They've already got one contract (which wasn't up for bid, by the way), and it looks like Cheney's former firm (isn't his wife on the board or something) is set to make some money on the reconstruction of Iraq http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/04/news/companies/halliburton/ But at least it's not all about the oil.
I do understand that. What I don't understand is why Halliburton was awarded this contract without opening the bidding to other companies, and they kept it quiet for 2 weeks before announcing it. It kind of lends itself to a chicken and egg scenario.
who gives a rats-ass, i just want the gas prices lowered... get those people in there and get that oil flowing as soon as possible!
In case anybody missed it on the Onion: (Mods, I decided to post the article since The Onion usually removes these articles every week. If you still feel this violates TOS, delete the article copy I have pasted below) Halliburton Favors under News in Brief Halliburton Favors WASHINGTON, DC—With last week's announcement that it will award Halliburton a lucrative contract to put out Iraqi oil-well fires after the war, the U.S. government has officially stopped trying to hide its favoritism toward the Houston-based company. "When we first started cutting Halliburton sweetheart deals, we'd worry about how it would look, with Dick Cheney being their former CEO and all," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "Somewhere along the line, though, we just kind of said, 'Ah, ************ it.'" Fleischer added that Halliburton has something "real juicy" coming its way when the U.S. invades Iran in July 2004.
Your line of reasoning is as misleading as the the whole Iraq =9/11 idea. Just so I have it straight. When its claimed by some that this war is all about oil, its not really about getting the oil itself, but the refurbishing work necessary to rebuild the oil fields. THATS what this war is all about? Oil field refurbishing contracts? Ok, then.
Who awarded the contract? Did the Iraqis get any say in who was going to come and refurbish their oil infrastructure? It is their oil, after all.
There was an article about this in The Economist around 3/22/03 or so. It was available for free online for a week or so but now is only accessible if you subscribe. If I remember correctly, there aren't even a dozen or so companies in the world with the capability to undertake a project like this...It's more like 3 or 4. Halliburton is the leading company in this field, by far. Its closest competitor is a French firm...Heh, fat chance we'd give them the opportunity to bid. Nor should we, IMHO.
Re: Re: Halliburton and post-war Iraq Actually, to be fair, I only started this thread to goad Bill Archer since he said in another thread that Halliburton had been shut out of the reconstruction process
Just to clarify a popular misconception: Halliburton is not the largest contractor in the US; Bechtel is. (And I think ABB is the world's largest, but I'd have to check that.) Halliburton is not in the top five largest petrochem contractors, and it's only #9 in the Middle East. You can see the list by industry here. ABB, Bechtel, Fluor, and Foster Wheeler are all just as, if not more, qualified to do this job. If you were picking on expertise of the region and/or the industry, you would not pick Halliburton.
Oh, and as far as Halliburton being "shut out" of the process, what Bill is likely referring to is this article from the WP earlier this week. What the article does not say is that Parsons, one of the finalists, has already agreed to split the contract with KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary. LA Times article link here from yesterday for that part of the story. Parsons has likely agreed to this despite their superior ability to handle the job alone because having lots of subcontractors improves your lobbying efforts. Halliburton has the best and closest lobbyists in the industry, so a link to KBR is smart business.