"Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries."

[TBF]

Libya (Arabic: ‏ليبيا‎ Lībiyā, Berber: Libya) is a country in the Maghreb region of North Africa. Bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the north, Libya faces Egypt to the east, Sudan to the south east, Chad and Niger to the south, and Algeria and Tunisia to the west.

With an area of almost 1,800,000 square kilometres (700,000 sq mi), Libya is the fourth largest country in Africa by area, and the 17th largest in the world. The capital, Tripoli, is home to 1.7 million of Libya's 6.4 million people. The three traditional parts of the country are Tripolitania, Fezzan, and Cyrenaica. Libya has the highest HDI in Africa and the fourth highest GDP (PPP) per capita in Africa as of 2009, behind Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. These are largely due to its large petroleum reserves and low population. Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya


Any further questions?

[TBF]

1. Investors should keep a degree of caution in the oil market

"Investors should keep a degree of caution in the oil market - the uncertainty premium will remain in the price until these things are sorted out," Mr James said.

"Libya is the 17th largest oil producer in the world, and can pump about 1.6 million barrels per day, 85 per cent of which is exported to Europe.

But the country's oil production is reported to have fallen to less than 400,000 barrels a day after foreign companies pulled staff out.

Today, futures markets are pricing in a weak start despite a positive finish on Wall St."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/libyan-crisis-set-to-push-oil-prices-up/story-e6frfh4f-1226025058449




Looks like PO is busy "sorting". In case there is still any confusion ...

[jaxx]

2. And?

[TBF]

3. Europe’s single largest oil supplier

Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa with 42 billion barrels of oil and over 1.3 trillion cubic metres of gas. With only 25% of Libya’s surface territory explored to date there is every chance that actual reserves could see this figure dwarfed in coming years.

As Europe’s single largest oil supplier, the second largest oil producer in Africa and the continent’s fourth largest gas supplier, Libya dominates the petroleum sector in the Southern Mediterranean area and has ambitious plans for the future.

http://www.oilandgaslibya.com/

[aquart]

38. WOW! Europe isn't pure of heart!

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

[TBF]

4. Did you have any further questions? nt

[jaxx]

14. Just one.

The opening post said Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries.

In another is said "Libya is the 17th largest oil producer in the world,

Which is it?

[TBF]

15. Richest and Largest are two different words with different meanings. nt

[jaxx]

17. They could.

So which is it?

[Cirque du So-What]

18. Wealth and oil production are two different metrics

just as wealth and income are entirely different. By both yardsticks, the article is correct.

[TBF]

5. Lybiaonline.com

Home page: http://www.libyaonline.com/index.php

Click on "Business": http://www.libyaonline.com/business/

Top news: The price of OPEC basket of twelve crudes stood at 98.68 dollars a barrel on Wednesday, compared with $99.00 the previous day, according to OPEC Secretariat calculations.

[Vinca]

6. And they claim they're protecting the people . . .

:rofl:

[TBF]

8. Yeah, the people who work in the refineries ... nt

[TBF]

7. Libya oil chief says country still honoring deals

"The head of Libya's national oil company says the country is honoring all its commitments and trying to recover from a huge drop in production due to a rebel uprising against ruler Moammar Gadhafi."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M2AD7O0.htm

Translation: Huge drop in production due to rebel uprising. The West (including Europe, they depend upon this resource): "shit, we gotta fix this". "OK, let's do it" says PO. So they go in ostensibly supporting the rebels "free the people" ... Clever? Not really, pretty transparent from my viewpoint.

[Telly Savalas]

22. So since the rebels our undermining oil production

the UN needs to step in to support them. That makes no sense.

Clearly you're part of Obama's media psy-ops program that works to undermine dissent by making people that oppose the action in Libya look like idiots.

[TBF]

23. lol - the facts are very clear here.

We're protecting the oil industry, and we'll say whatever we need to in order to garner mass approval. Is that really so complicated?

[Turborama]

43. !

:rofl: @ the last sentence.

Thanks for the laugh!

[undeterred]

9. If they produced cotton, they wouldn't be worth our time and missiles.

[meow mix]

10. more tears for ghadaffi

Leave that Poor Mr Ghadaffi Aloooooooone!

