Halliburton overcharging for gas in Iraq

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

If you didn't do it intentionally, then you should be more careful about doing it casually. That one word makes a *lot* of difference. It was the difference between implying that *all* gasoline money is being drawn from humanitarian funds, and only *some* of the money. That's a significant omission.

Negative. All news organizations do not get a free ride to say whatever they want. When they provide biased reporting, they should be called to the carpet for it. When they omit facts which would explain things that they are trying to sensationalize, then the public deserves to know they're doing that.

First, thanks for lesson in quoting/misquoting and it's apparent effects on an arguement/discussion that I've already said I'm not too interested inpursuing...

Second, Your paragraph beginning with "Negative" (Quoted correctly above) is exactly what I'm talking about... News reporters, do not get a free ride to say whatever they want... It is normally one sided and sensational... And, they normally don't publicize blatantly negative things about the decisions that their own gov'ts have made or are making.

Thank you, have a wonderful day!
Go Halliburton!, the most straight lined company in our nation!
Down with the BBC.. how dare they call themselves a news company?

[billvon 3,085]

>why does all your media references come from the UK . . .

In case you are OK with US media here are a few home grown stories:

-------------------------------------------
Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said
NewsMax Wires
Monday, June 25, 2001

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

-----------------------------------------
Halliburton Unit Got Exclusive Military Bid

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2002

(AP) Since Dick Cheney became vice president, a subsidiary of his former company was chosen the exclusive contractor for overseas Army troop support and Navy construction despite being under federal investigation for fraud.

The Navy contract went to the Halliburton Co. subsidiary, Brown & Root Services, despite a recommendation from the auditing arm of Congress that new bids be solicited for the construction contract. That recommendation was ignored.

The Army deal is unusual because its stretches 10 years and has a payment structure that critics say encourages Brown & Root to spend whatever it takes to keep the troops happy.


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

Halliburton's Soaring Contracts Prompt Call for Investigation

Daily News, New York
Friday, September 19, 2003

Halliburton's contracts in Iraq have skyrocketed to $2 billion, prompting new calls from lawmakers to investigate the propriety of the deals.

Halliburton, formerly run by Vice President Cheney, began work in Iraq with a $37.5 million no-bid contract in February to put out oil fires. That deal, expanded to include pumping oil, is now worth about $948 million, according to Halliburton figures provided to the New York Daily News.

But the oil contract alone, awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, is potentially worth up to $7 billion, the military said.

"It stinks - that the (oil) contracting was done behind closed doors that circumvents traditional bidding procedures just stinks to high heaven," said Rep. Steve Israel, (D-L.I.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Cheney receives a million dollars a year from Halliburton. It's interesting to watch the far right try to spin that to say it's not really money, or he's not really getting paid, or it's not really from Halliburton, or he doesn't use the money, or maybe it has something to do with taxes.

Oh boy, now the name calling is coming out. When someone resorts to that, it's usually a sure sign that their arguments are failing.

First of all, I am not the "far right". On some issues, I favor Republicans, on other issues I favor Democrats. So what does that make me? The "far middle"?

Second, I haven't heard anyone say any of those things which you allege above, except for the one about the tax motive. You seem to be setting up your own straw man arguments just so you can knock them down.

Third, I got into this thread initially only to point out the grave misinterpretations, twisting of facts, and errors of omission that some people were committing using information from news stories. I gotta admit, it's kinda fun to refute someone's information, by quoting from their very own news source.

The truth is my theme here. It has nothing to do with "right" or "left". Too many people were providing one-sided stories. I stepped in to provide the other side.

As for Cheney's payments, I would only refer to the explanations already provided earlier in the thread.

A question for you: If Cheney cashed-out his severance payments now, taking them in a lump sum instead of annual payments, would that action convince you, once and for all, that there would no longer be any future bias from the Bush administration in favor of Halliburton?

[billvon 3,085]

>Oh boy, now the name calling is coming out. When someone resorts
> to that, it's usually a sure sign that their arguments are failing.

