Guest Post: Something's Fishy in Tripoli

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Daniel J. Graeber of Oilprice.com

Something's Fishy in Tripoli

Way back in early 2011, members of the U.N. Security Council had no problem getting a resolution through that authorized military force in Libya ostensibly to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to strongman Moammar Gadhafi. The year before, lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic were bickering over who did what and why in terms of the cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber. This Scottish decision to release him, depending on which U.S. lawmaker you spoke with, was tied to a BP deal to drill for oil in Libya. Despite fractures in the new interim government in Tripoli and reports of renewed protests, a decision by the Italian government to quietly discuss trade relations suggests something isn't quite right in the way Western allies pick their fights.
 
OPEC last year refused to budge when economic doomsayers were predicting the end of days because the war in Libya was pushing oil prices to highs that threatened some mythical economic recovery somewhere in the world. The International Energy Agency stepped in, but by January, oil majors in Libya were saying production levels had more or less returned to normal, all things considered. Italian energy company Eni, which had pretty nice contracts with Gadhafi's government, is happily churning out oil from fields in Libya that were left, for all intents and purposes, unscathed by the best NATO had to offer. Even the most pessimistic oil analysts are surprised at how fast Libyan oil production is back online.
 
In October, rebel forces presumably said to hell with it and figured they'd save everyone a lot of time by killing Gadhafi themselves. The ICC didn't seem to mind much and a now-fractured interim government did little to worry the Italian government enough to decide during the weekend that business was booming in post-Gadhafi Libya.
 
Before the conflict began, a group of Democratic lawmakers in Washington issued a 123-page report claiming the 2009 decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was tied to commercial oil interests with Tripoli.  A British inquiry into the case found BP was involved to some extent in the 2009 decision because, according to New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer, London wanted an oil deal to go through with the Gadhafi government.
 
So where were these same senators when it was announced in November that Abdulrahman Ben Yezza was appointed as the new Libyan oil minister? He's the former chairman of Eni Oil Co., a joint venture between the Italian energy company and Libya's National Oil Corp. Why no furor when Eni Chief Executive Officer Paulo Scaroni became the first executive from an oil major to visit when he went to Tripoli in September? For that matter, where are the Democrats in the United States?
 
It seems rather duplicitous to on one hand sit and debate censuring Syria at the Security Council for 10 months while it took, what, a few weeks to get one through on Libya? Was Gadhafi's Libya somehow ripe for the picking? Was the Libyan resolution simply too crafty for those pesky Russians?
 
Italy and Libya during the weekend signed a letter that spells out bilateral coordination for the protection of its borders and oil installations. Makes you wonder who is drawing up what at which European energy company as U.S. battle carriers head to the western Iranian coast.

Comment viewing options

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

Nah, maybe US was just interested in MG's gold.

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Black Gold indeed... be sure to check out "Beyond The Peak" in the latest Zeitgeist movie (skip forward to 2:23:43) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

blu's picture

News flash for all you: In the end it don't matter who holds the oil so long as they'll sell it to the US priced in dollars.

Don't blame me, it's not my thinking --  but it's someone's thinking -- and they have gunships.

Flakmeister's picture

Yes! The Hedge is finally starting to grasp it...

(This has been my thesis here for nigh on a year, it passes Occams Razor with flying colors)

disabledvet's picture

so why the production collapse then? if it's all about "pricing oil in dollars"...it doesn't do any good if the oil is sitting in the ground. i agree with the article: we have massive amounts of corruption...and so many people are waiting to get their cut of "Pie Libya" that bascially it's a total cluster phuck.

Flakmeister's picture

Corruption exists...  always has and always willl...deal with it, and quit being naive...

The US would rather see the oil sit in the ground than be made unavailable at the wrong terms...

Manthong's picture

Unless the oil is in Canada, then we would rather see it shipped to China.

Flakmeister's picture

As long as it is priced in dollars, the US does not care.

bonderøven-farm ass's picture

No worries.  Keystone will be surveyed, engineered, trenched, welded, as-built, and flowing regardless of Barry's position.  Too much money being thrown around for it not to happen.  

Cpl Hicks's picture

You'd best not let Michelle hear you talking like that.

She might come down on you like a ton of...bricks.

Questan1913's picture

FLAKEMASTER,

Appreciate your endorsement of corruption; I will most certainly embrace it with renewed enthusiasm.  Thanks for guiding me, and of course others onto the path of the truly enlightened.  Why don't you consider offering your services to those deluded individuals who have rejected corruption?   Please consider leading them out of their present wilderness of naivety and unselfishly elevate these wretches to your exalted level.  Thanks........so much.

Flakmeister's picture

Not an endorsement....by any stretch...

Do you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus???

