Haliburton doing business in Iran....

[NoCalMike 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752/

 

 

How do U.S. contractors legally do business there?By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit

Updated: 6:29 p.m. ET March 7, 2005It's just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers' uniforms.

 

But this isn't Texas. It's Iran. U.S. companies aren't supposed to do business here.

 

Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said "served the interests" of Iran.

 

"I am baffled that any American company would want to have employees operating in Iran," says Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "I would think they'd be ashamed."

 

Halliburton says the operation — videotaped by NBC News — is entirely legal. It's run by a subsidiary called "Halliburton Products and Services Limited," based outside the U.S. In fact, the law allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations to do business in Iran under strict conditions.

 

Other U.S. oil services companies, like Weatherford and Baker Hughes, also are in Iran. And foreign subsidiaries of NBC's parent company, General Electric, have sold equipment to Iran, though the company says it will make no more sales. (MSNBC is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture.)

 

Still, Halliburton stands out because its operations in Iran are now under a federal criminal investigation. Government sources say the focus is on whether the company set out to illegally evade the sanctions imposed ten years ago.

 

"I am formally announcing my intention to cut off all trade and investment with Iran," announced President Bill Clinton in 1995.

 

Sources close to the Halliburton investigation tell NBC News that after that announcement, Halliburton decided that business with Iran, then conducted through at least five companies, would all be done through a subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

 

"It's gotten around the sanctions and the very spirit and reasons for the sanctions," says Victor Comras, a former State Department expert on sanctions.

 

For Halliburton to have done this legally, the foreign subsidiary operating in Iran must be independent of the main operation in Texas. Yet, when an NBC producer approached managers in Iran, he was sent to company officials in Dubai. But they said only Halliburton headquarters in Houston could talk about operations in Iran. Still, Halliburton maintains its Iran subsidiary does make independent business decisions.

 

Why should Americans even care if U.S. companies circumvent the sanctions?

 

"The purpose of these sanctions is to dissuade Iran from supporting terrorism and from seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction," says Comras.

 

There's a move in Congress to close the loophole.

 

"We don't want American companies propping up a government that's dedicated to our destruction," says Sen. Collins.

 

Halliburton says it is unfairly targeted because of politics, but recently announced it is pulling out of Iran because the business environment "is not conducive to our overall strategies and objectives."

 

However, that exit will be slow. Halliburton announced it was leaving Iran only three weeks after Iran announced the lucrative new gas deal, which industry sources say will take three years to complete.

 

 

[2GOLD 0]

Why is it I feel like the Haliburton theme should be a combination of the Imperial March and Yackety Sax?

 

And you know things are up when Democrats and Republicans are agreeing this is rather shady as hell.

[Guest MikeSC]

I suppose, somehow, I'm supposed to give a shit.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

You should, Mike, considering it's Washington's worst kept secret that Cheney is still running the company and making mad profits off of everything they do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, actually, I have no proof of that whatsoever. No one does. Because it's actually not true, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly where NoCal is going with this.

[Guest Brian]

Isnt' the point that they're undermining sanctions? Does everything in this folder always boil down to partisan polictics?

[Vyce 0]

Does everything in this folder always boil down to partisan polictics?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

[Guest Brian]

Yes and no. It just seems like everything is proverbial political dick measuring contest and it really takes away from examining things at face value.

[NoCalMike 0]

Haliburton's actions in Iraq are way besides the point of a potential link to Dick Cheney or not. It isn't even the same issue.

 

Next time Bush wants us to fork over 80 billion dollars, much of which is obviously funding haliburton's operation, do you think it might be wise to make sure none of it is going towards their efforts in Iran? I mean shouldn't this be something that a company should be punished for?

[Guest MikeSC]

Isnt' the point that they're undermining sanctions? Does everything in this folder always boil down to partisan polictics?

They're a company ignoring sanctions. Yeah, it's bad.

 

But we all know why it was even mentioned.

-=Mike

...It doesn't change that Halliburton is the best at doing what they're doing in Iraq...

[Guest INXS]

I'm surprised that Haliburton would go to Iran, what with Iran being a part of the Axis Of Evil ~! and them being a bunch of terrorists hell bent on creting a nuke to wipe out the western world.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm surprised that Haliburton would go to Iran, what with Iran being a part of the Axis Of Evil ~! and them being a bunch of terrorists hell bent on creting a nuke to wipe out the western world.

Well, maybe they wanted to beat European firms to the punch...

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Why is Cheney helping Iran get closer to a nuclear bomb?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Goddamnit. Nobody can ever discuss Halliburton without a bunch of people trying to sneer off the issue as irrelevant by jumping to conclusions, usually these conclusions involve Dick Cheney conspiracy theories. And even that isn't as terrible as bullshit posts like "Why should I care?" which are about as worthless as posting in a post whore thread to bump up your number a little more. If you don't have anything to contribute, shut up, you don't need to post.

