Here's a bit more background info if you care to see it:

Let me add that this is not the only pie Halliburton has its finger in.

QUOTE:

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners.

The Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton (HAL: up $0.54 to $20.66, Research, Estimates), of which Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000, said late Monday that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure.

President Bush Tuesday asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities, much or all of which could go to Halliburton or its subcontractors under the terms of its contract with the Army.

Cheney divested himself of all interest in Halliburton, the largest U.S. oilfield services company, after the 2000 election.

Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the total monetary value or duration of its contract, under which it will put into action some of the firefighting and repair plans it outlined for the Army in a study it conducted in November.

"KBR's ... contract is limited to task orders under the contract for only those services which are necessary to support the mission in the near term," Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said.

The Army Corps of Engineers told CNN Tuesday that Halliburton would be paid on a "cost plus" basis, meaning it would be reimbursed for the costs of its work and would get a certain percentage of those costs as a fee.

Since it's still unknown how much damage has been or will be done to Iraqi oil fields in the war, it's difficult to estimate the contract's eventual dollar value.

But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job.

Getting Iraq's oil fields to pre-1991 production levels will take at least 18 months and cost about $5 billion initially, with $3 billion more in annual operating expenses, according to a recent study by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, named for the first President Bush's secretary of state during the first Gulf War.

"Certainly Halliburton would have the lead [in the competition for that job], even absent this contract, given the size and scope of their current operations," said Pierre Conner, an analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital. "But there's no question they'll start with some footprint there. It clearly puts them in the position where they will know more about the situation and have a bit of an operation there."

Though none of the potential administrators of such a contract -- including the Defense Department, the State Department's U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations -- have claimed responsibility for handing out the job, Monday's award and Bush's request for funding seem to indicate the U.S. government will be in charge.

Halliburton said it has subcontracted the firefighting portion of the Army contract to Houston-based companies Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. (WEL: up $0.06 to $1.16, Research, Estimates) and Wild Well Control Inc., a private company.
Related stories
Bush wants $75 billion for war
Baghdad building bonanza?
Beware the hellfighter stock
Boots & Coots gushes
Halliburton-Iran connection eyed

Hall of Halliburton said all oil fires should be put out within 240 days. Very few oil wells have been set ablaze by Iraqis so far, in contrast to the first Gulf War in 1991, when Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait set fire to more than 700 Kuwaiti oil wells. Halliburton's KBR unit was involved in putting out the 1991 fires.

Separately, USAID late Monday awarded a $4.8 million contract to Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a private company based in Seattle, to manage the Umm Qasr ports in southern Iraq.

Umm Qasr's ports, where U.S. and British troops have struggled for full control, are seen as critical to efforts to bring humanitarian relief to Iraqis. SSA will handle several tasks, including assessing the need for dredging and repairs to the ports, and unloading and warehousing cargo.

USAID plans to issue seven other contracts, including one for $600 million for general construction work in post-war Iraq. Halliburton is among several companies reported to have put in bids for that contract.

 

How about a nice, open ended no-spending limit non-competitive contract for Halliburton. But I guess they are only "managing" the fields. And the field rebuilding. And troop supplies.. and - I'm sure theres plenty more we'll never know about.

But I'm sure this wasn't about money. It was all about WOMAD.

Don't you just love how those "liberated" Iraquis are taking potshots at our troops? The poor soldiers are sitting ducks out there. For what reason?!? We shouldn't have put our troops in that position at all.

By Larry Margasak
Associated Press
Published 06/13/03 04:40:24
WASHINGTON -- Halliburton's no-bid work to revive Iraq's oil industry is likely to last longer than originally estimated, the Army has acknowledged, and the cost to the government has more than doubled in the past month.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this week backed off estimates that a fully competitive replacement contract would be awarded by August.

There will be no second contract if the oil restoration mission is completed before another company can take over, or if the Iraqis make their own arrangements for additional help, the Corps said.

"We're not going to try to discuss a specific timetable," said Corps spokesman Lt. Col. Eugene Pawlik.

Asked about the Corps' earlier August estimate, Pawlik said, "I would be very surprised if that would be in the timetable, with all the requirements that are out there."

While the Army delays its decision, the government cost of the noncompetitive work awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company is ballooning. The total as of last week was $184.7 million, up from $76.7 million a month ago, shortly after the assigned work expanded significantly.

Several members of Congress have invoked Cheney's name to raise the hint of favoritism in the contract.

Cheney's office repeatedly has said he had no role in the award, which was given to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary. Cheney left the company in August 2000.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said, "KBR is proud to assist with the restoration of Iraq's oil infrastructure, which is the fuel for the country's economic recovery."

The Houston firm's oil industry assistance in Iraq is only part of the more than $600 million in military work received by Halliburton in connection with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the Army's sole provider of troop support services, KBR has received work orders totaling more than $500 million under a 10-year contract with no spending ceiling.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chief House critic of the Halliburton oil contract, reminded the Corps in a letter last week that the Army expected to advertise for bids by spring or early summer.

Writing to Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, the Corps commander, Waxman asked whether the Corps "has done an about-face and is poised to give additional benefits to Halliburton under its no-bid contract."

Waxman cited a Dow Jones news story in which Gary Loew, planning director for the Corps' oil restoration project, said there might not be time to award a second contract and still meet deadlines for restoring the industry.

Flowers responded that the Corps was moving ahead with plans for a replacement contract "if needed."

 

yep i felt that iraq wasn't a direct threat to the U.S. if we were smart about our balls, we would've attacked north korea first, but now that won't happen idefinately because we just don't have the manpower to sustain two simultaneous theatres of combat. iraq has basically handicapped our ability to go to war in another place of the world for a long time because it will take years to rebuild that country and years of us occupying it with our forces. so what can we do if north korea builds a nuke and is threatening us in the face with it (saddam never did that nor came close)? i mean the US is the big bully of the world but now they've met a bully who might not be as big but has some serious guns behind him. just my two cents.

 

You said that GWB got troops killed so Halliburton could CONTROL the Iraqi oil business. Those are pretty much your exact words.

Controlling the business would require ownership of wells and fields - Halliburton has neither. They are a service company.

I wrote you quite a reply but the previous thread was locked while I was writing.

What else do you suggest? What would be the "proper" solution to the situation? Leave the wells to spill oil all over the landscape? Bring in a different company? Get a Senate commitee to debate for 10 months about what to do? Seriously, tell me the "right" solution.

The fact that it's a huge contract is a moot point. The point is that someone, somehow, has to service those wells. Halliburton got the contract - it's really that simple. Furthermore, they're just about the only one that can do ALL of it. Trying to give the contract to a bazillion smaller companies, then making them work everything out (slowing them down quite effectively), would be ludicrous.

Also, the US gov't (if anyone) is running "Iraqi Oil, Inc", not Halliburton - Halliburton is merely servicing. Again, they don't own the wells, they merely provide services for them. Also, the US gov't doesn't own the wells, either - the Arab conglomerates do...

I believe you're really off base on this one. To be honest, I'm not even sure what your bone of contention is. Would you mind clarifying, very specifically, what your problem with Halliburton is?

 

Well this one started off okay, but now you done gone and turned it into a political discussion/argument. That's a no-no.