Re: HALLIBURTON BRIBES, LOOTS ... AND MAKES A "HEALTHY PROFIT"

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Tarver Engineering > wrote:

> As opposed to letting the work to Schlumberger; get a clue.

The Iraqi people managed their oil refineries quite well before
Halliburton arrived on the scene. There are also other companies
that could do the same work such as Bechtel and probably some
foreign companies as well.

A no-bid contract with a company who's former head just happens
to be one of the most powerful men in Washington and who is still
on the payroll doesn't bother you at all? If so, I have a bridge
in New York City to sell you.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
> In rec.food.cooking Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > As opposed to letting the work to Schlumberger; get a clue.
>
> The Iraqi people managed their oil refineries quite well before
> Halliburton arrived on the scene.

Total managed the Iraqi's oil before the US got there and the aquifer shows
the French abused the fields.

> There are also other companies
> that could do the same work such as Bechtel and probably some
> foreign companies as well.

Bectel is already in Iraq, repairing the electric inferstructure.

Bectel is not an oil field service company.

> A no-bid contract with a company who's former head just happens
> to be one of the most powerful men in Washington and who is still
> on the payroll doesn't bother you at all?

Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.

Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?

> If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.

You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.

[George Z. Bush]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> "John?]
> "
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >, Polybus
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Halliburton staff sacked 'for taking bribes'
>>>
>>> Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by the US
>>> vice-president, Dick Cheney, was yesterday embroiled in new
>>> accusations of corruption after it sacked two workers over allegations
>>> that they took kickbacks for awarding sub-contracts in Iraq.
>>> The company disclosed that investigations were going on into whether
>>> two of its staff took up to $6m (£3.3m) from a Kuwaiti-based company
>>> providing support for US troops.
>>>
>>
>> The company detected the irregularity with their own internal controls,
>> reported it promptly to the government, fired the employees involved,
>> and volunteered to repay the overcharge.
>>
>> Your problem with that is...?
>
> They didn't fix the problem before it happened.

BTW, if Halliburton discovered that two of their employees had taken $6m in
kickbacks from a Kuwaiti supplier, why did they(Halliburton) make the
reimbursement to the feds instead of the fired crooks who got the money?
Where's that $6m as we speak?

[Tarver Engineering]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "John?]
> > "
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Polybus
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Halliburton staff sacked 'for taking bribes'
> >>>
> >>> Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by the US
> >>> vice-president, Dick Cheney, was yesterday embroiled in new
> >>> accusations of corruption after it sacked two workers over allegations
> >>> that they took kickbacks for awarding sub-contracts in Iraq.
> >>> The company disclosed that investigations were going on into whether
> >>> two of its staff took up to $6m (£3.3m) from a Kuwaiti-based company
> >>> providing support for US troops.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The company detected the irregularity with their own internal controls,
> >> reported it promptly to the government, fired the employees involved,
> >> and volunteered to repay the overcharge.
> >>
> >> Your problem with that is...?
> >
> > They didn't fix the problem before it happened.
>
> BTW, if Halliburton discovered that two of their employees had taken $6m
in
> kickbacks from a Kuwaiti supplier, why did they(Halliburton) make the
> reimbursement to the feds instead of the fired crooks who got the money?

Yes.

[Grantland]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>Steve Hix wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "John?]
>> "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Polybus
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Halliburton staff sacked 'for taking bribes'
>>>>
>>>> Halliburton, the oil services company formerly run by the US
>>>> vice-president, Dick Cheney, was yesterday embroiled in new
>>>> accusations of corruption after it sacked two workers over allegations
>>>> that they took kickbacks for awarding sub-contracts in Iraq.
>>>> The company disclosed that investigations were going on into whether
>>>> two of its staff took up to $6m (£3.3m) from a Kuwaiti-based company
>>>> providing support for US troops.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The company detected the irregularity with their own internal controls,
>>> reported it promptly to the government, fired the employees involved,
>>> and volunteered to repay the overcharge.
>>>
>>> Your problem with that is...?
>>
>> They didn't fix the problem before it happened.
>
>BTW, if Halliburton discovered that two of their employees had taken $6m in
>kickbacks from a Kuwaiti supplier, why did they(Halliburton) make the
>reimbursement to the feds instead of the fired crooks who got the money?
>Where's that $6m as we speak?
>
Ye the rotten stink of Cheny's Hallitosis. A foetid stench so foul
that it as driven the man into complete isolation! A rancid green
stonk effectively removing him from public view (is shaueffeur wears a
rebreather! heh heh.
wally
wally

