Raid on nuclear fuel
market
By
Rudo de Ruijter
Independent
researcher
05/07/06 "ICH"
-- -- In the background of the political joust about
Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are
taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New
IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away. The US, UK,
France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become world’s
nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA
these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the
currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the
pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of
tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
Contents:
-
Iran and the Non-Proliferation
Treaty
-
Iran’s nuclear history
-
From shah Reza to Khomeini
-
The accusations against Iran: 130
Grams of uranium
-
US’ agenda: The oil, the dollar
and the foreign debt…
-
Seeking allies
-
The strange European delegation
-
Russia and China
-
Is enrichment in
non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous?
-
Birth of a new world order
-
Questionable elements
-
The UN theatre
Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
US
President Bush wants us to believe that Iran has plans for
nuclear weapons. Well, we remember, that in 2002 he accused
Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. That turned out
to be a lie, so let us look more closely at the facts.
Iran is a
member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the
very first moment in 1968. [1] The NPT is a treaty not only
to stop proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help each
other to develop civil nuclear energy. [2] In the treaty,
the nuclear-weapon states (US, Russia, China, France and
England) promised nuclear disarmament. (So far, they have
not kept their promises.) The other members had to sign
agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
NPT’s watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA’s
agreement with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. [3]
Iran’s nuclear history
At that
time shah Reza ruled Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US’ operation
Ajax in 1953 he was still on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza
wanted to develop nuclear energy in Iran. [4] The US offered
all the help and stuff he wanted: a research reactor,
enriched uranium and plutonium. The research reactor was
started in 1967, but went critical soon after. Then the
French became good friends too. They promised to repair the
reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion loan to the French for
the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the
South of France. From 1974 still more countries offered
their services to the shah. Agreements followed for five
reactors and fuel from France, two reactors and fuel from
the US, regular purchases of uranium from Australia and two
reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered 10 kilo of
highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium.
Technical staff came in from Argentina and India, while
Iranian students went to UK and West Germany. Discussions
took place with Pakistan and Turkey for regional nuclear
cooperation. The Iranian budget for the atomic energy rose
from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion the following year,
and still more reactors were ordered from the US. By the end
of 1978, with not a single reactor completed yet, the shah
ran out of money. Meanwhile, popular opposition against the
shah’s blood shedding oppression rose to a climax.
From shah Reza to Khomeini
The opposition
against the shah had grown since 1953, when popular hero and
Prime Minister Mossadeq had been overthrown by a joint coup
of the CIA, the English and the shah. [5] Mossadeq had
successfully strived to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil
Company (BP). Sued by England, Mossadeq had won the case at
the International Court in The Hague. [6]
During the coup, the shah initially fled the country, but
came back after the army had succeeded to beat down the
protests of the population. In 1960, to please his American
friends, he granted diplomatic immunity to all US’ personnel
working in Iran. A young opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini
dared to criticize the shah publicly. The first time he was
jailed and recidivist a few years later he was expelled. The
shah’s oppression increased over time. In riots many
hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands injured. By
1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January
1979 the shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned
to Iran in triumph and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic
Republic of Iran was established by referendum. In November
1979, when Iranian students heard that the shah had gone to
the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to claim the
extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A
long hostages crisis followed. A US’ attempt to free them
failed. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of
the US at that time, invaded Iran, announcing he would be in
Tehran within three days. However, the war between Iraq and
Iran would last 10 years and cost hundreds of thousands of
lifes. With the end of the Warschau Pact in 1989 and
Saddam’s mistake to invade Kuwait, the US attitude toward
Iraq made a 180-degree turn. Iraq and Iran were both US’
enemies now. But since these countries detain 10.5 and 10
percent of world’s oil reserves respectively and the US is
world’s biggest consumer (with 25 percent of world’s oil
production), it was foreseeable the US would not just ignore
these countries. The US now has less than 2 percent of
world’s oil reserves. Its dependency on foreign oil is
rapidly increasing and, according to Bush, 60 percent today.
[7]
The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium
On June 16
2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency announced, that
Iran had not reported a uranium import of 1991 and the
subsequent stocking and processing. That is true. But from a
confidential IAEA document of June 6 2003 we learn, that
this import contained just 130 gram of uranium. [8]
According to article 37 of the official agreement between
the IAEA and Iran, in force since May 15 1974, nuclear
materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium are
exempted from the IAEA safeguards. [9] The IAEA accusations
made the world believe that Iran had transgressed the rules.
