Haliburton?

Tom Earp · #1 12-10-2003, 08:00 PM

Where does the pork Barrel end?

Catch the News Tonight!

Sick of the crap!

I saw better Idiots running the Nut House if Cookoo nest the movie!

What a sad state of affairs We call our duley Elected Morons!

Hell, it is a Position of power and that what the desire, well along with all of the perks that most dont know about!

DeltAlum · #2 12-11-2003, 12:28 AM

Whether true or not, there certainly is a nasty smell of political influence here.

swissmiss04 · #3 12-11-2003, 12:02 PM

Sort of off topic, but a guy came into where I work once wearing a Halliburton uniform. It kind of freaked me out

madmax · #4 12-11-2003, 03:59 PM

I didn't see the story and I have no idea what the hell Tom is talking about but if any of you have a problem with the US doing business with Haliburton then how about telling us who the US should be buying those products or services from. I believe there are only 2 companies on the whole planet that are the main suppliers of oil services and drilling equipment. One is Haliburton and the other is Schlumberger. It's not like buying a 40 at the corner bodega. You cant go down to the local Kmart, Walmart, or Home Depot and buy drilling equipment.

There are many other industries that are the same way. If the government was going to purchase mid-size or jumbo passanger jets they would have to buy from one of two companies, Boeing or Airbus. Boeing is a US company while Airbus is owned by the French and Germans. Boeing manufacturers the Airforce One. Does the government buy from Boeing because Dick Chaney used to work there is it because they are the only manufacturer? Why did Haliburton do billions of dollars in business when Clinton was President?

Love_Spell_6 · #5 12-11-2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax
I didn't see the story and I have no idea what the hell Tom is talking about but if any of you have a problem with the US doing business with Haliburton then how about telling us who the US should be buying those products or services from. I believe there are only 2 companies on the whole planet that are the main suppliers of oil services and drilling equipment. One is Haliburton and the other is Schlumberger. It's not like buying a 40 at the corner bodega. You cant go down to the local Kmart, Walmart, or Home Depot and buy drilling equipment.

There are many other industries that are the same way. If the government was going to purchase mid-size or jumbo passanger jets they would have to buy from one of two companies, Boeing or Airbus. Boeing is a US company while Airbus is owned by the French and Germans. Boeing manufacturers the Airforce One. Does the government buy from Boeing because Dick Chaney used to work there is it because they are the only manufacturer? Why did Haliburton do billions of dollars in business when Clinton was President?

I thought this was the case...but I wasn't sure so I didn't say. WHo else besides Haliburton and Schlumberger could handle the job? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

DeltAlum · #6 12-11-2003, 06:42 PM

According to broadcast news reports on radio and television yesterday, DOD (I think) signed a contract with Haliburton for roughly twice the price per gallon as the nearest competitor.

Love_Spell_6 · #7 12-11-2003, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
According to broadcast news reports on radio and television yesterday, DOD (I think) signed a contract with Haliburton for roughly twice the price per gallon as the nearest competitor.

yes i saw that news broadcast as well...but do we know how many companies besides haliburton can do the job?

DeltAlum · #8 12-11-2003, 11:12 PM

Well, I suspect that the at least one other bidder can do the job or they wouldn't have been considered. You generally have to qualify for government contracts before you're allowed to bid.

So, logic would tell me that they're (make that we're) paying Haliburton twice what we would be paying another qualified bidder.

DeltaSigStan · #9 12-11-2003, 11:23 PM

Don't worry, a lot of people don't know what Tom is talking about, but they take it with stride instead of frustration.....

Ah well.

AlphaSigOU · #10 12-12-2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax
There are many other industries that are the same way. If the government was going to purchase mid-size or jumbo passanger jets they would have to buy from one of two companies, Boeing or Airbus. Boeing is a US company while Airbus is owned by the French and Germans. Boeing manufacturers the Airforce One. Does the government buy from Boeing because Dick Chaney used to work there is it because they are the only manufacturer?

