Re: Cheney's Halliburton to Control Iraqi Oil?

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>Andreas Pour wrote:
>>
>>>It seems another Iraq lie has withered under the rays of sunlight:  Halliburton,
>>>it seems, will "own" ("possession is nine-tenths of the law") the Iraqi oil
>>>instead of the Iraqi people.
>>
>>I don't understand this at all.  They won't possess them, they will
>>just operate them.
> 
> 
> So what rights, do you suppose, the Iraq people have left?  Let me ask you
> this:  if you own some property, and someone else is given the exclusive right
> to operate it (and not by you), who owns it?
>
The contract is (or will be) with the Iraqi government and all revenue 
will be put in a trust fund that is open to public audit.
> 
>>>Apparently the "fire-extinguishing" (which, rather, was more like a fire-sale,
>>>as in non-competitive) contract
>>
>>The contract was not "non-competitive!  It was just that the bidding
>>was not open.  Only those few companies that the US felt were
>>qualified were invited to bid.  And Halliburton *was* the low bidder.
> 
> 
> Currently this search
> (http://news.google.com/news?q=halliburton+contract+iraq+oil+bid&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn)
> shows a bunch of hits, looking at the first 10 news stories that mention it
> refer to it as a "no-bid" contract.  See e.g.:
> 
>   *
> http://www.boston.com/dailynews/126/wash/Halliburton_contract_goes_beyoP.shtml
> ("The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman last
> Friday, disclosed that the no-bid contract included not only extinguishing fires
> but 'operation of facilities and distribution of products.'")
>   *
> http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/05/07/build/world/w-50-iraq-halliburton.inc
> ("Halliburton Co.'s emergency, no-bid contract to work on Iraq's oil wells must
> be fully disclosed, a Democratic lawmaker says")
> 
> Even the Halliburton PR piece does not mention a bid (see
> http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/kbrnws_032403.jsp), but rather uses
> the lame explanation,
> 
>   KBR was selected for this award based on the fact
>   that KBR is the only contractor that could commence
>   implementing the complex contingency plan on extremely
>   short notice.
> 
This isn't a lame excuse.  The reason is that they were already under 
contract to do such work --  an extension of an existing contract that 
KBR had won via a competitive bid in 2001.

> As if the neocons & co. (like Rumsfeld) have not know about this war for years,
> "short notice", right, this whole was was a huge surprise to everyone! (Not!)
> 
> Perhaps some "advance notice" was provided to Halliburton enabling it to be more
> prepared than other contractors - heck, the war plan was hatched while Cheney
> was still running Halliburton and after he was elected it would be wierd if the
> people there did not do some advance planning for the spoils to come, you know,
> the "revolving door" realism), but if it was the only qualified company I still
> don't see why there could not have been a bidding process just to see if someone
> else was qualified.  Frankly I find it hard to believe only Halliburton can put
> out well fires and repair well equipment.  There are many others in the
> business.
> 
For whatever reason, they still came in with the lowest bid.

> So, why do you think the bidding was limited to a few companies?  

The reason is that the bidding was only open to US companies as a 
matter of law and only companies considered to be qualified were 
invited to bid.

> And which were those?  

It addition to Halliburton it included:

	Parsons Corp.
	Fluor Corp.
	Louis Berger Group Inc.
	Washington Group International Inc.

and others.

They had a list of the companies that bid on it.

> And how do you know the Halliburton bid was lowest?

I saw it on ABC News Nightline.  A summary is on their website:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/US/iraqreconstruction_030422.html

That is what the US official in charge of it said on Nightline on ABC.

>>>signed with Haliburton and first announced 2
>>>weeks ago was completely, and it seems deliberately, mis characterized.
>>
>>I understood clearly that Halliburton would be responsible for getting
>>the oil fields back into full production.  On US TV I saw a
>>representative of the company explaining that they were in such
>>disrepair that it would take about 6 months to get them up to their
>>standards.
> 
> 
> Please note that "operate the oil fields for a time and distribute the
> petroleum" != "repair equipment".
> 
> And maybe it would surprise you to learn that, while one company is repairing
> equipment, another one can be operating the fields and distributing the
> pretroleum.
>  
Further work is going to be open to competitive bidding (see ABC web 
site).
> 
>>>The contract in fact is not limited to extinguishing fires, but rather includes
>>>oil production and distribution.
>>
>>And what are you implying is wrong with that?  I see nothing wrong
>>with hiring an oil service company to run the Iraqi oil fields -- it
>>is just the normal way of doing business.
> 
> 
> If it's *YOUR* oil, yes.  But by your comment I think you believe the oil does
> belong to the US, which, really, in short, was my point to begin with (of course
> this initial contract may simply be a test of principle to see how much
> opposition there is).

The US Government has always been clear that the oil fields will be 
operated for the benifit of the Iraqi people.

But it comes down to the question of whether you think that the US is 
honest or not.

--
JRT


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.