You are here

LIBYA (and Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc.) - ALL about OIL for ISRAEL

Not surprising that this whole goddamn mess in Libya is just another zionist instigated war for oil.

The price of Brent Crude oil in London plunged more than 3 per cent to $105.5 a barrel this morning.

But there is unlikely to be respite at the pumps for beleaguered motorists because it takes weeks for a plunge in the price of fuel to filter through.

The oil markets will be watching carefully with a smooth transition of power in Tripoli likely to send prices falling further.

Well, the oil market is one culprit we could point to in response to cui bono from the bloodshed in Libya.

But who else stands to gain from a western friendly government in Tripoli?

Around 85per cent of Libyan oil output was exported to Europe until the revolt disrupted the country's production.

European refineries have struggled to make up for the production loss despite an increase from Saudi Arabia.

Someone who wants to see Europe crushed under the strain of higher energy prices in addition to its crushing public debt?

Or perhaps someone who would prefer to reap the benefits of selling OIL and GAS to Europe rather than those greasy Arabs?

Check out this graph below:

It looks like Qadaffi had a decidedly Eurocentric preference for the sale of his country's oil.

In fact, Qadaffi knew quite well that he could use his willingness (or unwillingness) to sell oil to certain countries as a powerful tool of political persuasion (from the US Dept. of State's background note on Libya):

After the 1969 coup, Qadhafi closed American and British bases on Libyan territory and partially nationalized all foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya. He also played a key role in promoting the use of oil embargoes as a political weapon for challenging the West, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in 1973 would persuade the West, especially the United States, to end support for Israel.

No doubt israel stands to gain richly from a more western allied government in tripoli -- willing to sell its oil to israel.

In fact, if you read this Congressional Report from March 2011: Middle East and North Africa Unrest: Implications for Oil and Natural Gas Markets (PDF), paying close attention to the second half which lists each MENA country and its strategic importance (IRAQ, LIBYA, SYRIA, IRAN and EGYPT among others)  you will discover the reason for every political and military intervention by the US and Europe in MENA over the past 10 years.

It's been none other than one massive continuous initiative by the Zionist manipulated West to control the flow of oil from MENA countries.

All roads lead to OIL and the country that stands to benefit most from control over MENA oil is ISRAEL.

Comments

I isn't just the oil. It's also Libya's water. The Middle East and North Africa have drained all their aquifers. Once exporters of grain, most nations in the region must now import grain. With exploding populations, they face famine in the near future.

Do you think I exaggerate? Do I need to write a lengthy post analyzing all this, and naming the exact French companies that want to own Libya's water?

There is a vast section of literature devoted to the coming global water wars. Personally I consider Libya's blue gold (water) to be more important than its oil.

We could live without oil. It would be extremely difficult, but possible. However, no living organisms on earth (including humans) can exist without water.

Without water, there is no food. Famine kills more people than wars, disease, or natural disasters combined.

... and naming the exact French companies that want to own Libya's water?

I'd hazard a guess that Veolia would be amongst those wanting to get their grubby hands on that prize.

We could live without oil. It would be extremely difficult, but possible. However, no living organisms on earth (including humans) can exist without water.

Agreed.

However, I don't think we are at that stage quite yet. Though israel may be.

Also, if you read the US state department's comment on Libya or perhaps the PDF link in the post above, there is something about the shortage of water in Libya as being the reason why they must import 75% of their food.

You make a very good point about water - and israel is definitely a country in search of ample water supply - case in point, their 2006 attack against Lebanon - to get their grubby little hands on the Litani. But, please flesh out a little more the details of your theory on Libya's water and perhaps explain why Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are all on the West's shit list.

As far as I can see - these countries' strategic importance vis-a-vis the production and flow of oil from MENA provide a perfect blueprint for the events of the last ten years, culminating to the so-called "Arab spring."

Maybe it fits for Water too, and I just don't see it.