[TBF]

13. Read the links - this story has nothing to do with Mr. Ghadaffi. nt

[TBF]

11. Oil, Libya and the New Threat to US Imperialism

"Libya accounts for 2% of the world's oil output, but the oil price has climbed by far more than that since the working class-led uprising began."

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/02/474691.html

[jaxx]

19. That's the answer I was looking for with richest and largest.

I knew it would all be the USA's fault.

[TBF]

21. Have you read the articles?

If so please ask intelligent questions based on the content.

As to your sniping, my family has been in this country since Jonas Halstead sailed from England in the late 1600's, so if you want to accuse someone of being "anti-american" try again.

[jaxx]

25. I'll excuse the insult.

If we're comparing ancestors mine were King William of Orange and Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion. So I don't know what you're referring to with the "anti-american" statement. Did I step on your toes?

Understand that if some can make statements, others can contradict them.

[TBF]

26. I was replying to your comment -

"I knew it would all be the USA's fault" as you well know.

Again, you are full of bluster with nothing substantive to say.

[jaxx]

27. delete

no further comment

[Cirque du So-What]

12. More facts about Libya...

SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations , 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th editions for 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 data; CIA World Factbook 2001 for 2000 data.

the Libyan government has weakened the private sector and confined it to mainly small-scale businesses. While this policy has damaged the Libyan economy significantly, it has also prevented the accumulation of wealth by a small percentage of the population. While the ruling elite (i.e., top civil servants, military officers, and politicians), enjoys much higher living standards compared to average Libyans, and corruption exists within its ranks, Libya is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

Read more: Libya Poverty and wealth, Information about Poverty and wealth in Libya http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html#ixzz1H9AbeBhN

I am not attempting in any way to defend the likes of Qadaffi, but is anyone surprised that Big Oil is relentless in their efforts to wrest control of the last drop of oil from control by national leaders? Is it also a surprise that Hugo Chavez - for all his faults - is demonized roundly by these same oily neocons, or that Venezuela is next on the short list of nations to be invaded in order that their oil the people may be 'liberated?' As in Libya, the ordinary people in Venezuela will suffer when that happens, as the neocons will not tolerate anything so 'communistic' as lack of extremes between wealth & poverty. They're well on their way to destroying the middle class in western societies, so you know damned well the neocons want such a quaint, egalitarian notion to become passé in the developing nations as well.

[midnight]

16. No further questions- it's another conquest for resources..

Because if we really cared about people.... We would not make our own vets live in the streets.... We would not take away homes from our children via banking shakedowns. We would not allow corporations to sell our jobs off for profit.... It's all becoming clearer every day....

[TBF]

20. Preambles -

yup - and we certainly were warned. The M$M was preparing us for this earlier in the month:



As fighting continues across Libya, the oil industry is trying to assess the output lost from Africa's third-largest producer.

Most estimates suggest around half of the country's 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil capacity is out of action.

Libya's top oil official has estimated oil output has fallen to 700,000-750,000 barrels per day (bpd).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41907189/Libya_Oil_Production_Outage_Exports_and_Customers

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

28. See you all at the Tripoli International Fairground -

http://www.oilandgaslibya.com/

"More than 50 international oil companies are present in the market and together with subsidiaries of the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) are contributing to the country’s current production capacity of 2m b/d. NOC plans oilfield investment of some $10bn over the coming three years to increase potential production."

[TBF]

29. Chavez nails it.

"They want to seize Libya's oil and they care nothing about the lives of the Libyan people," Chavez said on state TV on Saturday as a five-country coalition, including the United States, France, Britain, Canada and Italy, launched strikes on Libya aimed to cripple the country's ruler Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170846.html

[aquart]

42. No fool he.

I should hope we get good terms for this pricey intervention.

If Bush had waited to assist an insurrection, we would have achieved our goals without the nasty bloody expensive mess that was and is Iraq.

[TBF]

30. UK interests in Libya

This oil has been of interest for awhile. Only 25% of Libya has been explored at this point and it already leads African oil production -

Secret documents uncover UK's interest in Libyan oil
Negotiations fuel rumours of commercial deal behind Megrahi's release
* The Observer, Sunday 30 August 2009

"Shell was one of the first western oil companies to re-enter Libya – one of the world's biggest potential oil sources – following the end of United Nations sanctions and a commitment from leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to turn his back on funding terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons."

