HALLIBURTON CLEARED of wrongdoing!

I'm sottaly tober.

Actually lets just blame drugs for my behavior, it's so much easier that way isn't it, so much easier for you to accept.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Lysergic]

Okay, people just keep saying things that make me realize they don't know all they need to know about this. I think it's driven by a strong desire to hate Cheney - and therefore, Halliburton. Really, I do.

1. All services provided by Halliburton since the beginning of this war were provided on a contract. That's a big fat period. A BIDDED contract. The contract came up for renewal right about the same time the invasion began. Now, if you're going to be paranoid and ate-up conspiracy and claim that it was some kind of favoritism that the DoD decided that it might not be a good thing to change to a new supplier (untried, reliability unknown) when you've got 100,000 soldiers dependent for food and fuel - go ahead. You're a lost cause. This makes sense to me. So the contract was extended. BUT, I also agree that the DoD should have been following through with the new contract bid process all along. And to date, I have seen nothing that tells me they HAVEN'T been doing this.

2. The "2 Billion dollars" that was spun by the media is NOT profit. These contracts are bid on a cost + basis. In other words, if I get a cost + 10% contract and it costs me $100 to do for you what you need done, you will pay me $110. SO, on 2 billion dollars REVENUE, which is being reported by the media in a manner that makes it sound like PROFIT, Halliburton would make $181,181, 181.81 using the 10% example. 181 MILLION dollars.

3. Concerning the expensive fuel. It has been repeatedly covered that the fuel had to be shipped in from 2 directions in order to minimize the dangers to the people moving supplies. From the north - which had the lower priced fuel, and from the south - which had fueld at almost 2 times the price of that from the north. As reported previously, Halliburton was pressured to go with the Kuwaiti supplier (and by the way, THERE ARE NO PRIVATELY OWNED REFINERIES IN KUWAIT - THIS MEANS THE US EMBASSY AND THE KUWAITI GOVERNMENT STRONG-ARMED HALLIBURTON INTO BUYING FUEL FROM THE KUWAITI GOVERNMENT - THE KUWAITI ROYAL FAMILY IS THE KUWAITI GOVERNMENT). If a gallon cost a buck from the north, Halliburton made .10 (idealized example being you also have to add in fuel costs for trucking, salary (raised in hazard zone), benefits (including increased insurance premium for hazard zone) infrastructure (telecommunications, networks etc), and maintenance on trucks and equipment, but you get the point). If the fuel cost $3.00 from the Kuwaiti government, Halliburton made .30...woohoo! AND WERE COMPLETELY WITHIN THEIR CONTRACT while at the same time making the US embassy and the Kuwaiti government just happy as two peas in a pod. HELLO!

4. I dare any of you to try to:
a. Buy a Halliburton product.
b. Refuse to buy a Halliburton product.

To my knowledge there is not a single Halliburton product that can be bought by the general populace. And to be more specific, to my knowledge there is not a single Halliburton product that can be wholesale bought and then retailed to the general populace. The only retail product I know of that has ANY connection to Halliburton is the Zero-Halliburton briefcase line. BUT, this product line is owned, manufactured, and sold by Zero. There may be (but this is just speculation) some type royalty that Halliburton gets from Zero for their trademark name, but that's the extent of that.

Just so everybody is clear:
Halliburton is not an oil company. They don't produce oil, they don't sell oil, they don't refine oil, they don't sell gas, natural gas, diesel or any other fuel.
Halliburton is not an operating company. They don't drill wells (although they do own a couple of drilling rigs, but these are primarily used for drilling test wells for either themselves testing their own services, or for customers testing new technology).
Halliburton Energy Services (the OTHER side of the corporation) SERVICES oilwells. That means they come in and they perform services for the operating company/drilling company that need to be done in order for that company to make a well.
Halliburton's number one source of revenue is NOT ANYTHING Kellogg Brown & Root does. KBR has averaged (this is an estimate but I assure you it's close) anywhere from negative (losses) to about 2% profit since the day Halliburton bought them.
Halliburton's number one source of revenue is...

OH DREAD THIS IS SUCH A DIRTY SECRET....

CEMENT

That's right cement, additives to make that cement trick, and services for pumping that cement in an oilwell. So now you know the REST OF THE STORY.




[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Valhall]

Here you go:

Official attache of the NWO:

To compare Halliburton with Enron is just rediculous. Enron was up to their crooked little eyebrows in Natural Gas, Oil and electricity BROKERING scams. Halliburton has NEVER been in any of those fraud ridden businesses.

Like Val said, Halliburton sells CEMENT and provides the means to get it down hole to case an oil well. They also perform flow enhancement services to maximize the efficiency with which the oil is extracted from the reserve in the ground.

They are NOT an oil company. They are NOT brokers of ANYTHING. The VAST majority of the scams pulled off in the oil/gas business have been performed by the BROKERS who seperate greedy people looking for a get rich quick scheme from their money.

JB1 - Why were there?

Because way back in 1991 AFTER our VICTORY they BID for a contract to rebuild infrastructure and repair the damage done by Saddam's boyz via their subsidiary, Kelogg, Brown and Root.

They never got a chance to complete that contract and, like Val stated, the US GOVERNMENT decided to extend the contract rather than lose the time (time is CRITICAL in this situation) in a bidding process and potentially end up with less reliable/capable/qualified contractor.

Also, as Val points out, I have seen NOTHING that indicates the contract is not up for another series of bids as soon as the area is stabilized. What company would WANT to go into THAT environment and risk their employees and their equipment? I doubt there would have been any bidders last year had they attempted to re-bid the work. Even if there would have been, the LOSSES caused by the DELAYS from the logistics in getting people and equipment over there would have far outweighed any small monetary saving that may or may NOT have been realized.

SOMETIMES, even in business and government, MONEY is NOT everything. Rare situations I admit, but this certainly qualifies as one.

The additional expense in property/equipment/employee life insurance alone, at today's rates, would INCREASE the costs to our government had a new entity come into the fray.

Let me ask YOU ALL, if you owned a company would you send your employees over there? I damn sure would NOT unless my Government demanded it.

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by Springer]