JohnRich 4 #26 October 23, 2003 QuoteThey 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... Yet more selective mis-quoting. From the BBC story: "**Some** of the fuel payments to Halliburton come out of the Development Fund for Iraq which is meant to pay for humanitarian efforts in the country." (Emphasis is mine.) Note how you omitted the word "some" from your statement. You tried to make it sound like a much bigger problem than it actually is. Why is that? And we don't even know the scale of that problem, because those great investigative reporters of the BBC didn't bother to tell us. Do you suppose they prefer to keep it a secret because that's a better way of creating scandal? Maybe it's really not much of a problem at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 October 23, 2003 QuoteHalliburton 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? What company do you think was better positioned to provide those services, and more deserving of the contract? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 October 23, 2003 QuoteQuoteActually, 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. The Halliburton sweet deal? Well, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so I'd say there's a good chance it is a duck.... 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
indyz 1 #29 October 23, 2003 QuoteHe 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. argumentum ad ignoratiam is a fallacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #30 October 23, 2003 Bill, from your link... "An aide to the vice president said yesterday: "This is money that Mr Cheney was owed by the corporation as part of his salary for the time he was employed by Halliburton and which was a fixed amount paid to him over time." The aide said the payment was even insured so that it would not be affected even if Halliburton went bankrupt, to ensure there was no conflict of interest. "Also, the vice president has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pentagon bidding process," the aide added." It indicates at the bottom of the article that while Cheney still holds a whole lot of shares totalling some 8 million, he has arranged to have any profit from that stock holding to go to charity. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 October 23, 2003 QuoteHe 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. QuoteThe Halliburton sweet deal? Well, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so I'd say there's a good chance it is a duck. Like I said: general unfounded negative assertions, without any real support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 October 23, 2003 Quoteargumentum ad ignoratiam is a fallacy. Fancy words. Still waiting for some specifics or some proof... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #33 October 23, 2003 check your fact drew petrol in turkey cost about a $1.30 a liter which is about a quart so thats about $5.20 a gallon ( this info straight from a turkish officer) now $1.59 doesn't seem so bad does it. I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #34 October 23, 2003 why does all your media references come from the UK. If that isnt a slanted view of america nothing is I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcrigger 0 #35 October 23, 2003 QuoteHalliburton 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? Halliburton is the largest and most capable oil industry in the nation. they have the largest number of resources readily available than anyone else. do you think everything is a conspiracy C'mon now? I will be sure, always SEMPER FI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #36 October 23, 2003 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. Just as a reminder - I spent $1.59/gallon on gas today. The same place wanted to charge me $2 for 8 ounces of water._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #37 October 23, 2003 Okay, let's face it, I'm not a big supporter of our political decisions to occupy/liberate Iraq. However once our path was chosen by the break down of diplomacy, I have supported our people out there 100%. Now then, Halliburton pay me, so does anyone want to know what the guv'nor has to say about all this.... "Halliburton was handed the contracts without the normal process of bidding." I understand it was put to tender and competitively bid, so lets put that one to bed. FROM: Dave Lesar, chairman, president and CEO SUBJECT: Defending our Company Last May, I sent you a copy of an editorial that I wrote for the Houston Chronicle responding to criticism of our work in Iraq. (It was subsequently run in other newspapers.) Today, we are still faced with some of the same criticism. As chief executive officer and proud leader of this great company, I have written an editorial that appears in today’s Wall Street Journal. (I’ve attached a copy at the end of this message.) The criticism that has come our way is unfounded. You know it and fortunately our customers know it, too. Without exception, they have told me they understand what we are doing in Iraq, and they appreciate our work there supporting the troops and improving the lives of the Iraqi people. When I see the allegations repeated day after day in the press, I am offended, and I know a lot of you feel the same way. But remember, because these attacks are less about us and more about external issues, we must react in a way that is not challenging, but that presents facts. Regardless of our individual political views or opinions about U.S. foreign policy, it is obvious that these attacks are inaccurate and unwarranted, and not based on the realities we face in Iraq. In order for people to know the truth, we need to be proactive in getting the message out in a thoughtful, non-confrontational manner. Key facts the public should know: -- Halliburton makes our troops more comfortable in a difficult environment by bringing shelter, supplies, clean uniforms and mail