 

Believe it or not, some people have a grudge against Halliburton that doesn't involve conspiracy backroom dealings without a shred of evidence. They involve grey-area situations like these or maybe something else. It's just like how some people hate Wal-Mart and Starbucks.

[Guest MikeSC]

Goddamnit. Nobody can ever discuss Halliburton without a bunch of people trying to sneer off the issue as irrelevant by jumping to conclusions, usually these conclusions involve Dick Cheney conspiracy theories. And even that isn't as terrible as bullshit posts like "Why should I care?" which are about as worthless as posting in a post whore thread to bump up your number a little more. If you don't have anything to contribute, shut up, you don't need to post.

 

Believe it or not, some people have a grudge against Halliburton that doesn't involve conspiracy backroom dealings without a shred of evidence. They involve grey-area situations like these or maybe something else. It's just like how some people hate Wal-Mart and Starbucks.

So, you admit the hatred is irrational?

 

Got it.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, I'm saying that if, hypothetically, it was found that the chairman of Halliburton was a child rapist, you guys would auotmatically spout off with some bullshit to make it sound like a conspiracy theory.

 

It would probably be some stupid-ass comment smeared in sarcasm like "Oh, well I bet that guy was a child rapist because DICK CHENEY told him how to get ahead! I bet he didn't get caught til now because DICK CHENEY is secretly making money hand over fist to keep that executive from being arrested! Because you know about HALLIBURTON and DICK CHENEY, and all the sneaky stuff going on there."

 

Nevermind that something legitimately bad happened. You'll dismiss that because, in your imagination, the whole thing is just an indirect attack at the White House.

 

I guess I could sum the whole damn thing up by saying that Vyce was the first person to mention Cheney in this thread, which is telling.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why should I care?

 

*runs...*

[Vyce 0]

I guess I could sum the whole damn thing up by saying that Vyce was the first person to mention Cheney in this thread, which is telling.

Okay, I'll capitulate and concede your point.

 

But let's not act is if this is a one way street. 9 times out of 10 when Haliburton is brought up in this folder, it's done SPECIFICALLY to make the Dick Cheney connection.

 

And given that NoCal Mike was the one who posted this, I wasn't buying that this was the one exception out of 10.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, I'm saying that if, hypothetically, it was found that the chairman of Halliburton was a child rapist, you guys would auotmatically spout off with some bullshit to make it sound like a conspiracy theory.

 

It would probably be some stupid-ass comment smeared in sarcasm like "Oh, well I bet that guy was a child rapist because DICK CHENEY told him how to get ahead! I bet he didn't get caught til now because DICK CHENEY is secretly making money hand over fist to keep that executive from being arrested! Because you know about HALLIBURTON and DICK CHENEY, and all the sneaky stuff going on there."

 

Nevermind that something legitimately bad happened. You'll dismiss that because, in your imagination, the whole thing is just an indirect attack at the White House.

 

I guess I could sum the whole damn thing up by saying that Vyce was the first person to mention Cheney in this thread, which is telling.

JOTW, considering how irrational the hatred of Halliburton is, yes, I do take a lot of the bitching as weak attempts at generating conspiracy theories.

 

Let's be honest --- if Cheney never was their CEO, NCM wouldn't have given the slightest version of a shit about it.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

considering how irrational the hatred of Halliburton is

 

Nope, nothing to see here.

[Guest MikeSC]

considering how irrational the hatred of Halliburton is

 

Nope, nothing to see here.

And my point is made.

 

Thanks.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Documents from the Army Corp of Engineers show Halliburton overcharged the government for importing gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait. The company was charging $2.64 per gallon to transport gasoline into Iraq while its competitors were transporting gasoline for less than half that price.

 

Halliburton unit KBR overcharged the U.S. government for meals supplied to troops at five military bases in Iraq and Kuwait during 2003. The company had overcharged by $27.4 million over a 9-month period. In one military camp in July 2003, KBR billed the government for an average 42,000 meals a day but served only 14,000 meals.

 

Halliburton admitted in an internal memo that its cost controls for government contracts are "antiquated" and "weak" and its procurement "disorganized" and marked by "weak internal controls." The memo, which was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, contradicts the company's public statements which claim it has a "rigorous system of internal controls" for contracts in Iraq. The memo reportedly reveals the results of a study by 80 Halliburton managers the company calls "Tiger Team." Tiger Team examined whether the company fairly charges the government for its contracting work. According to the Journal, the study is "a frank admission that [Halliburton's] critics are voicing valid concerns about the possibility of overcharges under the company's massive contract to supply U.S. troops."

 

...because they're giving it to the American taxpayer both hard & up the BUTT?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

considering how irrational the hatred of Halliburton is

 

Nope, nothing to see here.

And my point is made.

 

Thanks.

-=Mike

You're clueless

 

That is copious logic.

 

Life ain't fair. Deal with it and move on.

 

You've botched this post so thoroughly that we can't save you now.

