U.S. Government Sues All Companies Involved in BP Oil Spill...Except One: Halliburton

Halliburton was forced to admit in testimony at a congressional hearing last month that it carried out a cementing operation 20 hours before the Gulf of Mexico rig went up in flames. The lawsuits claim that four Halliburton workers stationed on the rig improperly capped the well. Oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. says it safely finished a cementing operation 20 hours before a Gulf of Mexico rig went up inflames, killing 11 men and ultimately causing a massive oil spill. In testimony prepared for a congressional hearing, Halliburton says it completed work on the well according to accepted industry practice and federal regulators. Halliburton executive Tim Probert says a pressure test was conducted after the work was finished, and the well owner decided to continue. The cause of the April 20 explosion is under investigation, but lawsuits filed after the disaster claim it was caused when Halliburton workers improperly capped the well -- a process known as cementing. Halliburton denies wrongdoing. - The Associated Press, Halliburton Says It Finished Cementing Operation 20 Hours Before Rig Explosion, May 10, 2010

The Truth About Halliburton and Dick Cheney:

U.S. Government Sues All Companies Involved in BP Oil Spill...Except One: Halliburton

December 17, 2010

Global Research — Attorney General Eric Holder announced Wednesday that the United States is filing a lawsuit against BP and its partners in the Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, claiming their negligence led to the massive spill that sent millions of barrels of crude into the Gulf during the spring and summer.

Holder said a months-long investigation by the Justice Department had found that BP, which was the primary operator of the well, its partners in the well, which included Aandarko and the MOEX subsidiary of Mitsui & Co., and Transocean, which BP had hired to drill the well, had failed to secure the well properly, failed to maintain drilling equipment and failed to monitor the well, and that those failures had caused the spill.

Holder also said the massive spill was a violation of the Clean Water Act, and that the defendants will be held liable for fines for each barrel of oil that spilled into the gulf.

Holder did not detail how the defendants had failed to secure the well, maintain the equipment or monitor the well. But a presidential commission investigating the disaster as well as BP's own internal investigation found that the crew aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig misread the results of pressure tests and failed to notice that hydrocarbons were surging into the well until just minutes before a huge cloud of methane enveloped the drilling rig and exploded. Eleven workers were killed in the initial explosion, which set the rig ablaze. It sank 36 hours later, taking a mile of drilling pipe with it.

Investigators also have found that the rig's last line of defense against a massive spill, the blowout preventer, had been altered and that BP engineers were unable to close its valves and seal the well.

One company not named in the lawsuit is Halliburton, the Houston-based oil services firm that poured the concrete that was intended to seal the well. There was no immediate explanation for its exclusion.

Holder noted that the case filed Wednesday was a civil suit and that it does not preclude future criminal charges.

Bush, Cheney, Obama and Halliburton

Wikipedia - Following the end of Operation Desert Storm in February 1991, the Pentagon, led by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones. Halliburton crews also helped bring 725 burning oil wells under control in Kuwait.

In 1995, Dick Cheney replaced Thomas H. Cruikshank as chairman and CEO of Halliburton. In 1998 Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg. Prescott Bush was a director of Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton. Former U.S. president George H. W. Bush worked for Dresser Industries in several positions from 1948–1951, before he founded Zapata Corporation.

Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until 2000, when he became Vice President of the U.S.; however, he continued to receive a deferred salary and stock options from the company.

According to CorpWatch:

During Dick Cheney's tenure as Halliburton's CEO, the number of company subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens increased from 9 (in 1995) to 44 (in 1999).

When Halliburton announced it was relocating its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai, critics suggested the move might help the company avoid paying its fair share of taxes. Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at the nonpartisan Tax Notes magazine, told MSNBC that relocating to the no-tax jurisdiction of Dubai would change Halliburton's tax situation "significantly" even though the company would still be registered in the United States. By re-locating its CEO and other top executives to Dubai, Halliburton can argue that a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction, he said.