 

Questan1913's picture

Flakmeister,

I understand.  I do believe in the tooth fairy and Santa too  I also believe, and your going to laugh out loud at this one!  that maybe there might be just a little bit of benefit if some of us had a bit more of a moral compass.

Flakmeister's picture

The problem is that even if 99% of people have that moral compass, and no doubt you possess it, is that the 1% ruin it...

But its worse than that....

Given that anywhere from 5-10% of the population can be reliably classified as socio-pathic, do you not think that relying on "the moral compass" is a tad naive??

I harbor no illusions about the issue of corruption...

I do not think that you would approve of a society if enforcement of the required regulations to control corruption was standard practice.... If you do, then you are positing a statist and very likely socialist solution....

Then again, is that what you are trying to get at?

Colonial Intent's picture

"If you do, then you are positing a statist and very likely socialist solution...."

No he's not, he's positing that the rule of law is preferable to the law of the jungle.

Since when does that mean socialist or statist,?

 

 

Flakmeister's picture

Rule of Law requires enforcement.... and just who is doing the enforcing??

Born Right the FIRST Time's picture

+1                                                                                                                                                        TPTB do not go to war for oil,they go to war for the CONTROL of oil

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

If you LOVE OIL TALK be sure to check out "Beyond The Peak" in the latest Zeitgeist movie... skip forward to 2:23:43 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

old naughty's picture

Thanks for the link TMFC.

I am disappointed that only about 13.8 million viewers have awakened to see this, not more.

Thanks for sharing.

Questan1913's picture

blu,

"News flash for all you: In the end it don't matter who holds the oil so long as they'll sell it to the US priced in dollars.

Don't blame me, it's not my thinking -- but it's someone's thinking -- and they have gunships"

Excellent point.  The late independent country of Iraq was close to setting up its own oil bourse, not priced in dollars but that intention was terminated along with the lives of roughly 500,000 Iraqis.  All is well now though, THERE, isn't that better!  If you squint real hard you also can just make out the fact that every country that the good ol US has threatened or conquered over the last 10 or even twenty years was sitting on a fortune in oil, was considering moving away from dollar denominated sales or, and this is good, was not a member of the international central bank cartel..  There are very few of those holdouts left.  They had the temerity to resist joining the club so they were made an offer they could not refuse, Godfather style.  Iran is the current example in the crosshairs.  Libya was the most recent example  MG came to a horrible end, as a warning to others, kinda like a horses head in the bed.  For many countries on the world stage, their existence now is analgous to a family living in a totally lawless neighborhood with the most barbaric elements roaming at will, armed to the teeth, plundering and pillaging while extremely well dressed and endlessly proiclaiming their good intentions and motives.  Gunships indeed.

Rick Masters's picture

That is a most excellent analysis Questan1913. Who the hell wants to get Gaddafi'd? Did 500,000 Iraqis really die though? That seems harsh and I'm not looking forward to the blowback because rest assured there be some majorly pissed offf orphans.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

When asked on live American TV if the sanctions on Iraq killed 500K Iraqi women and children, the US Secretary of State Madeline Albright said yes and that it was worth it.  So at least 500K dead.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Do you think there would be as much global strife and skullduggery going on if all there was available to be pumped from the ground was Oil of Olay?

Yeah, I thought not.

Sean7k's picture

We would all have skin like babies with a separate faucet in every home- as long as it was priced in dollars...

disabledvet's picture

there's NO SHORTAGE OF OIL. LET IT GO. The problem is with PRICES...this goes directly to monetary policy and "free money." This is how everything is getting paid for--oil, food, "hopefully housing" as the Fed Chairman said today--it's all about the state goal of creating inflation...without the commensurate rise in interest rates.

Rick Masters's picture

Skullduggery and oil of olay, you rock CD!

There is No Spoon's picture

It's France and England's turn, they're mobilizing their navies on behalf of Total and BP. But of course the U.S. will get the lion's share of the carcass.

Sean7k's picture

Western governments killing brown people over their resources AND splitting them up in ways that benefit all the players? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

 

Flakmeister's picture

Here are your gambling winnings....

Eclipse89's picture

Now, you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you, buddy?

but what about Total here? LOL

Forgiven's picture

SeanK, I guess that's evidence that hope and change brought neither.

dick cheneys ghost's picture

BP got some kind of waiver to continue operating in IRAN......go figure....

brettd's picture

A waiver from who?

Littl' Timmy?

Uncle Joe?

This is anarchy wrapped up with a pretty PR bow.

GovtMediaLiars's picture

Anarchy? Ha, we should be so lucky.

This is centrally planned chaos my man, not anarchy.
It will only get more chaotic as planning encompasses more and more activities, and grows more and more centralized.

Something that is not all that intuitive and therefore totally escapes most people I think.

