The links (plural) that I provided both show that Libya IS a big producer.
Civil war in Libya sent the markets jittery and pushed the prices up. The west cannot afford to allow disruption on that scale. Its all there!
In other words NATO intervened for ... wait for it ... OIL!
Too bad Libya's production has been cut by half due to NATO's intervention and it has lasted months not days.
Not quite. There is a distinction. Not for oil per se, but to guarantee a cheap supply of oil from everywhere else. And there is another reason too. If this libyan civil war gets really violent or settles into a long drawn out affair, then there is a chance that civilian morale will crack, in which case we have a huge refugee problem. Refugees cant head south, because its desert. Only so many can head east into Egypt or west into Tunisia, becuase they have their own political uprisings atm, therefore they might take to boats across the Med. Not a comforting thought for Europeans.
Too bad Libya's production has been cut by half due to NATO's intervention and it has lasted months not days.
Which in and of itself is an argument against this being a mere grab for oil. They must have known that Libya's production of oil would plummet once fighting started and even more once it intensified. So why intensify it? If they are grabbing oil, they would want to guarantee supply. How can they do that if port facilities and pipelines are damaged in the fighting, as they inevitably will be?
One link was provided after my assertion, which was only referencing one anyway. According to the US energy information, Libya produces (or produced) about 2.2% of the world's oil. Not a huge amount. The UK produces 1.7%.