The Libya Deception

23-03-2011 02:28AM

phosphate wrote: »

If you answer my question, you'll know the answer to your own question.

I did. It doesn't.
So America/the UN are stopping a deal from a Russian or Chinese company by taking down a leader that had been happy to supply them with oil because OPEC were planing to hold out on them?
But both Russia and China could have stopped that with a single no vote form either of them. And also the Arab League, which incorporates many of the countries in OPEC has supported the UN/NATO action.

So if this is a ploy by the US to gain more control over Libya's oil than Russia, China and OPEC why aren't they doing anything about it?

phosphate · 23-03-2011 02:42AM

King Mob wrote: »

I did. It doesn't.
So America/the UN are stopping a deal from a Russian or Chinese company by taking down a leader that had been happy to supply them with oil because OPEC were planing to hold out on them?
But both Russia and China could have stopped that with a single no vote form either of them. And also the Arab League, which incorporates many of the countries in OPEC has supported the UN/NATO action.

No you didn't. What's the name of the company?
If you knew the name of the company, you wouldn't need to ask me why russia/china abstained.

So if this is a ploy by the US to gain more control over Libya's oil than Russia, China and OPEC why aren't they doing anything about it?

I never said US wanted more control over it. I said it was critical that europe maintained greater control over it's supply as it becomes more dependent on russia for energy.

What i have disputed with regard to the US is the claim of Clinton, the airstrikes are to protect libyan people.

the only way to break that europes dependency on russia is to muscle in on libya and take some of it's oil and gas.

so what company offered to buy all oil and gas from libya?
which company has a monopoly on energy in europe?

23-03-2011 02:48AM

phosphate wrote: »

No you didn't. What's the name of the company?
If you knew the name of the company, you wouldn't need to ask me why russia/china abstained.

I give, you're not going to actually address my points anyway.
What's the name of the company?

Though I sense you're going to be super mature and not say.

phosphate · 23-03-2011 03:05AM

gazprom have a monopoly on gas in europe so the u.s/europe are concerned about it because they can use europes dependence as a political tool...russia is still enemy of west.

The struggle to reduce dependence on Gazprom

gazprom offered to buy all oil/gas exports from libya few years ago which would again make europe even more dependent on russia...bad for reasons stated above.

Gazprom Offers to Buy All Libya's Oil and Natural-Gas Exports

gazprom/russia are probably happy uk/france and u.s are attacking gaddafi because it means europe need more gas to replace supplies from libya.

Gazprom Raises Italy Supply 60% to Cover Libya Shortfall

it's all good for russia.

23-03-2011 03:17AM

phosphate wrote: »

it's all good for russia.

So then why did you say:

phosphate wrote: »

You'll notice Russia and China abstained from supporting the no-fly zone resolution but were highly critical when bombing started.

Both countries have many economic interests in that region so they might be worried about their own investments.

And if you're now arguing that Russia is in favour of destabilising the region for their own gain why didn't they support the action rather than do what you thought was going against the action?

And if the US were concerned about Russia gaining more control of Europe's oil, why are they destabilising the supply?

But to be honest I really doubt you're going to answer these or any other questions seeing as how you're resorting to moving the goalposts on top of the other silly tactics you're using.

uprising2 · 23-03-2011 04:46AM

Bulgarian PM Denounces Airstrikes Against Libya
He suggested that Libya's future oil exploitation was behind the operation spearheaded by France, Britain and also backed by the United States.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/bulgarian-pm-denounces-airstrikes-libya/

Oil interest behind Libya action: Bulgaria PM
Sofia - The military intervention in Libya is an “adventure” driven by petroleum interests, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said Monday, explaining Sofia's caution over its support.
“Petrol and who will exploit Libya's oil fields are to a great extent the interests behind this operation.”
“There are many African countries where hundreds of thousands were killed, where unrest is ongoing... But there are no operations conducted there,” he added.
Borisov said that “a financial-economic blockade” would have forced Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “to withdraw much faster.”
http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/oil-interest-behind-libya-action-bulgaria-pm-1.1044905

A little Brucey Bonus!

