Halliburton Gouging the Government
 

Who would have ever imagined? And whoever said the war wasn't about money and oil, is sadly mistaken... :321GFY

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...at=halliburton

Couple of weeks late.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...t=halibu rton

Hmm. Shit.

Interesting to note though, that this contract wasn't up for bid... convenient, considering this happens to be Cheney's former company. Seriously, everyone that still thinks this war was about something legitimate has their head up their ass.

It's a story from today:

Reps: U.S. Overpaying Halliburton for Gas

The U.S. government is paying Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm Halliburton "enormous sums" -- $2.65 a gallon -- for gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, two lawmakers charged on Wednesday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ne_cheney_dc_4

The previous article said we were paying $1.70, now it's up to $2.65.

The 2004 election is too far away!

I am aware of that...but the premise is the same and the outrage is being expressed by the same Congressman (Waxman) who is something of a hitman for the Democracts...and the arguments remain the same.

If you want to make billions, the best way is to sell products and services to the US Government.

KRL,
I believe that's true. I wonder what they need more of... :Graucho

That is basically a true statement. An anectdotal story...if a retired 100% disabled vet drives himself...or has a friend drive him...from my county to the nearest VA hospital in the Bay area he is paid milage. Something along the lines of $30 or so. If the same Vet is not ambulatory (unable to drive himself) the VA will send a Van to transport him (a civilian service under government contract) and the transport service is paid something along the lines of $1500.

honesty, quality & substance - speech therapy?

Looks like it....


Hope this isn't too old for TheKing ( 10/30/2003) :thumbsup

damn
why dont i sell weapons or something like that
i think i would be a good tank builder
:Graucho :Graucho :Graucho

Did you have a point to make or just posting a link to an article?

Obviously, the point was made.

Look at the second post of this thread ( from you):

brushing this under the carpet as irrelevant and "passe".

My post is up to the date:

TODAY

As you say so often: you are dismissed :1orglaugh

Is it news to you that a company is in business to make a profit?

IE...Kellogg Brown & Root was apparently given a $900 million dollar contract...and has made a profit of $34 million dollars thus far from that contract. Thus far this represents less than a 4% profit margin. When their $900 million dollar contract is fulfilled...if things go well for them...they could have a profit margin that exceeds 4%.

When a company accepts a $900 million dollar contract this means that the company has to bear all expenses for what ever project/projects are involved in the contract. If they calculated properly before accepting the contract...they will make a profit...if they miscalulated...they will break even or lose money.

Specifically what is it that you think is being brushed under the carpet?

I used to be a part owner of a small entrenching company. When the company bid on a job/or accepted a job...let us say a $10,000 bid/job...we calculated a minimum 25% profit margin. All expenses involved in completing the job came out of our pockets. If when the bid was made our estimated expenses were close to being correct and the job went as planned (sometimes it did not)...we would usually come out with a profit margin of 18%-20%.

oh look at all the wing nuts come out of the woodwork. If any of you ran a business you'd understand that you don't do business in a war zone for the same price as you do everywhere else.:1orglaugh

Your inability to think is what will bury the left for the next 50 years.:thumbsup

12clicks, serious question. i understand why a business would try to make the most of a financial opportunity, but why didn't the u.s. government get bids on this and get the best price for the gas? that is sop for businesses and individuals.

perhaps i am remembering wrong but i read a while back in major news services that there were no other bids asked for from large oil companies.

"It was given a contract in Iraq without being forced into a competitive pitch, drawing close scrutiny of its links to the Bush administration. It has already secured business worth $1.3bn under that award and another $1.4bn in a separate, competitively bid contract to provide support services to troops."

Their second contract was granted via competitive bidding.

Halliburton does things that no one else in the world does. They have tools vehicles and abilities in the volume that no one else has. When the US calls upon them to jump, halliburton says "how high?"
You pay a premium for that type of response no matter what business you're in.
Now, ask companies to handle transporting oil in a war zone rife with terrorist attacks (and your tankers make juicy targets) and just how many companies do you think *can* do it?
And shouldn't *one* company be used over and over in such situations so that there is a working relationship and understanding between the military and the contractors working for them?

War is not the place to go looking for the cheapest bid. We don't need a "Value Jet" type company putting people at risk because they were the low bid.

but if we used a "value jet" company, just THINK of all the frequent flyer miles the u.s. would rack up :Graucho

so then, you don't disagree with my point? :thumbsup

Not really.

There ARE other companies. Including a French one, but that would make people more pissed hahaha

One i cannot recall even attempted to contact the government to offer their services for a very cheaper amount. I read in a news article about this, that they claimed all they got back was a letter saying that 'Your type of service will not be needed.'

I cannot find the company name.

