/ / / / / / HALLIBURTON

HALLIBURTON

, , , , Edit


HALLIBURTON 


1990s

Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then defense secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones. Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait. 

In 1995, Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank, as chairman and CEO. Cruikshank had served since 1989. 

In the early 1990s, Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties. 
During the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, Kellogg Brown-Root (KBR) supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina,Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation, and other life-cycle management services. 
In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton; his son, former president George H. W. Bush, worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948 to 1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation. 
HERE

Crimes of Halliburton: Fraud, Fraud & More Fraud 
by BOB CHAPMAN (INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER)
Rep. Henry Waxman released the first analysis of Halliburton's RIO 2 contract to restore Iraq's southern oil fields.The examination of previously undisclosed correspondence, evaluations, and audits reveals that government officials and investigators have harshly criticized Halliburton's performance under RIO 2. The documents disclose an "overwhelmingly negative" performance, including:
  • Intentional Overcharging: Halliburton repeatedly overcharged the taxpayer, apparently intentionally. In one case, "cost estimates had hidden rate factors to increase cost of project without informing the Government."  In another instance, Halliburton "tried to inflate cost estimate by $26M." In a third example, Halliburton claimed costs for laying concrete pads and footings that the Iraqi Oil Ministry had "already put in place."
  • Exorbitant Costs: Halliburton was "accruing exorbitant indirect costs at a rapid rate." Government officials concluded that Halliburton's "lack of cost containment and funds management is the single biggest detriment to this program.
More  


Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Halliburton Conspiracy Theory: 
OPPORTUNITY AND MOTIVE IN PLACE
It is a theory and I am entitled to it if I believe their could be something to it! 
Sabotage was hot on the lips of FOX News employees and Rush Limbaugh on April 30. Both, seemed to indicate a connection of the oil rig disaster to environmentalists who want all offshore drilling stopped. Both Fox and Limbaugh of course were slammed by the left since, the idea came from FOX and Rush Limbaugh.

  • Sabotage theory over and done? Not so fast.
  • Let's consider the possibility of sabotage, shall we? After all, not even BP, Halliburton, or Transocean can say with any certainty, WHAT happened to the oil rig. In fact, if you watch BP slip-sliding, you'd think the entire event has fallen on their head from the sky in a vacuum. 
Everyone who watches CSI, or SVU, or any crime show, knows that for a legal case to even be considered by a grand jury, there must be motive, and opportunity. These two, before moving on with the presentation of credible evidence. 
Let's admit, there is no credible evidence of sabotage at this time. There is an oil rig resting 5,000 feet down on the bottom of The Gulf of Mexico, period. 
Yes, environmentalists have a motive to discredit big oil as an industry, to do away with all drilling offshore. 
  • But motive to blow up or sabotage an oil rig? That seems a little weak; something akin to an ardent foe of nuclear power, causing a melt-down to prove his point. Deep insanity would be required, disregard for the very thing - the environment - environmentalists are trying to protect. 
  • Maybe? But, highly unlikely in my view. 
  • And opportunity? There were no reports of bandit Greenpeace or other mystery enviro-pirate ships on April 20. Rush fails to mention this little tid-bit. It seriously decreases the opportunity for enviro-pirate-terrorist in this case, unless they worked for the oil contractors. 
  • Again? Likely? No. This sort of folk would likely not gravitate to the oil industry. 
I should know. I am an environmentally conscious person with a degree in geological oceanography. I went into the Peace Corps following a conference of Oil Industry execs in 1986 in Huston. I just could not plod down that road toward oil corps., following that meeting. The ocean is not a toilet. This is how the hard core enviro-freaks think. I should know. Whereas, there is another party or parties, who may have a STRONGER motive, and opportunity for such action A read of Halliburton Watch is fascinating as it is illuminating. According to this source, which quotes heavily from New York Times and The Wall Street Journal archives and a compiler for Citizenworks.org, Halliburton saw an surge in revenue from 51 percent to 68 percent coming from overseas operations in 1995. 
Work overseas, continued to provide them lucrative contracts in Lybia, Iran, and Iraq, right up to and through the Gulf Wars I and II. 
By 1997, with Dick Chaney as one of Halliburton's top execs, we see Halliburton gear up politically, according to Halliburtonwatch.
"Cheney contributes to the creation of an influential right-wing policy group called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The group advocates for the removal of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as early as January 1998, and is later revealed to be the intellectual center of the drive to war in Iraq."
Their tenure in Iraq has not been without some controversy, here is only one example:
Halliburton continues to enjoy its profitable association with overseas conflict, and overseas drilling. War is business. Note "The number one recipient of contracts was Cheney's Halliburton."