Libya holding huge gold reserves IMF data shows
Libya has declared gold reserves worth more than $6bn at current prices, thought to be held largely at home.
The reserves are substantial, ranking in the global top 25, according International Monetary Fund (IMF) data.
This is rather speculative, it must be said, but the gold could in principle generate millions of dollars in revenue, which could be used for example to pay foreign fighters....(So we better take it off him!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12824137

U.S. Treasury aims to crimp Libya oil revenues
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFN2218222220110322

Libyan Rebel Council in Benghazi Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html

Oil companies fear nationalisation in Libya

Western oil companies operating in Libya have privately warned that their operations in the country may be nationalised if Colonel Muammer Gaddafi’s regime prevails.
Executives, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the rapidly moving situation, believe their companies could be targeted, especially if their home countries are taking part in air strikes against Mr Gaddafi. Allied forces from France, the UK and the US on Saturday unleashed a series of strikes against military targets in Libya.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67d1d02a-5314-11e0-86e6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HOEUUTQ9

Gold key to financing Gaddafi struggle
The international community has hit Muammer Gaddafi with a raft of sanctions and asset freezes aimed at cutting off his funding. But the embattled Libyan leader is sitting on a pot of gold.
The Libyan central bank – which is under Colonel Gaddafi’s control – holds 143.8 tonnes of gold, according to the latest data from the International Monetary Fund, although some suspect the true amount could be several tonnes higher
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/588ce75a-53e4-11e0-8bd7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HOEUUTQ9

U.S. Struggles to Define Objective in Libya
"We are in Libya because of oil. It all goes back to the five million barrels of oil we import from OPEC on a daily basis."
-- Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., on MSNBC speaking in support of President Obama’s attack on Libya
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/22/confusion-plagues-libya-mission/

phosphate · 23-03-2011 12:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

But to be honest I really doubt you're going to answer these or any other questions seeing as how you're resorting to moving the goalposts on top of the other silly tactics you're using.

You and few others need to go and educate yourself more about these issues instead of relying upon assumptions to ask an infinite amount of questions you could easily answer yourself.

Trying to look smart with lame questions...

You couldn't even find the name of Gazprom, that's just plain lazy...i even gave you name of country.

I'd like to have a discussion with someone who has knowledge of the situation and has some alternative theories of his own. You don't have any and i'm bored discussing it with you.

your posts are waste of time addressing.

Jaafa · 23-03-2011 10:42PM

Let me get two things straight here for everyone.

1. Russia has little investment in Libya so their concerns are not financial. China on the other hand do have large investments there.

2. This has nothing to do with a prelude to war with Iran because there will not be a war with Iran for the foreseeable future in my opinion. It would be counter productive to the US's goals.

phosphate · 23-03-2011 10:51PM

Jaafa wrote:

1. Russia has little investment in Libya so their concerns are not financial. China on the other hand do have large investments there.

Could you be more specific? As in what investments.
I thought Russia were more heavily invested there than China.

Jaafa · 23-03-2011 10:56PM

phosphate wrote: »

Could you be more specific? As in what investments.
I thought Russia were more heavily invested there than China.

What do you mean as in what investments?
There are almost none. Search Google you wont find much. For Russia that is.

uprising2 · 23-03-2011 11:03PM

Jaafa wrote: »

What do you mean as in what investments?
There are almost none. Search Google you wont find much. For Russia that is.

Did you try google "облечение Ливии" or "利比亞投資" ??

HavingCrack · 23-03-2011 11:14PM

I don't know why the oil thing keeps rearing its head as regards the US. The USA imports very small amounts of oil from Libya, it isn't a key supplier for them. One could argue that France and Britain both have oil interests in Libya but not the USA for once.

digme · 23-03-2011 11:17PM

HavingCrack wrote: »

I don't know why the oil thing keeps rearing its head as regards the US. The USA imports very small amounts of oil from Libya, it isn't a key supplier for them. One could argue that France and Britain both have oil interests in Libya but not the USA for once.

So you are limiting the USA to a single geographical land mass?Think about that for a minute

phosphate · 23-03-2011 11:20PM

Well....i did search, that's why i'm confused by your claim China has more invested in Libya than Russia.

Gazprom (a russian company) for example have invested billions of dollars.
As I said in previous posts, they offered to buy all oil and gas from Libya..that's a pretty big investment.

http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/deposits/libya/

Just there in February, they bought a stake in Elephant Oil Field with Eni from Italy which has reserves of about 700 million barrels of oil, valued at $163 million.

http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2011/february/article109011/

HavingCrack · 23-03-2011 11:29PM

digme wrote: »

So you are limiting the USA to a single geographical land mass?Think about that for a minute

What? I think you've misread my post. 60% of US oil needs are met by production within the USA. Most of its foreign oil comes from Canada. The remainder if chiefly imported from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, Angola and formely Venezuala. Brazil is also beginning to emerge as a key supplier. Libya is not vital for US interests, only about 7% of its oil is exported to the United States. The US would have reasons to interfere for oil in lots of states but Libya isn't one that would jump out at me.

Jeboa Safari · 23-03-2011 11:35PM

phosphate wrote: »

Well....i did search, that's why i'm confused by your claim China has more invested in Libya than Russia.

Gazprom (a russian company) for example have invested billions of dollars.
As I said in previous posts, they offered to buy all oil and gas from Libya..that's a pretty big investment.

Just there in February, they bought a stake in Elephant Oil Field with Eni from Italy which has reserves of about 700 million barrels of oil, valued at $163 million.

How does this relate to the UN no fly zone? Is it a reason for the allied countries involvement, and why if so?

digme · 23-03-2011 11:40PM

I think i did all right, apologies.

phosphate · 23-03-2011 11:50PM

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How does this relate to the UN no fly zone? Is it a reason for the allied countries involvement, and why if so?

I was responding to Jaafa regarding the claim China had more financial investments in Libya than Russia.

I don't know who the biggest investors are but Gazprom offering to buy all exports of oil and gas from Libya must have scared the **** out of EU.

UK along with some other EU states sold $1 billion worth of weapons to Gaddafi...what did they think he would do with them? The guy was using terrorism all across europe for years and then they sell him all those weapons in exchange for oil and gas? ....amazing it's actually true.

phosphate · 24-03-2011 12:02AM

Good video with George Galloway destroying BBC presenter misrepresenting his position on attacking Libya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJgB0_wnFr8

Dave! · 24-03-2011 12:17AM

Notice his failure to offer suggestions for the way forward in the absense of Western intervention... If George Galloway had his way, Gadaffi would have crushed the uprising, killed hundreds more people, and established an even more brutal and oppressive dictatorship than before.

Good work George!

phosphate · 24-03-2011 12:25AM

So what's your answer to no intervention in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Dave!?

Make me laugh with your answer, i know it'll be a powerful response.

Dave! · 24-03-2011 12:42AM

phosphate wrote: »

So what's your answer to no intervention in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Dave!?

Make me laugh with your answer, i know it'll be a powerful response.

Barely anybody's been killed in either of those countries AFAIK, but even if they had, it's not the same situation. Libyans started the uprising and it was enough to destabilise the government and send Gadaffi to ground, and they have a provisional government waiting to replace him. They only needed a bit of help to stop Gadaffi overwhelming them with military force. Invading and overthrowing every dodgy government in the Middle East and further afield would require a greater investment of resources, probably including ground troops, and would more than likely just result in chaos. Plus of course it would disrupt oil supplies and the likes. What's that? So then it's all about oil?! No, not quite, but the Libyan oil supply was already being disrupted, so the genie's out of the bottle there, that's not a barrier anymore, the supply will be disrupted either way. Disrupting other supplies would cause a crisis back home.

So you agree that if the allied forces hadn't gotten involved, that Gaddafi would probably be back in power by now, or certainly pretty soon?

phosphate · 24-03-2011 12:49AM

Not exactly "haha" response there but you show lack of knowledge on the situation at large.

