kiltboy 0 #1 October 22, 2003 Ok it's from the beeb but maybe there are other sources out there as well. David http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3205105.stm Halliburton, the oil services and construction group, has been accused by US lawmakers of charging "inflated prices" when they sell petrol to US troops in Iraq. Halliburton charges the US government more than $1.59 (£0.95) for a gallon of petrol used by the US Army Corp of Engineers in Iraq, according to US Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell. The price charged is much higher than that paid by Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organisation when it imports petrol from Turkey or other neighbouring countries at 98 cents or less for a gallon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #2 October 22, 2003 Hey, they gotta eat too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #3 October 22, 2003 That's less than I pay here. :( ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #4 October 22, 2003 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. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #5 October 22, 2003 >Halliburton, the oil services and construction group, has been > accused by US lawmakers of charging "inflated prices" when they sell > petrol to US troops in Iraq. Interesting, given that a few hundred million of the 87 billion we will be paying to Iraq is for oil purchases. At least someone's making money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #6 October 22, 2003 Yep and it's our guys too. OK...damnit, I have to agree on this one.... Yes, I admit it, it was wrong to do award that contract w/o even a bidding process. Personally I think that Enron should have been let in to do this at a price that would have benifitted all and gotten back some of the retirement that was lost. I'm outta here. Flame ya later . . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 October 22, 2003 QuoteHalliburton, the oil services and construction group, has been accused by US lawmakers of charging "inflated prices" when they sell petrol to US troops in Iraq. Um, actually it's only two lawmakers, according to the BBC story. Two *democratic* lawmakers, with a long reputation for grinding axes against republicans. Here's an excerpt from the other side of the story: "Because of wartime emergency, the Department of Defense asked Halliburton to provide emergency services in Iraq. One of these wartime emergency services is to provide fuel distribution support for the Iraqi people. "KBR has been directed to acquire, transport and distribute fuel through a hostile environment and deliver it to various locations within Iraq. Through an open and competitive bid process, KBR awarded the fuel acquisition contracts to suppliers who could meet the very demanding requirements defined by the client, the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The requirements included the ability to acquire the necessary and large quantities of fuel on short notice and the ability and willingness to deliver it in a hostile environment." Full rebuttal: http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/corpnws_101703.jsp http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/corpnws_102103.jsp How much would *you* want to be paid for delivering large quantities of flammable substances in an area where any terrorist can pop out of any doorway and turn you into an inferno with an RPG? Wouldn't risking your life be worth $1.59 a gallon? It's too bad the BBC didn't bother to mention any of Halliburton's information. And they have the gall to call themselves "journalists"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 October 22, 2003 QuoteI filled up for $1.56 this morning... a company that was awarded a contract is exploiting the situation for considerable profit. 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. I'm amazed that they can do it as cheap as they are! Furthermore, how do you know they're doing it for "considerable profit"? How much is "considerable"? From the previously mentioned rebuttals: "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. " 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #9 October 22, 2003 >Full rebuttal: >http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/corpnws_101703.jsp Hmm. You know, I think I'd doubt an explanation of why, say, Enron did absolutely nothing wrong if it came from www.enron.com. >How much would *you* want to be paid for delivering large quantities > of flammable substances in an area where any terrorist can pop out > of any doorway and turn you into an inferno with an RPG? I thought the media was wrong to portray Iraq as a place where people pop out of doorways with RPG's and blow things up. I thought that (according to the white house) things are looking up. Which is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 October 22, 2003 QuoteI think I'd doubt an explanation of why, say, Enron did absolutely nothing wrong if it came from www.enron.com. So you consider everything in the Halliburton rebuttal to be a lie? QuoteI thought that (according to the white house) things are looking up. State what you think a fair price is for gasoline, and what a fair profit is on that gasoline, for providing it within Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #11 October 22, 2003 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 I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #12 October 22, 2003 >i agree with rich, leave halliburton alone and let them make a profit, > its called capitalism. Given that our VP is still getting millions a year from them, it's called something a little different, actually. Capitalism would be letting all gas companies supply that gas, rather than excluding all but the VP's company. I wonder what the republicans would say if, for example, Gore had backed a petroleum company in a foreign country and given them an advantage, like say a sweetheart deal on a certain oilfield? They would scream bloody murder. Come to think of it, they DID scream bloody murder. So I can't feel too bad when the poor oppressed republicans find themselves on the receiving end of their own venom. If you don't want to get shit, don't throw it to begin with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #13 October 22, 2003 >So you consider everything in the Halliburton rebuttal to be a lie? Nope. >State what you think a fair price is for gasoline, and what a fair profit > is on that gasoline, for providing it within Iraq. I have no idea. I don't even know what a fair profit is on gas I buy down the road from me, and I know the guy who works there. But I do know that if he was the only guy around allowed to sell gas, and he got that deal from knowing the VP, I'd be a bit suspicious as to what was going on. Wouldn't you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #14 October 23, 2003 i'm not sure how much experience youve had in the oil business, but i grew up in an oil field. iff you ask anyone in this business the reason halliburton recieved this contract was that they were the only company that was immediately capable of handling the job. this is due to the fact that they already had the people and equipment in the area because they have been operating there for decades. As for the VP ( and i may be wrong about this feel free to correct me) but when the Honorable Mr. Cheney took office he had to break all financial ties to this company. I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #15 October 23, 2003 >As for the VP ( and i may be wrong about this feel free to correct me) > but when the Honorable Mr. Cheney took office he had to break all > financial ties to this company. Dick Cheney continues to receive a salary of around a million dollars a year from Halliburton. