part of their currency holding diversification to forward contracts on oil?  For example right now China converts a portion of Euros received from selling exports to Dollar holdings in order to purchase U.S. bonds.  Because they purchase forward contracts on oil in Dollars their bond holdings in dollar denomination match this, limiting their currency based risk.  Asian central banks, inlcluding Chinas have signaled a desire to diversify their central bank holdings away from the dollar.  I am assuming that countries with state control of oil imports would want to be able to purchase forward contracts on oil in both Euros and Dollars to match their diversified central bank holdings and better match the current flow of funds into their countries from exporting.  The ASEAN and Chian Mai Initiative come to mind in this regard with many asian central banks agreeing to a cooperative initiative including currency swaps to diversify holdings and eventually move to a single unified currency.   I don't see why a market for trading futures contracts on oil in Euros couldn't be successful.  Euro countries would buy these contracts, as would countries with a net trade surplus with Euro countries.  

        In the absence of fear, truth becomes absolute.

        by bohdi777 on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 10:05:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  whew, where to start (none / 0)

          1)  what does China being Communist have to do with the argument?

          2)  You assume that China is buying their forward oil on a fixed price basis.  I really doubt that.  Far more likely they are paying on a floating, market based price, ie, Brent/WTI/Tapis/OPEC basket +/- whatever negotiated element.  I've never seen sovereign players buy or sell on a flat, fixed price basis.  Price discovery doesn't occur until the oil is lifted.  I'm way out of date, but I don't see the Saudis selling to them on a fixed and firm price way forward.

          I also doubt the Chinese are using futures to fix their forward price all that much.  Even if they are, the margin on futures contracts is only about 5% so you really don't need all that much cash to hedge your price exposure.  So I doubt they stay up nights sweating currency changes vis a vis oil purchases.  They have many, many times more exposure on their existing bond/cash portfolio.

          3) You assume the Chinese need to turn euros into dollars to buy oil.  They only buy about 3 MMBD of crude.  At $55/bbl that's only $165 million per day.  or $60 billion/yr.  Our trade deficit with them is several multiples of that.  I suspect they just recycle Euros into whatever they feel is best for their overall portfolio including Euro denominated bonds etc.  And again, flipping $150 million of USD into whatever other hard currency is nothing in the currency markets.

          4)  The argument is less that a Euro denominated oil market can't work than that such a market based in Tehran, run by their whacko, fundy government can't work.  I don't care if the Iranians price in $$, you'd have to be nuts to put money at risk in a market run by those people.  Who will guarantee performance?  

          If the IPE switches to euros on oil, that might be more interesting as to how our govt would react.  

          •  well.......an answer (none / 0)

            1)  what does China being Communist have to do with the argument?

            Communist governments by their very nature control much more of the economy than a capitalist based economy.   This includes the central bank coordinating the purchase of commodities such as oil.  

            2)  You assume that China is buying their forward oil on a fixed price basis.  I really doubt that.  Far more likely they are paying on a floating, market based price, ie, Brent/WTI/Tapis/OPEC basket +/- whatever negotiated element.  I've never seen sovereign players buy or sell on a flat, fixed price basis.  Price discovery doesn't occur until the oil is lifted.  I'm way out of date, but I don't see the Saudis selling to them on a fixed and firm price way forward.

            My argument was more about natural hedge diversification than anything else.  If possible central banks would like to diversify their risk and being able to match trade surplus currencies with net deficit imports is desired.  Because oil trades only in $, countries didn't much have a problem with holding large amounts of $ denominated bonds/currency. With the long term pressure on the dollar from growing twin deficits, i think many countries are questioning this strategy.  The ASEAN countries have a desire of moving towards a Dollar/Yen/Euro basket.  In the end natural hedges are much preferred to synthetic ones and if more central banks with their hand in purchasing commodities are diversifying away from the dollar, I would expect there to be a desire for more commodities to trade in Euros, including oil.

            3) You assume the Chinese need to turn euros into dollars to buy oil.  They only buy about 3 MMBD of crude.  At $55/bbl that's only $165 million per day.  or $60 billion/yr.  Our trade deficit with them is several multiples of that.  I suspect they just recycle Euros into whatever they feel is best for their overall portfolio including Euro denominated bonds etc.  And again, flipping $150 million of USD into whatever other hard currency is nothing in the currency markets.

            You can flip currency when received but i'm talking long term diversification strategies.  Holding Euro denominated bonds pays euro interest, unless you have it in a swap agreement.  I think central banks that are attempting to diversify risk and better match trade balances with their main trading partners would like to be able to match their interest received/bond maturities with longer term commodities contracts, especially in communist countries with government control of business. You can achieve all of these means through the use of derivatives but i think many would prefer the efficiency a secondary market for pricing in another currency would provide.