Just a minor correction that needs to be correctly addressed:

There is no such thing as 'the Air Force One.' 'Air Force One' is the call sign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States. If on a Navy aircraft, it's 'Navy One', on an Army aircraft, 'Army One', and his personal helicopter that takes off from the south lawn of the White House is 'Marine One'. Should he board a civilian aircraft, it immediately becomes 'Executive One' for the duration of the flight. (The Vice President gets the call sign 'Air Force Two' and so on, but none of the lesser minions of the President's cabinet rates a special call sign.)

Two Boeing 747-200 aircraft (Air Force designation VC-25A) were built specifically as Presidential aircraft. Not only is it the 'flying White House' but it also has sophisticated communications systems aboard to provide command and control of the military.

Airbus is actually a consortium of European aerospace companies, of which the French, Germans and British have a substantial stake. At the time the presidential 747s were ordered in the mid-1980s, Airbus was a minor but growing player in the commercial aircraft arena.

moe.ron · #11 12-12-2003, 01:37 PM

Pentagon audit eyes Halliburton

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Pentagon audit has raised questions about whether a subsidiary of Halliburton -- an oil services company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney -- overcharged the U.S. government $61 million for gasoline imported from Kuwait to Iraq.

The Pentagon said Thursday a routine review turned up the potential overcharge by subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root, which was awarded a no-bid contract in March to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.

But there is no allegation that Halliburton unduly profited from the overpriced gas.

The audit questions if Halliburton paid above-market rates to a Kuwaiti subcontractor when it paid $2.27 per gallon for the gas. Another supplier bought gas at $1.18 per gallon from Turkey.

Halliburton says the higher cost was due to having to negotiate a short-term contract, at a time when there weren't enough trucks in Kuwait to deliver the fuel. It says trucks had to be brought in and shipping in a war zone pushed up the transportation and security costs as well.

In a statement, Halliburton insisted those costs are "pass through costs" and said the company "only recovers a few cents on the dollar."

Congressional critics, who accuse the company of price gouging, don't believe the claims.

"There have been indications for some months now that taxpayer interests aren't protected," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon. "I'm glad the Defense Department is finally coming to ask some tough questions. They should have been raising these issues many months ago."

Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakhein insists his auditors have been hard-nosed.

"Contractor improprieties and/or contract mischarging ... will neither be condoned nor allowed to continue," Zakhein said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the contract is being reviewed, and Halliburton will have to justify the sum. If the government does not believe the cost is legitimate, the bill will be disallowed.

In that case, Halliburton would have to assume the debt, or it could go back to the Kuwaiti subcontractor to try to address the issue.

Auditors also found another potential Halliburton overcharge of $67 million for dining halls in Iraq, but they say that seems to a billing error.

That bill has not been paid.

Democratic presidential candidates are already jumping on the issue.

Howard Dean called Halliburton "a special interest contributor that is overcharging taxpayers" and Dick Gephardt charged that Cheney's former employer is "bilking the taxpayers."

adduncan · #12 12-12-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Well, I suspect that the at least one other bidder can do the job or they wouldn't have been considered. You generally have to qualify for government contracts before you're allowed to bid.

So, logic would tell me that they're (make that we're) paying Haliburton twice what we would be paying another qualified bidder.

Here's another perspective: we're paying the salaries and benefits of AMERICANS first and foremost, rather than Germany, etc. So a big chunk of that cash is coming right back home.

--add

PhiPsiRuss · #13 12-12-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
According to broadcast news reports on radio and television yesterday, DOD (I think) signed a contract with Haliburton for roughly twice the price per gallon as the nearest competitor.

Yeah, and I believe that this contract was signed during the Clinton administration, and simply transfered over to Iraq for convenience.

bethany1982 · #14 12-12-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russellwarshay
Yeah, and I believe that this contract was signed during the Clinton administration, and simply transfered over to Iraq for convenience.

Clinton did use Haliburton for Somalia, Hati and Bosnia. Haliburton has been involved with every post military action since Viet Nam. By the way, Haliburton's largest holder during the Viet Nam era was LBJ and family.

PhiPsiRuss · #15 12-12-2003, 02:25 PM

The biggest sign of hypocrisy about bringing up Haliburton is that no one brings up Bechtel. Why? Because Dick Cheney did not run Bechtel. There may be the appearance of impropriety, but only because it is manufactured, not because it is real.