Much more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/libya-oil-shell-megrahi

[sarcasmo]

31. And the #1 reason we are bombing.

[TBF]

32. Gaddafi: We won’t give up our children’s wealth

Defiant Gaddafi speech
20/03 12:21 CET

"We won’t give up our children’s wealth, our oil to the Americans, Britons, French and to the Christian countries that formed a coalition against us. We will not leave them to enjoy our oil. They have to know that we will fight on a broad front extending more than 2000 kms. Never, ever, will you be able to make us surrender, this land will defeat you, inevitably.”

http://www.euronews.net/2011/03/20/defiant-gaddafi-speech/

[aquart]

35. He means HIS children's wealth.

If he'd shared, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But I am impressed that he's being quoted on DU like someone we need to heed.

[TBF]

40. Granted he is not an alter boy -

and frankly I don't think he's all that stable. But he's got a point about western countries looking out for the "resources". That oil belongs to Libya, but upset the flow and all of a sudden rockets are aimed at you.

I could care less who the actors are (and I mean that in reference to both Mr. Gaddafi and Mr. Obama) - my goal here is pointing out the imperialist behavior.

[aquart]

44. Duh.

You're so right. Much better to let the aging dictator and his idiot sons kill them all to prove our virtue.

That would be so much better for everyone.

[TBF]

My response to you is the same as my response to others: Rwanda.

We couldn't care less about the killing unless we have some other reason to be there.

Read about the genocide in Rwanda here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

[TBF]

33. Libya says may give oil deals to China, India

Story from yesterday morning - wonder if this played into the bombing decision?? :wow:


Reuters
Posted on Mar 20, 2011 at 07:17am IST

Tripoli: Libya is considering offering oil block contracts directly to China, India and other nations it sees as friends in its month-long conflict with rebels, Libya's top oil official said on Saturday.

Oil companies have pulled out staff and shut operations in the country, formerly Africa's third-largest producer, due to the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's rule, leading to a sharp reduction in output.

National Oil Corporation Chairman Shukri Ghanem, speaking about future projects, said Libya was considering awarding contracts directly to new partners instead of using its more traditional open bidding process.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/libya-says-may-give-oil-deals-to-china-india/146528-2.html

[seabeyond]

34. what i dont get about the oil argument is if it is about the oil, they would be reinforcing current

dictator and not standing up for the protestors. this argument that it is about the oil fails for me. i so no logical reason.... need someone who believes it is about the oil to explain how ousting the govt behooves us with oil

[TBF]

36. I believe we went in to stabilize the country -

Ghaddafi is unpredictable and with the rebel fighters mucking things up (production has decreased due to their activities) we are simply protecting the flow of oil. By "we" in this case I mean the US and Europe (especially Europe, Libya is the top producer of oil going to Europe). I think the coalition is using the "protect the people" message to garner support, but it's really about protecting the flow of oil.

Lots of articles above to support that assertion. At least that is how I'm seeing this.

[seabeyond]

39. even in protecting the flow excuse, it still does not behoove us to side on protestors

because that leaves it up in the air. it may settle things down allowing more a chance for flow to continue but not enough to use as reasoning for going there.

i think it is more arab country after arab country having peaceful protests and come to libya killing protestors expounded the feel of wrong.....

all to the lead up, i felt the u.s. understood the dire predictions with oil flow, but something we would have to deal with

france was the first, the quickest to put out quadaffi? has got to go, which is telling. no hesitation on statement.

[TBF]

41. I think it's enough of an excuse -

if you look at the articles and read about peak oil, Europe's dependence on this particular oil. Siding with the rebels is a smoke screen.

FWIW, I do believe Obama understands the implications of oil and he has pushed other forms of energy. This is not a personal attack on him in any form. Anyone in his position would likely react the same given our capitalistic system and all it entails.

[seabeyond]

47. well,....

i do knwo the situation with oil. i hear what you are saying. with this issue, i can see so many issues. thanks though.

[daleo]

66. Oil companies figure they will get a better deal with the rebels

They are always angling for a better deal - lower royalty rates, greater control, weaker environmental legislation, higher profits. Weak, compliant governments let them keep more of the resource. They expect that rebels placed in power with the help of western military might will be weak and compliant. That's a pretty common-sense expectation.