Similar
jousts are about the Additional Protocol. During the embargo
against Iraq, when proof had to be found of weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam was not willing to grant more rights
to the UN inspectors, the IAEA had developed additional
rules to make controls easier. The new rules also make it
easier to discriminate among members: excessive rules for
one country, friendly rules for others. In June 2003 only 33
of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty had
accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the
US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France,
Germany and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign
the Additional Protocol. In exchange, the three European
countries (E3) promised to come up with interesting
commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear what they had to
propose. This is not so surprising. 30 percent of Iran’s oil
goes to Europe and 40 percent of its imports come from
Europe. Spring 2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales
from dollars to euros, which is good for Europe and bad for
the US, since it weakens the dollar. During the talks about
new commercial deals with the Europeans Iran voluntarily
agreed to suspend its research program for uranium
enrichment and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for
extended checking of their nuclear facilities. After
repeated Iranian requests it became clear, that the E3
countries did not intend to deliver the promised deals. They
just wanted to keep the talks going on indefinitely,
meantime preventing Iran from enriching uranium. Iran
resumed its program and re-established the contractual
conditions for the IAEA controls. This resulted in the
attempt of the US and E3 to have the UN Security Council
condemn Iran.
US’ agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…
So, if the so-called
proofs against Iran appear to be fabricated, what is the
real issue? I think the general idea is clear to all. With
its excessive energy consumption the US thinks, it is
necessary to have pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran and, for
the UNOCAL pipeline project, also in Afghanistan. During the
Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and shah Reza in Iran were
useful US’ allies, but these days are over. Thanks to Bush
we now have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is located in
between. Considering the reputation the US has built up in
Iran a spontaneous arising of a pro-US government is not
likely to happen soon.
The second thing
that explains more immediately Bush aggressive stance
against Iran is its part in the weakening dollar. A new
Iranian oil bourse, if successful, may even trip up US’
hegemony. [10]
In a glance, this is
how it works. World’s oil and gas is traded in US-dollars.
Since 1971 the US has had the advantage to be the
petrodollar supplier of the world. Supplying dollars to
foreign countries means, the US can print money and purchase
goods, services and investments with it. Since the
foreigners need these dollars to buy oil, and keep them also
in use in the international trade outside the US, the US has
never had to deliver anything in return. Merely supplying
money means free shopping. This is how US’ foreign debt grew
to 3,200,000,000,000 dollars today. And if some day the
world gets tired of the abuse and does not want US-dollars
anymore, their massive offers of dollars on the exchange
markets would immediately push the exchange rate down, the
dollar would become worth next to nothing and the foreign
debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver
currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad.
But with today’s’
sky rocketing debt, the dollar has become vulnerable. When
Saddam Hussein switched to the euro on November 6 2000 [11,
12], the exchange markets were temporarily overflowed by
dollars. With Iran considering a similar switch since 1999
and maybe more OPEC countries to follow [13], speculations
and decreasing trust set in motion a long and continuous
descent of the dollar, which risked leading to its collapse.
[14] By the end of 2002 the dollar rate had fallen 18
percent. [15] This probably explains, why the US could not
wait and on March 20 2003 even overruled the UN Security
Council to invade Iraq. The Iraqi oil trade has been
switched back to dollars on June 6 2003. [16] From spring
2003, Iran also switched to the euro, and during the two
years that followed the dollar rate lost another 12 percent.
The US free shopping
advantage only works insofar foreign countries need
additional dollars. So, each time when oil prices rise on US
controlled International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) of London
and New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), more dollars are
needed in the world. [17] As 85 percent of the oil trade
takes place outside the US, for each extra dollar needed
inside the US, seven dollars are needed outside and result
in free shopping. To increase the foreign dollar demand
still further, the US Federal Reserve sells Treasury Bonds
to foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad.
This increases foreign demand for dollars and raises the
exchange rate. To stop the exchange rate from rising
continually, new dollars have to be “delivered” to the
foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If the US
wants to lower the dollar rate it can just import more. In
fact, as long as world demand for dollars keeps growing, the
US can decide itself about the rate of their currency and
enjoy free shopping. For the year 2004, the latter
represented an advantage of 3,000 dollar per US’ inhabitant.
Recently, foreigners are not so willing anymore to fuel US’
fairy credit carrousel. The US tries to seduce them with
higher interests, but foreign demand for bonds stays
insufficient. The only remaining way to obtain enough new
credit is to increase world’s demand for dollars by making
the oil prices rise on IPE and NYMEX. And that is what is
happening since mid 2004.
Here, once again, an
Iranian initiative endangers US’ credit carrousel. Iran
wants to establish an independent non-dollar oil bourse.
