Repost Halliburton thread. Let's keep the flaming to a minimum and discuss the issues.

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
The other thread is locked. Let's stay on topic and keep this from being locked as well.

Thanks.


2 in House Question Halliburton's Iraq Fuel Prices
By NEELA BANERJEE

Published: October 16, 2003


Two senior Democratic congressmen are questioning whether Halliburton is overcharging the United States government in the procurement of gasoline and other fuel for Iraq, which is now importing oil products to stave off shortages.

In a letter sent yesterday to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the two lawmakers, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, contended that "Halliburton seems to be inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers."

"The overcharging by Halliburton is so extreme that one expert has privately called it `highway robbery,' " the letter said.

According to the two lawmakers, Halliburton has charged the government $1.62 to $1.70 a gallon for gasoline that could be bought wholesale in the Persian Gulf region for about 71 cents and transported to Iraq for no more than 25 cents. The fuel was sold in Iraq for 4 cents to 15 cents a gallon, the letter said.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, declined to address the specific calculations that Mr. Dingell and Mr. Waxman used in their letter, saying that the company's KBR unit, which is working in Iraq, "continues to negotiate fair and competitive prices to provide fuel to the Iraqi people."

"We used a sound procurement process which has been approved by the government for procurement activities," Ms. Hall said in a statement sent by e-mail. "We awarded the fuel acquisition contract to the suppliers who could meet the requirements defined by our client." Halliburton's client is the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

The accusation is the latest to roil an already contentious Capitol Hill consideration of how the money to rebuild Iraq is being spent. President Bush has asked Congress to approve an $87 billion supplemental financing package for Iraq operations, and about $20.3 billion of that would go to reconstruction projects. Many Democrats and some Republicans have said that the reconstruction so far has been plagued by waste and noncompetitive contracting.

Halliburton in particular has been the focus of much criticism because its contract to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil industry was awarded by the Pentagon without competition and the industry remains hobbled, mainly by sabotage and looting, months after the main fighting of the war was declared over.

A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, Trent Duffy, said the Waxman-Dingell letter was under review. "We need to have a conversation with C.P.A. in Baghdad," Mr. Duffy said, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American-led civil administration in Iraq. "They're on a different time schedule, so we need a little more time."

Iraq, which has the third-largest oil reserves in the world, is producing at roughly half its prewar level of about 2.5 million barrels a day. Its refineries have been stymied by power failures, pipeline sabotage and the general degradation of the oil industry after more than a decade of United Nations sanctions. Starting in late April and at times during the summer, lines for gasoline clotted the streets of Iraq's biggest cities, especially Baghdad, and stoked widespread resentment among Iraqis already grappling with the breakdown of basic services.

As a result, the oil ministry and the coalition authority began importing gasoline and other fuel late in May from neighboring countries like Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan.

The extra $20.3 billion the Bush administration has asked for includes $2.1 billion for the Iraqi oil sector. A little less than half that would go to buying gasoline, cooking gas, kerosene and diesel fuel for Iraq, at a cost of about $4 million a day, Mr. Duffy has said previously. The rest of the money would go to repairing the industry.

At the heart of the Congressional Democrats' accusation is the difference between the wholesale price of gasoline in the Persian Gulf region and the price they calculated that Halliburton charged the Corps of Engineers for the gasoline it brought into Iraq.

Based on information that Mr. Waxman's office obtained from the Corps of Engineers, Halliburton received $304,486,577 to import 191,965,150 gallons of gasoline into Iraq as of Sept. 18. That would come to $1.59 a gallon on average, the letter said. Halliburton's contract calls for the government to cover costs and pay a profit margin of 2 percent to 7 percent, which would bring the price of gasoline to $1.62 to $1.70 a gallon.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the letter continued, the average wholesale price of benchmark Arab Gulf gasoline from April through September was about 71 cents a gallon. Industry experts who Mr. Waxman's office spoke to said it should cost no more than 25 cents a gallon for Halliburton to transport gasoline by tanker-trailers from neighboring countries to Baghdad. That would leave at least 66 cents a gallon unaccounted for, based on the Dingell-Waxman letter.

Iraqis pay the equivalent of 4 cents to 15 cents a gallon for gasoline, which means that American taxpayers are footing the bill for bringing oil into Iraq.

