NEWS: Report: US Forces Mismanage Iraqi Oil Funds

POLITICS: Report: US Forces Mismanage Iraqi Oil Funds

As many of us may or may not know the war in Iraq has not been entirely without its sanctions. It was planned through the U.N. that funds from proceeds of oil exportation were to go to the development and rebuilding of Iraq. However, a recent report published by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board on Iraq, vicariously articulated by KPMG International, has indicated the mismanagement of oil revenue funds.

The U.N., through the IAMBI, had set up a multi-billion dollar fund for the Iraqi people in which the revenue from sales of crude oil were to be accumulated. The fund would then be audited by the U.N. in order to ensure the restorationof public utilities (education, sewage and garbage disposal, police forces, etc.) The US-led Provisional Government Authority, Iraq's now defunct interim government, has in this report been noted for poor record keeping in the areas of pay rolls, general accounting records, and reconstruction contracts.

Although it is not atypical of a fledgling bureaucracy to have fiscal policy inconsistencies, the largest area of these discrepancies are surrounding (surprise, surprise) Halliburton Co.'s contract through the interim government. Won through a non-competitive bid, Halliburton is the primary entity in charge of actualizing Iraq's oil reserves for the world market. The accounting discrepancies include the amount of oil pumped from Iraqi soil and respective revenues.

There is some question, at least in my mind, as to why this hasn't been made a larger issue in the mainstream media.

Sooooooo tired of Haliburton being brought up. Do me a favor and please please please name me three companies that specialize in the same areas as Haliburton, that have the resourses to do this job, and have the history with our government< (ie going back over 30 years now Haliburton has been heavily in Gov contracts, starting with, oh wait, a democrat presidency) This whole Haliburton thing is a misnomer. We didn't just start handing them contracts when Bush and Cheney came into office, we have been doing it for decades. Coupled with the fact that they specialize in oil related opporations in a magnitude unparraleled by any other company, who else would get the contracts???

Well, I'm sure Halliburton getting a contract without fair bidding is ethical because right before Iraq, their shares were falling because of asbestos lawsuits...or the dropping of oil prices..or the investigations of accounting mismanagement. I'm sure it doesn't bother you that Halliburton was billing taxpayers for thousands of meals that our soldiers never received. And you can't be serious in thinking Halliburton has a monopoly on the energy/defense business. Enron had a good history of being cooperative with our gov't as well.
The Center for Public Integrity has some good reading...

ps: Don't forget the links in the original post which is really what the point is.

[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 12:45PM]

I am serious. Can you name one company that is comperable to Haliburton in what they do? Haliburton is very specialized in these fields. Take me up on my previous challenge, name three companies that have the same expertise in these specialized areas. I bet you dollars to donuts you can't do it. Hell, just name me one. All I was pointing out was that the relationship between the federal government and Haliburton goes back way before Bush/Cheney. Most people get the impression that this is a new relationship and it is clearly not.

It seems to me the UN has had prior experience in fucking up the proceeds from Iraqi oil..... ...so they should just kinda reflect on that whole food for oil biz before pointing fingers......

But yeah , lets just blame the US for everything as usual...

Oooh! I know! How about you tell us EXACTLY what it is that Halliburton does. . that it is so specialized in. If they're so very, very specialized that nobody else can do their job, then detailing these specializations should be exceedingly easy.

What does Halliburton do in IRAQ for the billions? A list, please.

First of all, what does this have to do with the actual article posted, which apparently you didn't read. I assume you mean US,UK, and AU. Anyway Halliburton is specialized in many fields...please tell which specifically. Do you mean oil? ..reconstruction?...maybe Bechtel, Amec(UK)?
There are other companies...yeah really...Now does that give them the right to mismanagae funds and over-bill taxpayers, isn't that the point? Why sould the Gov't. be so weak with it's oversight on Halliburton and why wasn't there an open bid? Why does this report say the things it does? If they really are best for the job why not allow competition? Now if I may compel you to speak your mind about what the article actually said...and if you want, the points I've raised.

