I did not find the source of the 70 per cent. I thought it was wikipedia but couldn't find it. I believe that it was a share of ownership. Here is a quote from the U.S. State Dept. Anything being controlled by the government makes something socialist apparently for the State Dept.! http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5425.htm The government dominates Libya's socialist-oriented economy through complete control of the country's oil resources, which account for approximately 95% of export earnings, 75% of government receipts, and 25% of the gross domestic product. The severe drop in oil prices from peaks in late 2008 caused the government to abandon several economic reform projects and revise the budget downward. The expected weakness in world hydrocarbon prices throughout 2009 constrained Libyan economic growth and further delayed infrastructure development projects. In searching I ran across this interesting bit that is referenced in numerous articles:
http://wikileaksdonations.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/reason-for-war-gaddafi-wanted-to-nationalise-oil/ On January 25, 2009, Muammar Al Gaddafi announced that his country was studying the nationalisation of foreign companies due to lower oil prices. “The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously,” said Gaddafi. “Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production,” said the Libyan leader. These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany’s Wintershall, Austria’s OMV , Norway’s Statoil, Eni and Canada’s Petro Canada. In 2008, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues. As a result of these contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues. Cheers, ken l ----- Original Message ---- From: Gar Lipow <[email protected]> To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 4:22:09 PM Subject: Re: [Pen-l] from Juan Cole: An Open Letter to the Left on Libya On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:02 PM, ken hanly <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no need to generalize beyond necessity. There is nary a word about > economic determinism or Marxism in my post. I was simply pointing out some >facts > that Gar Lipow neglected. Maybe. But having had to once convert an oil company accounting program to multi-currency (long before the EU had a single currency) and spending a lot of time with oil company accountants, I would be really surprised if Gaddafi's government had been getting anything close to 70%, even if that is the nominal rate. > I did mean to imply that getting a better deal for oil > companies might be one reason for intervention. I am sure it is not the only > one. Perhaps another is creative destruction. Look at all the western made and > provided planes, equipment etc. being destroyed as Gadaffi's military assets >are > bombed. Then there is a half billion or so destroyed in allied missiles. > Military Keynesianism and a huge stimulus program. It will also increase the > deficit and provide a marvelous opportunity to;cut more social programs and > further weaken labor. Finally it is a shot in the arm for humanitarian > imperialism. What a rush it must give to be supporting American values, aiding > idealist rebels and playing lead role in a morality play that is Televised and > Twittered etc. all day every day for some time now. > > Cheers, ken > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Louis Proyect <[email protected]> > To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 1:14:22 PM > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] from Juan Cole: An Open Letter to the Left on Libya > > On 3/28/2011 2:05 PM, ken hanly wrote: >> >> Gadaffi did not give the west everything it wanted as far as oil is >>concerned. >> The state retains a 70 per cent interest in projects. A new government could >> privatize that interest and it would be a huge boon for foreign oil. I do not >> know how having a ceasefire and negotiating a solution would have more >> casualties than allowing battles for cities. Even if Gadaffi is actually >> defeated in a short time there could be a situation as happened in Iraq after >> the defeat of Hussein. Loyalists kept on the struggle to the present with >> continuing casualties. >> > > I plan to write at some length about this but I got misled into > thinking an intervention was not going to happen because Libya had > an open door policy to foreign oil companies. I think that this is > more economic determinism than Marxism but need some time to think > this through carefully. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