Sometimes an undetonated bomb, or a bomb exploded on an unoccupied aka "soft" target, can produce whatever desired affect is necessary, terror, chaos, diversion, without the bloodshed.
Dec. 20, 1988. 
And, incidently in December 1988, where was Dick Cheney, former Chief of Staff to Gerald Ford? He was on the short list to replace Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, by the Bush I administration, the post he took over, just three months later.  
Carlucci was also later a member of PNAC.  
Cheney was Defense Sec. when Panama was invaded - Operation Just Cause - nearly a year to the day after the Peace Corps office bombing. Roughly a year later, Dick Cheney was still Defense Sec when we invaded Iraq for the first time - Operation Desert Storm - at the head of a coalition. The invasion of Iraq bumped the hotly-publicized Manuel Noriega trial well off the front pages everywhere. At that time, Noriega was making allegations against the Bush I administration, and their alleged drugs/drug profits for guns for Contras program. I attended the trial after my service in the Peace Corps, while living in Miami, and working on a novel about Honduras. 
 Cheney was Vice President during the 9-11 attack by Al Quada, and still vice president when we invaded Iraq the second time during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. 
 Between his tenure with the Bush I White House, and the Bush II White House, Cheney was the CEO for Halliburton. He had been in the perfect place during his stint as Defense Sec, to see the possibilities of Middle East war profits. His connections within the intelligence community were and remain unparalleled. This is hardly the first time someone has said this. 
 Halliburton is only one in any number of contractors depending on our continued involvement within the Middle East for riches. Halliburton prides itself on its ability to support troops on the ground during the war. It is perfectly situated in the oil community to provide cement for oil rigs. There are many oil rigs in the middle east and on other foreign soils. In dealing with foreign countries many of whom do not recognize our customs and laws, the opportunity for enrichment is boundless. 
 On Deep Horizon, "Halliburton's was providing a number of services on the rig including cementing," said New York Times on May 4, in the article On Defense "BP Readies Dome to Contain Spill." 
 FBR Research market rating firm cut both Halliburton and Transocean ratings from Outperform to Market Perform based largely on anticipated results of an investigation into the tragedy. FBR report quoted in the NYT article "Our current theory is that an incomplete isolation by the cement allowed a buildup of annular pressure which contributed to a casing collapse." In the paraphrasing words of the NYT " a bad cement job could have been one of the problems." Sabotage, and incompetence, are often times hard to distinguish from one another. Those with experience in intelligence and counter-intelligence, know this, use this, live this. 
 The oil rig explosion and sinking in deep water makes the hunt for answers even harder than in shallow waters. That is such an understatement. Any SCUBA diver knows that for every 33 feet of depth in seawater, one atmosphere of pressure (14.7 pounds per square inch) is added. That means that the ambient pressures exerted by the seawater where the rig now lies submerged is more than 2,000 pounds for every square inch of surface area. The water is likely at or just above freezing 1 degree Celsius. The area where the rig can be found is also, likely soft sands, muds and silts in that is in the underwater alluvial fan of the Mississippi River delta. 
 Answers will come first and perhaps entirely from the surviving crew members and they are already pointing to problems with Cheney's Haliburton, but NYT would, strangely not say the FB found fault with Halliburton, despite the damning quote concerning the cement job previously mentioned in the article. 
 It should be noted a Transocean employee was thought to have been "rushing" the job of closing off the well, just before the explosion, according to a survivor quoted by NYT. 
 The oil rig sank. This is a fact. It's firey collapse into the sea is now world news. California's republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pulled his support for offshore drilling. 
 Despite push-back from the left, President Barack Obama has said a green energy economy is necessary. First step in that is energy independence, which, sadly and short sightedly, in my opinion, includes drilling for oil in places where it has not been sought before.
  • Following this event? Those plans are less certain. However the energy needs of our society do not cease, they demand more and more and more.
  • Where do we turn for energy, if drilling at home in the offshore becomes unthinkable?
The Middle East all over again.
 Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl) on CNBC May 4; "I think the President's five-year plan is dead on arrival on the hill."

