US To Purchase Oil From Libyan Rebels, Thereby Funding "Flickers" Of Al Qaeda

Tyler Durden's picture

Following recent news that the supremely organized Libyan rebels have established their own central bank and oil company (does anyone recall when rebels merely rebelled instead of immediately setting up an oil export infrastructure and a fiat counterfeiting authority... those were the days), we now learn that this impressively "impromptu" development may have actually been intended all along. From Reuters: "The United States on Monday gave a green light to sales of Libyan crude oil from rebel-held territory, giving a potential boost to forces battling Muammar Gaddafi. A U.S. Treasury Department official said Libyan
rebels would not be subject to U.S. sanctions if they avoid entities
linked to Gaddafi's regime, which would allow them to sell oil under
their control.
" And confirming just hos hypocritical any international embargo attempts are, here is the Un confirming that when it comes to determining international priorities, the only word that matters is the one that did not figure once in Obama's Libya speech yesterday: "There is no U.N. embargo on Libyan oil," a U.N.
Security Council diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity. "The
rebels can sell oil. But they can't do it through the Libyan National
Oil Corporation."" And the kicker: according to the US NATO leader among those profiting from this latest move of US desperation is none other than Al Qaeda.

From Reuters:

The rebels, who retook a number of oil fields and terminals in eastern Libya over the weekend and were advancing west toward Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte, must first establish clear lines of control and payment systems that do not involve Libya's National Oil Corp, its central bank nor any other government entity, the official said.

No special permission would be needed from the Security Council's Libya sanctions committee, which oversees compliance with the sanctions, for the rebels to sell oil, envoys said.

The Treasury on February 25 banned U.S. transactions with Libya's state oil producer, the central bank and other state entities in an effort to cut off revenues to Gaddafi's regime, in line with sanctions imposed by the U.N. and European Union.

With the backing of Western air strikes, Libyan rebels have retaken the main oil terminal cities in eastern Libya, including Es Sider, Ras Lanuf, Brega, Zueitina and Tobruk.

A senior Libyan rebel official said on Monday that rebels were in "active discussions" to have sanctions lifted on sales of oil from east Libyan fields.

Ali Tarhouni, who is in charge of the rebels' economic, financial and oil matters in Benghazi said the fields were capable of pumping 100,000 to 130,000 barrels per day of crude, and most of this would be exported because of low refining capacity in eastern Libya. Before the crisis began, Libya was producing about 1.6 million barrels per day.

"We hope they will be lifted for the liberated areas as quickly as possible," Tarhouni said of the sanctions. "Not with everybody, but with some countries."

While we will not comment on the apparent hypocrisy of this latest development by the light crude starved US administration (sorry Saudi Arabia, nobody buys your lies about excess capacity anymore - proof here), what we will comment on is that the next time Gaddafi's forces retake any and all oil fields currently in rebel hands, and pumping on behalf of the US, they will likely not receive a very friendly treatment. Especially since it now appears that K-Daf was actually spot on when he argued that Al Qaeda is reinforcing the rebels:

There is a good chance NATO pressure will encourage Libyan tyrant Moammar Gadhafi to leave power, the U.S. NATO commander told Congress Tuesday, but the opposition that could come in the Libyan leader's wake has "flickers" of al Qaeda.

While there is a wide range of possible outcomes in Libya, running from a static stalemate to Gadhafi cracking, there is a "more than reasonable" chance of Gadhafi leaving power, Adm. James Stavridis said before the Senate Armed Services Committee,

But potential "flickers" of al Qaeda and Hezbollah elements have been seen in intelligence regarding the Libyan opposition, which is poised to take power if Gadhafi leaves, Stavridis said. However, he added there is no evidence of a significant presence of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Stavridis is also the commander of U.S. European Command.

"The intelligence that I'm receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership that I'm seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Col. Gadhafi," Stavridis added.

