Haliburton In control of Iraq oil.....

[Guest NoCalMike]

Halliburton job bigger than thought

 

Army says $7 B contract to repair Iraq's oil fields includes operations and oil distribution.

May 7, 2003: 3:12 PM EDT

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Halliburton Co.'s $7 billion contract, awarded without competition, to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure also gives it the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry, according to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

 

Waxman said, based on a letter he received May 2 from the Army, that "the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil."

 

Officials previously had said the contract dealt only with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed.

 

 

"These new disclosures are significant, and they seem at odds with the [bush] administration's repeated assurances that the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people," Waxman said in a May 6 letter to the Army.

 

Halliburton said these duties are not inconsistent with its previous statements that it was hired to "provide services for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure."

 

"As directed by the US Army Corps of Engineers, KBR is assisting the Iraqi oil workers in the operation of their facilities," Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said. She deferred questions about the possible length of the contract to the Army.

 

The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, along with watchdog groups, to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract.

 

"There don't seem to be any criteria [for picking the contractor], other than the close connections a company might have with the administration," said Charlie Cray, director of the corporate reform campaign at Citizen Works, a Washington watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader. "The fact that the contracts are secret enhances the appearance of handing out contracts to cronies."

 

The White House has denied any accusations of favoritism, and the Army said Halliburton was chosen because it won a competitive bid last year to prepare a contingency plan for shoring up Iraq's oil production after the war.

 

A Cheney spokeswoman denied the Vice President, who was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000, had anything to do with the contract.

 

Cheney sold all his Halliburton shares during the presidential election of 2000, and he has promised to give to charity any profit from Halliburton stock options he still owns. He still is paid a set amount by Halliburton every year, but he's guaranteed that money even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

 

The Army has promised it will soon issue a new contract, subject to an open bidding process, for longer-term work in Iraq.

 

This opportunity for future work could be one reason why Halliburton's competitors, such as Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB: Research, Estimates), Baker Hughes Inc. (BHI: Research, Estimates), GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF: Research, Estimates), Nabors Industries Ltd. (NBR: Research, Estimates) and Weatherford International (WFT: Research, Estimates), have chosen not to join the chorus of critics accusing the Bush administration of favoritism.

 

"Because the companies haven't complained is not to say they are not well positioned," said Prabhas Panigrahi, director of research at Kevin Dann & Partners. "They will get involved later. To complain right now would sound like sour grapes."

 

Panigrahi and other analysts say there are many stages still to come in boosting Iraq's oil production back to its pre-war capacity of about 2 million barrels per day and to its potential capacity of more than 3 million bpd.

 

So, even if they're shut out of the work now, they still could have plenty to do in the months and years to come.

 

"We're still interested in any work that ends up being put out for bid," said Fluor Corp. (FLR: Research, Estimates), which also could be in line to work on Iraq's oil fields.

 

Schlumberger and Baker Hughes had no comment about the Halliburton contract or their potential roles in Iraq. The other companies mentioned in this article could not be reached for comment.

 

Waxman had written to Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers of the Army Corps of Engineers seeking answers as to why the contract, which could be worth up to $7 billion over two years, netting Halliburton a $490 million profit, "is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer."

 

Flowers responded that the sum was based on the "worst scenario" that a large proportion of Iraq's 1,500 wells would be set ablaze, and that there would be "massive intentional oil spills and pollution resulting from the fires." It turned out only a few oil wells were set ablaze during the war.

 

Flowers said "task orders are placed only for work that is required in the near term." He did not give an overall dollar amount on the contract.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

-- Additional reporting by CNN/Money Staff Writers Mark Gongloff and Andrew Stein

[Guest Vern Gagne]

This is one less thing that has to be dealt with during post-war Iraq.

 

Afghanistan still hasn't begun paving roads because the papework involved in the bidding from companies.

[moral suasion 0]

I believe that Haliburton was either the 2nd or 3rd largest contributor to the 2000 republican presidential campaign.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I guess they could of pretended to have bidding for the job.

[Guest Powerplay]

This is pretty old news. They gave them the contract a while back when they were having oil fires. Personally, a long bidding war while oil fires are going on is not a good thing. If you know Haliburton's gonna do the job well anyways why not use them? I mean, seriously, if they have connections with Haliburton anyways they are probably getting a great deal with them as well, we forgo a lengthy bidding war so we get the God damn oil fires out sooner, and we are doing it with a company that they know will get the job done. So tax payers save money and we avoid letting an ecological disaster get worse.

