Oil Expert Accuses National Oil Corporation of “Economic Crimes” That Harmed Public Funds and the Value of Libyan Crude

Oil and gas expert Huda Issa wrote:

“The violations outlined in the June 2026 correspondence constitute clear economic crimes, deliberate harm to public funds, and the destruction of the market value of Libyan crude oil in global markets.”

She provided the following technical assessment, supported by calculations of the estimated financial losses:

1. Failure to Comply with Due Diligence and Term Sales Contracts

According to Issa, term contracts are intended to ensure stable revenue streams and consistent production. The repeated failure of companies to lift contracted cargoes during June 2026 demonstrates poor management in verifying buyers’ financial credibility and a failure to enforce contractual guarantees, such as confiscating performance bonds or activating compensation clauses.

She estimates that if cancelled cargoes forced production to be reduced by 120,000 barrels per day for 10 days, assuming a benchmark oil price of US$80 per barrel, the direct production loss would amount to:

120,000 barrels/day × 10 days × US$80 = US$96 million.

2. Breach of the “End User” Requirement and Facilitation of Speculation (TPIC Case)

Issa argues that Libyan regulations require crude oil buyers to be end users operating refining facilities and to provide a Discharge Certificate confirming the cargo’s final destination.

She claims that Turkey’s TPIC, which she describes as a trading company rather than a refinery operator, should not have been included in long-term contracts. According to her, this allegedly enabled speculative resale of Libyan crude at sea, putting downward pressure on prices.

She states that companies failing to load cargoes or engaging in speculative trading should be blacklisted and replaced by financially capable companies that own operational refineries.

3. Deliberate Underutilization of Strategic National Assets (Holborn Refinery)

Issa states that the Holborn Refinery, owned by Oilinvest (Libya Invest)—a Libyan state-owned company—was established to serve as a reliable end user for Libyan crude and protect it from speculative trading.

She argues that omitting this information from official correspondence and overlooking the refinery’s refusal to load cargoes represents complicity in serving narrow interests.

4. Acceptance of Discounted July 2026 Offers (US$9 per Barrel Below Benchmark)

According to Issa, disruptions to the June loading schedule enabled buyers to submit offers for July 2026 at discounts of up to US$9 per barrel below the benchmark price.

She contends that merely discussing such discounted offers in official correspondence, rather than rejecting them outright, undermined Libya’s negotiating position and devalued Libyan crude.

She estimates that:

• A standard Suezmax tanker carries approximately 1 million barrels.
• A US$9 per barrel discount would therefore reduce revenue by US$9 million per shipment.
• If only four cargoes were sold under these terms, the immediate loss would total approximately US$36 million.

5. Repetition of the Oilinvest Dispute Following the 2015 Crisis

Issa recalls that in 2015, Oilinvest allegedly lifted crude cargoes worth approximately US$350 million without making payment after oil prices collapsed, settling the matter only after years of negotiations with the Libyan state.

She notes that a previous Chairman of the National Oil Corporation subsequently imposed a complete ban on dealings with the company.

According to Issa, resuming business with Oilinvest in 2026, while alleging similar conduct involving delayed payments and crude speculation, raises serious concerns regarding potential financial misconduct.

6. Distortion of Libyan Crude Prices in the Mediterranean Market

Issa states that international market bulletins indicate an unprecedented pricing distortion, with high-quality, low-sulfur Libyan crude reportedly trading at a discount of approximately US$1.10 per barrel below what she considers its fair market value.

She contrasts this with other regional crude grades, which she says trade at a premium of approximately US$0.50 per barrel despite being of lower quality and incurring higher shipping costs.

According to her calculations:

• Total pricing gap: US$1.60 per barrel.
• Assuming monthly exports of 30 million barrels, the resulting revenue loss would be:

30,000,000 × US$1.60 = US$48 million in a single month.