from home. -- Halliburton is proud to offer its global resources at this critical time in the Middle East. -- Halliburton has successfully helped to restore needed services in Iraq that will help bring some sense of normalcy for those who have suffered losses. -- Halliburton helped build U.S. warships in World War II, as well as projects in Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. It also put out more than half of the oil well fires in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War and now is working in Iraq. -- Halliburton’s skills and abilities make it one of the few companies in the world that can do the work needed by the U.S. military. Every day in Iraq we: -- Transport 500 million gallons of water. -- Deliver 92,000 pieces of mail. -- Do laundry for more than 100,000 troops – and that involves water, power, detergent and waste water management. Over a year, this is 73 million pounds of laundry. -- Feed 95,000 troops in 57 dining facilities. -- Since May, we have cleaned up more than 45,000 barrels of oil in Iraq, and our work restoring the infrastructure has resulted in the export of more than 36 million barrels of oil -- Helping to create jobs and a functioning economy. The facts are on our side and when they are rationally and calmly presented, the public will see the difference for what it is. We should avoid stooping to our critics’ level of dialogue, no matter how tempting that may be. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The following opinion piece, written by Dave Lesar, appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal A Halliburton cook in Baghdad is a VIP in the Middle East. Just ask the soldiers she serves. She has never met Richard Cheney, the former CEO of the company who now is the Vice President of the United States. Our cook has one mission, to help the troops by delivering meals, as only she can do, and assisting other Halliburton employees to make life easier for soldiers in Iraq. On special evenings, she delivers a little bit of Louisiana to Baghdad. In fact, she delivers lagniappe, the word used in Louisiana that means “a little bit extra.” In wartime, “a little extra” means getting mail from home, wearing clean uniforms, taking a shower, eating hot meals, providing water and electricity, and consuming an occasional platter of Cajun delicacies. For her and all Halliburton employees, lagniappe is her job. And she does it on special occasions for the young men and women working to keep the peace in Iraq. The cook I mentioned is one of thousands of Halliburton employees who are proudly serving in the Middle East at this critical time. Her skills, as well as other employees’ expertise and our extensive experience doing the difficult work that must be done in Iraq, make Halliburton uniquely qualified to serve the Armed Services. We have done this vital work for years, serving both Republican and Democrat administrations. In World War II, we built warships. In Vietnam, we constructed airfields and port facilities. In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and the Balkans, we worked alongside the troops to help provide a sense of normalcy to those countries. In 1991, during the first Gulf War, our people helped extinguish over one half of the oil fires in Kuwait. The company was founded in 1919 and has primarily focused on business-to-business relationships. Many people have never heard of Halliburton, despite the company’s worldwide reach and long service to the government. But now, because of politics, that is changing. It began in August 2000 when the company’s chairman, Richard Cheney, became a vice presidential candidate. At that time, Mr. Cheney totally removed himself from Halliburton’s operations. In short, Mr. Cheney has no financial interest in the future success of Halliburton. Despite these steps by Mr. Cheney and the great work of Halliburton’s employees in Iraq, the company’s contract with the government has become a political target. The question raised is not about Halliburton’s capabilities to do the job. The company is one of only a few that actually can successfully accomplish all the work that needs to be done. Let’s be clear. This is not a vacation escape. Our folks deliver the essentials, build the transmission lines, dig the ditches, keep open the communications lines from home, and they have a host of other duties. Our Halliburton employees live in the same conditions as the troops. The particular contract that has been used in political banter is actually an extension of an earlier competitively bid contract. When we were awarded the contract to provide logistical assistance, Halliburton was told to develop an emergency plan in case of war with Iraq. Specifically, we prepared a contingency plan to extinguish oil field fires and rebuild infrastructure that might be destroyed during the war. Everyone remembers the damage from burning oil well fires in the first Gulf War. The hostilities caused some of the damages, but internal saboteurs contributed to the destruction of road, rail and communications systems in Kuwait. The Armed Services wanted to prevent significant environmental damage which would drain that country’s most valuable natural resource. When the Iraq War began, the Department of Defense asked Halliburton to implement its wartime emergency plan that was approved under the existing and competitively bid contract. It is critical that the Defense Department be able to quickly respond to the needs on the ground as they arise. Those who were fighting the war, and who now are trying to keep the peace, needed a support system right away. A lengthy bid process simply wasn’t feasible. There have been allegations from politicians earlier this week about the cost of procuring and delivering fuel in Iraq. We awarded the fuel acquisition contract to the suppliers who could meet the very strict requirements defined by our client, the United States Government. The requirement