But while, yes, humans can't live without water - the West (which with the exception of israel appears to be okay so far when it comes to water) they can't DOMINATE the world without military WARS (at least not yet) and they can't win those wars without OIL.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

READERS:

please take time to follow the second two links in my post and the last one.

Along with THIS ONE by Greg Bacon, they each elaborate in further detail why I am now convinced that it's all about OIL for ISRAEL.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

Oil prices have been quite volotile of late. The example given above presents no context that supports the argument that a 3% move has much significance.

The fact that Ghadaffi supported the (failed) Arab oil embargo in 1973 is an extremely weak explanation for an overthrow in 2011.

Just prior to the outbreak of the Libyan rebellion new oil contracts had been signed with various Western oil majors. Are we to assume that they did not like the agreements that they had just reached?

"Oil for Israel"?

How much oil can Israel use?

Besides, Israel will soon be a net exporter of oil anyhow.

It's far past the time that we put this tired canard of "war for oil" to rest. Oil is an abundant and inexpensive commodity that is freely traded. Wars are fought for territory and dominance.

??????

Update:

10:42 PST Monday

Oil is currently posted at $83.69/barrel

Up $1.38 for the NY trading session so far - August 22.

I guess the London session has pretty much been cancelled out.

??????

I agree with “Aletho News”…

“It's far past the time that we put this tired canard of 'war for oil' to rest…Wars are fought for territory and dominance.”

Yes. I appreciate that anti-war demonstrators want a simple slogan like, “No war for oil." But would those same people literally give up fuel, fertilizers, plastics, petrochemicals, and so on -- in exchange for ending the wars?

Of course not.

The Imperialists see these “no war for oil” clowns and say, “Maybe we should give them want they want for a month. Then watch how fast they change their tune.”

I prefer slogans such as “Jobs, not wars.” Or, “No war for the rich.”

The scramble for Libya’s oil wealth begins 

On Monday, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said on state television that the Italian oil company Eni “will have a No. 1 role in the future” of Libya. He said Eni technicians were already on their way to eastern Libya, which is Italy’s largest source of imported oil.

Eni, as well as BP of Britain, Total of France and OMV of Austria, stand to gain the most. 

Before the NATO attack, Libya produced around 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, of which about 1.3 million was exported, mainly to refineries in southern Europe. That is less than 2 percent of world supplies, but only Nigeria, Algeria and a few other countries can supply equivalent grades of sweet crude that many refineries around the world depend on. 

American companies like Hess, ConocoPhillips and Marathon also made deals with the Qaddafi government, although the United States relies on Libya for less than 1 percent of its imports.

Russia, China and Brazil did not support the NATO attack, and will therefore be excluded from any oil deals, as was NATO’s plan from the beginning.

“We don’t have a problem with Western companies,” said Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco, “But we have issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”

Qaddafi angered the Western oil companies by asking that they not rape Libya. Some experts say that given a free hand, oil companies will be able to suck Libya dry quicker than they could under the restrictions placed by the Qaddafi government.

The NATO attack forced major oil companies to withdraw their personnel, and production plummeted over the last several months to a 60,000 barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency. That was 20 percent of Libya’s normal domestic needs. The rebels were able to steal crude that was stored at ports, and sell it for cash on the international market through Qatar.

The rebels and NATO will have to establish security over major fields, pipelines, refineries and ports. 

Italy in recent years has relied on Libya for more than 20 percent of its oil imports.

France, Switzerland, Ireland and Austria all depended on Libya for more than 15 percent of their imports.

Libya’s importance to France was underscored on Monday when President Sarkozy summoned the head of the rebels’ national transitional council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, to Paris for instructions. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html

The people behind this state-sponsored carnage and heist and others like it never do things for one reason alone. 

