<<These contracts are TSA service contracts. As such they are more limited then the PSA contracts given out by your "socialist" friend Saddam Hussein. TSA contracts do not allow for ownership of reserves or a share in profits. Both ownership of, and profit from, Iraq's oil reserves will remain in the hands of the Iraq.>>
I'm not familiar with either of the terms, TSA and PSA. However, I can grasp the essentials of a contract that provides a flat fee per barrel for services rendered and excludes a share of the profits (thus insulating the provider from both the upswings and downswings in the future price of oil) as well as excluding ownership. The negotiation of any oil deal would be complex; the two basic parties must each decide on the form of contract most advantageous to itself and if the less advantageous form is chosen, then compensation for that must be sought in various other features of the contract. Ultimately a bottom line is reached, where each party can predict a low-end and high-end net benefit to itself for having entered into the deal.
I think everything depends on the deal and not the form - - that is, whatever TSA or PSA contracts are, that a company can either make money or go broke on either a TSA or a PSA contract, depending entirely on the terms negotiated for that particular contract. My guess would be that whatever form of contracts were let, and on whatever terms, that the Iraqi government is doing one hell of a lot worse than it would have done under Saddam, and the multi-nationals one hell of a lot better, otherwise why bother with the invasion at all? IF, however, the Iraqi government is holding its own, this is certainly not a testimony to the benevolence of the U.S. government, but only to the utter incompetence, even as criminals, of the Bush-Cheney administration, in failing to reach its nefarious goals. They started a war for the oil of the Iraqi people, and botched the job so badly that they never got what they came for.
<<Secondly, I don't think your prediction/asesment that America's strategy, regarding oil, in invading Iraq was largely concentrated on serving oil interests, Big Oil, be they national, or international, was the correct prediction, or asesment. I suspect that America's interest in Iraq's oil had much more to do with raising its capacity irregardless as to which oil companies would directly benefit in the short term. >>
I won't argue with that. It's plausible and somewhat consistent with my revised concept of the general idea being to get the oil out of the hands of the Iraqi people and into the hands of the "multi-nationals," from which the American companies could benefit by purchase and re-sale, or even from consistent markets wherein sales of oil everywhere continue to be denominated in U.S. dollars and with a larger and more dependable Mid-East oil supply continuing to serve its European and Asian customers, there would be less upward pressure on the cost of America's traditional supplies.
