Thursday, December 11, 2003
Light bulbs, paper and employees
Dawkins writes:
Some salient points from the New York Times' continuing investigation into Halliburton's fuel scam in Iraq:
And, you know:
But, what's that you say?
Blicero adds: "Paper jams"! "Mechanical piece [sic] of equipment"!
Back to bed! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Some salient points from the New York Times' continuing investigation into Halliburton's fuel scam in Iraq:
The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.But:
Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.Blicero adds: If you want it to be even more "'hazardous' and 'hostile'," just let those Canadians in!
And, you know:
She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.Gee, it seems to me, what with all the trouble they're having with the whole "purchase, ship, and deliver" part of the job, not to mention finding trucks to do it, not to mention making sure those trucks are secured against attacks along the way, that maybe Halliburton's not the best company for this tricky job. (Then again, they did get the contract, so what am I talking about?) I guess there's no one else out there who could do, or is doing, the job for cheaper and safer and better.
A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.
"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.
But, what's that you say?
The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.Then there must be some explanation!
The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for "mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to cover the overhead for administering the contract.Yes! "Overhead costs!" "Light bulbs!" "Paper!" "Employees!" And all "scrutinized" and "approved" by U.S. government auditors!
Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."
Blicero adds: "Paper jams"! "Mechanical piece [sic] of equipment"!
Back to bed! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.