| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Halliburton Defends Iraq Sales, Contracts |
| 2003-10-17 |
| EFL Reuters from Worldwire The head of Halliburton Co. HAL.N on Friday denied allegations by lawmakers that the company has been gouging the U.S. government by charging excessive prices for fuel for Iraq, saying it has negotiated fair and competitive prices in a difficult environment. "We awarded the fuel acquisition contract to the suppliers who could meet the very strict requirements defined by our client, the United States government," Chairman and Chief Executive David Lesar said in an op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal. Sub-contractors want more pay when they are being shot at by the populace. Also cash is required to pay for protections from the local shieks. "The requirements included the ability to acquire the necessary quantities of fuel and the ability to deliver it in a hostile environment." Same as in California. The Houston-based oil services and construction company has been a lightening rod for Bush administration critics since former CEO Dick Cheney left Halliburton in 2000 to run for vice president. That connection has drawn even greater scrutiny over the past year after the U.S. government awarded Halliburton, without inviting other bidders, a contract to fight oil well fires and restore energy infrastructure in Iraq. Lesar said the company unfairly has become a political target and reiterated that Cheney has no financial interest in the company. He also emphasized the company’s history of building airfields and other facilities for the military and the tough working conditions now endured by its employees in post-war Iraq. Don’t NGO employees like the UN get more money for hostile fire? Lesar maintained that Halliburton is "one of only a few" companies that could perform the work needed in Iraq. He also noted the military logistical support contract, which extends activities beyond Iraq, is an extension of an earlier competitively bid contract. At that time, he said, the government asked Halliburton to develop contingency plans to restore Iraq’s oil industry. That led to a contract to implement the plan once the invasion of Iraq began. "Those who were fighting the war, and who now are trying to keep the peace, needed a support system right away," Lesar said. "A lengthy bid process simply wasn’t feasible." Many have said that the US planned poorly for the post-war period. Think of the disaster that could have happened if we had waited to bid the repair contract. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #5 Don’t NGO employees like the UN get more money for hostile fire? Not sure, but they certainly aren't in poverty. One of the NGOs in Afghanistan brought its own Chef. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2003-10-17 7:27:19 PM |
| #4 Chuck Simmins I am continually amazed at the oil producing countries that have inadequate or no refinery capacity. Nigeria and now Chad will also be a crude exporter and a gasoline importer. You would think that one of the local countries that doesn't have oil reserves would set up a refinery. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-17 7:00:13 PM |
| #3 Anyone know where you can get a Halliburton hat or T shirt? It would really tick off the crowd at work! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-10-17 3:49:49 PM |
| #2 There are several on-line sources of accurate information about the Halliburton work in Iraq, or rather its subsidiary, KBR. I have blogged a few here. The bitching begins with comparing current prices to pre-war prices of 4 cents per gallon. (Saddam sold gasoline internally at a loss). Now, with refineries not up to anywhere near full production yet, and production being concentrated on fuel oil needs for the rapidly approaching winter, it seems obvious that Iraq cannot supply its own gasoline and that used by the United State military. The no-bid contract meme is tugging the truth out of shape. An emergency contract, limited in scope and price, was given to KBR. They, in turn, sub-contracted with the other two top oil fire fighting firms in the world, Boots & Coots International Well Control, Inc. and Wild Well Control, Inc. Once KBR, and Boots & Coots International Well Control, Inc. and Wild Well Control, Inc., are excluded, there aren't too many other companies that fall within the contract spec "Companies from countries qualifying under the Trade Agreements Act, Balance of Payments Act and Coalition members that are not qualified under the Acts are eligible to compete." I can't tell just who the loony left thinks IS qualified to fight these fires and still falls within the law. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2003-10-17 3:45:24 PM |
| #1 AH-HA!!!! It's the evil Halliburton! AH-HA!!! I knew it! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-10-17 3:28:24 PM |