But when I read the article it said they could do the same thing Haliburton does and for cheaper.

Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations

WASHINGTON - Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers.

The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts.

Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs in both countries.

"No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government," Center executive director Charles Lewis said. "This situation alone shows how susceptible the contracting system is to waste, fraud and cronyism."

J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, took issue with Lewis' statement and aspects of the report.

"It would ... be incorrect to suggest that there is no overall oversight of this process," he wrote the Center. "The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts which was requested by USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios on April 14th has shown that all Iraq contracts to date have been done in compliance" with federal regulations.

The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry.

Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) before he resigned to run with Bush in 2000.

Halliburton's top executive, Dave Lesar, said Wednesday he was offended by criticism of the company's Iraq work but believed it was "less about Halliburton and more about external political issues."

"As a company uniquely qualified to take on this difficult assignment, we will continue to bring all of our global resources to bear at this critical time in the Middle East. We have served the military for over 50 years and have no intention of backing down at this point," he said.

Bechtel was second with a $1 billion capital construction contract involving Iraq's utilities, telecommunications, railroads, ports, schools, health care facilities, bridges, roads and airports.

The company's Internet site says, "We do engage in the political process, as do most companies in the United States. We have legitimate policy interests and positions on matters before Congress, and we express them in many ways, including support for elected officials who support those positions.

"We do not expect or receive political favors or government contracts as a result of those contributions."

The Center's analysis of contractor political donations showed:

_The top 10 contractors contributed $11 million to national political parties, candidates and political action committees since 1990.

_Fourteen of the companies won contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those companies, combined, have given more than $23 million in political contributions since 1990.

_Most contractors, their political action committees and their employees have contributed just under $49 million to national political campaigns and parties since that year.

_In the same time period, contractor donations to Republican Party committees outpaced contributions to the Democrats, $12.7 million to $7.1 million.

Many of the companies with large contracts have important political connections.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is a member of Bechtel's board of directors, although he has no management role, according to the company's Web site.

Riley Bechtel, the chairman and chief executive officer, was named early this year to the President's Export Council, which advises the president on programs to improve U.S. trade.

Jack Sheehan, senior vice president in Bechtel's petroleum and chemicals business, served on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the defense secretary on a variety of issues.

Other contractors also had connections. Among those cited by the Center:

David Kay, head of the Bush administration's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is a former vice president of Science Applications International Corp. He left the company in October 2002.

Christopher "Ryan" Henry left the same company as a vice president in February 2003 to become principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

Scott Spangler, principal owner of Chemonics International, was a senior U.S. Agency for International Development official during the first Bush administration. The company receives 90 percent of its business from USAID.

Sullivan Haave Associates Inc. was founded by Carol Haave, currently the deputy assistant secretary of defense for security and information operations.

The Center's findings are based, in part, on 73 Freedom of Information Act requests and an analysis of a federal contractor database.

In addition it is an international company with resources and connections world wide. I still maintain though...that my friend Joe...of Joe's Acme Construction Company and his six employees shoud have been awarded the contract.

'Halliburton Co.'s U.S. government contract to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure extends for two years, could be worth as much as $7 billion, and could earn the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a profit of $490 million.'

490 mill sounds nice for doing nothing but giving your old buddies a contract.

'But the Army letter raised even more questions for Waxman, particularly the fact that a contract designed only for "emergency" repairs and fire-fighting was written to last for two years and seemed to give Halliburton an undefined role, saying only it will perform "those services necessary to support the mission in the near term."

this is rather strange. a no bid 2 year contract to put out fires?

2 years to put out fires?

'Halliburton said it was only responsible for the "onset" of the work needed to repair Iraq's oil fields and that "additional contracts" would be issued, after competitive bidding, to complete the work in its contingency plan.'

They even claim they are ONLY there for the emergency part and to put out the fires.

so why 2 years? If its only short term and just for the beginning?

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/11/news...r_halliburton/

:winkwink:

12clicks, thanks for responding the way you did. i couldn't really agree or disagree with what you said without doing some research on how many large oil companies have experience in this area.

while it's true that i'm not for the war in any way, i thought what you said was articulate and well-thought out, and it was a point of view i had not previously heard/read. thank you :)

$490 million represents approximately a 7% profit margin...pretty low margin...there have already been oil fires set by "terrorist's" and production is still extremely low...so it is predictable that more oil fires will be set as production levels increase and probably well over a two year period.

By the way the 7% margin is assuming that all goes well for them.

Bill Clinton also gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton. Was he an evil war monger out to steal oil for his rich buddies?

Sure, I'm sure there are plenty of companies *saying* they can do it cheaper.
Cheaper is a small part of the deal