Al-Shalawi: “Are Libya’s Oil Figures Conflicting? A Technical Analysis of Monthly Data and Oversight Reports”

Oil and economic expert Abdelmonsef Al-Shalawi examines the apparent Libya oil data discrepancies between monthly figures published on the oil sector and data contained in oversight reports.

The comparison between monthly data published on Libya’s oil sector and figures included in oversight reports has raised legitimate questions about differences in production, shares, prices, and financial transfers between January and July 2026.

However, a technical reading of the figures suggests that much of what appears to be a “discrepancy” may instead result from differences in the time basis, classification, and method used to record the data. This does not necessarily mean that the underlying figures for production, exports, or revenues are actually contradictory.

A proper numerical comparison cannot simply place one figure next to another. It must first establish the unit of measurement, the period covered by each figure, and the nature of the quantity being measured. Is it actual production, a contractual share, an exported quantity, oil allocated for domestic refining, or revenue that has actually been collected?

Production: Limited Differences

The tables indicate that some production figures may be assigned to different periods in the two reports.

One notable example is the figure of 42,507,852 barrels, which appears in one table under January but matches the December 2025 figure in another detailed table.

This raises the possibility of a time shift in the presentation of some months. As a result, directly comparing one month with another without first standardizing the reporting basis may create apparent discrepancies.

When the corresponding months are examined more carefully, the total difference in production between January and June amounts to approximately 336,000 barrels out of around 246 million barrels, or only about 0.14%.

From a technical perspective, this is a limited difference that could result from measurement adjustments, month-end closing procedures, quantity corrections, or the adoption of subsequently finalized data. On its own, it is not sufficient to conclude that there is a fundamental discrepancy in the production figures.

State Share and NOC Share: Terminology Matters

The most important observation concerns the comparison between the Libyan state’s share and the National Oil Corporation’s share.

These two terms should not be treated as identical before the components of each figure are established.

The tables appear to show that some figures included in the comparison as the “state share” are actually figures for exported crude oil.

For example, in February, the figure shown is 26,109,367 barrels, while the state’s share for that month amounted to approximately 29.29 million barrels.

Similarly, in July, the figure shown is 32,347,940 barrels, while the state’s share amounted to approximately 36.01 million barrels.

This means that the frequently cited difference of approximately 22 million barrels cannot automatically be considered a disputed quantity of oil between two parties. Part of the comparison is fundamentally based on two different categories of data.

Oil allocated to domestic refineries or other uses within the country remains part of the state’s entitlement, even if it does not appear in export figures.

Partners’ Shares

There are also differences in partners’ shares totaling approximately 421,000 barrels over the months available for comparison, while some months match exactly or nearly so.

These differences deserve an explanation, but they remain limited relative to total production.

Partners’ shares are also linked to production-sharing agreements, entitlements, lifting schedules, inventories, and adjustments between actual production and quantities received. Consequently, some figures may change when subsequent reviews and reconciliations are carried out.

Oil Prices: The Comparison Requires a Time Adjustment

One of the most striking figures is the difference recorded in March between $70.74 and $103.89 per barrel, which appears to suggest a difference of more than $33 per barrel.

However, closer examination of the price sequence strongly suggests that the two figures may not relate to the same pricing period.

Published data indicate that the average Brent price was approximately $70.9 per barrel in February, around $103 per barrel in March, nearly $117 per barrel in April, $107 per barrel in May, and approximately $85.4 per barrel in June.

Therefore, the appearance of $70.74 alongside $103.89 may be the result of differences in the month of attribution, pricing period, or shipment timing, rather than evidence that Libyan crude was sold at a $33 discount to Brent.

It is also important to note that the average price of Libyan crude does not necessarily have to equal the Brent average. The actual price is affected by the type and quality of crude, pricing dates, loading ports, contractual terms, and the applicable price differentials.

Financial Transfers: Almost Complete Match

By contrast, the figures for transfers to the Libyan Foreign Bank appear to be extremely close.

Total transfers amount to approximately $15.79 billion, while the difference between the two figures is only around $466,000.

This represents a negligible percentage when compared with the overall amount.

Such a high degree of consistency should be taken into account when assessing the reliability of the overall data system.

Conclusion

In my assessment, the available figures do not point to a fundamental contradiction in the actual state of Libya’s oil activity. Instead, they reveal challenges related to the standardization of definitions, classifications, and the time basis used across different reports.

This does not eliminate the importance of oversight, nor does it diminish the need for audited financial statements and final accounts. At the same time, it does not undermine the value of monthly disclosures, as each serves a different purpose.

Monthly disclosure provides an up-to-date operational picture, while subsequent reviews serve to audit the figures, make adjustments, and verify their accounting accuracy.

What Libya needs today is not a choice between data produced by an operational entity and data produced by an oversight body. Rather, it needs a unified data reconciliation system that clearly defines the meaning of each item, the period it covers, its unit of measurement, and the timing of its recognition.

Transparency does not simply mean publishing figures. It means ensuring that those figures can be understood, compared, and verified.

When the available data are examined using this approach, the overall picture points more toward differences in timing, classification, and adjustments than toward a fundamental contradiction in Libya’s oil-sector data.