I'm going to end this "It's about oil" argument once and for all.

Iraq produces between 3% and 5% of the world's daily oil supply on any given day.

To put that in perspective, of the ten largest oil producing countries on the planet, Iraq ranks 7th. Saudi Arabia ranks 1st producing 500% more oil than Iraq. Number two is Mexico... three is Venezuela.

"Yeah, but... but... Iraq has the second largest oil reserve under it!"

If you have a quarter, I have a dime, and everyone else on earth has a nickel... I have the second largest coin on earth. But it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what's out there.

"Well...um.... but what is there is still worth a lot of money!"

Is it? There's an estimate that says that the oil in the sands of Iraq is worth $3trillion dollars.

Problem 1: getting to the oil. Iraq is producing 4% of the oil because that's all it can get at. If that oil were easily obtained, Iraq would've already tapped it. In order to even think about draining the untapped oil, infrastructure, technology, and machinery would have to be built, invented and installed. That costs money. That takes time.

Problem 2: refineries all ready at full capacity. The oil refineries around the world are already at full capacity. They are already maxed out as to how much oil they can take in and turn into gasoline and fuels. There's just no more room for more oil to go into them.

So if you tapped Iraq and drained all that oil, it'd sit in storage until the refineries can get to it... which costs money... But the refineries wouldn't ever get to it, because oil from other reserves needs to be refined too. Some all that excess oil would sit in storage indefinitely. That costs money. It sure as heck doesn't make money sitting in storage.

One option would be to build more refineries. Building refineries costs money. Plus, the environmental movement in the US is preventing any more refineries from being built. If the refineries are built in foreign countries, it would cost more money to run them and ship the fuels to their destinations. Plus, you'd be splitting taxes and would probably have to negotiate tariff deals.

Problem 3: Too much oil supply reduces prices. If you drained the oil, built more refineries, and released a couple billion barrels of oil out into the marketplace, you dramatically increase supply. Anyone who's taken a basic economics course knows that if supply goes up and demand stays the same, prices drop. That $3trillion quickly become $1trillion.... cutting into profits. So the cost of infrastructure, the cost of technology, the cost of machinery, the cost of refineries, the cost of shipping, the cost of tariffs, and the reducing of oil prices nets about 4% per year over 28 years. You can do better with T-Bills.

ADD to that the cost of cleaning up after a war.

And now the time factor. Time to clean up, time to build roads and infrastructure, time to develop technology, time to build machinery, time to ship and install machinery, time to build refineries, time for negotiating international tariff deals, time for refining, time for transport... all without a significant increase in demand.... By the time all that is done we could be driving H-cell cars by then.

My point is that if you want to get rich on oil, Iraq is not the place to do it. There are a dozen better options. If you're going to use war as a method for obtaining oil, let's go after Venezuela... they're ripe for a takeover right now and produce over 300% more oil than Iraq. Better yet, let's annex Mexico. Even better yet, let's take over Saudi Arabia...we already have military bases there.

If we really wanted more oil, we'd just lift the sanction on Iraq and buy it... at a cheaper cost and in less time than going through the hassle of everything listed above. But then you run into the full capacity and supply and demand issues. If this were really about oil, we would've kept troops in Iraq in 1991. It doesn't make economic sense. It would lose money.... especially in the short-term... meaning stock prices would fall. That's something no investor wants, especially in the short-term. The only oil factor in this equation is that the money Iraq DOES make from legal and illegal oil sales is going into producing weapons, golden palaces, and probably to terrorist groups.... hence the reason Saddam says he doesn't have enough money to feed his people and why they're starving to death in the streets while cheering his name. He spends the money on military and not on children. If a new Iraqi regime were in control of their oil, maybe the money would go towards schools, and food, and medicine, instead of towards anthrax, vx gas, aluminum tubes, and al-shamud missiles. The "War for Oil" line is without basis and just plain wrong. It's a "sound good" line perpetuated by the left and those people that are wishing for an ulterior motive because they just can't believe that Bush isn't lying. But as soon as you start to think about it rationally, like in this article, you see that the "War for Oil" line has no merit whatsoever.