http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/10/16/halliburton/ Halliburton, though, is charging about 91 cents to drive each gallon 400 miles, a price that Philip Verleger, one of the experts the congressmen consulted, said was preposterously high. In an interview with Salon, Verleger noted that it costs 20 cents a gallon to transport gas through some of the most expensive terrain in America -- the high-grade Rocky Mountains. The road to Baghdad is, by comparison, flat, and therefore cheap to drive. "For gasoline to cost as much in Baghdad as it costs in Aspen, Colo., is stunning," Verleger said. He added that Waxman and Dingell aren't the only ones worried about Halliburton's charges. "I have also heard from a couple of sources that the people [at the Defense Department] at CENTCOM are utterly appalled at the waste. I've been hearing about this for at least the last five months. This is just like the $600 hammer or the $1,000 toilet seat that we've seen in the military in the past."
That was a great article. That's what's so wonderful about the Bushies...they're just so obvious about it. Their goal is to screw us hard and long, and that's about it.
Wow, a Salon article, that's gotta be unbiased. I'm sure the fact that it costs so much to drive gas thru Iraq doesn't have anything at all to do with the fact that you have to worry about people shooting at you along the way. Yeah, the government really spends $1000 on toilet seats, none of that money is a cover going to covert programs of some sort.
Re: Re: Halliburton overcharging for gas... in Iraq Um, that was addressed in the article. Halliburton doesn't pay for the security. You and I do. It's called the United States Armed Forces.
Re: Re: Re: Halliburton overcharging for gas... in Iraq You think he actually read the article? You must be new here.
No I didn't read the article because I'm not going to pay to do it (and last time I tried to do one of their "click the ad and we'll show it to you for free" deals it froze my computer). But it's not just paying for security--it's insuring the gas as well. One AK-47 bullet--which wouldn't even have to be well-aimed, since a fuel tanker is a huge target--and there goes thousands of gallons of gas, not to mention killing the driver.
One thing that may be driving up the cost is the fact that KBR has to deadhead the tankers back to Kuwait.
Fair enough. But that begs the question...WHAT KIND OF RETARD ARE YOU THAT YOU WERE COMPELLED TO COMMENT ANYWAY?????
I didn't comment on anything other than the paragraph quoted by everyone's favorite Polish conspiracy theorist, and the source of the article (if you're allowed to use Salon, then I'm allowed to use NewsMax and WorldNetDaily), now did I?
This kind of puts paid to your idea that this is just some guy Salon pulled off the street to quote. It's someone with enough of a rep that congressmen investigating the matter go to him. Go, go get WorldNetDaily and Newsmax, if you want to - please. I'm sincere. The neat thing about thinking critically is that you are equipped to read things from across a wide spectrum and assemble your own picture of a situation. You can use one source to rebut and/or support another. Chances are if you do bring something up off Newsmax, someone here will simply blow big gaping wide holes through it, using another source (and it doesn't have to be Common Dreams - what's really fun is when, say, it's something conservative yet credible like the WSJ levelling a hard-right piece). And if there's no way to rebut it, then we've all learned something. Which is great. The people I've personally respected the most for their intelligence and perspective didn't depend on media from one side of the aisle. So bring it on.
Dave, You've taken the smart ass tact in other posts so let me ask you, How much was Brown and Root (the Haliburton office in Alabama) offering to engineers to go into Iraq and work on the reconstruction back in June? If you don't know then make a guess. I'd like to see how close you come.
Don't you get tired of being wrong? And the name calling thing, that just shows you've run out of intellectual ammo. And because you're too dumb to get around having to pay to read Salon: http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/15/news/international/halliburton_iraq.reut/index.htm "Waxman sent a letter on Wednesday to the White House Office of Management and Budget complaining KBR was overcharging for petroleum products. "The overcharging by Halliburton is so extreme that one expert privately called it 'highway robbery,"' he wrote."
Re: Re: Halliburton overcharging for gas... in Iraq From reading his comments, I'd have to question whether he was either taken out of context or didn't know wtf he was talking about. Yes, the going market rate is about $.20 per gallon (about $2.60 per mile) to tranfer liquid bulk in trucks across the Rockies, but this price assumes a backhual is available. There is no way KBR isn't paying round trips for this. From my back of the envelope calculations, it looks like KBR is being charge around $5.70 per mile, which is a lot closer to twice average US costs than 3-4 times. Second, given the volumes cited, you are talking about needing 300 to 500 trucks and team drivers at a minimum. That's a shitload of equipment in any market. It's not like companies have tankers sitting around doing nothing, waiting for the opportunity to drive fuel into a combat zone. Finally, per that very article, the Halliburton spokeswoman states: It appears by that quote that KBR is paying delivered pricing, meaning that if anyone is gouging anyone it is the Kuwaiti distributors. Furthermore, given the equipment requirements and the short term nature and risk associated w/ the business, I'd question whether or not the price being charged is gouging.
I caught the tail end of a John McCain interview on one of the news channels last night. I got the impression that McCain had raised some questions about Halliburton's role in Iraq. Can anyone who actually watched that interview comment on this?
How much would YOU charge to haul gasoline from Kuwait to Baghdad?????? .90 sounds like a bargain to me...
I think it's a good question to ask, How much was Haliburton offering engineers to go to Iraq? Would you care to guess?
No, that would fall under the category of "commenting on the paragraph quoted by everyone's favorite Polish conspiracy theorist".
Salon's missed the boat. What smells is the fact that the contract was structured so that Halliburton has ZERO incentive to to source from the cheapest supplier, as their paid as a percentage of cost. The higher the costs, the more money they make.
I'll answer that when you answer an equally relevant question. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?