This investigation converted $116.5 million in cooking-oil credit records for January–March 2025 into more than 105,000 tonnes and roughly 115 million litres. The conversion is a model that depends on product mix, density, freight, packaging and the execution status of each credit.

USD 116.5m

Cooking-oil credit value cited for January–March 2025

From a dollar value to 115 million litres

Central-bank records associated about $116.5 million with cooking-oil credits in January–March 2025. The original calculation translated that value into more than 105,000 tonnes and roughly 115 million litres. The implied average is close to $1,110 per tonne before testing the exact mix of palm, sunflower, corn or soybean oil and the treatment of freight, insurance and packaging.

That reconstruction is useful because it turns an abstract foreign-exchange line into a quantity people can understand. It is still a model. Different oils have different prices and densities, and a landed invoice for bottled retail oil is not comparable with a bulk cargo price.

A national consumption test

Spread over roughly three months, 115 million litres would equal about 38 million litres a month. The policy test is whether this volume is consistent with population, household consumption, food manufacturing, stocks and possible re-export. A high number is not automatically implausible in an import-dependent economy, but it should be reconcilable with demand.

Per-capita comparisons must use the same product definition and period. They should also account for restaurants, bakeries, factories, waste and inventory changes. Without those adjustments, a dramatic per-person figure can mislead as easily as a raw dollar total.

Financing is not physical arrival

A documentary credit is a payment and risk-management instrument. Its appearance in a foreign-exchange table does not by itself establish that the full quantity arrived, cleared customs, entered wholesale distribution or reached consumers. Amendments, partial shipments, cancellations and timing differences can separate financing data from customs data.

The investigation therefore stops short of calling the 115 million litres a verified import volume. The correct description is an oil-equivalent estimate derived from credit values, pending transaction-level reconciliation.

The economic question behind the oil bill

Libya may rationally import cooking oil when domestic production cannot meet demand. The deeper issue is whether official dollars are buying the greatest public value: competitive prices, reliable supply, adequate reserves and fair access for importers. Repeated large allocations also reveal the cost of weak domestic processing and oilseed agriculture.

Industrial policy should not be reduced to claiming that every import dollar could instantly build a factory. A factory requires feedstock, power, logistics, finance and a market. But the financing ledger can identify products for which repeated import dependence justifies a serious feasibility study.

The data needed for closure

For each oil-related credit, the public record should show product code, quantity, unit price, supplier, origin, freight terms, financing bank, execution status and customs declaration. Monthly totals should distinguish bulk crude oil from refined and packaged products.

A reconciliation table could then answer four questions: how much was approved, how much was paid, how much arrived and how much entered the domestic market. Until then, the $116.5 million figure is documented financing; the 115 million litres remain an analytical estimate.

Editorial method: This investigation rebuilds the original calculation from the linked public records, preserves the source period and transaction stage, and separates documented figures from estimates, interpretation and allegations.

Mohamed Algarj