Navy Seals take over oil tanker seized by Libyan rebels

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Guardian

US Navy Seals have boarded and taken control of a tanker near Cyprus that had loaded crude oil at a port held by rebels in eastern Libya, the Pentagon says.

"US forces, at the request of both the Libyan and Cypriot governments, boarded and took control of the commercial tanker Morning Glory, a stateless vessel seized earlier this month by three armed Libyans," the Pentagon press secretary, Rear Admiral John Kirby, said in a statement.

No one was injured in the operation.

The operation was approved by Barack Obama and was conducted just after 2am GMT on Monday in international waters south-east of Cyprus, Kirby added.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/navy-seals-oil-tanker-morning-glory-libyan-rebels

[Democracyinkind]

1. It was called a "North Korean" tanker when the news first broke. Interesting change. nt

[dipsydoodle]

4. Was that due to the flag flown at the time ?

See Guardian link :

The ship was operated by an Egypt-based company that was allowed to temporarily use the North Korean flag under a contract with Pyongyang, North Korean state news agency KCNA said.

Pyongyang had "cancelled and deleted" the ship's North Korean registry, as it violated its law "on the registry of ships and the contract that prohibited it from transporting contraband cargo".

As such, the ship had nothing to do with North Korea, which "has no responsibility whatsoever as regards the ship", KCNA said.

[Democracyinkind]

6. Interesting. Thank you. nt

[joshcryer]

7. Wise, given its ship caught in Panama.

North Korea must be desperate to disavow itself so quickly. Good on the Marines.

[MyNameGoesHere]

2. I'm not sure I like this

What is a stateless vessel? Why is this in our interest? Why SEALS? Someone been watching a movie maybe?

[joshcryer]

5. "Three armed Libyans" aren't manning an oil shipment.

Eastern Libya has been compromised by islamist militas. They did a deal with North Korea for oil. The US intervened. A wise move by Obama because it signals to the islamists that they will not have the leverage they believe they hold in the east.

They were not voted into power and are, like in most democratic unions in Africa or Middle East, not wanted by the people. Unlike Egypt, they were not voted into power by Libyans.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. It is still not our problem.

If Libya objected to the oil platform take over then they should have sent THEIR special forces in. But I suppose when you need a rating bounce any thing will suffice.

[geek tragedy]

13. Idiotic comment. Libya doesn't have SEALS and

it's in no one 's interest to have a goddamn oil tanker being taken for a joyride. Or have you forgotten Exxon Valdez?

[MyNameGoesHere]

15. I appreciate your use of "idiotic"

it proves I am right. thank you.

[joshcryer]

17. Well, see, democracies have this thing.

If you're not elected you don't have power. Except, the extremest, unelected elements, decided they'd take power.

Now, all along Libya was supposedly an extremist uprising, except, the people voted against said elements. So those left over, taking power by force, are obviously not represented. Therefore have no support.

North Korea is under sanctions, they have no business trying to steal Libyan oil.

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. Yes and this happened where?

a piddle of oil requires deployment of special forces? PAHHHLEEAASE. This stinks of ratings grab.

[ManiacJoe]

30. Why SEALs?

Because the SEALs are specifically trained on how to board ships at sea or in port.

[MyNameGoesHere]

31. So is the Coast Guard.

so now?

[ManiacJoe]

32. You're kidding, right?

[MyNameGoesHere]

33. no are you?

boats. coast guard. ocean. No i seem to have my facts straight.

[ManiacJoe]

34. We may be talking about different definitions of boarding.

Yes, the Coast Guard knows how to get on board ships when they are being welcomed aboard, friendly or not.

About the time you need folks to scale the ship and get on board under hostile conditions, that is well outside the abilities of the Coast Guard.

[uncommonlink]

35. The Coast Guard are not trained to board ships that are considered high risk,

that job falls to the Navy Seals.
My nephew spent 20 years as a Coastie and he told me when I asked him the other day, that anyone who thinks that this operation should've been handled by the Coast Guard are just plain ignorant and know nothing about ship boardings.

[joshcryer]

3. Zeidan's ouster represents a sea change in Libya.

Either it results in the ultimate installation of anti-corrupt elements, or it results in Gaddafi-era corruption. Obama did the right thing by stopping this shipment, as it represented the corrupt, islamist elements, which were voted against in Libya's referendum.

I suspect in due time the islamists will be shown the door. Though I perhaps underestimated their resolve. They are not going to have a long term influence.

[Democracyinkind]

9. While Ibrahim Jedram might be a crypto-islamist, I'm not sure that ALL of the eastern militias...

...deserve that label. It is about more than jihadists vs. secularists, is my impression. I think the eastern "tribes" have some good (historical and practical) arguments for autonomy.

[joshcryer]

10. I can't disagree.

But I think that unity is most important.

[jakeXT]

8. To quote Powell:"If you break it, you own it" /nt

[ctsnowman]

12. Ah yes

the worlds policeman at work while their own house is falling apart.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Why is OUR navy being used for

private oil interests? No one ever asks that question and they're certainly not volunteering any answers.

[joshcryer]

18. North Korea is under sanctions.

Bootlegging is not exactly legal.

[Sunlei]

16. so what country exactly hired 'someone' in the harbor to load their rented tanker with crude?

because that is the Country/ crude oil shipper corp.,- who have direct ties to the rebels, including money ties.