I'm sure Dubya's main man,Kenny-Boy, would've made a great advisor...he could've cooked the books for years without anyone knowing....oh shit he's been indicted, oh well.


[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

Haha, sorry. I just had to stick my nose in here. Keep up the great debates!

1 - Bechtel Group, Inc. - Privately held
2 - Schlumberger Limited - Public
3 - Technip - Public

Can't name three just off the top of my head, but Precision has an extremely broad specialization of services, covering oil and gas exploration, computer services, oil and gas production, and much more. There are probably a lot more out there too.

Some legal concerns:


The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq’s constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."

Order 39 violated the Hague Regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

So far, most of the controversy surrounding Iraq’s reconstruction has focused on the waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This badly misses the scope of the violation: Even if the selloff of Iraq were conducted with full transparency and open bidding, it would still be illegal for the simple reason that Iraq is not America’s to sell.

The Security Council’s recognition of the United States and Britain’s occupation authority provides no legal cover. The UN resolution passed in May specifically required the occupying powers to "comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907."

What about British Petroleum

Think of this as tribute for Emperor Bush.

My original post was in response to Haliburton being thrown into the opener. Yes, I am fully aware of the topic at hand here. Perhaps you yourself did not read it. If you had, you would see that it was the Interim Iraqi Government who is accused of miscalcuations.

Lets think about this. In the broad scope of things, Haliburton has the expertise, the resources, and the long history with our Federal Govt. Now lets leave out the Govt for a second. You yourself have stated a few of the areas in which Haliburton opporates. You stated Oil, which is not entirely accurate though. They specialize in the oil industry supply market, not the actual drilling of oil. They are involved accross the boar on so many projects in Iraq. Just from a bussiness standpoint, it makes total sense to give them the contracts. They specialize in a broad number of areas that need attention. The companies I have seen so far, might fill one, two or three, but not all. Streamline the contracts by using one company for many jobs. If we were talking corprate America and you were a company exec and didn't jump on something like that, you shouldn't be a company exec.

Seriously...you brought up the other company thing...that was the only thing that was off base. Oh and by the way that argument shows you know nothing of the industries in discussion and I think from here on in your opinion is moot...uptight would be ashamed.

It would only be polite to give us a point by point response to our questions...I mean that's what you asked....We've gotten nothing.



[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 by Raoul_Duke]

And what alternatives do you have for this whole situation ?

The outrage expressed in this thread , showsthe collective complete and utter lack of understanding that the influence that oil and the pursuit of it it has had on EVERY nations foreign policy since the late 19th century......

you're right..we should just let Total ELF Fina run everything.

get a grip.

Raoul,
Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner, had a night of cocktails and pool. Ah needed that.

As to your assertation that I know nothing and my oppinions must be considered moot: There is not one of the companies mentioned that could take over completely for what Haliburton is doing in Iraq. It would take a combination of companies to do take the tasks that Haliburton is in charge of. Many of the companies listed abover are in fact in Iraq working of infrastructure. The bid process, by allowing Haliburton their contracts, was streamlined, allowing the other companies to bid on contracts more suited to their specific specialties.

What you're implying then, is that because a company has gobbled other, smaller companies, and now offers a wide array of services/products, they should be seen as the best pick for a comprehensive job. So. . . . Microsoft should be allowed to do ANY AND ALL computer work for the government, correct? After all, Gates and Co. own more intellectual property and patents than anyone else. . . WAL-MART should be allowed to provide ANY AND ALL merchandise to Iraq, as they are the one U.S. company with the widest variety of retail goods (except Fred Meyer, but Wal-Mart's expansion into foodstuffs will change this soon). Nike, ever branching, should be the one sporting good supplier for the thousands of one-armed Iraqi children, correct?

Your argument that Halliburton is best because they are the biggest is completely absurd. My above examples are not too grand, but you should understand my point. Point is, you have no point. Halliburton was rewarded the contract for obvious reasons. If you really, in your heart, believe that Halliburton is in Iraq because the U.S. gov carefully analyzed the pros and cons of Halliburton vs. other companies, you're either naive beyond belief or an idealist who should be lauded.