From 1995–2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp. was awarded at least $2.5 billion, but has spent considerably less, to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.

In November 2002, Halliburton's subsidiary KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq, and in February 2003 was issued a contract to conduct the work. Critics contend that it was a no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney's position as U.S. Vice President.

According to CorpWatch:

Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts" that Halliburton received in Iraq.

But an internal Pentagon email later obtained by TIME magazine indicates that, months before, the war "action" on the Iraqi oil contract was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. Two months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reported, "The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oil fields and rehabilitate them, industry officials say. They say Mr. Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October, with Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Texaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton among the companies represented. Both the Bush administration and the companies say such a meeting never took place."

Cheney has resisted public requests for disclosure of documents relating to his secret Energy Task Force that proved he was investigating Iraq's oil fields prior to the war. Some of the documents were released only after a judge ordered Cheney to make them public.

Whether or not Cheney's office influenced the decision to give KBR a no-bid contract to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers top civilian contracting official, Bunnatine Greenhouse, told a congressional committee that "the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." (Greenhouse was demoted after blowing the whistle, despite a stellar work performance record.)

KBR won more than $16 billion in U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 to 2006—far more than any other company, according to "Windfalls of War II", a 2007 analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

Halliburton saw its revenue increase 30 percent to $16 billion in 2003, largely because of its military contracts in the middle east. Halliburton was the number one U.S. Army contractor in 2003, with the total value of its Army contracts valued at $3,731,725,648 ($3.7 billion).

On January 24, 2006, Halliburton announced that KBR had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build "temporary detention and processing facilities" or internment camps. According to Business Wire, this contract will be executed in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Critics point to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as a possible model. According to a press release posted on the Halliburton website (which has since been removed):

"The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities."

The company has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million. While Vice President of the United States, he received $398,548 in deferred compensation (as of 2004).

According to CorpWatch:

Soon after Hurricane Katrina, former FEMA head Joe Albaugh, a Halliburton registered lobbyist, encamped in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, "helped his clients get business from perhaps the worst natural disaster in the nation's history." (Washington Post, September 8, 2005; Page A27)

Charles Domini, a retired three-star general hired by Cheney in 1995 to work as vice president of business development for KBR, has been on both sides of the revolving door between Halliburton and the military. He was a general with the Army in 1992 when it first awarded Halliburton its most lucrative contract, known as LOGCAP. Then, after Halliburton was fired by the Army in 1997, Domini was an employee of Halliburton when the Army re-hired the company to handle the LOGCAP contract.

Domini is only one example of the symbiotic relationship between Halliburton and the military. His promotion to chief lobbyist in 2001 occurred because the former chief lobbyist, Dave Gribbin, retired from Halliburton to join Cheney in the Bush administration. Gribbin has a long history with Cheney that includes working for him in Congress, the Pentagon, Halliburton and now in the White House.

At Halliburton's annual shareholders meeting in Houston in 2009, all was remarkably staid as the company celebrated its $4 billion in 2008 operating profits, a striking 22% return at a time when many companies were announcing record losses. Just months before, however, Halliburton didn't hesitate to pay $382 million in fines to the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the settlement of a controversial KBR gas project in Nigeria in which the company admitted to paying a $180 million bribe to government officials.

In May 2010, under the Obama Administration, KBR was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said. According to Bloomberg:

The Army announced its decision only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.

KBR, the Army’s largest contractor in Iraq, will review the litigation when it is received and “will continue to cooperate with the government,” company spokeswoman Heather Browne said in an e-mail. “Gifts of dinners, baseball tickets and similar items would violate KBR policies and KBR was not aware of these violations.”

KBR will continue to provide services in Iraq such as housing, meals, laundry, showers, water purification and bathroom cleaning under the new order, which was placed under a military contract KBR won in late 2001, shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

The no-bid work order is unusual because the Army, at the insistence of Congress, has since April 2008 put all logistics orders to bid, pitting KBR against Falls Church, Virginia-based DynCorp International Inc. and Irving, Texas-based Fluor Corp.

