Oil economics

“I actually think that the invasion of Iraq was a pretty good idea in theory.

It has vast oil resources, so it has the potential to pay its own way.

It has or had an educated population.

And it was weak. It wasn't going to lob a nuke anywhere like Iran.

I think the Republicans chose Iraq because it was morally justifiable, seemed to have a reasonable chance of success and it allowed the Bush administration to push the play in the Middle East.

The Bush people didn't want to react to events, they wanted to control them.

So, I think that there some good reasons for Iraq.

But our society depends on stability. Iraq was a huge risk.”

““My basic question is why we're in Iraq at all."

That is a good question. Other than deposing Saddam. This was rejected in the first gulf war as all psych profiles on probable replacements were worse than Saddam.

There seems to be nothing strategic in limiting weapons development that could not have been accomplished; faster, easier, and cheaper both in $$$ and lives by a flight of B-52's carpet bombing any establishment that did not allow the UN inspectors immediate access.

We probably did need to do something as a lot of the material acquired by Iraq could have been used for this, could have been used for that. Iraq's Republican Guard were well enough trained and equipped that they could capture and hold the Saudi oil fields for a couple of days, long enough to truck in a single nuke to the oilfields and hold it as a hostage. If Iraq did make a nuke.

Saddam liked to bluff and threaten. He probably deliberately led people to believe he was close to a bomb to make himself appear bigger and badder than he was. Ultimately he frightened people enough to take action.

In 2001 Saudi and Iraq accounted for about 20% of US oil. Now calculate what would happen to the US should we suddenly lose 20% of our oil supply. Disruption to food transportation, loss of electrical generation, loss of heating fuel. Probably a whole lot more deaths than what is going on now. Still do not agree with the action plan used, but see the necessity for some action plan.

Yep there were a bunch of Saudi's involved in 9/11. But they seemed to be only employed as cabin control muscle. I wonder if they even knew they were going to die.
One of the core group managed to read Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders", presumably the German edition as they were all at Frankfurt U togther. They decided to 'strike a blow against the great satan' and went to Osama for funding. Osama's people supply not just money but grunts as well so they can get multiple planes in on the act.

And zero Iraq connection, Iraq was a militant dictatorship floating on profitable oil, not an Islamic extremist state like Afghanistan.

Different threat entirely, but it is not the first time the US has used on threat to go to war with another country. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor so our primary war target is Germany ?? go figure. The US govt had wanted to go into europe the but public was dead set against it, until Pearl, then no-one questioned why we were going to europe instead of using all resources against Japan.
Iraq smells the same.

The other possibility for Iraq was the dismal economy at home. Nothing like getting the factories working overtime churning out those bombs and tanks to reduce unemployment. Take a look at the econ at the time Iraq was declared.”

“1) MOST of the dictators (we) disposed of were replaced with bigger despots (usually by us) & we wonder why so many hate us. We supported Saddam at one point & supplied him with the nerve gas he later used.

2) UN inspectors DID NOT want to be pulled out & felt they were doing a good job. Were we impatient? Kind of violating their sovereignty. Wouldn't the Israel type air or cruise missile strike be a more reasonable response if we were in such great fear?

3) Nukes? Didn't the world determine (despite these administrations claims) that they had no nukes or capability? I don't recall us bombing Pakistan or India when they acquired nukes. Maybe Iraq was just a political war to quench our thirst for blood after 9-11. Politicians didn’t lose their jobs because they did nothing for this militant but not governmental attack.

4) Oil? “We” put the embargos & limits on Iraq Oil. Attack for Oil? BEFORE they cut us off? That's like justifying robbing you because you have more then I do? Make business decisions. Open up our own Oil reserves in an emergency. Alaska SELLS most of its oil to JAPAN and 3000 young soldiers died for this OIL. Go explain that to their families.

5) Oil companies, Bush (the inserted idiot puppet) made a great deal of money for his family, his backers & the powers that be. Family fortunes are what this is about.

7) In many of our Muslim "encounters" there are numbers of Saudi's involved. Many of the Muslim nations are of very limited education. Many do not read/write. Saudi's seem the clever leaders.

8) So if a bigger nation arrives on the scene they can dictate to all their will? Are we a one world gov yet? What if many countries unite & challenge our control?