Assuming it succeeds in creating enough trade to establish a
recognized world oil price, and assuming they keep the price
stable, oil prices on IPE and NYMEX cannot rise freely
anymore. The credit carrousel may stop. The Iranian Oil
Bourse will not only reduce the power of IPE and NYMEX, it
will also have its influence on the exchange rate between
dollars and euros. If oil gets cheaper in euros, there will
be a rush on euros. And vice versa. The US and EU both see
this bourse as a risk.
The opening of the
Iranian Oil Bourse had been scheduled for March 20 2006, the
Iranian New Year. It is now announced for the first week of
May 2006. [18]
Seeking allies
To take measures
against Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful for cost
sharing of operations and to let them clean up the mess, as
in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to gain allies is to
have your enemies condemned by a UN Security Council
resolution. That means the US has to convince the other
veto-holding countries. Of course, that would not work, if
the US disclosed its real reasons. The US had to come up
with something better, which could unite and reward all of
the veto-countries. Well, veto-countries are the victor
states of the Second World War. They happen to have in
common to be nuclear weapon states, all disposing of uranium
enrichment facilities. So how about a project to reward them
with the exclusive rights for uranium enrichment and for the
supply of nuclear fuel to the non-nuclear-weapon states?
[19]
The strange European delegation
Then, in
the diplomatic stage-play about Iran, Bush is joint by the
UK, France and Germany, the so-called E3. They would
represent the European Union. This strange composition of an
EU-delegation starts to make sense, when we notice that
these countries are the European countries possessing
enrichment facilities. Camouflaged under the flag of the
European Union they have their own special interest in
enrichment and reprocessing.
How
European are these E3 countries? In fact, as European
representatives, France and Germany make a strange case in
willing to get their trade partner Iran condemned by the UN
Security Council. It indicates they are playing poker for
high stakes. They deliberately risk disrupting an Iranian
oil market priced in euros, either through a direct conflict
against Iran or by allowing the US to obtain an embargo.
Bush, if
he does not obtain his embargo, would probably not even mind
to see the Iranian power plants under construction bombed
once again, to make Iran consume its oil, instead of selling
it in euros. And what role does the UK play in this EU-delegation?
Well, with its IPE oil market always playing in symbiosis
with NYMEX, and its subsequent impossibility to adopt the
euro, they serve as the messenger-boy of the White House. As
usual.
The tone
of the E3 talks with Iran is not the one you would normally
expect between trade partners who wish to improve their
relations. The reports about the discussions are long
litanies of obligations the E3 seeks to impose to Iran. Iran
is treated like the naughty schoolboy, who will have to obey
one way or the other. [20] In January 2006, French President
Chirac even covertly threatened with a possible nuclear
attack. Of course such an attitude can only be
counter-productive.
Russia and China
To reach a
Security Council resolution with sanctions against Iran the
US, France, UK and Germany have to convince Russia and China
not to use their right of veto. Since Russia and China are
enrichment countries too, that seemed easy, but failed until
now. Russia and China do not want any armed intervention
against Iran. Russia still bears the scars of the Chernobyl
catastrophe in 1986, with hundreds of thousands of
irradiated citizens, new generations with genetic
deformations, and unsolved plutonium radiation problems for
hundreds of centuries to come. It has not build any new
reactors since then. Russia has a more shaded view on
world’s nuclear future. Besides, it still has fossil energy
sources. China has good relations with Iran for the supply
of oil and gas during the coming decades. If it wants to let
Iran down, it would have to foresee alternatives for their
high needs of energy. Besides, China does not seem to share
the aggressive stance of the US and the E3.
Is enrichment in non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous?
Natural
uranium contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3
percent of mostly U-238 atoms. To use it as nuclear fuel the
proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to 3 to 5
percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and
converted into a gas. In this form batteries of centrifuges
can filter out a few of the heavier U-238 atoms in a long
and energy swallowing process. Risks in the enrichment
process are those of the chemical industries and not so much
the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make
bombs. For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least
90 percent. [21] If a country, as for instance Iran, decided
to develop such highly enriched uranium, it could take 3 to
5 years to produce sufficiently for a bomb. Besides,
according to scientists, for high enrichment much larger
centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but
mistaken belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly
enriched uranium in a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush’
contention that enrichment should remain in the hands of
world’s nuclear-weapon states.