The Army didn’t put this work out for bids because U.S. commanders in Iraq advised against it, saying that enlisting a new company would be too disruptive as the U.S withdraws, Army program director Lee Thompson said in an interview before the Justice Department action was announced.

Nigeria Files Charges Against Cheney in Halliburton Bribery Scheme (December 7, 2010)

Halliburton and the Military Industrial Complex

WikiInvest - Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) is a top three provider of support services for early stage energy production with revenues, for the first quarter of 2010, of $3.8B and 2009 total revenues of $14.7B and operating income of $1.99B. Its primary business is to help oil exploration and drilling companies extract more oil from the ground. To that end, the company acts as a consultant to optimize production for customers. Halliburton also provides equipment and services to aid companies in evaluating new drilling opportunities, as well as cementing services post-drilling.

Halliburton has extensive market coverage in over 70 countries. As a result of its broad international exposure, Halliburton is particularly vulnerable to geopolitical instability. Acts of terrorism, regime changes and other disruptive acts can negatively impact Halliburton's businesses. Conversely, the company is still incorporated in the U.S., generating approximately 39% of its revenue from this country in 2009. This keeps it extremely sensitive to downturns in the U.S. economy as well as changes to U.S. environmental legislation.

Going forward Halliburton is expected to benefit from higher oil prices driven in part by sustained demand from China and India. Higher oil prices translate into more drilling. For instance, deep water drilling, which might normally be considered prohibitively expensive, becomes economically feasible when oil prices are high enough. Additionally, since 70% of the world's oil comes from mature reservoirs, optimizing production to squeeze every last drop of oil out of a well becomes increasingly important over time.

The company also benefited from the spin off of its KBR unit in April of 2007. KBR performed much of the contracting work in Iraq that was the subject of negative publicity and government investigations. In addition to garnering negative press for the company, KBR generated only 5% margins. Halliburton's overall margins are closer to 25%.

Company Overview

Halliburton was founded in 1919 and has since become a leader in oilfield services, engineering and construction. Most of its customer companies are in the oil & gas, industrial, and government markets.

Before the recent spin-off of KBR, Halliburton's engineering and construction segment, its oilfield services segment, and KBR attributed equal shares to the revenue of the company. However, KBR accounted for much less than a third of profits. Low profitability was one of the primary reasons Halliburton chose to spin off KBR.

Today, the vast majority of Halliburton’s profits and revenues come from oilfield services. Halliburton focuses on profitability with less emphasis on amount of sales, i.e. higher margins (6.8% in 2009) and lower market share.

Business and Financial Metrics

Third Quarter 2010 Summary

Halliburton reported consolidated revenue of $4.7 billion for the third quarter of 2010, a 30% increase over the third quarter of 2009, with noticeable growth in the Completion and Production segment in North America. Net income was $818 million, a 73% increase year-over-year. These increases are attributed to increased natural gas and oil activity, as well as improved pricing due to the shift to unconventional natural gas driving service projects. Revenue in North America increased 111% from the same quarter in 2009.

Second Quarter 2010 Summary

On July 19, 2010, Halliburton reported 2Q earnings of $0.52 per diluted share. Consolidated revenue was $4.4 billion, a 16% increase over the first quarter of 2010, with growth evident in each product line and geographic region. Net income was $474 million, a 130% increase over 1Q 2010. These increases are attributed to increased natural gas and oil activity in North America, as well as to the strengthening of international operations due to seasonal activity. Revenue in North America increased 24% from the previous quarter, while international revenue increased 11%.