So when you said:

>>My oh my, how the Bush-haters can mis-read a story

you were admitting your arguments are failing? Fair enough.

>On some issues, I favor Republicans, on other issues I favor
> Democrats.

Me too!

>Second, I haven't heard anyone say any of those things which you
> allege above, except for the one about the tax motive. You seem to
> be setting up your own straw man arguments just so you can knock
> them down.

Here is what I have said so far:

Cheney is still being paid by Halliburton.

When someone is paid by a company, and they are in a position within a government to treat that company more favorably than others - that's conflict of interest.

A few hundred million of taxpayer money, out of the 87 billion approved by congress, is going to pay for oil in Iraq.

Which one of those do you dispute?

> If Cheney cashed-out his severance payments now, taking them in
> a lump sum instead of annual payments, would that action convince
> you, once and for all, that there would no longer be any future bias
> from the Bush administration in favor of Halliburton?

It would lessen, but not eliminate, the chances that Halliburton is treated favorably by the government - and afterwards the odds that Halliburton _is_ being favored would drop with time. A CEO of any corporation has more ties to that corporation than just salary, but as a company evolves under a new CEO those old ties diminish.

[Lefty 0]

Glad I was able to jump into this thread right now...billvon, I'm still not convinced you read that article you posted. If you had, you would have seen that Haliburton could go tits up and Cheney would not be affected as far as his severance goes, due to the insurance on it. It is money that is owed to him by the company. Consider it "reparations" for the work he did while he was there. Does that clear anything up?

- Lefty

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 3,085]

>It is money that is owed to him by the company.

I agree, and the insurance guarantees he will get it no matter what. I'm not arguing that. What I AM suggesting is that if a company pays you millions over the course of several years, and you are in a position to make decisions that unfairly favor that company over other companies, that's a conflict of interest. I don't think it matters if that money is in the form of a salary, a deferred salary, a guaranteed salary, a massive campaign contribution, or an outright gift.

I know, companies try to do that all the time. Doesn't make it right.

>Consider it "reparations" for the work he did while he was there. Does
>that clear anything up?

Uh, I'm totally against reparations. If that's the way you want me to see it, it should stop immediately.

[kiltboy 0]

From John Rich

Quote

Look at what you just said. Halliburton is only charging three cents more per gallon than what you pay! And for that measly three cents, they have to contend with deadly terrorists, bad roads, destroyed refineries, decayed infrastructure, a supply chain stretching around the world, and gosh knows how many other difficulties.

That’s not all I said so lets look at selective quoting shall we? My full post was

I filled up for $1.56 this morning.

It just struck me that it's hard to get contributions to a rebuilding conference when a company that was awarded a contract (without competitive tender) is exploiting the situation for considerable profit.

There is a conference in Madrid for the purpose of raising money for Iraq and here we have what appears to be a gap between what the SOMO could get it for and what Halliburton is charging. Interesting now is the Multi donor trust fund run by the World Bank and the UN and I’m hopeful that the fund will get the best price for the required work.
The fact that they are paying 3 cents more for gas than I do is immaterial if it can be obtained for 58 cents cheaper so I don’t buy that argument. Would you still buy your gas at $1.59 if you could get it for $0.98?

From John Rich

Quote

The contract allows for billing solely for costs incurred plus a two percent fee. The company's two percent fee is less than the markup for products at a local gas station or supermarket. "

I think the mark up is a little more than 2% at the local gas station and supermarket. Go to Cosco, Sam’s club and do a comparison with buying bulk from a warehouse and what you pay at the supermarket/gas station. If it’s 2% tell me where you shop and I’ll start going there as well. There's also the [ossibility of buying supplies form your own divisions so adding to the profit

From John Rich

Quote

How is that for "considerable profit"? They could have stayed home and made more money, than they are making at $1.59 in Iraq.

Would you risk your life for a 2% profit margin?

There is certainly the possibility of follow on contracts and even if there isn’t profit is profit it keeps people employed and shareholders happy. As for risking my neck I would be more likely to risk it for 2% of 200 million than 50% of a thousand. 2% of a big number is still a big number.