However,obviously people are asking questions about Halliburton and its connection tothe oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Congress has demanded that Halliburtonturn over documents pertaining to the accident and previous accidents like it. 
A special hearing is being convened for May 5, tomorrow, concerning the oil spill.

May 12, 2010 - 10:33pm
Halliburton Gulf Oil Spill Conspiracy
by Allan Wayne 

At my tavern this morning, I was talking to my friend, Chuck, who recently retired from Halliburton. Full-blooded American Indian, he had worked all over the world, beginning with the Alaska pipeline, and filling in with Vietnam, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Haiti, to name a few.
  • "What about this BP Gulf oil spill?" I asked, after serving a Bud bottle.
  • "They could have stopped it the first day," he scoffed. He was getting up in years, and shaky from Parkinson's, likely agent orange, the Halliburton part-of-the-job-cost-of-doing-business.
  • "What?" I asked incredulously. "Are you saying they did it on purpose?"
  • "They're mad at Mexico," he said. "They're killing the shrimp industry."
  • "What about US shrimpers?"
  • "Follow the money," he said. Then he started talking deep-sea-rig jingo, washed down with beer, and big construction cynicism, that was beyond my knowledge, or dictionary of doomsday dialect.
Conspiracy theories soon swirled in my mind like littoral currents in a nor-westerner. I did some Wiki research: the US banned wild shrimp harvests from Mexico on April 20, 2010 ostensibly because Mexico's trawls lack protection for endangered sea turtles. 
But why flood the Gulf with oil and also destroy US shrimpers? 
The answer, of course, is that most shrimp are raised on shrimp farms or hatcheries; 90 percent of all shrimp consumed in the US comes from notorious ecologically disastrous farms in Asia. Of the remaining 10 percent of domestic wild shrimp, 75 percent comes from the Gulf. Global production of farmed shrimp reached more than 1.6 metric tons in 2003, representing a value of 9 billion US dollars. 
About 75 percent of farmed shrimp is produced in Asia, particularly China and Thailand. Sound familiar, Nafta-teers? 

On the world market, US shrimpers are small potatoes. US workers are an endangered species. Boats are for elites, for leisure, not for work. Destroying the wild shrimp harvest means big bucks for multinational shrimp farms in Asia. Small local fishing companies are pitted against the large multinational. The unstoppable rise and dominance of shrimp aquaculture is flooding markets with a cheaper alternative. Mangrove forests are being destroyed world wide, and coastlines are being flooded with effluence from the chemicals and antibiotics used in shrimp farms. 
The largest single market for shrimp is the United States, importing between 500 and 600,000 tons of shrimp products yearly in the years 2003-2009. Big elite boys do like their shrimp, or at least controlling the market. 
Heck, in Newport, Oregon, where I ran a fisherman's tavern, the corporations own the boats, and use their leverage to fix prices and whittle down shrimp fishermen's shares to peanuts. 
  • Follow the money? 
  • Halliburton does not care if a few Gulf shrimpers go out of business. But low cost shrimp pouring out of polluted ponds? 
  • ...why that is almost like...don't say it...Rigged? 
  • ...Oil spill? 
  • ...Would BP deep six the wild shrimp industry just to make a profit?
Heck, if BP takes another month or two to fix the leak, the price of oil might go up enough to generate a tidy profit and a round of shrimp cocktails for all.
_______
 Mar 28, 2013 1:33 AM GMT+0700 
BP Ignored Halliburton Blowout Risk Warning, Witness Says
By Allen Johnson Jr. & Margaret Cronin Fisk

