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

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.