[Sunlei]

21. ok, another story said it was a North Korea flagged tanker that was stealing the crude.

imo could also be china,or even another country & they just try to push' blame' on North Korea. NK is pretty isolated from worldly deals like a $20 million load of crude.

[jsr]

19. Great job by loss prevention

[farmbo]

20. Wanna bet we suddenly see some Benghazi suspects taken into custody?

If that's the quid pro quo, more power to Obama.

[rickyhall]

23. Isn't that a movie plot?

[packman]

24. Inquiring minds want to know

will someone be billed (other than US taxpayers) for the use of the Seals. Do we now have an understanding that the US is in the business of loaning out its forces . Hell, there should be a bill presented for this service.

[JohnnyRingo]

25. I suggest everyone read the entire article.

The plot deepens greatly as we learn that the oil, which was property of the Libyan govt, was offered for sale by the rebel pirates. Potential customers included a couple Israelis who flew in on a private jet and took a motor launch to negotiate a deal on board the tanker. The duo, along with another national accomplice, remain in custody in a country where one absolutely doesn't want to find themselves incarcerated.

This is another act of international piracy personally foiled by our president's signature. There were no casualties. Apparently, the crack teams of Navy Seals have gained a reputation that now raises the white flag of surrender on sight. Thank goodness for that, because even though his part in neutering this plot will go totally unrecognized by the GOP, even a minor flesh wound of a US special ops soldier would raise screams for impeachment from the usual sources.

For those here who don't understand why we would be involved in this matter, we have to understand that when we left the gold standard back in the late '60s, our money began being backed by barrels of oil. Before any country can buy crude, they have to convert their currency to what has become known as the Petrodollar. If the flow of oil about the globe becomes hindered in any way, our economy is severely at stake. That's why we're the only country on Earth that needs (or has) nuclear aircraft carriers. Penny ante privateers should not, and can not, be a factor in what that $50 in your pocket can buy in the 21st century.

Like it or not, our individual standard of living is wholly dependent upon standing waist deep in oily crude. We're all Clampetts now.

Any change in how we back our currency will take figuratively as long as the time it takes to turn around a fully laden supertanker, and even then, what can we use to represent the value of our greenbacks? The only thing we seem to have an abundantly reliable national supply of is political hot air and football games. Perhaps the answer for the future of our economy is food. We have the ability to grow a lot of corn and wheat, and everyone on the planet has a need for it in one form or another.

[dipsydoodle]

26. Some countries completely bypass the petrodollar

The petrodollar recycling system is a scam anyway.

Plenty of links to the subject. Example here :

The theory of Petrodollar Warfare can be attributed to US analyst and author William R Clarke, and his 2005 book of that title which interpreted the US-UK decision to invade Iraq in 2003. He called this an "oil currency war", but the concept of the petrodollar system and petrodollar recyling dates back to the eve of the first Oil Shock in 1973-1974. The role of the petrodollar system as a driving force of US foreign policy is explained by analysts and historians as basic to maintaining the dollar's status as the world's dominant reserve currency - and the currency in which oil is priced.

The term "petrodollar warfare" as used by William R. Clark says that major international war, legal or not, was seen as justified to protect the petrodollar system. Over and above the loss of human life, the combined costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars for the US are controversial like the interpretation of these wars as "oil wars", but analysts like Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes put the total combined war cost at above $4 trillion. This can be compared with - and totally dwarfs - the annual cost of US oil imports, which are now sharply declining on a year-in year-out basis as domestic shale oil output ramps up, and US oil demand stagnates.

Clarke's theory, like the explanation of the role and power of the "petrodollar system" depends on two basic drivers. Most major developed countries rely on oil imports, which are purchased using dollars, so they are forced to hold large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue importing oil. In turn this also creates consistent demand for dollars, and prevents the dollar from losing its relative international monetary value, regardless of what happens to the US economy.

Variants of the Petrodollar War concept include the role of oil currency conflicts and rivalry, notably concerning US relations with Iran, Venezuela and Russia, and possibly with Europe concerning the gradual replacement of US dollars with the euro, for oil transactions. More important, the entire petromoney system and the potential for Petrodollar War hinges on global oil import demand and the oil price. Both of these have to hold up. When or if they do not, foreign oil importer nations who formerly found it beneficial to hold dollars to pay for oil, would have to find some other (unexplained) reason for huge holdings of dollars, when their oil imports decline and-or oil prices also decline.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-20/guest-post-coming-collapse-petrodollar-system

[JohnnyRingo]

27. That's an interesting article

Maybe it comes down to a basic truism though: If there's a way to cheat the system and line one's pocket with wealth, someone will absolutely come up with it. No level of rules or regulation on finance is without potential loopholes that can be exploited by those with wile and imagination.

Something I learned as a boy playing Monopoly. "I'll be the banker."

On edit:
Thanx for that link.

[dipsydoodle]

28. Mention of Iraq

alludes to the issue as to whether or not that was the real background to the invasion of Iraq. When Saddam switched to Euros for oil it cost the US a huge bundle to buy Euros to buy the oil. At the same time Saddam lost a bundle too but then when the Euro rose against the dollar Iraq's windfall profit was phenomenal.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. I recall the "Saddam switching to Euro" as a potential reason

...for invading the country way back when we went in.
That sure makes more sense than WMDs or giving the Iraqis "freedom". Could have been Hussein's most fateful and ill timed decision.