Objective17 Feb 2024 10:05
One (of many) problems with this article is the last sentence:
"The groups from time to time hint that a new deal for resumption is imminent, but the last few updates on the subject from the parties involved suggest that a deal is still not near."
This is objectively wrong. So let's take a look at the latest (30 days) comments on "all parties involved":
16-Feb (Kurdistan politician): "Very delicate.. At this point even the smallest mis-step "could impact" the situation. "
16-Feb (Iraq O&G Parliamentary leader): It is likely to resume oil exports in a month or two months'
13-Feb (Iraq Oil Minister): "PROGRESS IN TALKS WITH INTERNATIONAL OIL COMPANIES OPERATING IN IRAQI KURDISTAN, EXPRESSING OPTIMISM ABOUT RESOLVING A LONGSTANDING DISPUTE THAT HAS HALTED NORTHERN OIL EXPORTS."
7-Feb (Iraq ambassador in New York, at the UN): "Every effort will be made to resume oil exports from the Kurdistan Region through the World Pipeline"
19-Jan (Iraq PM) "Council of Ministers working on assessment of changes to budget, so they can pay IOCs. They have an issue with cost of oil production. Negotiations ongoing to resolve issues, but no official agreement yet"
So, of all the public messages from "all parties" all of them leans to a reopening except only one - which we received yesterday. Funny enough the only objection to a opening was from the Kurdish side. One could argue it's a tactic.
I believe the last discussions are about the IOCs and Baghdad. Kurdistan's ability to sway here is coming lower by the day.