Birth of a new world order
The idea
of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that
already have it is not entirely new. The accusations against
Iran, the successful misleading of journalists, politicians
and diplomats had created the ideal circumstances to speed
up its realization. The idea appeared in a UN brochure in
2004. [22] Then it was still in the form of a call for a
voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the construction of
new facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In February
2005 the United Nations further elaborated the idea as the
Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA) [23]. Already in April
2005 Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan’s mission to the UN
put the question, “if the MNA would not not unduly affect
the peaceful use of nuclear energy by those
non-nuclear-weapon states that carry out nuclear activities
in faithful and transparent compliance with their NPT
obligations.”
On
February 6 2006 the US’ Department of Energy announced its
version of the idea in their plan for the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP). The following day, at the Oarai
Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as an idea of
IAEA’s head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush. [24] And, of
course, such a supreme idea should not lack of glamour. So,
a few days later, DOE compliments itself as follows:
“Finally, the partnership arrangement between fuel-cycle and
reactor-only states envisioned by GNEP will help supply the
world with clean electrical power by offering non-fuel-cycle
nations commercially competitive and reliable access to
nuclear fuel, in exchange for their commitment to forgo the
development of enrichment and recycling technologies. “
Questionable elements
The new
world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the
IAEA control system. Considering the spirit of the
Additional Protocol we should not count on equal rights or
fair relations.
Within the
Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon
states, plus Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have
enrichment facilities today. [25] The rest of the NPT
countries would see their rights to enrich uranium taken
away. In exchange, they will get the solemn promises of the
nuclear-weapon states, that the latter will always deliver
the nuclear fuel. Promises? Weren’t these the countries that
promised in 1968 to strive for their nuclear disarmament? As
we know, they did not keep their word up to now. Worse,
France has even developed a new generation of nuclear
weapons to make the step to nuclear war easier and
progressive. This year, France and the US are still using
their nuclear arsenal to threaten the world.
Non-nuclear-weapon states should now give away more rights
and become dependent of IAEA’s club of nuclear fuel
suppliers?
To seduce
non-nuclear-weapon states, this new plan promises lower
electricity prices. Today, on a global scale, enrichment
facilities would have about twice the capacity the world
needs. By preventing the construction of new enrichment
facilities, a better use could be made of the existing
capacities. This would enable lower prices for enriched
uranium, and thus of electricity… Should we believe these
words? The enrichment industries are not driven by the
concern to lower world’s electricity prices. In spite of the
world’s over-capacity the Europeans are considerably
expanding their production in the UK, Netherlands and
Germany. They strive for more market share and more profit!
And if by new IAEA regulations no new competitors are
allowed on the market, this can only result in excessive
pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity.
The new
plans foresee a highly regulated and closely monitored fuel
supply distribution system. The IAEA would become the
intermediate between fuel producing and fuel consuming
members. At first glance this may look like a trustworthy
construction, since the IAEA is a UN body. However, the IAEA
is also the policeman in the system. I do not think it is
wise to let policemen trade with the parties they should
inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of democratic and
integer government that would be able to guarantee their
policemen’s impartiality.
The plans
for the distribution system recommend minimal national
stocks and joint regional buffers in different
host-countries. Strange, isn’t it? The purpose of minimal
stocks inside the countries and regional stocks elsewhere is
hardly to defend as a security issue. Even with enormous
stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium you cannot produce
any nuclear weapon. Why would the IAEA want countries to
dispose of only small quantities of fuel at a time? I fear
there is only one plausible answer: to keep the
non-nuclear-weapon states in a firm grip. That is a lot of
power for our NPT-watchdog. This power goes far beyond what
is needed for their inspections. Even far beyond the needs
of a safe nuclear fuel distribution system. This is pure
power to overrule nations’ sovereignty. If a nation does
anything that the watchdog or its masters do not want, the
fuel tap can simply be closed to obtain its immediate
submission. It smells like a dictatorship on world-level. Of
course, the fuel supplying countries will never be affected.
They produce their own fuel.
In theory
the master of the IAEA is the United Nations Organization.
But does it work that way in reality? The IAEA has a
difficult role, because it cannot ignore tensions and
conflicts of interest between NPT members. The IAEA’s
independence from parties’ national interests is constantly
under strain. Its limited budget forces the IAEA to make
choices, which are influenced by occurring conflicts. During
the embargo against Iraq, we witnessed an IAEA driven crazy
by Bush, who demanded each time more and more thorough
controls. The dog was sent out over and over to make sure
Iraq could be safely invaded. Although the IAEA has the
obligation to keep all sensitive information from their
investigations undisclosed, the US military constantly
received sensitive information, with which they prepared the
invasion in 2003. (And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply
overruled the UN’s Security Council…)
Today, we
see the same US’ influences in the IAEA’s investigations in
Iran. Bush shouts and the dog runs to search for the stick.