From USMCrigger

Quote

why is every time someone makes a buck the democrats through a fit. oh yea i forgot their socialists, no one is supposed to have it better than anyone else. i agree with rich, leave halliburton alone and let them make a profit, its called capitalism. hell, move to california sometimes you pay up to $2.10 a gallon

Making the profit isn’t the issue it’s whether the price is the best obtainable as the people are charging the Army Corps of Engineers/government for the fuel. That means you and I as it’s coming from our tax dollars. Maybe I’d just like to see a couple of quotes from other people but then I do get my car insurance from Progressive.

I'm done here,

David

[Michele 1]

Just a note...on my way to and from work, I pass 3 gas stations.

The one closest to the freeway: 1.74.9
The next one, farther from the freeway: 1.74.9
The one two more blocks up: 169.9

And that's the cheapest I've seen it around here. And it's Burbank - a safe, stable community, with no Ba'athists who have an issue with local government lurking on the street, exploding IED's...

Dunno, it sounds like a fairly decent price that gas is going for in Iraq.

How much should gas go for in Iraq? Does anyone know?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Lefty 0]

>I know, companies try to do that all the time. Doesn't make it right.

Oh ok, so by this rationale almost anyone who has ever had a job in the private sector is disqualified from serving in public office because they might be partial to their former employer. Guess that leaves career politicians like Ted Kennedy in charge *shudder*. It is the right of the company and the employee to determine pay, and Cheney is getting his. Damn, that free market stuff sucks, doesn't it?

- Lefty

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kiltboy 0]

You'll see the same thing as you drive into New York.

If you live in the UK you'll pay around 4 times as much. Comparing prices here with prices in Iraq does not make any more sense to me than comparing it to prices in the UK.

However it would appear that The Iraqi Somo could get it for 98 cents a gallon in Iraq so that would seem to be a reasonable price to pay for gas in Iraq. The point is that the gas is obtainable for 60 cents a gallon cheaper than the Army Corps of Engineers were paying. You cannot compare the prices here with the prices there. The concession I will give is that maybe the cheap gas is not of a suitable octane raiting for the US vehicles and so they want to buy better grade.

But to continue the discussion I believe that the Oil fields were protected during the military operations and that several units were specifically tasked with securing them. Given the importance that the fields had on military planning I'm reasonably confident that there is still a military presence securing the main facilities (the miles of pipeline are a different story). I also find it difficult to believe that convoys carrying the gas are not guarded by the military as we all know gas is kind of an important substance and the other supply columns are most certainly guarded.
If the work is that dangerous have the military do it. They can after all shoot back and they are engineers. I know the UK has logistic regiments set up for just this type of work as well as getting Ports (they did a lot of work in Basra) and railways operational.

David

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

However it would appear that The Iraqi Somo could get it for 98 cents a gallon in Iraq so that would seem to be a reasonable price to pay for gas in Iraq. The point is that the gas is obtainable for 60 cents a gallon cheaper than the Army Corps of Engineers were paying.

I hate to repeat things that have already been said. But in the above statement, you are ignoring the fact that SOMO couldn't provide the quantities needed, nor with the reliability needed. That's why it costs more to have Halliburton do it.

If you want shortages and unreliable supply, yes you can get it from Turkey. I think the safety of our troops, deserve better than that.

Quote

I also find it difficult to believe that convoys carrying the gas are not guarded by the military

That doesn't stop fanatics from popping out of doorways or holes, and firing an RPG at a tanker. That's part of what drives the cost up, I'm sure.

[billvon 3,085]

>Oh ok, so by this rationale almost anyone who has ever had a job in
> the private sector is disqualified from serving in public office
> because they might be partial to their former employer.

No. But they are disqualified from receiving massive campaign contributions from them, and often they are prohibited from giving those companies contracts after they start their public service. Often they must recuse themselves from negotiations, cases etc because of that conflict of interest.

>Damn, that free market stuff sucks, doesn't it?

Companies buying politicians so they can exclude other companies from competition is the opposite of free market. That's why there are anti-conflict-of-interest rules, and why there are campaign finance laws.