            4)  The argument is less that a Euro denominated oil market can't work than that such a market based in Tehran, run by their whacko, fundy government can't work.  I don't care if the Iranians price in $$, you'd have to be nuts to put money at risk in a market run by those people.  Who will guarantee performance?  

            I agree.  A Euro market can work.  Here's where the ethnocentric viewpoint comes in.  While you or I might not want to trade with Iran,  China, Russia, France, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, India, and the entire eastern bloc really have no problem with it.  Especially for China and Russia, do trade with Iran and really have no qualms about it.   China and Russia guarantee performance through paternal military dominance.  

            If the IPE switches to euros on oil, that might be more interesting as to how our govt would react.

            All it takes is one.  If one market gets off the ground with enough liquidity trading in Euros, i would expect other markets to start offering trading in Euros.  Thats where things get interesting.   Are we in a long term trend away from the $ as the fiat currency of the world?  

            In the absence of fear, truth becomes absolute.

            by bohdi777 on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 11:46:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  on this point I think you are dead wrong (none / 0)

              I know how oil markets work.

              An Iranian market can only be based on Iranian Crude.  Unless you think the other sovereign sellers in the area will allow their crude to be controlled by an exchange clearing mechanism in Tehran.

              Why?  Because at some point you have to settle a futures contract.  You have 2 choices.  You either do a cash settle where the buyer with open long contracts at expiry and the seller with open shorts are matched up by the exchange and a final closing price is set by some independant, honest 3rd party (usually Platts Oilgram or Argus).  But how can you have an honest evaluation of a market with only one seller --Iran National Oil?  Especially one where little to no oil trades in a spot, cash market (they term up most if not all of their oil sales).  

              If there is no open, honest spot market for the market crude, then you can't have an honest settle ment in cash.

              That leaves option 2.  INOC has to let the longs pull a tanker  up to Kharg Island and load their oil.  This is what happens at Cushing on WTI except it is tank transfer or pipeline tickets etc.  There is no way INOC is going to let their oil be traded spot in their tanks.  I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.  Not to mention, if you can't trade spot in the tank for small quantities, then you have to go off long tanker loads which is  really ugly for market liquidity.

              While i agree that some wont have a problem with the goofy religious nature of the Iranians, what they will have problems with is an illiquid, easily manipulated market as a vehicle for speculation or hedging.

              On the other points, the argument is morphing to different ground.  I agree that if the big USD portfolio holders diversify away from the USD we're in a world of hurt.  But that's not the same as just executing oil trades in a different currency which is the original point of contention.

              So

              •  maybe i just (none / 0)

                don't understand oil markets as well as you do.  What prevents Iraq, Libya, Russia, and other players from trading on an Eastern exchange (not to mention Venezuela would probably do it just to spite the U.S.)?  You are assuming it will only be Iranian crude on offer. I am saying there are numerous political reasons why some of these countries would want to start trading on an exchange that they have more control over and that allows them to diversify away from petrodollar control.    Delivery could be had from numerous ports in the Black Sea, Mediterranean, or Persian Gulf.  Just look at Russias recent moves with regards to natural gas delivery. If over 1/2 of the holders of the physical commodity want to create a new market, i think it could certainly be successful.   This could be a long term military strategy for them to move away from funding the U.S. current accounts deficit hampering our defense spending.  Just speculating on the coming energy wars.

                In the absence of fear, truth becomes absolute.

                by bohdi777 on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:01:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  But, but, but... (none / 0)

      Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran  (Sunday UK Times)

      ISRAEL'S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

      The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

        Iran's stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.

      The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was "losing patience" with Iran.

      A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: "What next?" That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.

      Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the "point of no return" after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.

    •  how about gold? (none / 0)

      From what I've heard, the Iranian oil bourse will be using gold.    

      If supplies are tight enough, I think traders will bite.  

      "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." - Kenneth Boulding, economist

      by randym77 on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 04:40:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not Russia, Not China? (none / 0)

      These guys are tight with Iran and they've read PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and know they are on the target-list. So if not with the Iran bourse, when and where will they strike at the $US? Does the global chess game never trump market interests?

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 05:02:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  M3-No; MZM-Yes (none / 0)

      The fed will still publish MZM which is an even broader monetary measure. BTW, the financial blogs have been all over the M3 publication issue for months. Some folks believe the Fed wants to stop publishing the M3 data series to reinflate to monetize the US debts(exploding M3 figures) and others like Soj believe just the opposite (collapse in M3).

      In any case with increased deregulation and instantaneous cross-border capital flows, the M series is becoming less useful relative to numbers on MBS, ABS, CDS and CDO. These credit markets are becoming much larger (multi trillion dollar) and growing even more rapidly. But more importantly the "moneyness" of these instruments are also rising as many central banks use these as part of their reserves just like they would a US Treasury bond or Gilt.

