Maybe this article will help clear things up for you. I just found it and it lays out the details much better than I have been doing.
How will Iraq share the oil? The Christian Science Monitor
The PSA's are buried into the distribution of oil wealth benchmark. The distribution of oil wealth will be determined by the oil sharing law which includes the PSA's... does that make more sense to you or did I lose you someplace else? I thought my line of facts were clear, but I know what I am trying to say... it just might not make it on paper as clear as it is in my head.
Okay, I've gone through the story, and while I know now what you are talking about and why, I believe the foundation of this theory has a prerequisite of belief in the worst of American intentions.
Tim's Article said:
While we can't confirm it, there are enough reports out there that appear to indicate that undue, unfair preference and the influence of our oil companies are part of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law, and if that is true, that is not correct," says Rep. Joe Sestak (D) of Pennsylvania, a former admiral and defense adviser to the Clinton administration.
People are looking VERY closely at this. People all over the world and here at home WANT for there to be a connection, and if there was one, I believe it would be found.
Tim's Article said:
Fueling new resistance to the oil benchmark are reports that the draft law in fact says little about sharing oil revenues among Iraqi groups and a lot about setting up a framework for investment that may be disadvantageous to Iraqis over the long term. On the flip side: Iraq's oil industry badly needs new investment, and oil companies are reluctant to go into Iraq without a legal framework that ensures that the contracts they sign will be respected by future Iraqi governments.
If Iraq is to stand on her own two feet, she needs to use her natural resources to do it. Oil is the key to her success, and as such, development of that infrastructure is paramount to everything we all want to see. A stable country, and U.S. soldiers home with their families. For this to become a reality, that legal framework must come first. This article makes reference to the fact repeatedly. I'd have to quote almost the entire thing to encompass all it says on the subject.
Tim's Article said:
"The Iraqi government remains in a dangerous stalemate: No oil law," Senate majority leader Harry Reid said during a debate on war policy on Wednesday.
While I don't read what you read into the above, if you are going to look at it from an evil Republican or evil Bush POV, then why is Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader talking about it like this??
Tim's Article said:
In New York, oil industry analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. has reviewed both the official Arabic version of the draft law and the unofficial English translation and says they are ambiguous and seem to be written in haste.
"The law did not strike me as something that was explicitly designed to favor American companies, although I'm not ruling that out," he says.
He mentions that it does raise an eyebrow that international companies are mentioned in the law, but that there is no requirement that they be American companies. In fact, my understanding of the reality of their oil history is that primary contracts will likely go to Russia. Actually, I'm almost sure of it now that I'm thinking about it.
Tim's Article said:
With the world's second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, Iraq is the top prize in the international oil business. Iraq needs new foreign investment to help modernize its oil industry, which has been closed to new technology for the past 25 years, says Mr. Gheit.
But even with a new draft oil law, international oil companies won't be eager to send engineers into a nation in turmoil. "It's very difficult for oil companies to recruit people willing to work in the Iraqi oil fields. It's mayhem," he says.
"If the idea of the law is to expedite getting international oil [firms] to ... set up shop and invest money, they're mistaken," Gheit adds. "I doubt very much that any oil company will be willing to send geologists, engineers to be shot at, kidnapped, or beheaded."
Private industry can accomplish in 5 years what it would take local Iraqis 20. If it takes them 20 years to get their economy's infrastructure running, that is 20 years of doubt, violence, and instability. 20 more years of U.S. forces keeping the peace. Nobody wants that. Not us. Not them. As such, I suppose it is not a stretch to say we stand to gain from the passing of this legislation. I don't think that implies ciminality on our part however.
The Iraqis need to strike a balance between getting things done quickly, and getting things done in the best way for them in the long run.
As an olive leaf, I will say this; I can see it being likely that the Iraqi government will be more likely to take the long, violent road if they think our commitment is open ended. If we're going to be their keeping the peace, then that takes the pressure off of them to get it done quickly.
I don't think this means we should start pulling out now, but I do see it as becoming increasingly important for them to make tangible gains politically. If we were to begin pulling troops today, I can't think of a single reason it would ad the the stability in the region. If the bad guys started pulling forces out of the country, and sent word about it on the news, what would the effect be here in America? ... The answer seems clear to me.
) is because of the ignorance that I hear flowing out of it so often.