included the ability to acquire the necessary quantities of fuel and the ability to deliver it in a hostile environment. We continue to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people that will help create a sense of normalcy for those who have suffered. Even our critics concede that Halliburton has the right skills to perform the work. Our employees are there to make the troops more comfortable in a difficult environment by bringing them shelter, supplies, clean uniforms and mail from their loved ones back home. And, we are building roads, putting out fires, and restoring services in Iraq. The goal is to create a sense of normalcy for those who have suffered. Halliburton’s work with governmental contracts is a small but important part of our overall operations. Halliburton is one of the world’s largest oil field services companies, and it is a premier provider of engineering and construction services. We build pipelines and bridges, and we contract with other companies to deliver much-needed energy supplies to parts of the world that are sorely lacking in these services. The services for the military, in fact, produce a profit of only a few cents on the dollar -- we do this work because it is important. And, it has been proven that when Halliburton provides these backup and support services for the military, lives are saved because fewer troops are placed in harm’s way and more soldiers can stay home with their families. Our people are brought in to get the job done and they do it well. Frankly, I know the political attacks will continue. As chief executive officer of a great company with 100,000 employees, I am extremely proud of our work and our ability to do the tough job -- we thrive on the challenge. Every one of us will be resolute in our commitment to deliver the essentials to the men and women who are serving our country. They deserve nothing less. To the soldiers in Iraq, you can count on us. You have earned your claim for a little “lagniappe” like mail, meals, electricity and life support systems.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #38 October 23, 2003 and to get back to the fuel debate.... FROM: Dave Lesar, president, chairman and CEO SUBJECT: Response to inaccurate statements about Iraq work I would like to respond to inaccurate, misleading and unwarranted statements made this week about our fuel procurement and delivery in Iraq. KBR is successfully helping to deliver this needed resource to create some sense of normalcy for those who have suffered losses in Iraq. Halliburton is proud to offer our global resources at this critical time in the Middle East. Because of wartime emergency, the U.S. 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 that 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. The cost calculations that have been reported for the fuel mission are inaccurate. Contrary to what many have reported, the fuel mission is not limited to the procurement and delivery of gasoline only. KBR was tasked to procure and deliver a variety of fuels, ranging from gasoline to liquid propane gas (LPG) to kerosene and diesel. The costs associated with this effort are not limited to the price of the fuel. KBR incurs costs for transportation, storage, distribution, quality assurance and labor required to manage the operation. Including these mentioned expenses as well as the price of the fuel and the company’s two percent fee, the average cost for the mission is approximately $1.59 per gallon. This is less than the current cost of a gallon of gas in either Washington, D.C., or California. To allege that KBR is overcharging for this needed service is an insult to the KBR employees who are performing this dangerous mission to help bring fuel to the people of Iraq. The drivers transporting the fuel face the real risk of being killed or wounded, and vehicles and contents being destroyed. 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 want to emphasize that KBR continues to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people. Safety and security of our employees in the region is Halliburton’s primary concern. Since this mission requires extensive travel in a hostile environment, the names of countries and contractors providing the fuel have not been publicly released in an effort to prevent delivery routes from being attacked and ambushed. Halliburton is prepared to meet the challenge regardless of the difficulties and risks involved. For the record....the price of gas (petrol) at my local station in Scotland is about 3 bucks a gallon.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #39 October 23, 2003 And Halliburton's latest internal missive on the subject.... FROM: Dave Lesar, chairman, president and CEO SUBJECT: Explanation of Iraq oil transport contract Last week, I sent out a message concerning inaccurate and misleading statements that have recently been made about our fuel procurement and delivery in Iraq. I would like to explain a few of the key elements in our contract to import fuel into this region. Because of the wartime emergency situation, the Department of Defense asked Halliburton to provide emergency services in Iraq. One of these services is to provide short-term reliable fuel procurement and distribution support for the Iraqi people. KBR has been directed to acquire, transport and distribute fuel through a hostile environment and deliver it on a reliable and timely basis to various locations within Iraq. KBR 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. Let me explain how this is being misunderstood. A key element of this contract is not just cost, but being a reliable source. KBR is bound by guidelines in its contract to negotiate fuel prices on a short-term basis only from suppliers acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contractually, KBR has been prevented from procuring fuel contracts for longer than a 30-day period. In addition, all services and their associated costs to execute the mission are subject to the same 30-day procurement limit -- including trucks, trailers, depots and labor. Simple economics dictate that companies who are not bound by these guidelines and are able to negotiate price on a long-term contract basis can negotiate lower prices. KBR continues to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people. KBR used a sound procurement process that was approved by the government for procurement activities and is subject to government audit. 