Even if the rebels lose, Gaddaffi will be more malleable now that he's been given the scare of his life. Also, leaders in other weak oil states around the world will get the message - deal with us or you are out (and dead).

Either way, the western oil companies benefit. Western governments see their interests as aligned with western oil companies, for nationalistic and geo-strategic reasons. Plus, oil companies fund campaigns and pay bribes.

[TBF]

70. That is a good point as well -

Gadaffi has not always been as helpful as they would like - particularly when he's offering to cut deals with China, India, and Brazil outside of the normal bidding process. And very good point about oil companies funding campaigns and paying bribes.

[PhillySane]

37. Why else?

HP-World civilization is based on oil. The world is running out of economically accessible oil. The oil companies and governments are not telling the truth about how close we are to the end. Dick Cheney knew about peak oil back in 1999 when he spoke to the London Petroleum Institute as Halliburton CEO. He predicted it would come in 2010. After that it's just a matter of years before it runs out. Whoever controls the remaining, accessible oil determines who lives and who dies.

Sixty percent of this oil lies in fields within a triangular area of the Middle East the size of Kansas. In that speech Cheney said: "The Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

This small Middle East triangle encompasses the oil fields of northeast of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the southwestern part of Iran, along with Kuwait, Qatar and the Emirates. The US controls Iraq. It has friendly governments in the other states.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/the-coming-war-with-iran_b_96428.html

[BzaDem]

45. I have a further question. How is this at all relevant?

The justification to intervene either exists or does not exist. But the existence of some ulterior motive has nothing to do with it. If preventing the immediate mass slaughter of civilians is a good thing (and I think it is), I don't care at all if others have different motives.

[TBF]

46. My response is - Rwanda.

We could care less about brown people killing each other unless there is some other reason for us to be involved in the country. This has nothing to do with slaughter, and everything to do with protecting the flow of oil. The "protect the people" cry is a smokescreen.

You can read about the genocide in Rwanda here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

[BzaDem]

49. So you would COMPOUND the error of not intervening then by not intervening now, in Libya?

In other words, two wrongs make a right? Really?

[TBF]

50. Is it our job to police the world? If so we should be honest about that

and intervene everywhere people are being killed? Are you prepared to do that?

[BzaDem]

51. The world isn't black and white. There is always a cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis.

If you want to argue that for this particular situation, the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis does not call for intervention, then please do so. But this absolutist non-intervention nonsense is rubbish. On this issue, like many issues, the answer is not to ALWAYS intervene, and similarly not to ALWAYS not intervene.

[TBF]

52. "Cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis"

I didn't say we should never intervene, my question is when? What is your answer? That we should only do it when we've got economic interests in the country?

That may be your position and that's fine - but you should be honest about that. And so should certain world leaders.

[BzaDem]

53. No, that is not my position.

I look at the cost and humanitarian benefit -- not economic benefit.

But let's say a government looking at the economic benefits reaches the same conclusion as I do (looking at the humanitarian benefit). So what? Am I going to start opposing intervention just because they are (hypothetically) doing so for different reasons than I am?

[TBF]

54. That's fine if that's how you really feel -

I personally would love to see other oppressed people liberated, starting with those in Gaza.

But this thread is about the motivations of the US and it's allies in bombing Libya, not about our personal humanitarian preferences.

[Boojatta]

68. Why not start with innocent people who are literally imprisoned?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

[TBF]

69. If you think the Palestinians aren't imprisoned I have a large

bridge to sell you here in the cornfields outside Houston.

I am familiar with the efforts to exonerate prisoners here in Texas (particularly on death row) who have been treated poorly by our legal system, and I support such efforts.

[Boojatta]

73. I should do research before reaching a conclusion.

You have already reached a conclusion, so you should be able to make a contribution to this DU General Discussion thread.

[PhillySane]

62. Then why not jump in there in Bahrain?

[TBF]

71. Excellent point.

We like Bahrain, they do what the capitalists like.



http://www.bahrain.com/investing-arabian-gulf.aspx

[PhillySane]

74. They used violence on their own people

and then called in Saudia Arabia, Oman, UAE, and Qatar to help them keep the revolution down. We haven't said a word about that.

