Re: Cheney's Halliburton to Control Iraqi Oil?

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Iraq government, meaning the guy that the Bush Administration appointed?  

To start with, yes.

> And this is to differ from the current situation exactly how?

That is the current situation.
> 
> Public audit?  You are joking, right?  

No, I am only repeating what I see on ABC and in the WSJ.

> In anye event, when it doesn't happen,
> you still won't care, or make some excuse, no?  So why bother even printing such
> propaganda?

I have no reason to believe that it won't happen.

> [ ... ]
> 
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> OK, so now you admit (without actually admitting it) that there was no bidding
> (and this is stated quite clearly in the ABC News link you posted).  Where is
> there information about this 2001 contract?  Which part of that initial contract
> had to do with putting out fires in Iraq after the invasion?  Which part had to
> do with pumping and distributing oil?  And if the 2001 contract did not include
> these things, what does "extension" mean?  When a contract expires, it expires,
> and a new contract requires a new bid.
>  
There are TWO contracts here and I think that you are confusing them.
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> There was no bid, even your ABC story says quite clearly:
> 
>   Another controversial contract belongs to Halliburton's
>   Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary, which was granted a
>   contract put out oil fires in Iraq by the U.S. Army
>   Corps of Engineers (USACE), without any competitive
>   bidding.
> 
> Just so you don't miss it, the key language is "without any competitive
> bidding".
> 
There are TWO contracts here and I think that you are confusing them. 
  Note the first sentence starting with: "Another controversial 
contract" which I think means that it is a different contract.
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> I see, accoding to US law only US companies can bid on pumping and distributing
> oil in Iraq?  Can you please point me to that law?  

I suppose that I could find it.  The spokesman for USAID explained it 
on Nightline in some detail.  Note that the restriction is on USAID 
contracts -- it does not matter what they are for.

> B/c I don't think any such law exists and you are just making it up.
>  
I am repeating what was said on Nightline.
<<
USAID spokesman Harry Edwards says the primary contractors are limited 
to U.S. companies by law.
 >>
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> I don't believe it.  Oh I see, you are apparently quite confused here :-) - you
> are talking about the Bechtel contract!  That's a whole other issue that has its
> own complete corruption implications, but at least it isn't whole-sale theft of
> Iraqi oil . . . .
>  
No, I am talking about the contract which Halliburton won through the 
competitive bidding to repair and operate the Iraqi oil fields.

Note that this is not the same as the contract granted on an emergency 
basis to KBR to put out the oil fires.
> 
>>>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.
> 
> 
> Bechtel != KBR.
> 
> Rebuilding roads / schools != pumping / distributing oil.
>  
> [ ... ]
> 
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I think that there was a third contract granted to Bechtel.
> 
>>>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 benefit of the Iraqi people.
>>
>>But it comes down to the question of whether you think that the US is
>>honest or not.
> 
> 
> Well I guess as far as Iraq is concerned they have materially lied about - well,
> just about everything.  Nuclear material from Nigeria, 

Well, they got the Uranium ore concentrate (Yellow Cake) somewhere, or 
don't you know about that?

> right; college term paper as UN proof; etc.
> 
> If you believe them still, well, I guess some never learn.
> 
If you feel that the facts presented on Nightline are inaccurate, 
please feel free to present factual evidence of that.  Otherwise, I 
tend to believe what I see on Nightline.

--
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.