 

Second, it's obvious that this is just a temporary rush deal. The Army has even said that they are issuing a new contract soon enough, which leads me to believe that Haliburton was only called to handle the immediate situation kinda like a favor for the Administration.

 

Problem where?

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Second, it's obvious that this is just a temporary rush deal. The Army has even said that they are issuing a new contract soon enough, which leads me to believe that Haliburton was only called to handle the immediate situation kinda like a favor for the Administration.

 

Problem where?

Yes, exactly. This contract is only for the initial capping of the well fires and doing some basic repair on the infrastructure already in place. There is a second, much larger contract being put up for bid that will give the vast majority of the serious rebuilding of the oil fields to the winner. Halliburton is far from guaranteed of getting that contract.

 

It's also important to note that the Halliburton subsidiary tapped to do this work, KBR, was one of the key companies involved in the clean-up after the first Gulf War. They received very high marks for their performance then, before they were a part of Halliburton, so couldn't this just be a reward for doing a damn good job the first time?

 

Jesus, all you liberals yahoos need to realize that not everything that happens in this country while Bush is President is some sort of vast Republican conspiracy. There is no significant story here.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Well, the way it comes off is that Bush and his company are getting rich off of Oil. People didn't call it Operation Iraqi Liberation for nothing. Haliburton did a good job last time yes. But you need to realise that Dick used to run the company. So doesn't it seem little fishy? Now if that Iraqi oil pipeline comes in built by Runfeld's old pals. Then I know it is a "vast Republican conspiracy".

[Guest Vern Gagne]

It just seems like Haliburton has been a reliable company in the past, and it's one less thing to worry about in postwar Iraq.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Oh my God.

 

Halliburton is NOT... I repeat... NOT a great energy company! They have posted red numbers as recently as 1998! It's not as if they're the biggest and best energy company out there, thus giving them the virtually automatic contract.

[Guest Powerplay]

Oh my God.

 

Halliburton is NOT... I repeat... NOT a great energy company! They have posted red numbers as recently as 1998! It's not as if they're the biggest and best energy company out there, thus giving them the virtually automatic contract.

Oh please, cut with the theatrics.

 

As recently as 1998? And this means?...Tyler, every company has a bad year or two. It doesn't mean they don't get the God damn job done nor does it speak to their reliability. And they are going to have a bidding war soon enough, so please stop the damn bitching. It's just a temporary fix. Gah...

[Guest NoCalMike]

Oh my God.

 

Halliburton is NOT... I repeat... NOT a great energy company! They have posted red numbers as recently as 1998! It's not as if they're the biggest and best energy company out there, thus giving them the virtually automatic contract.

Oh please, cut with the theatrics.

 

As recently as 1998? And this means?...Tyler, every company has a bad year or two. It doesn't mean they don't get the God damn job done nor does it speak to their reliability. And they are going to have a bidding war soon enough, so please stop the damn bitching. It's just a temporary fix. Gah...

Ok but are you refusing to believe that Haliburton's links to the adminstration could have POSSIBLY been the biggest reason behind this?

Edited May 8, 2003 by NoCalMike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That's the last time I checked, and the red ink had been flowing for at least seven years. In addition, they also tried to hide it and, in the process, screwed over investors in what could have been considered another Enron if Halliburton had gone under. They're far from a secure company, and they're certainly NOT this shoe-in that the administration, and you, are making them out to be.

 

Sure, there will be bidding later... but that's not to say that Halliburton hasn't already profited enormously from this favoratism.

[Guest Powerplay]

They're far from a secure company, and they're certainly NOT this shoe-in that the administration, and you, are making them out to be.

Because we all know a better company here, right? Or maybe Haliburton is the fucking best at this sort of work here. Just because they've had trouble over the past financially means absolute dick when it comes to talking about how to put out a fucking oil fire. I certainly don't see the link between the two...

 

Ok but are you refusing that Haliburton's links to the adminstration could have POSSIBLY was the biggest reason behind this?

 

The White House has denied any accusations of favoritism, and the Army said Halliburton was chosen because it won a competitive bid last year to prepare a contingency plan for shoring up Iraq's oil production after the war.

 

The Army has promised it will soon issue a new contract, subject to an open bidding process, for longer-term work in Iraq.