There is probably "a sprinkling of extremists to perhaps include al
Qaeda" in Libya among the rebels, "but no one should think the
opposition is being led by al Qaeda or one of its affiliates," the
official said. Al Qaeda has had a presence in North Africa for years. It
"wouldn't be surprising if small numbers -- a handful"-- of extremists
or al Qaeda are in Libya.

Thus in one easy step, the administration appears to have lost all its prior animosity toward Al Qaeda (and after all September 11 was so long ago...), and is now bypassing international embargoes to deal directly with them.

What next: we get confirmation that Al Qaeda is also providing crystal meth to Libya's rebels?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tekhneek's picture

Shocker, bitchez.

redpill's picture

Afghanistan 1979 all over again


Dr. Porkchop's picture

Just wait until this new rebel government becomes the biggest purchaser of Treasuries, next to the Fed!

SilverIsKing's picture

What are they getting per gallon for Premium Unleaded?  It's $3.959 near me and I could use a break.

Pseudo Anonym's picture

It's $3.959 near me and I could use a break.

move to Canada/Ontario where it is US$4.80/gal.

Dr. Porkchop's picture

I live there!


...but I beat the system by purchasing it cheaper by the litre for about $1.24


/sarc tag for the humor impaired.

tonyw's picture

Move to London where it's GBP1.35 x 1.61 (exchange rate) x 3.785 (litres to US gallons) = $8.23


Manthong's picture

“The earliest plan has the president arriving in Dublin for several events and then flying by helicopter to Moneygall, the ancestral home  of his sixth great grandfather Falmouth Kearney…”

Since O’Bama is going to be on that side of the world visiting his ancestral home, he might as well swing Air Force One over to Libya and drop a few wheelbarrows of 400 oz. gold bars off to Al Qaeda, err, I mean the Muslim Brotherhood, no wait… I mean the rebels in payment for the oil.


Rahm's picture

Welcome back Carter, Bitches!

Rodent Freikorps's picture

RAS LANOUF, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat in an hourslong battle Tuesday. The fighting underscored the dilemma facing the U.S. and its allies in Libya: Rebels may be unable to oust Gadhafi militarily unless already contentious international airstrikes go even further in taking out his forces.

Opposition fighters pleaded for strikes as they fled the hamlet of Bin Jawwad, where artillery shells crashed thunderously, raising plumes of smoke. No such strikes were launched during the fighting, and some rebels shouted, "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of using air power against Gadhafi.


tonyw's picture

The rebels are totally unorganised, they stream westwards using up precious fuel then as soon as Gadhafi's forces attack them they run back. They have no concept about planning an operation and are defeated by simply outflanking them.

What happened to all the army guys who defected?

SWRichmond's picture

Afghanistan 1979 all over again

Does anyone still believe this is unintentional?  Coming across the bottom of Bloomberg TV: "Obama does not rule out arming Libyan rebels."  Welcome to the new war.

tekhneek's picture

4 in the stink, 1 in the pink. The Obama 5000.

jkruffin's picture

Ok, be honest, who didn't actually know this was all about "OIL" again?


Who believed Oshama?

Raynja's picture

He said we are protecting 'our interests' about 41 times and I'm pretty sure they don't export porn or coke

tekhneek's picture

Hey, you leave porn and coke out of this.

...besides, last time I checked lubes handy to have when you're "consuming" either (both) of those things.

Alienated Serf's picture

Look, as long as we can rescue that poor terrorist that BP got released from Scotland, it is all worth it.  We can't have people suffereing under quadaffi.

AnAnonymous's picture

Ok, be honest, who didn't actually know this was all about "OIL" again?



Many, many others. All the crowd who think that until the gas pump price has not changed for them, it is not about oil. Duplicity is high in the US, and people will stick to their fallacies because they choose to. For them, it will never be about oil. And this piece of news is not enough to corner them in.

John Law Lives's picture

This would motivate Gaddafi to destroy the oil infrastructure rather than watching rebels make money.

Mike2756's picture

That would motivate the allies to eliminate Gaddafi! He'll take the easy way out and leave the country.

dark pools of soros's picture

why?  he's gonna die soon - why not go out full bonkers?

cossack55's picture

And how many people with only 1/2 brain did not know this was happening since day one? Research ICG, CFR, Brookings Institute.