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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. KBR has a good working relationship with SOMO and has coordinated effectively with it since the fuel services mission was issued by the client. 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. Until that time, our employees will continue to work in hostile environments, where the risk of being killed or wounded is ever-present, in order to bring fuel to the Iraqi people. Please join me in supporting them in their worthwhile mission.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #40 October 23, 2003 Dayum Nac... INformation overload.. But I do appreciate the "Rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. ANytime all sides can be presented so much the better. This is a supposedly capitalist country..If someone can profit from this whole fiasco.. so much the better. I wish they could hire contractors to fight the guerillas too.. probably pay them better than what our troops are getting paid .. to go into harms way. Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #41 October 23, 2003 Yeah, sorry for the impact damage Jeanne, but like you infer, better to get it straight from the horses mouth. BTW I heard 80% of the forces in Afghanistan were 'contractors', whether that means mercs or support people I don't really know.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #42 October 23, 2003 Quote I wish they could hire contractors to fight the guerillas too.. probably pay them better than what our troops are getting paid .. to go into harms way. Off topic but you asked about it. Do you think that is doable? I don't for a number of reasons. Contract labour has a high turn over rate meaning intel troubles. I'm sure someone would have touble with the US putting some third world person in harms way instead of US military personal. I could go on but it's not 6am yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #43 October 23, 2003 Nacmac, I'm not saying there was any impropriety, but if you take a step back, I'm sure you can see how the American people would see the *appearance* of impropriety. Look at part of the list of things we are asked to believe: 1) Halliburton is the only company in the world that can handle the mission 2) Even in a monopoly situation, they are charging fair prices for things 3) The relationship between the company and the Vice President is purely coincidental 4) Companies of other countries should be excluded because they aren't capable These things might very well be factual. But you ought to see that if you didn't work for them, it could be a lot to swallow. Unlike some people, I'm not calling any given action wrong, or placing blame on either the company or the VP (at least as far as Halliburton). But as a current civilian with no ties to the industry, it does make me scratch my head and go "hmm". Everything could be totally on the straight and narrow. But given the list above, along with our government's unfortunate track record of half-truths, it leads one to question the situation. Please note that I'm not picking on you, or calling anything you said untrue. I appreciate the information you provided, as well as your perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #44 October 23, 2003 Quote Note how you omitted the word "some" from your statement. You tried to make it sound like a much bigger problem than it actually is. Why is that? I didn't intentionally omit one word for the cause... I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing, and I don't think that including some or excluding some really changes the jist. You don't see the problem here? Really? And, we'll never know if there were other companies better suited to take the role that halliburton took since the bidding never happened! Let's not trash the bbc... ALL news reporters are skewed, and report things from one perspective, including our own. I really don't want to get more involved in this arguement/discussion... Everybody cross your fingers for nice weather this weekend! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #45 October 23, 2003 Hey its all good Justin, All the info above is from Dave Lesar, our current CEO. You now I've been quite outspken about our involvement in the Iraq situation, I was just trying to set things square with reasonable information. Next week I might be working Bechtel, Saipem, Woodside, Aker or Amec, and of course I will have an entrirely different viewpoint then! The only info from my own viewpoint was that gas is cheaper in Iraq than in Aberdeen......Which is without a doubt true!-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #46 October 23, 2003 QuoteI spent $1.59/gallon on gas today. Thanks for that perspective. And delivering gasoline to Chicago is a lot less risky than getting it to Iraq. Which is why I'm amazed that Halliburton is able to provide it as cheap as they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #47 October 23, 2003 QuoteNote how you omitted the word "some" from your statement. You tried to make it sound like a much bigger problem than it actually is. Why is that? QuoteI didn't intentionally omit one word for the cause... I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing, and I don't think that including some or excluding some really changes the jist. 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. And even some of it could certainly be justitifed as humantarian. If fuel is purchased to run a generator that provides electricity for a hospital - that's humanitarian. And I wouldn't have any problem with that purchase coming from funds earmarked for humanitarian purposes. QuoteLet's not trash the bbc... ALL news reporters are skewed, and report things from one perspective, including our own. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #48 October 23, 2003 >My oh my, how the Bush-haters can mis-read a story . . . 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. Let me repeat that. Cheney receives a million dollars a year from Halliburton. That's the issue. >Did you even bother to read the story? Yep. If you missed the part about Cheney receiving a million dollars a year from Halliburton, you might want to re-read it yourself. The issue is not his employment status, it is that he is being paid huge amounts of money by a company that has, oddly enough, gotten most of the work in Iraq. And if you don't see a conflict of interest there . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #49 October 23, 2003 >why does all your media references come from the UK. If that isnt a >slanted view of america nothing is Because when I use american sources people like you claim it's all the lying liberal media. So I need a source other than the Rush Limbaugh Show, and the UK fits the bill. Australia sometimes has good stuff, but their news on the US is more sparse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #50 October 23, 2003 Quote>why does all your media references come from the UK. If that isnt a >slanted view of america nothing is The UK is probably the most sympathetic country in the world to the US , English Canada being close 2nd IMO. Maybe Oz is in there too, but I dont have enough exposure to it to knowRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ChasingBlueSky 0 #36 October 23, 2003 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. Just as a reminder - I spent $1.59/gallon on gas today. The same place wanted to charge me $2 for 8 ounces of water._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #37 October 23, 2003 Okay, let's face it, I'm not a big supporter of our political decisions to occupy/liberate Iraq. However once our path was chosen by the break down of diplomacy, I have supported our people out there 100%. Now then, Halliburton pay me, so does anyone want to know what the guv'nor has to say about all this.... "Halliburton was handed the contracts without the normal process of bidding." I understand it was put to tender and competitively bid, so lets put that one to bed. FROM: Dave Lesar, chairman, president and CEO SUBJECT: Defending our Company Last May, I sent you a copy of an editorial that I wrote for the Houston Chronicle responding to criticism of our work in Iraq. (It was subsequently run in other newspapers.) Today, we are still faced with some of the same criticism. As chief executive officer and proud leader of this great company, I have written an editorial that appears in today’s Wall Street Journal. (I’ve attached a copy at the end of this message.) The criticism that has come our way is unfounded. You know it and fortunately our customers know it, too. Without exception, they have told me they understand what we are doing in Iraq, and they appreciate our work there supporting the troops and improving the lives of the Iraqi people. When I see the allegations repeated day after day in the press, I am offended, and I know a lot of you feel the same way. But remember, because these attacks are less about us and more about external issues, we must react in a way that is not challenging, but that presents facts. Regardless of our individual political views or opinions about U.S. foreign policy, it is obvious that these attacks are inaccurate and unwarranted, and not based on the realities we face in Iraq. In order for people to know the truth, we need to be proactive in getting the message out in a thoughtful, non-confrontational manner. Key facts the public should know: -- Halliburton makes our troops more comfortable in a difficult environment by bringing shelter, supplies, clean uniforms and mail from home. -- Halliburton is proud to offer its global resources at this critical time in the Middle East. -- Halliburton has successfully helped to restore needed services in Iraq that will help bring some sense of normalcy for those who have suffered losses. -- Halliburton helped build U.S. warships in World War II, as well as projects in Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. It also put out more than half of the oil well fires in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War and now is working in Iraq. -- Halliburton’s skills and abilities make it one of the few companies in the world that can do the work needed by the U.S. military. Every day in Iraq we: -- Transport 500 million gallons of water. -- Deliver 92,000 pieces of mail. -- Do laundry for more than 100,000 troops – and that involves water, power, detergent and waste water management. Over a year, this is 73 million pounds of laundry. -- Feed 95,000 troops in 57 dining facilities. -- Since May, we have cleaned up more than 45,000 barrels of oil in Iraq, and our work restoring the infrastructure has resulted in the export of more than 36 million barrels of oil -- Helping to create jobs and a functioning economy. The facts are on our side and when they are rationally and calmly presented, the public will see the difference for what it is. We should avoid stooping to our critics’ level of dialogue, no matter how tempting that may be. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The following opinion piece, written by Dave Lesar, appeared in today’s Wall Street Journal A Halliburton cook in Baghdad is a VIP in the Middle East. Just ask the soldiers she serves. She has never met Richard Cheney, the former CEO of the company who now is the Vice President of the United States. Our cook has one mission, to help the troops by delivering meals, as only she can do, and assisting other Halliburton employees to make life easier for soldiers in Iraq. On special evenings, she delivers a little bit of Louisiana to Baghdad. In fact, she delivers lagniappe, the word used in Louisiana that means “a little bit extra.” In wartime, “a little extra” means getting mail from home, wearing clean uniforms, taking a shower, eating hot meals, providing water and electricity, and consuming an occasional platter of Cajun delicacies. For her and all Halliburton employees, lagniappe is her job. And she does it on special occasions for the young men and women working to keep the peace in Iraq. The cook I mentioned is one of thousands of Halliburton employees who are proudly serving in the Middle East at this critical time. Her skills, as well as other employees’ expertise and our extensive experience doing the difficult work that must be done in Iraq, make Halliburton uniquely qualified to serve the Armed Services. We have done this vital work for years, serving both Republican and Democrat administrations. In World War II, we built warships. In Vietnam, we constructed airfields and port facilities. In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and the Balkans, we worked alongside the troops to help provide a sense of normalcy to those countries. In 1991, during the first Gulf War, our people helped extinguish over one half of the oil fires in Kuwait. The company was founded in 1919 and has primarily focused on business-to-business relationships. Many people have never heard of Halliburton, despite the company’s worldwide reach and long service to the government. But now, because of politics, that is changing. It began in August 2000 when the company’s chairman, Richard Cheney, became a vice presidential candidate. At that time, Mr. Cheney totally removed himself from Halliburton’s operations. In short, Mr. Cheney has no financial interest in the future success of Halliburton. Despite these steps by Mr. Cheney and the great work of Halliburton’s employees in Iraq, the company’s contract with the government has become a political target. The question raised is not about Halliburton’s capabilities to do the job. The company is one of only a few that actually can successfully accomplish all the work that needs to be done. Let’s be clear. This is not a vacation escape. Our folks deliver the essentials, build the transmission lines, dig the ditches, keep open the communications lines from home, and they have a host of other duties. Our Halliburton employees live in the same conditions as the troops. The particular contract that has been used in political banter is actually an extension of an earlier competitively bid contract. When we were awarded the contract to provide logistical assistance, Halliburton was told to develop an emergency plan in case of war with Iraq. Specifically, we prepared a contingency plan to extinguish oil field fires and rebuild infrastructure that might be destroyed during the war. Everyone remembers the damage from burning oil well fires in the first Gulf War. The hostilities caused some of the damages, but internal saboteurs contributed to the destruction of road, rail and communications systems in Kuwait. The Armed Services wanted to prevent significant environmental damage which would drain that country’s most valuable natural resource. When the Iraq War began, the Department of Defense asked Halliburton to implement its wartime emergency plan that was approved under the existing and competitively bid contract. It is critical that the Defense Department be able to quickly respond to the needs on the ground as they arise. Those who were fighting the war, and who now are trying to keep the peace, needed a support system right away. A lengthy bid process simply wasn’t feasible. There have been allegations from politicians earlier this week about the cost of procuring and delivering fuel in Iraq. We awarded the fuel acquisition contract to the suppliers who could meet the very strict requirements defined by our client, the United States Government. The requirement included the ability to acquire the necessary quantities of fuel and the ability to deliver it in a hostile environment. We continue to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people that will help create a sense of normalcy for those who have suffered. Even our critics concede that Halliburton has the right skills to perform the work. Our employees are there to make the troops more comfortable in a difficult environment by bringing them shelter, supplies, clean uniforms and mail from their loved ones back home. And, we are building roads, putting out fires, and restoring services in Iraq. The goal is to create a sense of normalcy for those who have suffered. Halliburton’s work with governmental contracts is a small but important part of our overall operations. Halliburton is one of the world’s largest oil field services companies, and it is a premier provider of engineering and construction services. We build pipelines and bridges, and we contract with other companies to deliver much-needed energy supplies to parts of the world that are sorely lacking in these services. The services for the military, in fact, produce a profit of only a few cents on the dollar -- we do this work because it is important. And, it has been proven that when Halliburton provides these backup and support services for the military, lives are saved because fewer troops are placed in harm’s way and more soldiers can stay home with their families. Our people are brought in to get the job done and they do it well. Frankly, I know the political attacks will continue. As chief executive officer of a great company with 100,000 employees, I am extremely proud of our work and our ability to do the tough job -- we thrive on the challenge. Every one of us will be resolute in our commitment to deliver the essentials to the men and women who are serving our country. They deserve nothing less. To the soldiers in Iraq, you can count on us. You have earned your claim for a little “lagniappe” like mail, meals, electricity and life support systems.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #38 October 23, 2003 and to get back to the fuel debate.... FROM: Dave Lesar, president, chairman and CEO SUBJECT: Response to inaccurate statements about Iraq work I would like to respond to inaccurate, misleading and unwarranted statements made this week about our fuel procurement and delivery in Iraq. KBR is successfully helping to deliver this needed resource to create some sense of normalcy for those who have suffered losses in Iraq. Halliburton is proud to offer our global resources at this critical time in the Middle East. Because of wartime emergency, the U.S. 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 that 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. The cost calculations that have been reported for the fuel mission are inaccurate. Contrary to what many have reported, the fuel mission is not limited to the procurement and delivery of gasoline only. KBR was tasked to procure and deliver a variety of fuels, ranging from gasoline to liquid propane gas (LPG) to kerosene and diesel. The costs associated with this effort are not limited to the price of the fuel. KBR incurs costs for transportation, storage, distribution, quality assurance and labor required to manage the operation. Including these mentioned expenses as well as the price of the fuel and the company’s two percent fee, the average cost for the mission is approximately $1.59 per gallon. This is less than the current cost of a gallon of gas in either Washington, D.C., or California. To allege that KBR is overcharging for this needed service is an insult to the KBR employees who are performing this dangerous mission to help bring fuel to the people of Iraq. The drivers transporting the fuel face the real risk of being killed or wounded, and vehicles and contents being destroyed. 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 want to emphasize that KBR continues to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people. Safety and security of our employees in the region is Halliburton’s primary concern. Since this mission requires extensive travel in a hostile environment, the names of countries and contractors providing the fuel have not been publicly released in an effort to prevent delivery routes from being attacked and ambushed. Halliburton is prepared to meet the challenge regardless of the difficulties and risks involved. For the record....the price of gas (petrol) at my local station in Scotland is about 3 bucks a gallon.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #39 October 23, 2003 And Halliburton's latest internal missive on the subject.... FROM: Dave Lesar, chairman, president and CEO SUBJECT: Explanation of Iraq oil transport contract Last week, I sent out a message concerning inaccurate and misleading statements that have recently been made about our fuel procurement and delivery in Iraq. I would like to explain a few of the key elements in our contract to import fuel into this region. Because of the wartime emergency situation, the Department of Defense asked Halliburton to provide emergency services in Iraq. One of these services is to provide short-term reliable fuel procurement and distribution support for the Iraqi people. KBR has been directed to acquire, transport and distribute fuel through a hostile environment and deliver it on a reliable and timely basis to various locations within Iraq. KBR 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. Let me explain how this is being misunderstood. A key element of this contract is not just cost, but being a reliable source. KBR is bound by guidelines in its contract to negotiate fuel prices on a short-term basis only from suppliers acceptable to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contractually, KBR has been prevented from procuring fuel contracts for longer than a 30-day period. In addition, all services and their associated costs to execute the mission are subject to the same 30-day procurement limit -- including trucks, trailers, depots and labor. Simple economics dictate that companies who are not bound by these guidelines and are able to negotiate price on a long-term contract basis can negotiate lower prices. KBR continues to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people. KBR used a sound procurement process that was approved by the government for procurement activities and is subject to government audit. 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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. KBR has a good working relationship with SOMO and has coordinated effectively with it since the fuel services mission was issued by the client. 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. Until that time, our employees will continue to work in hostile environments, where the risk of being killed or wounded is ever-present, in order to bring fuel to the Iraqi people. Please join me in supporting them in their worthwhile mission.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #40 October 23, 2003 Dayum Nac... INformation overload.. But I do appreciate the "Rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. ANytime all sides can be presented so much the better. This is a supposedly capitalist country..If someone can profit from this whole fiasco.. so much the better. I wish they could hire contractors to fight the guerillas too.. probably pay them better than what our troops are getting paid .. to go into harms way. Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #41 October 23, 2003 Yeah, sorry for the impact damage Jeanne, but like you infer, better to get it straight from the horses mouth. BTW I heard 80% of the forces in Afghanistan were 'contractors', whether that means mercs or support people I don't really know.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #42 October 23, 2003 Quote I wish they could hire contractors to fight the guerillas too.. probably pay them better than what our troops are getting paid .. to go into harms way. Off topic but you asked about it. Do you think that is doable? I don't for a number of reasons. Contract labour has a high turn over rate meaning intel troubles. I'm sure someone would have touble with the US putting some third world person in harms way instead of US military personal. I could go on but it's not 6am yet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #43 October 23, 2003 Nacmac, I'm not saying there was any impropriety, but if you take a step back, I'm sure you can see how the American people would see the *appearance* of impropriety. Look at part of the list of things we are asked to believe: 1) Halliburton is the only company in the world that can handle the mission 2) Even in a monopoly situation, they are charging fair prices for things 3) The relationship between the company and the Vice President is purely coincidental 4) Companies of other countries should be excluded because they aren't capable These things might very well be factual. But you ought to see that if you didn't work for them, it could be a lot to swallow. Unlike some people, I'm not calling any given action wrong, or placing blame on either the company or the VP (at least as far as Halliburton). But as a current civilian with no ties to the industry, it does make me scratch my head and go "hmm". Everything could be totally on the straight and narrow. But given the list above, along with our government's unfortunate track record of half-truths, it leads one to question the situation. Please note that I'm not picking on you, or calling anything you said untrue. I appreciate the information you provided, as well as your perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #44 October 23, 2003 Quote Note how you omitted the word "some" from your statement. You tried to make it sound like a much bigger problem than it actually is. Why is that? I didn't intentionally omit one word for the cause... I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing, and I don't think that including some or excluding some really changes the jist. You don't see the problem here? Really? And, we'll never know if there were other companies better suited to take the role that halliburton took since the bidding never happened! Let's not trash the bbc... ALL news reporters are skewed, and report things from one perspective, including our own. I really don't want to get more involved in this arguement/discussion... Everybody cross your fingers for nice weather this weekend! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #45 October 23, 2003 Hey its all good Justin, All the info above is from Dave Lesar, our current CEO. You now I've been quite outspken about our involvement in the Iraq situation, I was just trying to set things square with reasonable information. Next week I might be working Bechtel, Saipem, Woodside, Aker or Amec, and of course I will have an entrirely different viewpoint then! The only info from my own viewpoint was that gas is cheaper in Iraq than in Aberdeen......Which is without a doubt true!-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #46 October 23, 2003 QuoteI spent $1.59/gallon on gas today. Thanks for that perspective. And delivering gasoline to Chicago is a lot less risky than getting it to Iraq. Which is why I'm amazed that Halliburton is able to provide it as cheap as they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #47 October 23, 2003 QuoteNote how you omitted the word "some" from your statement. You tried to make it sound like a much bigger problem than it actually is. Why is that? QuoteI didn't intentionally omit one word for the cause... I wasn't quoting, I was paraphrasing, and I don't think that including some or excluding some really changes the jist. 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. And even some of it could certainly be justitifed as humantarian. If fuel is purchased to run a generator that provides electricity for a hospital - that's humanitarian. And I wouldn't have any problem with that purchase coming from funds earmarked for humanitarian purposes. QuoteLet's not trash the bbc... ALL news reporters are skewed, and report things from one perspective, including our own. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #48 October 23, 2003 >My oh my, how the Bush-haters can mis-read a story . . . 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. Let me repeat that. Cheney receives a million dollars a year from Halliburton. That's the issue. >Did you even bother to read the story? Yep. If you missed the part about Cheney receiving a million dollars a year from Halliburton, you might want to re-read it yourself. The issue is not his employment status, it is that he is being paid huge amounts of money by a company that has, oddly enough, gotten most of the work in Iraq. And if you don't see a conflict of interest there . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #49 October 23, 2003 >why does all your media references come from the UK. If that isnt a >slanted view of america nothing is Because when I use american sources people like you claim it's all the lying liberal media. So I need a source other than the Rush Limbaugh Show, and the UK fits the bill. Australia sometimes has good stuff, but their news on the US is more sparse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #50 October 23, 2003 Quote>why does all your media references come from the UK. If that isnt a >slanted view of america nothing is The UK is probably the most sympathetic country in the world to the US , English Canada being close 2nd IMO. Maybe Oz is in there too, but I dont have enough exposure to it to knowRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