 

By the article it says that they' had already won the bid last year and because people like you are in such a fluster the Army is forcing them to try again. Whoo @ being fair! I mean, throwing out a winning bid to have another bidding war to throw off the OMGODZ FAVORTISM~!!@U#*($&*)#$* people is just a paragon of justice there. To ask you guys: If a company has had connections to anyone in the administration, does that mean that they'll NEVER EVER EVER EVER be allowed to have a contract with the Government EVER EVER again? Did you ever consider the fact that these companies, also, may get government contracts because they can do the job well?

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

In addition, they also tried to hide it and, in the process, screwed over investors in what could have been considered another Enron if Halliburton had gone under.

Dear God Tyler, I hope you aren't talking about the SEC inquiry that began last year. If you are, then you should stop because you obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

I'll explain the whole nature of that SEC inquiry to you if I must, but I doubt that it would do any good.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You don't need to explain it, because I've already been well versed in the nature of the offenses.

 

They inflated their earnings based on potential earnings, where as they SHOULD have reported the ACTUAL earnings. In effect, they took credit for money that wasn't actually there in order to inflate their stock prices. They were really in the red the entire time.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well, the way it comes off is that Bush and his company are getting rich off of Oil. People didn't call it Operation Iraqi Liberation for nothing. Haliburton did a good job last time yes. But you need to realise that Dick used to run the company. So doesn't it seem little fishy? Now if that Iraqi oil pipeline comes in built by Runfeld's old pals. Then I know it is a "vast Republican conspiracy".

Except, of course, no Bush cabinet official has any ties nor makes any money off of the corporation.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Oh my God.

 

Halliburton is NOT... I repeat... NOT a great energy company! They have posted red numbers as recently as 1998! It's not as if they're the biggest and best energy company out there, thus giving them the virtually automatic contract.

Oh please, cut with the theatrics.

 

As recently as 1998? And this means?...Tyler, every company has a bad year or two. It doesn't mean they don't get the God damn job done nor does it speak to their reliability. And they are going to have a bidding war soon enough, so please stop the damn bitching. It's just a temporary fix. Gah...

I love that because Haliburton was in the red as recently as 1998 means we can't trust them.

 

Enron was very much in the black in 1998.

 

I suppose we CAN trust them.

 

Just because a company has a bad year doesn't make them any less trustworthy as a company that had a "great" year IS trustworthy.

 

I do like the left-wing here: Hillary and Bill attacking pharmaceutical companies in 1993 when they were selling pharmaceutical stocks short was OK -- but THIS is obviously bad.

-=Mike

[Guest MrRant]

Haliburnton has done fine up until looks like 2002.

 

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/fi...ktw&dist=mktwqn

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Um, it is conflict of intrest to hold office and be a CEO of a company. But if you are a former CEO and leaving on reasons of Politics, you THINK there isn't a tie there? Maybe, just maybe they cut all ties. But what is offical and what true are two different things. There were no mobsters offically on the Kennedy payroll durring his election. But everyone knows they aided by fixing the voting in Chi-town and other places.

 

How do you think they got the contract the first time? Bush family is rich off Oil, Dick is friends with GW. GW's father is president, doesn't it seem a little odd or is it me. Not that I am saying any favoritism is being done.

[Guest Powerplay]

Um, it is conflict of intrest to hold office and be a CEO of a company. But if you are a former CEO and leaving on reasons of Politics, you THINK there isn't a tie there? Maybe, just maybe they cut all ties. But what is offical and what true are two different things. There were no mobsters offically on the Kennedy payroll durring his election. But everyone knows they aided by fixing the voting in Chi-town and other places.

 

How do you think they got the contract the first time? Bush family is rich off Oil, Dick is friends with GW. GW's father is president, doesn't it seem a little odd or is it me. Not that I am saying any favoritism is being done.

Dick didn't have any connection to Haliburton during the first Gulf War. Secondly: Since Dick Cheney was once (And isn't currently) connected to Haliburton, does this automatically mean they are no longer able to get a government contract anymore? What the hell? How fair is that? I mean, he's cut all ties; he gains nothing from doing anything with Haliburton anymore. Let's say Kennedy cut his ties with the Daly's in Chi-town. Does this mean that, since he was once affliated with Chicago corruption, he's not allowed to go back to Chicago?