[Simon Elliott]

Tarver Engineering > writes
>> The Iraqi people managed their oil refineries quite well before
>> Halliburton arrived on the scene.
>
>Total managed the Iraqi's oil before the US got there and the aquifer shows
>the French abused the fields.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?

>> There are also other companies
>> that could do the same work such as Bechtel and probably some
>> foreign companies as well.
>
>Bectel is already in Iraq, repairing the electric inferstructure.

You should put "repairing" in inverted commas.

>> A no-bid contract with a company who's former head just happens
>> to be one of the most powerful men in Washington and who is still
>> on the payroll doesn't bother you at all?
>
>Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.

Why do you think Halliburton are any better than Schlumberger?

--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Simon Elliott" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering > writes
> >> The Iraqi people managed their oil refineries quite well before
> >> Halliburton arrived on the scene.
> >
> >Total managed the Iraqi's oil before the US got there and the aquifer
shows
> >the French abused the fields.
>
> Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?

The story was in the newsgroups a couple of weeks ago.

> >> There are also other companies
> >> that could do the same work such as Bechtel and probably some
> >> foreign companies as well.
> >
> >Bectel is already in Iraq, repairing the electric inferstructure.
>
> You should put "repairing" in inverted commas.

Bechtel built the Iraqi electrical system in the first place.

> >> A no-bid contract with a company who's former head just happens
> >> to be one of the most powerful men in Washington and who is still
> >> on the payroll doesn't bother you at all?
> >
> >Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>
> Why do you think Halliburton are any better than Schlumberger?

Schlumberger are French.

[noname]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Simon Elliott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Tarver Engineering > writes
>>
>>>>The Iraqi people managed their oil refineries quite well before
>>>>Halliburton arrived on the scene.
>>>
>>>Total managed the Iraqi's oil before the US got there and the aquifer
>
> shows
>
>>>the French abused the fields.
>>
>>Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?
>
>
> The story was in the newsgroups a couple of weeks ago.
>
>
>>>>There are also other companies
>>>>that could do the same work such as Bechtel and probably some
>>>>foreign companies as well.
>>>
>>>Bectel is already in Iraq, repairing the electric inferstructure.
>>
>>You should put "repairing" in inverted commas.
>
>
> Bechtel built the Iraqi electrical system in the first place.
>
>
>>>>A no-bid contract with a company who's former head just happens
>>>>to be one of the most powerful men in Washington and who is still
>>>>on the payroll doesn't bother you at all?
>>>
>>>Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>>
>>Why do you think Halliburton are any better than Schlumberger?
>
>
> Schlumberger are French.
>
>


Q. When and where was Schlumberger incorporated?
A. November 6, 1956 in the Netherlands Antilles

Q. Is Schlumberger a Foreign Corporation?

A. Although Schlumberger is incorporated in the Netherlands Antilles,
Schlumberger is not treated as a "foreign private issuer" under US
securities laws and files the same public filings as other US public
companies.

http://www.slb.com/ir/faq.html

[Tarver Engineering]

"noname" > wrote in message
...

> > Schlumberger are French.
> >
> >
>
>
> Q. When and where was Schlumberger incorporated?
> A. November 6, 1956 in the Netherlands Antilles
>
> Q. Is Schlumberger a Foreign Corporation?
>
> A. Although Schlumberger is incorporated in the Netherlands Antilles,
> Schlumberger is not treated as a "foreign private issuer" under US
> securities laws and files the same public filings as other US public
> companies.
>
> http://www.slb.com/ir/faq.html

Well of course the Schlumberger brothers would say that.

French they were and French they are, with Shell as their best friends. You
remember Shell, the company that delivered oil and refined products to Hanoi
Harbor throughout the Viet Nam War?