The rationale for the bombardment of Libya and support for rebels (who, in any another year would have been termed terrorists) is likely to be a combination of:

  1. Libya's 144 tonnes of gold, the 25th largest gold reserves in the world. Maybe even higher than 25th, given that Fort Knox gold is widely suspected to be composed of tungsten cores.
  2. Gaddafi's intention to introduce a gold dinar (see the video on the previous link)
  3. Gaddafi's plan to demand gold instead of pieces of paper or numbers in a computer in return for Libya's oil and natural gas.
  4. Control of the flow of oil.  Just as in Iraq, through the decommissioning of oilfields by blowing them sky high, the supply can be strangled, forcing the price per barrel upwards.
  5. The Nubian Sandstone Acquifer System and the Great Man-made River Project, which transports 2 million cubic metres of water a day. Such a monumental water distribution scheme could be used to make large tracts of Libyan desert (desert makes up 95% of the Libyan territory) arable and result in Libya becoming self-sufficient food-wise.  
    It would not take much to redirect this water from an eastern city, such as Benghazi, across Northern Egypt and into a quasi-nation that has routinely appropriates the water of its neighbours and has started wars with its neighbours in an attempt to gain access to water resources.

You missed my point, but it's my fault for not fleshing out my case for lack of time. Even now I don't have time to include the details from all the links I provided in the above post.

But interested readers should check back this weekend for a more detailed case of my theory.

For now, in short, CONTROL of the oil is what israelis are after, not simply oil for the sake of oil.

Not only is oil a direct source of power to fuel the zionist military apparatus by which they dominate countless countries around the world, CONTROL over oil gives zionists POWER over others, and ROBS the Arabs of the power and influence they now have, not to mention the wealth it would bring for israel from its sale to European nations.

Anyway, more later...until then I urge readers who don't feel like waiting for me to compile the evidence, to follow the links I included in my post for all the evidence you need.

Lastly, please provide a source for the proposition that israel stands to become a net exporter of oil in the near future. This is inconsistent with everything I've read about israel's oil resources which are negligible.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

Didn't see ur comment before I posted mine.

Thanks very much for the excellent info! Very plausible indeed.

I agree that control over OIL need not be the only reason for invading any one country on the list but it is the thread that runs through them all.

___________________________

"Money" has no value - people do.

"Russia, China and Brazil did not support the NATO attack, and will therefore be excluded from any oil deals, as was NATO’s plan from the beginning."

China is the fastest growing oil producer in North America. if the US wanted to exclude them from opportunities they could easily start at home.

Brazil's Petrobras is the world's leading offshore producer, there is no possibility that they will be "excluded" from Libyan operations.

As usual the NYT is trying to sell wars of aggression with propaganda, in this case they wish us to beleive that Western industries have gained something. It's not true.

Qrswave,

There is no such thing as "control of oil".

Once oil is put on a ship the producer has no way to control the ultimate destination of the cargo. This is why the Arab oil embargo was a total failure.

Oil can be strategic in a world war type of situation but this has no bearing on the current US/NATO wars because there is no threat to US or NATO shipping. In fact the US has far and away the world's most powerful navy including air dominance from aircraft carriers etc... Nobody is going to put a serious dent in oil imports through use of force or boycott.

Profiteering from oil is done in London and New York by commodities trading, some cargoes change ownership more than a dozen times during transit, occassionally, given unusual price swings, the port of destination changes mid-course.

Oil majors make a steady, almost risk free, killing from transport, refining and marketing. They like it that way and have no interest in taking on all of the high risk upstream activities such as exploration and operation of production fields.

My guess is that, NYT propaganda notwithstanding, Libya's oil arrangements will not change significantly in the aftermath of the regime change, just as Iraq's have not either.

Claiming that a war is "for oil" is not that different from claiming that a war is for corn or coal. It simply makes no sense whatsoever. There are far easier ways to obtain any commodity and there is no advantage in militarily occupying a production field.

The big news about Israel's offshore shale fields has been posted at WUFYS, estimates place the reserves in the realm of Saudi Arabia's. Oil is abundant and widely dispersed, it is not something that would motivate wars of aggression.

??????

Investment bankers salivate over North Africa

 Aletho News | March 8, 2011

??????

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer