All military intervention is tied to economic benefits – Blood for Oil
YJ Draiman for Mayor of
Increasing renewable energy and conservation will stabilize and reduce oil - gasoline prices. It will also revitalize our economy.
You do not have to spend money to save Energy and Water
All you have to do for starters is change your habits.
Monitor how you use your energy at home and at work, you will notice how much is wasted due to lack of attention.
I have done energy audits in homes and businesses, when my recommendations were implemented my clients saved between 25-50% on their utility bills.
YJ Draiman
Petro-altruism; Selfish military intervention in oil-rich countries
Humanitarian motives of the West in Libya
"And what would be the purpose of regime change? It is possible the economic benefits of lucrative oil, gas contracts and other natural resources for Western companies, and securing energy supplies for Europe from a source that would be convenient both for ease of supply and for defending, provide sufficient motivation. I would, however, posit another geostrategic benefit that would be of more direct interest to theUnited States
"And what would be the purpose of regime change? It is possible the economic benefits of lucrative oil, gas contracts and other natural resources for Western companies, and securing energy supplies for Europe from a source that would be convenient both for ease of supply and for defending, provide sufficient motivation. I would, however, posit another geostrategic benefit that would be of more direct interest to the
I must add that the cost of military intervention should be paid back. It is not a gift from the taxpayers.
| The While American interest in the region isn't motivated by the pursuit of fossil fuels alone, the historically complicated |
Since Standard Oil's 1936 discovery of massive oil deposits in Saudi Arabia , ensuring access to the region's fossil fuels has been on America Kuwait in 1990 are both dramatic examples of how regional forces have challenged U.S. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East .
Yj Draiman
The Battle for Libya’s Post-Gadhaffi Soul (and Oil)
ReplyDeleteAs hostilities in Libya wind down, one thing is clear: A number of nations will jockey for access to Libya’s oil. It happened in Iraq, where ironically the U.S. was shut out as Russia, China, and France won bids to develop Iraq’s fields. The new government in Iraq demanded terms very much in Iraq’s favor — and got them. U.S. companies simply weren’t willing to pay what China paid for access to Iraq’s oil.
I would expect Libya to have taken notes from what companies were willing to concede in Iraq and demand similar terms. And regardless of who ends up there, one of the countries will certainly be China (they also had a big presence in the old regime).
For a more in-depth analysis, see the following guest post from OilPrice.com.
———————————
Muammar Gadhaffi’s 42 year-old regime is in its death rattle – maybe today, maybe tomorrow, his administration that has ruled Libya with a quixotic and brutal hand is about to pass, in Trotsky’s piquant phrase, “into the dustbin of history,” prompting the question “what next?”
The glittering prize is Libya’s 1.6 million barrels per day output of high quality crude, which accounted for about 2 percent of global oil output drawn from Africa’s largest oil reserves, whose exports have been stymied since the NATO-led campaign began six months ago. Projecting into the future, analysts believe that has reserves to sustain its previous level of production for 80 years.
Who will eventually control this asset, with oil prices currently at roughly $84 a barrel, generating an income of more than $12.6 million per day?
Italy’s ENI?
France’s Total?
Britain’s BP?
U.S. companies?
Or, will China add Libyan future production to its string of acquisitions, as it is already China’s eleventh largest source of imports?
The crystal ball is murky indeed, but when the uprising against Gadhaffi began six months ago, according to the Chinese media, about 36,000 Chinese were in Libya working on 50 projects.
Cautiously accepting the new reality, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in a statement posted Monday on the ministry’s website, “The Chinese side respects the choice of the Libyan people. The Chinese side is willing to work with the international community to play a positive role in the reconstruction process of Libya in the future.”
The key word here is “reconstruction,” a noun conspicuously absent from any statements by the NATO coalition members.
When the uprising against Gadhaffi began 75 Chinese companies had already invested billions of dollars in Libya in infrastructure projects, including oil, railway and telecoms projects. After the insurrection erupted in February China began a substantial land, sea and air evacuation operation of its nationals.
ReplyDeleteBenghazi-based Libyan rebel oil firm Arabian Gulf Oil Co. (AGOCO) information manager Abdeljalil Mayouf cautioned however that China’s “softly, softly” approach to the uprising may initially cost it influence in the new Libyan reality, saying, We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”
While many analysts believe that Italy’s ENI and France’s Total could be successful in post-insurrection Libya because of their countries’ heavy support for the rebels, it may all devolve down to a question of funding, and given Beijing’s pockets, despite its caution in its foreign policy, that may well give China the edge.
Few promoting the prospects of Italian and French energy firms now remember that just a couple of months ago the Libyan dissidents were literally begging for financial assistance.
Furthermore, particularly in African endeavors, Chinese investment has extended far beyond mere resource acquisition to providing infrastructure essentials such as roads, schools and health clinics, all of which will be in short supply in post-Gadhaffi Libya.
Finally, certainly last but not least, China has no history of colonialism in North Africa, unlike Libya (occupied by Italy, 1911-1947), Tunisia (France, 1883-1956), Algeria (France, 1830-1962), Morocco (France, 1906-1956) and Egypt (Britain, 1882-1922.) While such issues are not fiscally tangible, they may well influence the post-Gadhaffi negotiations.
Waiting in the wings are U.S. and Canadian companies such as Marathon, ConocoPhillips, Hess, Occidental and Suncor, which withdrew Libya at the onset of insurrection, as well as Russian companies, including oil firms Gazprom Neft and Tatneft, which had projects worth billions of dollars in Libya alongside Brazil’s Petrobras. BP, which did not have production in Libya before the war, said it was planning to return for exploration efforts.
In the coming weeks Libya’s National Transitional Council will doubtless be inundated with offers from various companies promoting their advantages. Total and ENI have the inside geographical edge, being across the Mediterranean, while American and British companies have cutting edge technology to refurbish Libya’s decrepit energy infrastructure.
But it is too early to count China out from the race – they do not come burdened by history, and they come with deeper pockets than all their competitors. The NTC, if it indeed represents the Libyan people, will not be unswayed by such concerns, as the European rivals have yet to utter the one of the words most dreaded on Wall Street in considering profits, “reconstruction.” Whatever the shortcomings of Beijing’s views of events in Africa’s largest oil producer, they do extend beyond mere corporate profits to include rebuilding, which is likely to ensure them a place at the table.
US and Europe weigh up Libyan intervention as oil prices spike
ReplyDeleteBy Patrick O’Connor
24 February 2011
The Obama administration and its European counterparts are coordinating a more aggressive stance toward Libya, including possible military intervention, in response to fears of an international oil price shock. With Libya’s daily oil output reduced by an estimated 50-60 percent, oil has surged to its highest price in more than two years, at nearly $110 a barrel. Stock markets have fallen in the US, Europe and Asia over fears that further price hikes may trigger inflation and slow economic activity.
The overriding concern of the imperialist powers is to re-establish stability in the North African state and resume the flow of oil exports. The various criticisms levelled by the Western leaders against the Libyan government’s brutal violence are utterly hypocritical—Muammar Gaddafi has enjoyed the warmest of relations with the US and Europe over the past decade. His regime was funded and armed by these powers, rewarding its support for Washington’s geo-strategic objectives in the region and collaboration with the foreign oil companies permitted into Libya. Many senior political and business figures have enriched themselves by working with Gaddafi, notably former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was a frequent visitor to Tripoli on behalf of US investment bank JPMorgan Chase.
Now, however, the government in Tripoli appears on the verge of collapse as opposition forces extend their control from the eastern part of the country to western urban centres near the capital.
US President Barack Obama spoke on the Libyan crisis for the first time last night, declaring that he had “asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis”. In a similar threat of military force, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier said Washington would examine “all possible options” and “everything will be on the table”. (See “Obama and the Libyan crisis.”)
Yesterday, ahead of an emergency meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, a draft resolution issued by the European Union (EU) condemned “the recent extremely grave human rights violations committed in Libya, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of peaceful demonstrators, which if widespread and systematic, may amount to crimes against humanity”. This reference to crimes against humanity is significant—the same pretext was utilised for the NATO-led interventions in the Balkans in the 1990s.
Pseudo-legal cover for a potential intervention is already being prepared through the UN. A unanimous Security Council resolution was adopted Tuesday, condemning the violence and “underscoring the need to hold to account those responsible for attacks, including by forces under their control, on civilians”.
The US and European powers are reportedly preparing a range of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Libya. French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “The international community cannot remain a spectator to these massive violations of human rights.” He called for the imposition of a NATO-policed “no fly” zone over Libya. This comes just weeks after the Sarkozy government moved to have French riot police help former Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali crush the revolt that sparked the unfolding revolution across North Africa and the Middle East.
The possible creation of a no fly zone over Libya is being discussed internationally. Concerns have been raised in the US and Britain over the chances of having Russia and China approve this measure through the UN Security Council. Several media reports have ominously noted that Washington, London and others are taking a “cautious” public stance on the matter until their diplomats and citizens are evacuated from Libya.
This mass evacuation is being accompanied by a substantial military build-up in the Mediterranean that could later be utilised as part of any US-NATO military operation in Libya. Britain, Turkey and Greece have deployed naval warships, and several countries have sent military planes, including France, Holland, Ukraine, Ireland and Italy.
ReplyDeleteAny US-led intervention would be primarily aimed not at halting of the brutal violence being unleashed by Gaddafi’s forces, but rather resuming Libya’s oil production. Foreign oil companies, including Italy’s Eni, Spain’s Repsol YPF, Germany’s Wintershall and France’s Total, have either shut down production or cut back substantially. Foreign industry experts and subcontractors are trying to flee the country.
The extent of production maintained at oilfields operated by Libya’s state oil company is unknown, and it is also unclear whether reported oil workers’ strikes are continuing. The Financial Times yesterday reported: “According to traders, Libya’s national oil company has declared force majeure—a legal clause allowing it to walk away from contracted deliveries—on refined products.”
Libya’s total daily production—previously 1.6 million barrels—represents less than 2 percent of total world oil output. The disproportionate impact of the Libyan oil crisis on international markets is due to several factors.
One is that Libyan oil is of a very high quality, and cannot simply be substituted by Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members increasing production. “The reservoirs beneath its desert landscape yield crudes that are easily refined into diesel and petrol and also low in sulphur, making them cleaner to burn,” the Financial Times explained. “They [oil companies] would need to find barrels of equivalent quality from Algeria, Nigeria, the Caspian region or the North Sea. The bidding could further raise prices for the kinds of high-quality crudes that underpin benchmark oil futures contracts and reduce fuel output from refineries unable to afford them.”
The Libyan uprising has also sparked fears on financial markets of the instability of other oil producers, including Algeria and Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter. “No one knows where this ends,” Helima Croft, a director at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times. “A couple of weeks ago it was Tunisia and Egypt, and it was thought this can be contained to North Africa and the resource-poor Middle East countries. But now with protests in Bahrain, that’s the heart of the gulf, and it’s adding to anxieties.”
In an effort to allay such concerns, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has announced a $36 billion spending program directed toward employment, housing and other social issues, aimed at pre-empting any movement by Saudi Arabian workers and youth.
Commodity analysts at Japanese bank Nomura have warned of the possibility of oil prices hitting $220 a barrel “if Libya and Algeria were to halt oil production together”. An oil price this high would inevitably trigger a sharp downturn in the American and world economies.
Libya’s oil fields, as with most of the country’s territory, now appear to be under the control of anti-Gaddafi forces.
In Benghazi and Bayda, Libya’s second and third largest cities, government forces seem to have been routed. International journalists are beginning to enter the area, crossing the border from Egypt. The Guardian’s Martin Chulov reported that in Benghazi “every physical sign of the dictator has been taken down or burned”. Old monarchy-era national flags were flying from government buildings. Soldiers who had defected had seized tonnes of weaponry and ammunition from military armouries.
Yesterday, opposition forces claimed control of Misrata, about 200 kilometres east of Tripoli, following days of street fighting. Faraj al-Misrati, a local doctor, told the Associated Press that six people had been killed and 200 wounded in the clashes. He added that residents had formed committees to clean the streets, protect the city and treat the injured. “The solidarity among the people here is amazing, even the disabled are helping out,” he said.
ReplyDeleteOpposition forces have said they control other urban centres in the western part of Libya, including Zawiya, just 50 kilometres west of the capital.
Inside Tripoli, reports continue to emerge of Gaddafi’s militia and foreign mercenary fighters massacring protestors and anyone regarded as an opponent of the regime. Video released on the internet showed these forces conducting house-to-house searches. Other footage appeared to show protestors using cement blocks and burning tyres as barricades around a square near the centre of the city. Demonstrations have been called for today and tomorrow, and there are reports of opposition plans to stage a “march” on Tripoli from other parts of the country on Friday.
The U.S. and oil
ReplyDeleteWhile American interest in the region isn't motivated by the pursuit of fossil fuels alone, the historically complicated U.S. relationships with Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf states have often revolved around oil -- specifically, ensuring an adequate supply at a reasonable cost.
Since Standard Oil's 1936 discovery of massive oil deposits in Saudi Arabia, ensuring access to the region's fossil fuels has been on America's foreign policy agenda. The 1973-1974 OPEC oil boycott and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 are both dramatic examples of how regional forces have challenged U.S. access to fuel. The 1973 boycott was particularly powerful; at the time, Arab nations supplied 37 percent of the oil consumed by the noncommunist world. To this day, ensuring the supply of oil from the region factors heavily in the development of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Yj Draiman
Petro-altruism; Selfish military intervention in oil-rich countries
ReplyDeleteHumanitarian motives of the West in Libya
"And what would be the purpose of regime change? It is possible the economic benefits of lucrative oil, gas contracts and other natural resources for Western companies, and securing energy supplies for Europe from a source that would be convenient both for ease of supply and for defending, provide sufficient motivation. I would, however, posit another geostrategic benefit that would be of more direct interest to the United States: a strategic insurance policy with regard to the now-uncertain trajectory of Egyptian politics. In the meantime, since geostrategic opportunities can flow in more than one direction, Egypt would benefit, as all states would, from having a powerful influence on the politics of a direct neighbor; indeed, there have been apparently confirmed reports the Egyptian military has been supplying arms (in violation of an official arms embargo on Libya), and unconfirmed reports of Egyptian special forces support, to the Benghazi-based rebels.
I must add that the cost of military intervention should be paid back. It is not a gift from the taxpayers.
YJ Draiman for Mayor of Los Angeles
ReplyDeleteIncreasing renewable energy and conservation will stabilize and reduce oil - gasoline prices. It will also revitalize our economy.
You do not have to spend money to save Energy and Water
All you have to do for starters is change your habits.
Monitor how you use your energy at home and at work, you will notice how much is wasted due to lack of attention.
I have done energy audits in homes and businesses, when my recommendations were implemented my clients saved between 25-50% on their utility bills.
YJ Draiman
What have been the role and effects of U.S. Foreign policies and actions in the Middle East
ReplyDeleteDespite the physical distance between the United States and the Middle East, U.S. influence has been felt in every country within the region. Throughout the 20th century, strategic interests, including a longstanding competition with the Soviet Union, have provoked a variety of U.S. interventions ranging from diplomatic overtures of friendship to full-blown war.
American economic interests -- particularly in assuring access to Middle Eastern oil -- have long motivated presidents and lawmakers to intervene in the region. In addition, strong cultural ties bind American Jews, Arab Americans, Iranian Americans, and Turkish Americans, among others, to the area, and these interest groups seek to make their voices heard in the U.S. foreign policy arena.
Entering the Middle East
For most of the 20th century and now into the 21st, the U.S. has had global interests and a global reach to match. In the Middle East, the U.S. has made itself a key player by using its diplomatic, economic, and military power in support of its national interests.