[kiltboy 0]

I wasn't ignoring it we'll revisit selective quoting shall we? Damn I hate to repeat myself. The answer was in response to Michelle asking what a reasonable price for gas in Iraq would be

The full statement

Quote

However it would appear that The Iraqi Somo could get it for 98 cents a gallon in Iraq so that would seem to be a reasonable price to pay for gas in Iraq. The point is that the gas is obtainable for 60 cents a gallon cheaper than the Army Corps of Engineers were paying. You cannot compare the prices here with the prices there. The concession I will give is that maybe the cheap gas is not of a suitable octane raiting for the US vehicles and so they want to buy better grade.

So if it's obtainable for 98 cents I think that's a reasonable price in Iraq I will conceed that maybe it's not of a decent quality diesel to run the US vehicles. Does that mean that the cheap gas for the humanitarian work (paid for out of aid money) isn't suitable. Humanitarian work (I'm assuming static generators for wells, power supplies etc) does not inhibit US troops mobility so I'm not going to agree that using cheap gas for humanitarian work endangers their lives.

This story from the BBC is about a guy reuilding in the BAsra oilfields http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3013168.stm

Chuck Miles is used to hot summers: he comes from the southern states of America.


Looting has dented export hopes
But he says he's never been anywhere as hot as this before. The gauge on my vehicle showed a temperature of 52 degrees celsius.

Chuck works for the US Army Corps of Engineers and right now he is in charge of repairing a water treatment plant on the Rumeila oilfield near Basra in Southern Iraq.

Shows some insight and describes the local Iraqi workers defending the refinery as well as efforts to get it rocking on again.
It's dated June 23 and states that there is a security problem and that it should be up and running soon. That was June 23 has the situation went downhill now? You'll see lots of Military guys guarding the installation so the security there is a concern but it's also a deterrent. So were is the extra cost incurred for security?

Given that the local population is actively trying to get the place back on it's feet I'm confident there are plenty of people willing to work at the refinery and drive the wagons. They showed up and protected the refinery when they weren't getting paid so I doubt they're holding out for a shit load of cash now.

I will admit that this is Southern Iraq and that the situation can change depending on location. However if the cost of the reconstruction is met through aid and future export why are the costs already being added onto the price of gas and not held as a credit to be paid off in the future?

As for the RPG into a tanker I've not heard of that yet. Possibly the convoy is too well protected or we've just not heard about it. Most of the activity is happening in the Sunni triangle and maybe it's a problem there.

David

[Zenister 0]

Quote

How much should gas go for in Iraq? Does anyone know?

last year when i was in Kuwait it was going for something in the realm of .55 a gallon.

Granted there are still some serious transportation issues involved, but the mark up does seem a bit high.. the gas price charged could be higher because they are losing money on some of the other valuable services they are providing to the military..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So if it's obtainable for 98 cents I think that's a reasonable price in Iraq...

Which would you prefer for your personal vehicle?:

1) Gas at 98-cents that may or may not be available when you are ready to re-fill your tank, or;

2) Gas at $1.59 that will always be there when you need it.

Given the urgency of the situation in Iraq, I think reliability is worth something.

Hey, if we're gonna bitch about money being wasted in Iraq, what about that $87 billion? Did you know that part of that funding is for things like $54 million to study the possible computerization of the Iraqi postal service? And that's not even the cost to just do it - that's only to *study* it! There are people that need jobs there - make them manual mail sorters!

I guess there is no controversy over crap like that, because there is no connection between the Bush administration and the consulting group that would do the study. Hence, it's not the waste of money that gets people upset, it's only when such waste can be used against others for political rhetoric. Then all of a sudden it becomes a problem.

Call me cynical.