[Simon Elliott]

Tarver Engineering > writes
>> >Total managed the Iraqi's oil before the US got there and the aquifer
>shows
>> >the French abused the fields.
>>
>> Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?
>
>The story was in the newsgroups a couple of weeks ago.

A quick google search doesn't find anything. Can you give me some
pointers?

BTW, not all the oilfield services companies in Iraq were French. I
worked for an exploration company which was wholly owned by Raytheon,
which had some major contracts in Iraq in the 1980s.

>> >> There are also other companies
>> >> that could do the same work such as Bechtel and probably some
>> >> foreign companies as well.
>> >
>> >Bectel is already in Iraq, repairing the electric inferstructure.
>>
>> You should put "repairing" in inverted commas.
>
>Bechtel built the Iraqi electrical system in the first place.

And have made a slow business of getting it back up and running.

>> >> A no-bid contract with a company who's former head just happens
>> >> to be one of the most powerful men in Washington and who is still
>> >> on the payroll doesn't bother you at all?
>> >
>> >Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>>
>> Why do you think Halliburton are any better than Schlumberger?
>
>Schlumberger are French.

a) Schlumberger isn't French.

b) Even if they were, so what?
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Simon Elliott" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering > writes
> >> >Total managed the Iraqi's oil before the US got there and the aquifer
> >shows
> >> >the French abused the fields.
> >>
> >> Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?
> >
> >The story was in the newsgroups a couple of weeks ago.
>
> A quick google search doesn't find anything. Can you give me some
> pointers?

I don't see the articles on google, but it was a "blame Bush" set of threads
on alt.politics.usa.republican.

> BTW, not all the oilfield services companies in Iraq were French. I
> worked for an exploration company which was wholly owned by Raytheon,
> which had some major contracts in Iraq in the 1980s.

20 years is a long time ago.

Total has been the main supplier since Desert Storm.

[Ron]

>Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>
>Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?
>
>> If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.
>
>You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.

John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are, or
what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton, probably
think they own wells, and sell oil.

There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise that
is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the only
choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time to
publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids, award
them, and deal with any appeals that come up.

Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when you
need something done immediately




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
> >
> >Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?
> >
> >> If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.
> >
> >You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.
>
> John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are, or
> what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton, probably
> think they own wells, and sell oil.
>
> There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise
that
> is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
> And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the
only
> choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time
to
> publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids, award
> them, and deal with any appeals that come up.
>
> Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when
you
> need something done immediately

I think the point is that before the war even started, we should have
anticipated that we were going to need certain services to be performed.
Surely, somebody could have devised a method of bidding for performance of those
services without tipping off our war plans. It doesn't seem so insoluble that
no-bid contracts were the only possibility.

George Z.

[KenG]

Twit... There were only 2 companies that could have done it, and one of
those is French owned. There was no reason to advertise for bids.
There was only one choice.


George Z. Bush wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>>>
>>>Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?
>>>
>>>
>>>>If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.
>>>
>>>You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.
>>
>>John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are, or
>>what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton, probably
>>think they own wells, and sell oil.
>>
>>There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise
>
> that
>
>>is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
>>And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the
>
> only
>
>>choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time
>
> to
>
>>publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids, award
>>them, and deal with any appeals that come up.
>>
>>Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when
>
> you
>
>>need something done immediately
>
>
> I think the point is that before the war even started, we should have
> anticipated that we were going to need certain services to be performed.
> Surely, somebody could have devised a method of bidding for performance of those
> services without tipping off our war plans. It doesn't seem so insoluble that
> no-bid contracts were the only possibility.
>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

KenG wrote:
> Twit... There were only 2 companies that could have done it, and one of
> those is French owned. There was no reason to advertise for bids.
> There was only one choice.

Why? If the government can save the taxpayers' money by outsourcing their
contracts, what's wrong with that? Why wasn't the French company, whoever it
was, permitted to bid on the contract if they were competent to do the necessary
work? Politics? We pay so the government can play politics with its
international rivals? Is that a valid reason to spend more than is possibly
necessary to have certain work done?