One answer for the disparity may be the cost of renting the trucks, or of paying drivers who are worried about entering a turbulent Iraq, said George Beranek, manager of market analysis at PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm. Still, Mr. Beranek and other industry analysts said that the difference between the wholesale price and the price the letter says Halliburton charged was puzzling.

Mr. Waxman and some industry analysts also questioned why the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization did not take the lead role in obtaining the gasoline, given its long experience with importing and exporting oil and other petroleum products.

"The basic thing that Halliburton has to answer is why this high price," said Walid Khadduri, editor of the Middle East Economic Survey, a Cyprus weekly newsletter specializing in the oil business. "That's way above market price and they have to justify that."

Cheney's Ties to Halliburton
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
My guess is because the flames and the personal attacks were getting way out of hand
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
No, they locked the thread because it had turned into a useless flamefest.

Now take a deep breath and dial down the rhetoric, or this one will go the same way
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
When Halliburton first was awarded the no-bid contracts in Iraq people warned about just this type of abuse. Others denied any chance of abuse. Now it's happening.

What do you think now folks?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Oh yeah, you may want to change the title of your thread. It's not wise, nor are the accusations justified...they didn't lock it down due to the subject matter.

Edit: whoops... :D

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah, you may want to change the title of your thread. It's not wise, nor are the accusations justified...they didn't lock it down due to the subject matter.

Edit: whoops... :D

You're absolutely right. Done.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: tk149
Yeah, prima facie, this looks like some major price gouging, and needs to be investigated further.

A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, Trent Duffy, said the Waxman-Dingell letter was under review. "We need to have a conversation with C.P.A. in Baghdad," Mr. Duffy said, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American-led civil administration in Iraq. "They're

Let's give them a little more time to justify this cost before we start taking heads. Of course, if there is no justification, then heads should definitely roll.



I agree.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
From the president's speech earlier today...

"Dishonesty should not, and will not, be tolerated in this country."

Sorry, no link. Should be up later today.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.

You are correct. Let's start with the first administration to have awarded Haliburton no-bid contracts.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.

You are correct. Let's start with the first administration to have awarded Haliburton no-bid contracts.


Originally posted by: alchemize

When you can't defend what the man is saying, instead attack another. SOP.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Gaard
You're probably free to post about Haliburton again BOBDN, I just think the other thread was locked down because of the personal attacks...not the subject matter.

I'm sure you're right. Let's discuss the use of no bid contracts given to corportaions recently headed by VP Cheney instead of discussing each other's perceived weaknesses.

In a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet the US taxpayer is subsidizing fuel being distributed by Cheney's Halliburton Corp. and being GOUGED on the price in the process.

This is simply wrong. And those who are responsible must be investigated for their actions.

You are correct. Let's start with the first administration to have awarded Haliburton no-bid contracts.


Originally posted by: alchemize

When you can't defend what the man is saying, instead attack another. SOP.

So are you trying to say that you can't defend the fact that Haliburton got no-bid contracts during Clinton's Administration?

CkG
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0


I'm not attacking a man, Lozina. that was sarcasm. But let me spell it out for you. I'm setting precedent. Haliburton has been awarded no-bid contracts for quite a long time. The OP is insinuating that this somehow changed when Bush & Cheney entered office.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Damn CAD. I'd be pulling my hair out by now with all those dp's. :)
OT
yep - dunno what is up. It happens both from home and here at work. My computer here at work is somewhat "locked down" so I haven't touched anything here.

It's pretty annoying though - just comes up with a blank screen - so I wait. close the window and come back in - yup dp.

Must be part of that "vast right wing conspiracy" to edit the content of my post to rewrite it:D doh...
/OT

Haliburton's contracts specify that expenses can be reviewed and such - I'm sure that will be the case in this situation. IF there is something fishy - it will be sorted out.

CkG
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm not attacking a man, Lozina. that was sarcasm. But let me spell it out for you. I'm setting precedent. Haliburton has been awarded no-bid contracts for quite a long time. The OP is insinuating that this somehow changed when Bush & Cheney entered office.

How I interpreted your response (forgive me if I was wrong) was that you implied that since previous administrations may have allowed no-bid contracts so if it was done before I don't care if it continues? You said we should 'set a precedent' with the 'first administration' but how do you set a precedent for something done in the past? Aren't precedents set with the judgement of an issue currently at hand?