      On Iran creating a Euro denominated petroleum market, I think initially it will not have sufficient depth or liquidity. But over time if enough big suppliers trade a portion of their production, speculators (like hedge funds) will arrive. Creating liquid markets is not easy and sometimes it takes a lot of effort. Iran will be climbing uphill not only because the market will be illiquid initially but there will be political pressure on western banks to not drive liquidty to the Iranian bourse.

      On the other hand it is worth waiting to see what happens.

    •  Jerome, aren't you forgetting one thing? (none / 0)

      I don't know of a single capitalist who wouldn't sell his own grandmother for a 10% discount on trillion-dollar (or EC) deals. Saddam Hussein made effective use of this concept infiltrating the US and the UN during the Oil for food era. In fact authoritarian regimes have a slight advantage in this game because they can just shuffle 50% of their yearly budget at will.

      I think many of us are thinking small potatoes here or are looking for an over-night armageddon, which seem inconceivable. But I think this is a kind of move that could get the Bush buddies themselves to back the bourse if there's  enough profit in it for them. If Iranians are smart, they would have made sure there's some support for it before even going "live" on this venture. This is the beginning of the "end game" of peak-oil. Every man for himself.

      Why would they set it up only to fail if it's so obvious? I would think veteran oil traders are smarter than that. I'm betting, that among other options, there's also a serious "let's make friends with Iran" discussion happening somewhere behind the scenes.

      I'm of course no expert and realize you do know what you're talking about economics, and enormously respect you for it. But I also pride myself in knowing about Capitalism, Imperialism and American History. To me this is not farfetched, especially if you look at the long term.  

      Those who write these arbitrary rules can change them at will.

      •  Iran, discounts? (none / 0)

        Hard to imagine.  Check out the EIA's analysis on Iran from last spring.  Admittedly prices are well up but....

        http://www.eia.doe.gov/...

        a few points:

        Despite higher oil revenues, Iranian budget deficits remain a chronic problem, in part due to large-scale state subsidies on foodstuffs, gasoline, etc. Expenditures on fuels were estimated at $4.7 billion in 2004, and the country's parliament (the Majlis) has rejected measures to raise consumer prices.....

        Iran exports around 2.5 million bbl/d, with major customers including Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Europe.  Iran's main export blends include Iranian Light (34.6° API, 1.4 percent sulphur); Iranian Heavy (31° API, 1.7 percent sulphur); Lavan Blend (34°-35° API, 1.8-2 percent sulphur); and Foroozan Blend/Sirri (29-31° API). Iran's domestic oil consumption, 1.5 million bbl/d in 2004, is increasing rapidly as the economy and population grow.  As mentioned above, Iran subsidizes the price of oil products heavily, resulting in a large amount of waste and inefficiency in oil consumption.

        The Ayatollahs have more to worry about from cutting subsidies to the growing poor, young population than they can gain from tweaking us.  They need the cash.  they only charge the populace around 40cts/gal for mogas...

        2.5 MMBD X $50ish = $125 million/day.  Over a population of 69 million that's just $1.80 per day.  not even counting the big chunk of that revenue they need to develop new fields and to keep the old ones pumping.

        •  don't quite see it that way (none / 0)

          The Ayatollahs seems to have plenty of cash when it comes to financing pipelines, nuclear energy, missiles and sending up sattellites; not to mention Hizbollah and Military/Intelligence. They have contributed significantly to Afghanistan and have promissed $1Billion to Iraq. And that's not even counting the corruption.

          If they want to sweeten the deal for a few key oil players using a few $Billion here and there, I'm sure they can find it. Besides giving it up for cheap isn't the only trick you can play. All kinds of contract awarding and non-petroleum purchases and other types of favoritism can play a role too.

          It's possible they will bring a couple of natural gas wells online for production. Iran is sitting on a lot of NG and they've been talking about doing it for years. There are other industries in Iran, too not so much for export, but internal consumption. Years of sanctions have made the country self-sufficient to a higher degree than the Arab Sheikhdoms.

          Also don't forget that standard of living, while it may be low to us, is far higher than what it was during the Iran/Iraq war when they were being bombed conventionally and chemically on daily basis, their production was way down and they were spending massively on defence.

          So, they can endure much more than this.