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #16 October 23, 2003 They could get gas for 98 cents or less from Turkey or another source, and the money that the us military is paying with is from the humanitarian funds... Dirty business... dirty business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #17 October 23, 2003 Halliburton was handed the contracts without the normal process of bidding... This is because of their connection with Cheney, and not because of some convenience... C'mon now? And... only the countries who outwardly supported the attack on Iraq were/are accepted to compete for contracts. Sources from worldtribune.com, bbc.com, news.google.com, cnn.com... Dirty! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #18 October 23, 2003 QuoteDick Cheney continues to receive a salary of around a million dollars a year from Halliburton. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html My oh my, how the Bush-haters can mis-read a story, and twist information thorugh selective quotes, and exclusions. Here is the explanation, from your own referenced news story: "The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of 'deferred compensation' of up to $1m (£600,000) a year. When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush's running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons." So, first of all, he is not continuing to receive payments as an active employee. He severed his ties to the company when he became vice-president. The money he is receiving, is money previously earned, being paid out over time. I'm sure that is to reduce to the tax burden, compared to receiving it in a lump sum. That's perfectly legal. You can even do it with your own 401k account. Did you even bother to read the story? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 October 23, 2003 Quotethe reason halliburton recieved this contract was that they were the only company that was immediately capable of handling the job. this is due to the fact that they already had the people and equipment in the area because they have been operating there for decades. Yes! The U.S. needed someone to do a very difficult job, in very dangerous conditions, and they needed it immediately. Halliburton was the company that could provide that service. So the U.S. gave them a 30-day short term contract to get moving. As any businessman knows, short-term contracts are going to generate a higher cost than a long-term one, where a company can plan better and invest for cheaper delivery. Now that the initial stage of fuel delivery is winding down, bidding is going out for other companies to step in and help out with longer contracts and cheaper service. It's all perfectly logical, and the way to get things done in a pinch. There's no political favoritism in that process that I can see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 October 23, 2003 Quote>> So you consider everything in the Halliburton rebuttal to be a lie? << > Nope. < Now I'm confused. First you said that anything coming from Halliburton should be suspect, but now you're acknowledging that what they said is factual. Make up your mind... Quote>> State what you think a fair price is for gasoline, and what a fair profit is on that gasoline, for providing it within Iraq. << > I have no idea. I don't even know what a fair profit is on gas I buy down the road from me... < So you have no inside information on Halliburton's pricing, or industry information on what it "should" be, yet you criticize it anyway. It sounds to me like you have no logical basis upon which to condemn them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #21 October 23, 2003 QuoteNow I'm confused. First you said that anything coming from Halliburton should be suspect, but now you're acknowledging that what they said is factual. Make up your mind... Actually, if you read your own question you will see that you asked bill if he thought that everything in the Halliburton rebuttal was a lie. Edit: Grammar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #22 October 23, 2003 QuoteSo you have no inside information on Halliburton's pricing, or industry information on what it "should" be, yet you criticize it anyway. It sounds to me like you have no logical basis upon which to condemn them. John...remember, the "squeaky wheel" type of liberals don't need facts, they don't need to have an knowledge on the topic, if it has any sort of ties to anything remotely even conservative, then it is wrong.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 October 23, 2003 QuoteThey could get gas for 98 cents or less from Turkey or another source... Here is another case of selective mis-reading of the previously referenced Halliburton press releases. "KBR (Halliburton) was tasked with importing fuel in the region until transition to 'in country' companies such as Iraq's state-owned oil company, State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), is feasible and reliable. It has been reported that SOMO can provide these services for a lower cost. A key element of this contract is not just cost, but a reliable source. SOMO is a likely candidate to assume the task of supplying fuel to Iraq as soon as the client and the Coalition Provisional Authority decide they have the capabilities to continuously supply the quantities of fuel mandated on a reliable basis." In other words, the Turkish source can't yet provide the quantities with the reliability needed. Until that happens, a company which is capable of fulfilling the needs is required. With the lives of American soldiers on the line, I don't want them unable to defend themselves due to lack of fuel, because of an unreliable source from Turkey. Is it worth risking lives for 61-cents per gallon, for the short term? Would you prefer that troops not have the fuel they need to properly prosecute the war against the terrorists and those fanatics who are trying to kill them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #24 October 23, 2003 QuoteActually, if you read your own question you will see that you asked bill if he thought that everything in the Halliburton rebuttal was a lie. He didn't bother to provide any specifics as to any particular thing that he thought might be a lie. If he's got something, he needs to come forward with it. Otherwise, it looks like he was just casting general unfounded negative assertions, without any real support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #25 October 23, 2003 Quotewhy is every time someone makes a buck the democrats through a fit. Same reason as why when anyone gets laid the Republicans throw a fit .... politics as usual. PS you "throw" a fit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
