- Iraq Oil Report dated 10th December 2014) asserts that the above mentioned issues of principles were discussed but no agreement was reached on them. If that was the case why the announcement of 2nd December did not say so at least to avoid exploiting such omission as legal precedence on the base that non-mentioning of such matters could imply accepting them.
- From the above we conclude this agreement does not serve its declared objectives; it does not help in improving next year federal government budget, because all the added production from the Region and Kirkuk will go to the Region and even more; in the long run the Region could utilize this agreement as precedent to serve its interest on one hand and encourage other oil producing provinces to demand similar treatment on the other. And this is definitely not in the interest of Iraqi unity. The agreement also left basic problems without solution and gave away much of the national wealth to part of the country irrespective of its true population ratio, and without obliging that part for a corresponding equivalence. And while this agreement asserts that oil belongs to all Iraqis, it, nevertheless, did not translate this Constitutional principle into facts on the grounds. Also this is evident by what was said recently (in London on 18th December 2014) by KRG Minister of Natural Resources when he asserts that the Region has red lines which should not be crossed over and these are: the right of Region to export its oil and its right to continue controlling Kirkuk oilfields that was occupied last July.
Some might argue that this agreement aims at reintegrated the Region into the national tent and thus it is an acceptable price to pay; we think this is unrealistic optimism as evident by the deed and words of the KRG, including statements made by Mr. Ashti Hawrami referred to above and the way KRG had exploited the current security conditions to occupy Kirkuk and other areas and declared them part of the Region.