Sparks, I wouldn't really say the UN resolutions are there to do the selling, they just provide the justification. The whole WMD/terrorist angle is what drives public opinion, IMO.
From a financial standpoint, there are major production contracts available to extract Iraqi oil. In simple terms they are lease arrangements to develop the infrastructure and extract the product and get it on the way to further processing in refineries around the world. In the oil universe, exploration and production represent “Big Oil” and is where the money is made. Refining and marketing follow somewhat behind. In fact, a lot of the majors are moving away from refining because the margins can vary too greatly.
Currently, LUKoil, Grazprom and ZarubezhNeft in Russia, TotalFinaElf in France and Petronas in Malaysia and China National Petroleum Corporation have the inside track on the contracts. LUKoil and ZarubezhNeft have about $110 bn at stake. TotalFina stands to triple its access to international petroleum reserves.
There is no guarantee that US oil interests could just walk in and dictate control after the war, but we can’t do anything at the present time and will not be players under the current regime. A stabilized region would be broadly beneficial, and there is enough room to share, so to speak, for the countries that are on board. I still believe that even though there are some sizable financial opportunities to potentially be gained in the war, the real motivation is more security. But, you just can’t overlook those proactive benefits either.
I rest my assumption on the fact that our “multinational” oil companies have enough profitability for these benefits not to be worth what has become a considerable effort. Perhaps here is where I stick my head in the sand.
This may be the administration's vision for a post war Iraq, as outlined in The National Review by Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/cohen/cohen121102.aspAs for France, JBA has done a pretty good job of covering some of those motivations. There are oil interests, but we could probably deal on those. However, the deal wouldn’t be a step up for the players sitting in the saddle today. Also, billions in owed debt may not be honored. In addition, there is a defense market at risk, and if you want to be a major aerospace player for example, you have to be able to export or else you can’t drive cost efficiencies and can’t afford the programs. France has fairly limited export options beyond the Middle East, and without exports it can’t just order 400 of the latest design for its own air force like the US can to help cut costs. Then there is the battle for the leadership position in the EU. Just which factor weighs heaviest is for someone with more knowledge of French economics and politics. Beyond defense, Iraq represents a broader export market for friendly countries.
Here are some very good, fairly neutral, links on the subject and worth the read, much more detailed than what I can supply.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asphttp://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.htmlhttp://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_3120.shtmlThey also cover some of the intereesting possibilities with how the new supply may or may not integrate with OPEC. Abundant, cheap oil is one thing to the consumer, but quite another for the producer
Charon
