IN October, Tony Blair dismissed suggestions that the war on Iraq had anything to do with its oil reserves as "absurd". For those still in any doubt, the following facts might prove enlightening:

President Bush's chief economic adviser Larry Lindsay (former financial adviser at Enron) said recently: "When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels (per day) of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."

The former director of the CIA, R James Woolsey, has said: "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

At a briefing on the company's poor results last month, the chief executive of BP, Lord Browne, expressed his concern that British companies would be squeezed out by US oil giants after the war.

Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress (an exiled opposition group who support a war to topple Saddam Hussein), has been holding talks with representatives of US oil companies about how oil reserves will be split up in a post-war Iraq. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," he said.

There are 41 former oil executives in George W Bush's administration. The multinational oil giant Exxon/Mobil donated $1.3m to political parties during the 2000 presidential campaign. Ninety per cent of this money went to the Republicans.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on the planet, around 11 per cent of the world's total. Do George Bush and Tony Blair want a war for oil, or is such a suggestion "absurd"? Given the facts, I am sure that readers can make up their own minds.

John Greenwood

St Paul's Place, Halliwell