    •  I did not know about the Fed info... (none / 0)

      Honestly I always thought it WAS part of the US gov't. I'd like to read your thoughts on this subject someday....
  •  Question (none / 0)

    What is the best way to purchase Euros, or set up a savings account in a nation that uses them?  It seems like it would be a good thing to have to diversify a savings account.  The Iranians are just one potential threat to the dollar, and it would probably be a good thing for everyone to have some other currencies.
    •  try everrbank.com (eom) (none / 0)

    •  Two words of warning: (4.00 / 3)

      (1) The "Duluth" principle (which I hereby name after Gore Vidal's novel, in which the principle is articulated by a mandible-clacking insect author of bodice-rippers): All currencies lose value over time.  Invest in goods or services people will actually want.  Holding onto currencies in the long term is a bad idea, because sooner or later they pay for indiscretions of the governments, banks, and economies behind them.

      This much said,

      (1) The "quod licet Iovi non licet bovi" principle (i.e. what Jupiter is allowed to do, cattle may not): Only the United States is allowed to run crippling deficits and debt without consequence.  Okay, with little consequence so far.  Sooner or later, every other currency gets smacked down hard because of the balance-of-payments problems of the host country.  Note how the NZ kiwi was hammered recently--sooner or later you just can't keep raising interest rates in the hopes that others will finance your fiscal irresponsibility.  I'm more than a bit leery of Everbank's pushing of the Icelandic krona on its customers, as Iceland is quite the debtor nation too.  Iceland may well have a stable long-term future, as it could probably go energy-autonomous without convulsions that would entirely obliterate its economy . . . but if you want to put your money in Iceland, buy a geyser, not its currency.
           Now in all of this, the USA is--you guessed it--Jupiter.  We're so large that other countries have to humor our addiction to debt.  If they don't, they go down the toilet with us.  This could change some day--there must be a correction someday if the laws of gravity apply to finance, but (a) maybe they don't apply, and (b) even if they do, that correction may not come anytime soon.

      •  Yeah,I thought I was so clever (none / 1)

        buying NZ CD's, betting on weaker dollar. Boy, did I get whacked on that one! Well, so far anyway. The dollar is amazingly strong. It just reminds me that banks don't manufacture anything, but they do pretty well. The US is the world's bank. It has tremendous power. As to oil trading, the market runs on futures contracts. That kind of market places a huge premium on stability, especially in the currency used for trading, it seems to me. So, I agree with Jerome. I have seen many predictions of changes in the oil business, but none have ever come to pass. In fact, the oil market will become even more invested in USD as other factors become more intense drivers of price.

        Ambition is when you follow your dreams. Insanity is when they follow you.

        by Batfish on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 05:28:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i heard before the war (none / 1)

    that the real reason to go into iraq wasnt about revenge or terrorism or oil...but to control oil currency.....now i finally understand what that means.

    I wish I had a penis on the back of my head.

    by anna in philly on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 09:53:02 AM PDT

    •  not only control the oil currency (none / 0)

      but also deny the actual oil to other nations.

      "If being an elitist just means not the dumbest motherfucker in the room, then yeah, I'm an elitist." - Get Yer War On

      by sadair on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 12:04:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Key Point (4.00 / 2)

        Control of oil is a proxy for control of an economy.  OIl is the critical component and the USA is trying to control as much of it as possible so that it can forestall any rivals be they China, the EU, or India.

        We don't necessarily want all the oil for ourselves.  We want to be able to control the flow of oil so that even when it goes to other countries, that flow still serves our purposes.  Not serving our purposes then no oil flows.  Too bad.

        Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at http://solarray.blogspot.com/2006/03/solar-video.html

        by gmoke on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 02:12:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I heard (none / 0)

      that Elvis is really alive and living in Albania.

      Doesn't make it true.  Go read the neocon manifesto.  Those whackos really believed they could do a reverse domino effect in the Mid East.  Keeping the oil flowing was just a nice benefit.

      •  you know, you really DON"T need to be (none / 0)

        insulting - elvis and tinfoil hat comments are not productive.  i am not downrating your comment, but i AM suggesting that engaging in productive discussion is better than demeaning the opinions of others.

        perhaps explaining WHY you disagree would further the discussion rather than insulting the poster then commenting.

  •  The other implication (none / 0)

    If the United States is quietly accommodating a sea change in Sinodollar holdings, and matching its shutdown of M3 reporting with the opening of the Iran oil bourse, that suggests quite strongly that the US is no longer giving talk of invading/attacking Iran serious consideration...the chief reason being that any intrusion into Iran would provoke a serious downturn in relations with China, and perhaps Russia, and Pakistan, and perhaps India, as well.

    If everyone (even people who now hate each other) give you the same advice, chances are it's good advice.

    by cskendrick on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 09:53:26 AM PDT

  •  Not all oil is traded on exchanges. (4.00 / 2)

    Oil is also traded in private contracts off the exchanges.  Those contracts, including some of the bigger ones, sometimes are traded in Euros.  So, the Euroization of the oil market has already begun.

    I'm not nearly so pessimistic.  I don't believe that the fate of the American economic