The rules for the new world order are presented as “an idea
of ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.”. I presume that both
plans, the IAEA’s Multi-National Approach (NMA) and Bush’
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a
final version dictated by the US.
Of course,
getting a firm grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as soon
as they get addicted to nuclear energy is a major strategic
coup. But there are far more advantages for the nuclear fuel
suppliers. United under the umbrella of the IAEA, the market
will be completely regulated. As all of them cooperate in
the same organizations and all of them will be interested in
the highest possible earnings, together they will set
world’s nuclear fuel price. Just like today’s world’s oil
prices are decided on the market places of IPE and NYMEX,
nuclear fuel prices will be decided by the happy few.
Now comes
the tricky part. Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The
question is: in what currency (or currencies) will the
customers have to pay? These currencies will become the most
needed and wanted currencies in the world. You can compare
it to today’s US-dollar.
Apparently
these currencies have not been decided yet. But, if each
fuel supplier asks to be paid in its own currency, the world
would widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese Yuan renminbi,
Russian Rubles, euros, English pounds and US-dollars. There
will probably be some preferential order due to each
supplier’s capacity to deliver nuclear fuel. Each of these
countries will know the advantages of the supply of their
currencies to the rest of the world. Of course, in the long
run, each of them will also experience the negative effects
on their economies and, after decades, let their currency
collapse to get rid of the built up debt. In short, this is
what can happen with multiple world currencies. However, the
fact that the plans mention, that the IAEA should become the
intermediary between suppliers and customers, makes it
reasonable to suppose that the IAEA will decide in which
currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely hopes
that this will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be
paid exclusively in dollars, demand for US-dollars and
therewith the US hegemony will be assured for many decades
to come.
The UN theatre
With the project for
a new world order prepared discretely in the background, we
now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3. They
smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world’s nuclear
fuel market. To succeed, they would just need some legal
sauce on the prohibition of uranium enrichment by
non-nuclear-weapon states, with Iran as example. And a UN
Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes
IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries to enrich uranium.
Of course, they
would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the
Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they
will have to take care, that Iran does not leave the
organization before a resolution is successfully voted. For
if so, there would not be any ground for a resolution
anymore. Countries outside the Non-Proliferation treaty,
like Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and Brazil are free to
enrich uranium and do what they want.
The question is: will the US and E3 succeed in seducing
Russia and China?
In the event, that
such a coup of the nuclear-weapon states would succeed, it
would probably put the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the UNO
under enormous strain. These organizations might loose all
credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon states leave.
The result may be opposite to what these organizations were
designed for.
[1] NPT
members:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Tracking_Ch02map.pdf
[2] NPT
text:
http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html (See
article IV)
[3]
Agreement IAEA-Iran:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[4] Iran’s
nuclear history:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html
[5]
Growing opposition against the shah:
http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/iran/history/growing_opposition_to_the_shah.htm
[6]
Mossadeq:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
[7] 60
percent dependency on oil imports:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news
[8] 130
gram of uranium:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html
(last line)
[9]
article 37 of IAEA’s agreement with Iran: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
[10] How
can the dollar collapse in Iran?
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/__Collapse_in_Iran/__collapse_in_iran.html
[11] Fred
Eckhard stating UN’s permission for Iraq’s switch to the
euro:
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2000/20001031.db103100.doc.html
[12]
Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/oilexports.html
[13] Colin
Nunan, Petrodollar or Petroeuro:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
[14] IMF
warning over dollar collapse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2097064.stm
[15]
dollar rates, historical data:
http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html
[16]
Financial
Times, June 5th 2003
[17] Oil markets,
exemple:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_leuffer/leuffer200410010726.asp
Speculation and fear
can, per definition, be influenced.
[18] Iranian Oil
Bourse May 2006:
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32
[19]
GNEP: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
[20] E3
report:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf
[21]
Uranium enrichment:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm
[22] UN
brochure 2004:
http://www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf
[23] NMA
expert group February 2005:
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2005/RCM1/Add%20materials/mna-2005_web.pdf
[24]
ElBaradei’s idea and Bush’ proposal. February 7,
2006:
http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/np/documents/sym05_01_endo_en.pdf
[25] Map
of world’s nuclear fuel stations:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=enr
LIST OF ARTICLES:
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian
Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark (Friday August 05 2005)
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450
Killing the dollar in Iran, By Toni Straka, "With the world
facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at
current price levels,"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html
America's Foreign Owners, Thursday, September 22, 2005
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1712
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse, Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D.,
January 17, 2006
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html
Trading oil in euros - does it matter?,
by Cóilín Nunan,
Published on 30 Jan 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html