Cheers!

 

 

BLOTTO's picture

The whole war with Libya was fuckin fishy...

The same images over and over again...

Some guys driving around in thier half-tonne chevy/ford pickup trucks with a machine gun in the back... with someone firing shells into the air at only God knows what?

I never seen one image of the Libyan army - not one.

Where is the national hero of Libya - the guy who shot Gadhafi? You would think that they would have posters and chanting his name? No silence. You would think the people would be carrying their national hero on their shoulders? No nothing.

Why does Gadhafi - leave his stronghold.. to come back to his hometown fully knowing that they are waiting for him...thgan to try and escape back...only to get caught in a cross-fire...and then goes and hides in a concrete culvert by himself? ...

- Does A guy worth billions of dollars do that?

The whole dame system and the world is a lie.

The Count's picture

It's just like the movie Wag the Dog. Only it's real.

rjiver33's picture

I used to live there in Benghazi.  I spoke with my Libyan friend when the conflict was in full effect. Yes it was real....

BLOTTO's picture

Unfortunately, that does not answer or address any of my points...

I know this may be stretching it a bit, but i wouldnt be surprised if they filmed SOME of those images from other places... How do we really know? Because its on CNN right? Exactly.

 

FranSix's picture

I'll tell you why. Ghadaffi died by every hand that brutally acted on impulse, and proved all of us bloodthirsty. We've been robbed of a public hangink, a potempkin ritual. But the bomber walks free.

BLOTTO's picture

Fran, to stretch it even one last step further...

He may even still be alive. Im not saying for sure, just leaving it open.

He could have easily been whisked away before the shit really hit the fan...he had big friends in high places.

Those images they had of his dead body in the freezer and when he was getting thrown around down the street - we're very shady...anyone can easily tell that.

Also, the illuminati contolled mass media did an excellent job of diverting our thinking...in the sense that not once did anyone/reporter even remotely ask or suggest the idea if it indeed was - Gadhafi?!?

No, they just went through the same idea of repeating images of his last moments and what were a few of the small details leading up to his 'death.'  To lead the masses thought procees in a different direction - to spin the heads the other way...for a lack of better words.

Rick Masters's picture

You make some good points. Where is Libya's hero? No one knows. Of course who shot Bin Laden? But I do think Gaddafi got Gaddif'd. It's absurd.

memyselfiu's picture

I couldn't agree more with your assessment....same thing I felt

The Count's picture

The fish stinks from the head (as in Washington/London). What else is new. 

brettd's picture

So Moscow, Bejing and Rio carry no weight?

BLOTTO's picture

Despite his faults and eccentricities, this much we can say with confidence about Moammar Gadhafi that so long as he ruled over Libya he would never have permitted a NATO military presence in that country. It follows that so long as he ruled over Libya NATO could never launch an attack on Egypt with ground troops pouring into Egypt from across the Libyan border. 
Thanks to the cattle, such an attack on Egypt is now possible. It is time therefore for every Egyptian to bearmed - as every Venezuelan is armed - in preparation for what can now be clearly seen in the horizon.  
We may also note that there were economic and monetary reasons as well for the shameless NATO attack on tiny Libya. The Zionists now have not only Iraqi but also Libyan oil in their control, and it seems only a matter of time before they assume direct control over Saudi oil as well. Zionist control over oil would
eventually translate into Israeli oil blackmail for a world now dependent on oil for economic survival. 

Finally it is reported that Libya had no foreign debts. As a consequence the Zionist-controlled international banking system could not bring this errant state under its influence and control. But the Zionists never give up. When the banking system failed to deliver this country to their control they then resorted to NATO.  There remains one part of this puzzle which defies explanation. Why did Russia and China support the UN Security Council resolution which permitted NATO military intervention in Libya? Were these two States
really that dumb that they could not foresee the consequences of their support for the resolution? Or is there more to this than meets the eye? -I.H.

 

Ratscam's picture

it did not help MG that he also planned to introduce a gold dinar as an african currency.
Russia and China supported the UN, why did they not threaten to intervene like Russia did with Syria or China with Iran?
As you said they cant be that stupid but heck, i cannot find an answer to this. Anyone has an idea?

Desert Irish's picture

Ghadaffi was a nuisence both to the West and China especially in Africa with his dreams of organizing and funding a Pan African State. Ghadaffi was funding approx 15 nations in Africa including Zimbawe, Mali, Liberia, Chad, Uganda, CAR, the ANC, Sierra Leone, Congo etc....and wasn't afraid to directly intervene in other countries politics including using force. That funding has gone. China is now in every single one of those countries snapping up resources.....just saying

falun bong's picture

He had loaned Italian banks, mostly Unicredito, tens of billions after 2008. They didn't feel like paying him back.