Wonder Why?

[TBF]

75. Well they are likely not threatening to make side deals

with China, India, and Brazil outside of the normal bidding process. Billions of dollars involved ...

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. Imagine that.

Libya produces a LOT of OIL. Who woulda ever thunk it? :eyes:

Just keep repeating: This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission, This is a humanitarian mission.

[PhillySane]

63. I think your computer

has a bug in it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

67. :)

Isn't she cute?

[Starry Messenger]

55. k&r

[Catherina]

56. Bookmarked and rec'd with thanks. Excellent thread n/t

[Boojatta]

57. Yes, I have at least two groups of questions.

In group one, how are countries ranked for richness? For example, are all kinds of debts taken into consideration? Does income matter at all, or is it purely a matter of net assets?

Also, (group two) when you refer to "oil-producing countries", do you really mean "oil-exporting countries"? After all, even one small deposit of oil might be enough to attract a small company to extract the oil, but export is another matter.

[TBF]

58. Group one -

they say they are comparing GDP. Wiki (the source of these facts) defines GDP: Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. It is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living.

Second question re "oil producing countries" - there is no cite on Wiki to back that up. But I do have this graphic in post 24 indicating that they may be speaking of reserves rather than actual exports:


And this graph indicating that a good amount of oil is being exported to Europe:


Does that help? I am not an economist, so I may not be able to answer as specifically as needed, but doing my best here.

[Boojatta]

59. The word "rich" seems to be open to a wide variety of interpretations.

An individual could have a high standard of living while squandering a one-time windfall that the individual might never again have, or while going into debt that will have to be repaid.

We don't know what the future holds. If some person earned no more than $1,000 per month for twenty years and then got hired to work for $10,000 per month, but died three months after getting the job, then would you say that the person died rich?

[TBF]

60. Sure,

but the point of my OP was not to define what "rich" means. I did a little searching and realized that there is quite a little bit of oil in that country. We can argue semantics, but my guess is that it is enough that people noticed when the working class rebels started disrupting production (which articles I've cited above also suggest). So, I came to the conclusion that this military action might just be more about war than humanitarian efforts, and I'm sticking with that thesis.

[Boojatta]

61. Plunder can be a motive for war. It certainly warrants mention in the history books.

However, I rarely read on DU about the "rich" having the role of victim of the powerful. Of course, that's the main narrative in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.

[TBF]

64. This is about control over where that oil goes -

please read the articles above before jumping to conclusions. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but if you're looking for book recommendations try the Communist Manifesto. You're barking up the wrong tree.

[TBF]

65. Editing -

Missed the editing period - this sentence should've read: So, I came to the conclusion that this military action might just be more about oil than humanitarian efforts, and I'm sticking with that thesis.

Sorry about that.

[leftstreet]

72. K&R

Thanks for the info all the links - appreciate it
K&R

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

76. HERE WE GO AGAIN...Follow the oil!

[TBF]

77. Nothing humanitarian about U.S. intervention

Nothing humanitarian about U.S. intervention

The claims of Western governments that their war on Libya is "protecting civilians" is a cover for pursuing imperial interests, write Eric Ruder and Tom Arabia

March 21, 2011

Casualties of the U.S.-led attack on Libya found near al-Wayfiyah, west of Benghazi (Patrick Baz | AFP)Casualties of the U.S.-led attack on Libya found near al-Wayfiyah, west of Benghazi (Patrick Baz | AFP)

WORLD LEADERS and their defenders in the mainstream press are praising the West's "decisive" military action against Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi, but as the long record of "humanitarian" intervention demonstrates, the governments with the ability to use force in Libya have aims and strategies that will not serve the Libyans they are supposedly there to help.

The supposed aim of the Western assault in Libya is to defend the rebellion against Qaddafi's regime, which began in the northeastern region of the country and seemed in mid-February to be on the verge of toppling the dictator. But the regime used its overwhelming military force to counter-attack--currently, forces loyal to Qaddafi are already inside the city of Benghazi, a stronghold of the rebels, and more are positioned on the its outskirts... (much more at link)

http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/21/nothing-humanitarian-about-us-intervention