Showing posts with label Halliburton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Halliburton. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2009

Halliburton Settlement Leaves Unsettling Questions


February 15, 12:49 PM, 2009 ·

Halliburton Settlement Leaves Unsettling Questions
By Scott Horton

The Justice Department’s long-standing probe of corruption in connection with Halliburton’s Nigerian contracts—a matter of obvious and acute concern to Vice President Dick Cheney—was rushed to a final settlement just before the arrival of the new Obama team at Justice. Under the settlement Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR are paying $579 million in fines. The New York Times opines today:

…there are a lot of unanswered questions about Halliburton’s practices in Iraq, with numerous complaints of overpricing and ineptitude. Its corporate conduct in the Nigerian scheme is hardly encouraging and should compel tighter scrutiny of its Iraq failures. Across a decade, KBR and Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to Nigerian officials to secure $6 billion in contracts for building natural gas processing equipment. Under the settlement with federal authorities, Halliburton will pay most of the penalties, with KBR, its subsidiary during the bribery scheme, pleading guilty to hiring international bagmen to regularly grease Nigerian officials with million-dollar satchels of cash. A former KBR executive who deemed bribery a worthwhile cost of doing business now faces prison time.

That’s true. But put aside Iraq for a moment—there are no shortage of “unanswered questions” about the circumstances of this settlement. Consider the timing and circumstances. We start with a Justice Department which is now itself under strong suspicion of having been politically directed from the White House, with a special prosecutor already appointed and indictments now anticipated. In violation of normal procedures, Alberto Gonzales authorized Vice President Cheney and his staff to deal directly with Justice Department officials on matters of interest to them. We have every reason to ask whether this included the very Halliburton deal that the Bush team pushed through Justice before the new tenants arrived.

Why would Cheney care? For one thing, the corrupt dealings that are the focus of the deal occurred almost entirely between 1995–2000, while Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. For another, Halliburton tapped Cheney, who had no corporate managerial expertise, principally because of his expertise in government relations and because of his established track record in dealing not only with the U.S. government, but with governments around the world. The thought was that Cheney’s black book would help the company develop its rapidly expanding government contracts business. In other words, the multi-billion dollar Nigerian LNG deals were exactly the sort of thing that Cheney was expected to harvest for Halliburton. For a third, as my colleague Ken Silverstein notes, the man at the heart of the $160 million in corrupt payments, Jack Stanley, was hand-picked by Dick Cheney and had a direct report to him. Moreover, can you imagine a CEO under any circumstances simply not knowing about $160 million in grease payments made in connection with sensitive contract negotiations in Nigeria, a country long ranked at the bottom of Transparency International’s corruption lists?

Dick Cheney has long had very good reason to fear a prosecutor’s knock at the door. It might be his clear role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. It might be his authorship of the Bush Administration’s torture policy and his advocacy of warrantless surveillance of tens of millions of Americans. Or it might just be something quite mundane, namely, his role in securing a $2.2 billion contract to build a liquefied natural gas plant in Nigeria by making $160 million in corrupt payments to or for the benefit of government officials.

In any event, the Obama Administration are chumps if they sit back and accept the deal the Bush Justice Department concluded for the benefit of Dick Cheney. The whole matter needs to be reopened and examined independently. Let’s hope they consider Patrick Fitzgerald for the job.


Thursday, January 29, 2009

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.

A new bill introduced in Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations”.

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real.


The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as “command and control” centers that will also house a “24/7 operations watch center” as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.

As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Halliburton Helps Oil Services Stocks


Melinda Peer, 10.21.08, 12:51 AM ET

Halliburton






Halliburton shares regained some strength Monday on better than expected earnings but the company could offer little in the way of reassurance regarding its near-term outlook.
Oilfield service providers' stocks have taken a beating as natural gas and oil prices have come down from the summer's unprecedented highs. Halliburton (nyse: HAL - news - people ) shares are trading 46.2% lower than last month as fears of a global recession pummeled commodity markets and the shares of companies closely tied to them.
Analysts worry that a decline in energy demand will reduce exploration and production spending--concerns echoed by Schlumberger (nyse: SLB - news - people ) in last week's third-quarter earnings report. (See " Schlumberger Paints A Dark Picture.") Halliburton shares gained $2.54, or 13.9%, closing Monday's trading session at $20.80 and lifting shares across sector despite warnings that spending cutbacks could reduce the company's expected rig count in 2009.
RBC Capital Markets analyst Kurt Hallead expected Halliburton shares to get a much-needed lift on Monday since it, and other oil services companies' shares have served as a punching bag for investors frustrated by the dramatic drop in oil prices. Hallead said Halliburton's stock has fallen 67.0% from highs reached in July when oil soared past $147 a barrel.
"We are cognizant that a worldwide recession would have negative short-term implications for demand," Chairman David Lesar said adding that current energy prices are still sufficiently high enough to support Halliburton's current projects. "We are and will remain focused on our customers' long-term technology and service requirements," he said pointing to an anticipated shift within the industry to smaller, more complicated reserves as resources get scarcer, propelling long-term growth.
The Houston-based company posted a third-quarter net loss of $21.0 million, or 2 cents a share, compared with year-ago earnings of $727.0 million, or 83 cents a share. Earnings excluding acquisition-related charges and settlement of a portion of its convertible senior notes were $687.0 million, or 76 cents a share, surpassing the mean estimate of analysts polled by Thomson Reuters for earnings of 73 cents a share.
Halliburton said the quarter's results would have been higher by 4 cents a share if not for hurricane-related disruptions. Sales climbed 23.5%, to $4.9 billion from $3.9 billion in 2007's third quarter, driven by robust growth in Latin America. Results surpassed the $4.6 billion expected by analysts.
JPMorgan analyst Michael LaMotte was pleased with Halliburton's better-than-expected results but said "the questions now is how quickly North America volume and pricing retreats as smaller independents are hit with declining commodity pricing and a stricter credit environment."
Outside of North America, sales grew 25.0% from the prior year led by Latin America, where sales shot up 42.0% during the quarter. Citing 50.0% sales growth in Northern Africa and strong improvement in Saudi Arabia, Halliburton said it will continue to expand its business in the Eastern hemisphere but will begin moving out of West Africa where rising costs largely offset higher sales.