 

Is this hard to fathom? What part is losing you?

 

Don't be afraid --- words won't hurt you.

 

It's time you realize how idiotic your incessant carping sounds.

 

"economic bondoogles"

 

Democracy is a process, not an event.

 

-=Smitty

 

(source:poatm)

[Guest MikeSC]

considering how irrational the hatred of Halliburton is

 

Nope, nothing to see here.

And my point is made.

 

Thanks.

-=Mike

You're clueless

 

That is copious logic.

 

Life ain't fair. Deal with it and move on.

 

You've botched this post so thoroughly that we can't save you now.

 

Is this hard to fathom? What part is losing you?

 

Don't be afraid --- words won't hurt you.

 

It's time you realize how idiotic your incessant carping sounds.

 

"economic bondoogles"

 

Democracy is a process, not an event.

 

-=Smitty

 

(source:poatm)

Wow, that is the wittiest thing you ever wrote.

 

You should continue copying people brighter than you.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Actually it's been quite awhile since anyone even brought up Dick Cheney along with Haliburton besides the Conservative posters here who get a sarcastic tickle out of some of the things Jobber has already stated.

 

If we can look past any and all potential connections to Dick Cheney, the issue still remains that Haliburton is breaking laws and ripping off the tax payer.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Holy crap, I missed Jobber's post, and it was right above mine!

 

I think I would have said something like Dick-Cheney-had-some-help-from-Colin-Powell in regards to the "child rapist" remark.

 

And where is all this Halliburton/Cheney talk coming from? Did he intern there as a college student or something?...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Shipping was extra — a lot extra

KBR spent millions getting $82,100 worth of LPG into Iraq

By DAVID IVANOVICH

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

 

WASHINGTON - Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there — quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel.

 

 

 

In the latest revelation about the company's oft-criticized performance in Iraq, a Pentagon audit report disclosed Monday showed Halliburton subsidiary KBR spent $82,100 to buy liquefied petroleum gas, better-known as LPG, in Kuwait and then 335 times that number to transport the fuel into violence-ridden Iraq.

Pentagon auditors combing through the company's books were mystified by this charge.

 

"It is illogical that it would cost $27,514,833 to deliver $82,100 in LPG fuel," officials from the Defense Contract Audit Agency noted in the report.

 

The portions of the audit report released Monday did not specify exactly how much fuel was involved in this billing.

 

The portions of audit report were released by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., both dogged critics of Halliburton and its wartime contracts.

 

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the figures were taken out of context.

 

"The implication is definitely misleading," Hall said. "Transporting fuel into Iraq was a mission fraught with danger, which increased the prices that firms were willing to offer for transportation."

 

Halliburton has seen 61 of its workers and subcontractors die in Iraq and Kuwait, many while delivering fuel.

 

Army officials were desperate to get fuel into Iraq, fearing the lack of such basic necessities as cooking and heating fuel would lead to greater unrest and support for the insurgency.

 

But efforts to truck in fuel were hampered by repeated attacks on fuel convoys, delays organizing military escorts, supply route closures and changing delivery points, company officials said. Security was so dicey, in fact, that tanker trucks were lucky to make two round trips per month.

 

And because neighboring Kuwait had few trucks available to transport fuel, Halliburton had to bring in trucks from neighboring countries and contract for a barge, Hall said.

 

 

No comment from corps

Company officials say they transported about 3.5 million barrels of LPG from Kuwait to Iraq via truck and barge.

 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which had assigned Halliburton the job of getting fuel into Iraq, declined to comment on the substance of the audit report, noting that it contained confidential commercial information that had not been authorized for release outside government channels.

 

Corps officials said a subsequent audit report was completed in February, which they are now studying.

 

"The major issues in this audit report have not been resolved," a Pentagon spokesperson said. The corps "is currently working to finalize negotiations for a price on this and all outstanding task orders."

 

The lawmakers would not say how they had obtained the audit report for the fuel transportation.

 

 

Support from agency

Company officials point out the firm's estimating and purchasing systems have recently received a nod of approval from the Pentagon's Defense Contract Management Agency.

 

In all, Halliburton submitted bills to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers totaling $875 million for supplying Iraq with fuel from May 2003 through March 2004.

 

Pentagon auditors questioned $108 million or about 12 percent of those costs.

 

That's substantially higher than the $61 million in possible fuel overcharges Pentagon auditors had previously identified. But that figure only covered the first five months of Halliburton's fuel supply assignment.

 

In March 2004, the Defense Energy Support Center, the military's own fuel supply arm, took over the job.

 

In a letter to President Bush Monday, Waxman and Dingell complained that Pentagon officials had repeatedly ignored their requests to see copies of the Pentagon audits.

 

"Indeed, when Government Reform Committee staff indicated that they were considering issuing a subpoena for the audit reports, a Defense Department official replied that issuing a subpoena will not get the material released any faster," the lawmakers wrote.