BTW, Ken, the name is George, not Twit, or does Twit mean something other than a
disparaging name? If you intended to be obnoxious, you succeeded, although I
saw no good reason for it since I hadn't been insulting to you. Let's try to be
civil, shall we?

George Z.


>
>
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.
>>>>
>>>> You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.
>>>
>>> John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are,
>>> or what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton,
>>> probably think they own wells, and sell oil.
>>>
>>> There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise
>>
>> that
>>
>>> is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
>>> And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the
>>
>> only
>>
>>> choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time
>>
>> to
>>
>>> publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids,
>>> award them, and deal with any appeals that come up.
>>>
>>> Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when
>>
>> you
>>
>>> need something done immediately
>>
>>
>> I think the point is that before the war even started, we should have
>> anticipated that we were going to need certain services to be performed.
>> Surely, somebody could have devised a method of bidding for performance of
>> those services without tipping off our war plans. It doesn't seem so
>> insoluble that no-bid contracts were the only possibility.
>>
>> George Z.

[KenG]

George,
Yes Twit is a MILDLY disparaging term. My point was that there was no
contest in the contract. Given France's behavior prior to the conflict,
Schlumberger would not have been an acceptable choice.

George Z. Bush wrote:
> KenG wrote:
>
>>Twit... There were only 2 companies that could have done it, and one of
>> those is French owned. There was no reason to advertise for bids.
>>There was only one choice.
>
>
> Why? If the government can save the taxpayers' money by outsourcing their
> contracts, what's wrong with that? Why wasn't the French company, whoever it
> was, permitted to bid on the contract if they were competent to do the necessary
> work? Politics? We pay so the government can play politics with its
> international rivals? Is that a valid reason to spend more than is possibly
> necessary to have certain work done?
>
> BTW, Ken, the name is George, not Twit, or does Twit mean something other than a
> disparaging name? If you intended to be obnoxious, you succeeded, although I
> saw no good reason for it since I hadn't been insulting to you. Let's try to be
> civil, shall we?
>
> George Z.
>
>
>
>>
>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Better Halliburton than Schlumberger.
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you undrerstand what $10 oil has done to oilfield service companies?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If so, I have a bridge in New York City to sell you.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have a buttload of ignorance that only the stupid are buying.
>>>>
>>>>John, They dont seem to realize even what oil field services companies are,
>>>>or what they do. Probaly most of the people who criticize Halliburton,
>>>>probably think they own wells, and sell oil.
>>>>
>>>>There really are only two companies with that kind of techinical expertise
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>is needed, Halliburton and Schlumberger.
>>>>And if you need something done right now, rather than months from now, the
>>>
>>>only
>>>
>>>
>>>>choice is no bid contract. Once you do open up bids, you have to allow time
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>publicize it, time to allow the bids to come in, then to study the bids,
>>>>award them, and deal with any appeals that come up.
>>>>
>>>>Bidding for contracts is great if its a future need, but not an option when
>>>
>>>you
>>>
>>>
>>>>need something done immediately
>>>
>>>
>>>I think the point is that before the war even started, we should have
>>>anticipated that we were going to need certain services to be performed.
>>>Surely, somebody could have devised a method of bidding for performance of
>>>those services without tipping off our war plans. It doesn't seem so
>>>insoluble that no-bid contracts were the only possibility.
>>>
>>>George Z.
>
>
>

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
>
> KenG wrote:
> > Twit... There were only 2 companies that could have done it, and one of
> > those is French owned. There was no reason to advertise for bids.
> > There was only one choice.
>
> Why? If the government can save the taxpayers' money by outsourcing their
> contracts, what's wrong with that? Why wasn't the French company, whoever it
> was, permitted to bid on the contract if they were competent to do the
> necessary work?

Simple. It was our dime, (that is, my tax dollars
paying the freight) and France was officially - and
strongly - hindering our actions in finally taking
the steps necessary to accomplish the goals of the
UN resolutions.

Why in hell should we pay Frenchmen to do the job
which an American company can do? If France wanted
the contract for their own, they can pay them.