In Yemen (who are ally of US btw)

Thousands of protesters have been stationed for five weeks outside the capital's main university in an area they have named Change Square. This week, hundreds of soldiers, police and marines joined protesters after snipers killed 52 protesters on Friday.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article984616.ece/More-blood-will-spill-in-Yemen

But wait....no NATO intervention to protect the people? how strange.. :rolleyes:

Jeboa Safari · 24-03-2011 12:56AM

phosphate wrote: »

I was responding to Jaafa regarding the claim China had more financial investments in Libya than Russia.

I don't know who the biggest investors are but Gazprom offering to buy all exports of oil and gas from Libya must have scared the **** out of EU.

UK along with some other EU states sold $1 billion worth of weapons to Gaddafi...what did they think he would do with them? The guy was using terrorism all across europe for years and then they sell him all those weapons in exchange for oil and gas? ....amazing it's actually true.

That was back in 2008 that Gazprom offered, and it was obviously rejected judging by deals done with western companies since. And it still doesn't answer, what way are you suggesting this has affected the allies decision to get involved in Libya?

Dave! · 24-03-2011 01:14AM

phosphate wrote: »

Not exactly "haha" response there but you show lack of knowledge on the situation at large.

In Yemen (who are ally of US btw)

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article984616.ece/More-blood-will-spill-in-Yemen

But wait....no NATO intervention to protect the people? how strange.. :rolleyes:

So like I said, barely anyone has been killed, whereas Gaddafi had brought in mercenaries to torture and kill people. It's a totally different situation anyway. There's no armed insurrection occuring, it's mainly just protests, albeit popular ones. Plus Saleh has offered to step down and have an election, and has said that he wants to avoid more bloodshed. Gaddafi said that he would go door to door killing everyone who opposes him! Plus the military and police are defecting. So it would be a bit dumb for anyone to get involved at this stage wouldn't it? The Yemenese are probably going to sort it out on their own.

BTW Yemen is an oil producing country (albeit a minor one), shouldn't the US be invading them?

They seemingly have no problem invading Libya for oil, even though they only get a negligible amount of oil from there.

Also don't think I didn't notice you avoiding addressing the fact that Gaddafi would be back in power if you had your way

phosphate · 24-03-2011 01:20AM

Gaddafi wouldn't be in power at all if it weren't for the west protecting his ass for 40+ years, providing him with lots of money and weapons.

Dave! · 24-03-2011 01:30AM

Yes that's true, not very relevant though. The West generally doesn't have a problem with dictators as long as they keep things in order. If Gaddafi had crushed the uprising straight away then I'm sure they'd still be selling him guns.

Overheal · 24-03-2011 01:36AM

phosphate wrote: »

So what's your answer to no intervention in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Dave!?

Make me laugh with your answer, i know it'll be a powerful response.

For that matter why not Bahrain? Or Zimbabwe? That is after all, my original question. Are you yet able to justify a military invasion in Zimbabwe, or do you recognize that there is a unique circumstance in Libya*.

*and no, not the oil

enno99 · 24-03-2011 02:27AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-_JsNrxiM

A lot of truth in what he says

Mr. Ciszuk of Global Insight says Libya put pressure on the companies to agree to the new terms by getting the Libyan parliament to call for full nationalization of the oil and gas sector. The initiative was dropped as soon as the oil companies fell in line, he says.

In the latest licensing round, in December 2007, companies had to bid even lower shares of production to win exploration permits. Most of the victors of that round were big state-owned companies like Russia's Gazprom and Sonatrach of Algeria, better able to swallow tougher terms than publicly listed majors that require a higher investor rate of return

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125140838242364817.html

Reinstating that threat or promising to impliment it would certianly throw a cat among the pidgeons

HavingCrack · 24-03-2011 02:30AM

Overheal wrote: »

For that matter why not Bahrain? Or Zimbabwe? That is after all, my original question. Are you yet able to justify a military invasion in Zimbabwe, or do you recognize that there is a unique circumstance in Libya*.

*and no, not the oil

Possibly the closest situation to Libya at the moment is the Ivory Coast which is also seeing pitched fighting between armed groups and the 'government'. However neither side has yet requested a no fly zone being imposed unlike Libya. Despite what some people think on this thread I don't think any country goes to war for the sake of it.

The Libya Deception

Comments