[kiltboy 0]

So we don't have a logistic train with a realistic expectation of fuel consumption for operations? It's not as if the battlegroup is still charging towards Baghdad. Nor are the Ba'athists reorganising for the massed armour counterattack. I would expect the situation to improve with time so I'll put it down to a glitch while the country gets back on it's feet.
I used to get around on Shank's Pony and if I needed the gas that badly well I've got a big gun with alot of bullets. "Fill her up"

I will agree that the postal study is stupid and you're the first person that I've heard it from. Making them manual mail sorters while the place makes progress is a damn fine idea. There should be controversy over it as that 54 million could do a hell of a lot there right now.

I won't call you cynical as your correct about the motivation behind the gas controversy and any waste of money should be addressed regardless of political gain. I also thought part of the 87 billion was going to Columbia and Afghanistan. Gotta spread the love.

David

[billvon 3,085]

>I guess there is no controversy over crap like that, because there is
> no connection between the Bush administration and the consulting
> group that would do the study

So when people bitch about spending too much money on Iraq, it's because they hate Bush. And when people _don't_ bitch about spending too much money on Iraq, it's because they hate Bush.

I'm beginning to note an interesting consistency in your worldview.

[Michele 1]

Quote

The answer was in response to Michelle asking what a reasonable price for gas in Iraq would be

And I appreciate it. I also understand John Rich's explanation of why the costs might be higher, as well as yours (grade, availability, security, et cetera).

I think, though, that unless we are really able to quantify the issues surrounding it (i.e. those mentioned above, as well as those we have not discussed, like security at the fields, transportation, and all those I don't know about), we can't actually make a factual basis for Hallibutron overcharging or not.

I honestly have no idea. There are arguments presented which create interesting (and nullifying) points about it...and NacMac's stuff is really illuminating; so I will remain neutral on the issue of overcharging.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So when people bitch about spending too much money on Iraq, it's because they hate Bush. And when people _don't_ bitch about spending too much money on Iraq, it's because they hate Bush.I'm beginning to note an interesting consistency in your worldview.

As usually happens when people try to put words in my mouth, the words are an incorrect presentation of my views.

[ajmclean 0]

OK- Does anyone not know or not remember that the Haliburton contracts were let during the Clinton administration? Haliburton didn't all of a sudden start getting contracts when the Bush administration came into power.
Once again, it's let's bash Bush et al.

Mack The Knife
"IT IS SAID THAT THE WARRIOR'S IS THE TWOFOLD WAY OF PEN AND SWORD, AND HE SHOULD HAVE A TASTE FOR BOTH WAYS." MIYAMOTO MUSASHI, A BOOK OF FIVE RINGS.

[wmw999 2,555]

Quote

Does anyone not know or not remember that the Haliburton contracts were let during the Clinton administration? Haliburton didn't all of a sudden start getting contracts when the Bush administration came into power.

The Halliburton contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq after the second Gulf war probably came during the Bush administration -- just a hunch here.

The objection is to the fact that the contracts were let without a significant competitive effort. That Halliburton got (and earned) a lot of government contracts, going back to well before Clinton (there were presidents before Clinton) is not the issue, or a problem.

It's just that a sole-source contract to the company formerly led by the current vice-president gives the impression of possible impropriety. Even if they're qualified (and they are).

The old boy network is only good if you're one of the old boys.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[juanesky 0]

So no trials, no indicments, no jury, but yet they are guilty......

I prefer to consider that all people at Gitmo, be guilty by the same standards you are implying here Wendy.....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,085]

>So no trials, no indicments, no jury, but yet they are guilty......

She didn't say that they were.

[wmw999 2,555]

Quote

So no trials, no indicments, no jury, but yet they are guilty......

Little openness. That said, I am an individual. I have no power to imprison people, or to let major contracts. My opinions are worth the pixels they take up on your screen only if you read them.

And it might be that Halliburton would have won. I'm keeping an open mind on that. I'm saying that the usual process for major contracts should have been followed.

Just as what you think about the people at Gitmo has no real effect on their guilt or innocence. But they, too, are being held under different rules from what have been considered standard in the past.

Do you get to change the rules when you feel like it?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[juanesky 0]

Well, let me reprhase it then, she Implied it. Still, prefer the same treatment for those at Gitmo 1,000,000 times.

This is a double standard in applying principles....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon