kramadas Posted May 7 Report Share Posted May 7 The whole truth comes out bit by bit...http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/index.htmHalliburton has wider Iraq role Army letter says oil driller unit got distribution rights in noncompetitive oil well fire contract.May 7, 2003: 6:22 AM EDT WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Army Corps of Engineers says a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products." Officials previously have said the multi-million dollar contract only dealt with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed. The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, including Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract -- charges the White House has adamantly denied. Vice President Dick Cheney formerly ran the company. In a letter to Waxman dated May 2, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, gave further details about what the contract entails: that the company would put out oil well fires and assess the facilities; clean up oil spills or other environmental dangers at the sites; repair or reconstruct damaged infrastructure; operate facilities and distribute products. Flowers did not elaborate on what he meant by "operation of facilities and distribution of products." The White House has long said the oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Waxman had written Flowers seeking answers as to why the contract has "no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer." Waxman has said the contract to Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) could be worth up to $7 billion over two years. In his response, Flowers said that sum was based on the "worst scenario" that a large proportion of Iraq's 1,500 wells would be set ablaze, and that there would be "massive intentional oil spills and pollution resulting from the fires." It turned out only a few oil wells were set ablaze during the war. Flowers said "task orders are placed only for work that is required in the near term." "For each order, the government establishes the scope of work and estimated cost. The scope of work is presented to the contractor, who prepares its technical and cost proposal for accomplishing the work," wrote Flowers. He did not give an overall dollar amount on the contract. Halliburton has said accusations that it received preferential treatment were off-base. It has said KBR is the only contractor that could implement the complex contingency plan. In a March press release, Halliburton said once the oil well fires were put out, it would "provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 7 Report Share Posted May 7 Originally posted by raver_mania The whole truth comes out bit by bit...http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/index.htmHalliburton has wider Iraq role Army letter says oil driller unit got distribution rights in noncompetitive oil well fire contract.May 7, 2003: 6:22 AM EDT WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Army Corps of Engineers says a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products." Officials previously have said the multi-million dollar contract only dealt with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed. The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, including Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract -- charges the White House has adamantly denied. Vice President Dick Cheney formerly ran the company. In a letter to Waxman dated May 2, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, gave further details about what the contract entails: that the company would put out oil well fires and assess the facilities; clean up oil spills or other environmental dangers at the sites; repair or reconstruct damaged infrastructure; operate facilities and distribute products. Flowers did not elaborate on what he meant by "operation of facilities and distribution of products." The White House has long said the oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Waxman had written Flowers seeking answers as to why the contract has "no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer." Waxman has said the contract to Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) could be worth up to $7 billion over two years. In his response, Flowers said that sum was based on the "worst scenario" that a large proportion of Iraq's 1,500 wells would be set ablaze, and that there would be "massive intentional oil spills and pollution resulting from the fires." It turned out only a few oil wells were set ablaze during the war. Flowers said "task orders are placed only for work that is required in the near term." "For each order, the government establishes the scope of work and estimated cost. The scope of work is presented to the contractor, who prepares its technical and cost proposal for accomplishing the work," wrote Flowers. He did not give an overall dollar amount on the contract. Halliburton has said accusations that it received preferential treatment were off-base. It has said KBR is the only contractor that could implement the complex contingency plan. In a March press release, Halliburton said once the oil well fires were put out, it would "provide for the continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure." Ask your self this question...How many companies can do what Halliburton does??If you look at the company itself and the task at hand then you will realise why Haliburton got the job or are you implying something diffrent.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted May 7 Report Share Posted May 7 Originally posted by mr mahs Ask your self this question...How many companies can do what Halliburton does??If you look at the company itself and the task at hand then you will realise why Haliburton got the job or are you implying something diffrent.. Nah...the fact that Haliburton is one of the few, best candidates for the job could never be the reason why they have been given business......if that was the case, how can the anti-Bush conspiracy theorists spin their tales...Or, instead of actually getting the job done--maybe the UN and mounds of bureaucratic layers should get involved instead so jobs could get half-completed over years and years...or perhaps French companies should be given a shot they deserve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted May 7 Author Report Share Posted May 7 Don't know enough about the oil business to say if Halliburton is the only qualified candidate or not. Seems suspicious to me, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.No, what my comment was about is the fact that instead of just putting out oil fires, it now seems that Halliburton will also be responsible for "operation of facilities and distribution of products". Especially with no timetable mentioned, ie, indefinite period of time.This was not something that was mentioned before. I guess its just one of the many things that is slowly coming out of the woodwork. I'm pretty sure the Iraqis can manage their own oil wells. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Halliburton was there in Iraq, before the previous two wars, "helping" the Iraqis with the "operation of facilities and distribution of products". Or maybe I AM wrong, and Halliburton was there all along, doing business with Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted May 7 Report Share Posted May 7 decent articlehttp://msnbc.com/news/909676.asp?0cv=CA01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.