Mongo's picture

This would give Al Quaida the opportunity to fund their own airline business... one-way trips to selected building in Europe and the US...

duckduckMOOSE's picture

LOL! 72 Virgins Airlines.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Come, on, I'm sure most of these rebels are just moderate evildoers, not radical ones.

Sudden Debt's picture





WE'LL LIBERATE IRAN!! lots of oil over there to.

dbTX's picture

let's liberate ourselves from this yo yo in the WH

Stuck on Zero's picture

And no doubt they only accept dollars in payment for crude.

Raynja's picture

pretty sure they are trading oil for humvees and ak47s

tekhneek's picture

eh, prolly mosin nagant's. straight through concrete/armor and about 4:1 ratio w/ AK-47's. Oh yeah. LOL, and NATO makes the ammo.

alien-IQ's picture

I guess this will help cut the US deficit by reducing the amount of money the CIA has to pump into Al-Qaeda...after all...a bogeyman ain't cheap to manufacture let alone sustain.

i-dog's picture

+1  LOL

However, the CIA doesn't need to use taxpayer funds ... too traceable! ... they pay Al-Qaeda from the profits of drug trafficking out of Afghanistan and Colombia.

On the other hand, the US military presence to protect the drug trafficking costs the taxpayer a motza!

Bobbyrib's picture

I see, the Patriot Act only applies to the public, not the government. Fund al Qaeda on!

midget's picture

Support the camel jockeys

Shameful's picture

See now the US will have an excuse to forever stay in Libya.

"We know there is Al Quaeda in Libya! They are extremely well trained, armed, and funded. We would know we armed, trained, and funded them...but we have to occupy Libya till they have democracy..or no more light sweet. Whichever happens first."

Mike2756's picture

All wars end, not necessarily on a good note, look at how many Nazis skated.

alien-IQ's picture

Only wars against armies end...a war against an idea is forever...hence the "war on terror".

If you can brand an idea as being the enemy...go long body bags and detention centers and short the bill of's a winning trade.

TBT or not TBT's picture

The british navy declared war on "slavery", unilaterally, and kept it up until it was pretty well elliminated on the seas they controlled.     Ditto with "piracy" back when we used to just kill them and used to be OK with merchant ships and pleasure craft being armed.    So there are two bad phenomena that go away when you wage war on them.

alien-IQ's picture

are you intentionally being obtuse? or do you really not see a difference between slavery, piracy and "terrorism"?

and also...piracy ended? really? are you sure about that? think...

TBT or not TBT's picture

Indeed, piracy has restarted, because we no longer handle it the way we used to..i.e. killing them, and having arms on private vessels.   It is a piece of cake for crew of a freighter to ward off small pirate boats with small arms, nevermind, oh, a 50 cal deck gun, even a semi-automatic one.   Smaller private craft would have a harder time, but then smaller craft have less booty on them, and why in Allah's name would pirates want to be shot at for so little potential upside?    An armed society is polite society, and so is a sea filled with armed merchant marine and private craft.    Thing is, you can't dock in most of the world, as a private vessel while so equipped.   So we have piracy.    Pirates and governments have arms, but not their victims, and we get the expected results.

As to rumours of my obtusity, some of them are true, but not this one.   Slavery and piracy are phenomena, methods...just as  terrorism is, and there is a long history of largely wiping such phenomena out.

macholatte's picture

Peel back all the humanitarian/human rights bullshit and get down to brass tacks.... FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Who are the Rebels?

Where did they get their toyz?

Who has been financing them?

How long have they been active?

Why didn't Libyan intelligence know about them?

Who are the puppet masters?


It's not just about oil. The oil is a means to acquire money to do other things, like create another Islamic state with the assistance of our Communist Muslim President and all his minions and handlers.

I'm not surprised. I'm disgusted.


macholatte's picture

I'm not kidding. You, anybody, answer those questions. I can't.


Bobbyrib's picture

I was referring to the Muslim part.