First Quarter 2010 Summary

Halliburton reported 1Q earnings on April 22, 2010. Consolidated revenue was $3.8 billion, down 4% as compared to the same period in 2009, and net income was $207 million, down 46% as compared to the same period in 2009. Revenue outside North America was down 7.5% as compared to the same period in 2009. These overall declines were attributed to the global recession, which resulted in decreased customer demand and spending, lower business activity, and lower pricing and margins. In Latin America, specifically Mexico, operations suffered from significant delays in new projects and services work, while in the Eastern Hemisphere, seasonality declines that typically occur in the first quarter of every year were worsened by more inclement weather than normal in Russia, the North Sea and parts of Asia.

Revenue in North America, on the other hand, increased by 1.2% in the first quarter of 2010, year over year, while operating profit for the region remained the same at $230 million. This is due to increased drilling activity and pricing improvement in the region.

International Presence

Headquartered in Dubai, Halliburton has operations in over 70 different countries. This high level of international exposure provides some degree of protection from economic downturns in any one country. Its business operations are categorized into four primary geographic regions: North America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS and Middle East/Asia.

In 2008 43% of revenue was from the United States, however the company focused on growth in non-North American regions. Revenue and operating income grew by 22% and 26%, respectively, outside of North America as compared to 2007. Notably revenue from the Latin American region increased 35% to $2.4 billion and operating income increased by 49% to $521 million as compared to 2007. Revenue and operting income grew in excess of 20% in the Middle East/Asia region.

Revenue Dependent on Drilling Activity

Halliburton's revenue is highly correlated with world-wide drilling activity, which is demonstrated by numbers of utilized rigs.

There are two important drivers of drilling operations. The first is that drilling activity will increase as commodity prices rise (see trend articles: Rising/Falling Oil Prices, peak oil, and Natural Gas). When the price of the commodity being drilled for increases, more drilling becomes economically feasible. In other words, it becomes worth it to drill in more places, places that previously may have been too difficult or expensive to drill. A good example of this is the Gulf of Mexico market in 2008, where drilling increased despite the high costs of deepwater drilling.

As U.S. prices reached historic highs of $146 per barrel in the middle of July 2008, so did the U.S. rig count, moving over 2000 active rigs. Similarly, when oil dropped due to slowing demand, so did rig counts. In October 2009 oil prices were just over $70 per barrel down over 50% since July 2008; following this drop in oil prices, rig counts fell by 47% to 1,040.

The second driver for drilling is the need to locate new reserves. Demand for worldwide oil continues to rise, fueled by rapidly developing countries such as China and India. Currently, 70% of oil production comes from mature wells and to continue to meet demand, exploratory drilling must be increased. The necessity of exploratory drilling will continue to drive the need for more rigs.

Today's Iraq is Exactly What Israel Has Wanted, Motive for Mossad and 911 (Excerpt)

September 18, 2010

Sue4theBillofrights (Daily Paul) - I still don't know quite what to make of the allegations of Army War College instructor Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who says Mossad was a conspirator in 911, along with elements of our military-industrial complex, which profits obscenely from war. But I have learned to ask the question, "who benefits?"

911 enabled the invasion of Iraq, and although the result has been bad for us, it fits in with goals which have been openly stated for many years by the Israeli NeoCon intelligentsia. Whether Sabrosky is right or wrong, this much is uncanny and extensively documented.

In 1982, the winter issue of Kivunim, “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” published “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” by Oded Yinon, an Israeli scholar. Yinon suggests that the Arab States should be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions.

In the essay Yinon writes on Iraq:

"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel...Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."

Yinon's essay influenced a generation of Israeli and Israeli-American Neocon thinkers, and in 1996 an Israeli think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, published the widely-reported “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” intended as advice for Prime Minister Netanyahu, which stated:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

Who were the authors of this Israeli-funded publication aimed at advising Prime Minister Netanyahu? A Who's-Who of prominent dual American-Israeli citizens who would later run George Bush's foreign policy, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith ...

Read More...


Eisenhower was smart to wait until his farewell speech to warn about the "military industrial complex," or he would have been assassinated too. JFK didn't ignore his message, but every other sitting president since was intimidated into ignoring it.