[Guest B-X]

Well, the way it comes off is that Bush and his company are getting rich off of Oil. People didn't call it Operation Iraqi Liberation for nothing. Haliburton did a good job last time yes. But you need to realise that Dick used to run the company. So doesn't it seem little fishy? Now if that Iraqi oil pipeline comes in built by Runfeld's old pals. Then I know it is a "vast Republican conspiracy".

Except, of course, no Bush cabinet official has any ties nor makes any money off of the corporation.

-=Mike

Quote from the article

 

Cheney sold all his Halliburton shares during the presidential election of 2000, and he has promised to give to charity any profit from Halliburton stock options he still owns. He still is paid a set amount by Halliburton every year, but he's guaranteed that money even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

 

How is Cheney not making money from any corporation? He has a guaranteed paycheck from Halliburton.

 

Did you read the whole article? Or did you just see another opportunity to rebuke everyone's points, one to a post?

[Guest Powerplay]

How is Cheney not making money from any corporation? He has a guaranteed paycheck from Halliburton.

 

Did you read the whole article? Or did you just see another opportunity to rebuke everyone's points, one to a post?

Dude, he's guarenteed a FIXED AMOUNT NO MATTER WHAT, even with Bankruptcy. So no matter how good or bad the company does, he gets the same amount, therefore he has no reason to make favorable decisions towards the company (That is, the ones that fall under the extremely limited amount of VP powers). Did YOU even read the article?

[Guest B-X]

My point is, he does receive money from the company, which would render Mikes post off beam.

[Guest Powerplay]

My point is, he does receive money from the company, which would render Mikes post off beam.

But it doesn't matter if Haliburton succeeds or fails. What Mike is saying is that he won't make any money if Haliburton succeeds (Thereby making money off the decisions), which is totally true. He gets the money no matter what, so there isn't any link to any sort of bribery or favoring or whatever you are trying to insinuate.

[Guest B-X]

I see what you are saying, and you are probably right. However, I'm not sure that was what Mike was insinuating. Just taking him to task for what appeared to me to be yet another stupid, unfounded tidbit of bullshit.

 

That's all. Let's move on.

[Guest Powerplay]

Okay then. I guess it was a misunderstanding. But I see why you said what you said.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I see what you are saying, and you are probably right. However, I'm not sure that was what Mike was insinuating. Just taking him to task for what appeared to me to be yet another stupid, unfounded tidbit of bullshit.

 

That's all. Let's move on.

Well, God knows if ANYBODY knows ALL about stupid, unfounded tidbits of bullshit, it would be you.

 

KUDOS to you!

-=Mike

...Who wonders if the left REALLY wants to live under the double-standards they like to create

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Everyone already lives under double standards. That is just life. But this case does reek of bullshit.

[Guest B-X]

I see what you are saying, and you are probably right. However, I'm not sure that was what Mike was insinuating. Just taking him to task for what appeared to me to be yet another stupid, unfounded tidbit of bullshit.

 

That's all. Let's move on.

Well, God knows if ANYBODY knows ALL about stupid, unfounded tidbits of bullshit, it would be you.

 

KUDOS to you!

-=Mike

...Who wonders if the left REALLY wants to live under the double-standards they like to create

Oh really? Would you be so kind as to direct me to any specific examples? Or are you just spewing teh shit again?

 

Respond prompty please. I'm awaiting your reply, and another one of your witty postscripts. My nipples are tingling with anticipation!

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

You don't need to explain it, because I've already been well versed in the nature of the offenses.

 

They inflated their earnings based on potential earnings, where as they SHOULD have reported the ACTUAL earnings. In effect, they took credit for money that wasn't actually there in order to inflate their stock prices. They were really in the red the entire time.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

Their earnings weren't overstated. The "potential" earnings you speak of weren't profits at all - they were costs that were incurred by Halliburton at the request of the client. These costs were not specified in the original work contract, but since they were agreed on by both parties, Halliburton billed for the extra costs. The extra amounts of revenue (not earnings) that were reported was only the amount of extra cost incurred - no profits were exaggerated, or earnings misstated. An accounting standard known as SOP 81-1 is very specific about this issue.

 

It's also very interesting to note, not that any of the OMG HALLIBURTON IS CORPORATE THIEVES!!~ conspirators here will believe it, that a full year after it began the SEC investigation has NOT advanced past the preliminary stages. They did nothing wrong. They were not going to be another Enron...

 

 

Sorry to jump in on this late and all, but I've been away from the board for several days and felt I needed to set the record straight.