BP Plc (BP/) was warned days before its Gulf of Mexico well exploded that its decision to forgo 15 stabilizers meant the effort to seal gas leaks with cement could result in an increased blowout risk called “channeling,” a Halliburton Co. (HAL) witness testified. 
Nathaniel Chaisson, Halliburton’s cementing services coordinator, testified today in New Orleans federal court as part of a trial to determine fault for the disaster. Chaisson said he reminded BP’s well-site leader and drilling engineer that his company recommended 21 stabilizers to center the drill pipe in the well. 
Chaisson said BP told him on April 16, 2010, four days before the blast, that there would only be six stabilizers, also known as centralizers. Jesse Gagliano, a Halliburton engineer, advised BP five days before the explosion that the well had a “severe risk” of natural gas leaks with only six of the devices, which could lead to an explosive blowout, according to court filings. 
“They simply informed me that that decision has been made not to run the 15 additional centralizers,” Chaisson testified of his conversation with BP personnel. Asked for his response, he said, “I informed them that without the additional 15 centralizers the job would result in channeling.” 
11 Killed
The blowout and explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed 11 workers and spilled more than 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The accident sparked hundreds of lawsuits against London-based BP, owner of the Macondo well; Houston- based Halliburton; and Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean (RIG), the owner of the Deepwater Horizon. 
The trial over liability for the blowout and spill began Feb. 25. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier will determine responsibility for the disaster and whether one or more of the companies acted with willful or wanton misconduct or reckless indifference -- the legal requirement for establishing gross negligence. 
For BP, a finding of gross negligence would mean the company might be liable to the U.S. for as much as $17.6 billion in Clean Water Act fines, as well as unspecified punitive damages to claimants who weren’t part of the $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private-party plaintiffs last year. 
Transocean, Halliburton 
Transocean and Halliburton could be held liable for punitive damages for all plaintiffs if the companies are found to have handled their duties on the rig in a grossly negligent manner. Lawyers for U.S. and spill victims have argued BP was over budget and behind schedule on the deep-water Macondo well off the Louisiana coast, prompting the oil company to cut corners and ignore safety tests showing the well was unstable. 
They also allege Halliburton’s cement job was defective and that Transocean employees made a series of missteps on the rig, including disabling safety systems, failing to properly maintain the installation and not adequately training its crew to handle crisis situations. 
Chaisson, the Halliburton witness, testified he told BP he was concerned about the number of centralizers. He said under cross-examination today that he didn’t consider this a safety problem. 
“No, this was not a safety issue,” he told Mike Brock, a lawyer for BP. 
Chaisson said he didn’t raise any objections to the six centralizers beyond referring to the channeling prospect. He also testified he didn’t recall citing the centralizer issue in his April 21, 2010, post-cement job report. 
The case is In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, 10-md-02179, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).


Sunday, April 07, 2013
Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War



The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels. 
Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

  • Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday.
The No. 1 recipient? 
Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007. 
The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg. 
Who were Nos. 2 and 3? 
Agility Logistics (KSE:AGLTY) of Kuwait and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp. Together, these firms garnered $13.5 billion of U.S. contracts. 
As private enterprise entered the war zone at unprecedented levels, the amount of corruption ballooned, even if most contractors performed their duties as expected. 
According to the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion. Disciplined soldiers that would traditionally do many of the tasks are commissioned by private and publicly listed companies. 
Even without the graft, the costs of paying for these services are higher than paying governement employees or soldiers to do them because of the profit motive involved. No-bid contracting - when companies get to name their price with no competing bid - didn't lower legitimate expenses. (Despite promises by President Barack Obama to reel in this habit, the trend toward granting favored companies federal contracts without considering competing bids continued to grow, by 9 percent last year, according to the Washington Post.) 
Even though the military has largely pulled out of Iraq, private contractors remain on the ground and continue to reap U.S. government contracts. For example, the U.S. State Department estimates that taxpayers will dole out $3 billion to private guards for the government's sprawling embassy in Baghdad. 
The costs of paying private and publicly listed war profiteers seem miniscule in light of the total bill for the war. 
Last week, the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University said the war in Iraq cost $1.7 trillion dollars, not including the $490 billion in immediate benefits owed to veterans of the war and the lifetime benefits that will be owed to them or their next of kin.


Share on Google Plus

About octadandy

    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment

0 komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar ( Atom )