All in all, it seems that "we" controlled OUR aggression when the USSR was a military power & the USSR held US in check. WE were always told that THEY were the aggressors. Appears not to be true after all. This country had fits when the USSR went into Afghanistan for the same reasons we claim now.

If we needed to strike IRAQ, then put it before the American people as a vote & not frenzy them into a knee-jerk reaction for 9-11 for which they had little part. What’s wrong with the truth?

THAT WAS A LIE & WE ALL KNOW IT.

Basically, we killed what? 10,000+ Iraq men, women & children? Children for God's sake? Then 3,000 young kids for Oil. For our SUV's.

Aren't you just a little bit ashamed?”

“WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 President Bush’s call to increase the American military commitment in Iraq ran into intense Congressional opposition Thursday from Democrats and from moderate Republicans who expressed profound skepticism.”

“PETROLEUM ($/bbl)


PRICE* CHANGE % CHANGE TIME
Nymex Crude Future 52.39 .51 .98 14:09
Dated Brent Spot 52.36 .91 1.77 14:37
WTI Cushing Spot 52.80 .92 1.77 14:00”

“Oil will probably not stay on the rocks as long as Exxons' did a few years back.”

“Gas is under 2 bucks here in NW Indiana.”

“It slowly crept down to $2.45 here over the past 2 weeks.”

“1.93 around the Quad Cities”

“Check out the sheer magnitude of the profits for these companies & administration puppet string pullers.”

“Okay...ONE more time...Cat if Susie is selling Lemonade at $0.25 a glass making $0.05 a glass...she sells 10 glasses..thats $0.50 profit....

If it is especially HOT she sells $100.00 she makes????? $5.00 or 10Xs the PROFIT....no kimshee they sold more Oil they get more money. Check the profit margin on a gallon of gas as opposed to say what MOMMY GOVT stacks on it....

Or is this more of the "I didn't take a shot at it, I never wanted to DARE. So I didn't make anything...but I will get even with those who did."”

“The point is that they set any price they want with the administrations backing.

Making a reasonable profit is one thing. Getting together with the powers that be and all the other oil companys & setting the price is illegal.

Showing that these guys made hundreds of times the profit they made previously shows collusion. Like the adminstration, they tried to make us believe it was because of war. Just more lies of folks forced to pay.

They probably have a glut of oil presently due to the unseasonably warm winter & could suffer the wrath of the American public if they had kept prices high.”

“Cat...check the freaking Per Gallon profit at the pump...okay stop it with the Tinfoil hat crap. These guys are providing a PRODUCT. It is simple supply and demand right now the Chinese and Indians are willing to pay more....so the DEMAND IS UP in relations to supplies....the PRICE rises.”

“You have such a short memory. How long do you think folks would tolerate being gouged before launching a criminal investigation which still may yet come? How many Billions profit do they need? Don't you think that prices came down due to an OIL glut on the market besides public pressure?

Whgen companies collude on price it is NOT a free market & is an illegal practice.”

“Congress To Oil Execs: Clarify
They Told Senate They Weren't Part Of Cheney Task Force On Energy

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17, 2005
From left, David O'Reilly, Chevron Corporation; James Mulva, ConocoPhillips; Ross Pillari, BP America Inc.; and John Hofmeister, Shell Oil Company testifying Nov. 9, 2005 (AP)



"Shell Oil, in direct response to a question from me, lied to my face."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.


(CBS/AP) The chief executives of five major oil companies were asked Wednesday to clarify their recent Senate testimony about the companies' involvement in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force four years ago.

Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., made the request in letters to the executives after a published report said officials from four of the companies visited the White House complex in early 2001 to discuss energy issues with task force staff members.

The White House has refused to disclose contacts with industry representatives concerning the task force deliberations.

When Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked last week during a hearing on oil industry profits whether any of the companies' representatives had participated in the task force, four of the executives said they did not and the fifth said he did not know.

The oil executives weren't put under oath at the hearing, but it is still a crime to lie to Congress, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. Lautenberg wants the Justice Department to look into it.

"It's bad enough to hide the truth to the American people, but it's illegal to make false statements to the Congress, whether you've raised your right hand or you haven't," Lautenberg said.

The Washington Post, citing White House documents, reported Wednesday that representatives from four of the companies had visited the White House complex and met with Cheney task force officials in early 2001.

Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he sent a letter to the oil company executives seeking clarifications that would resolve any "apparent inconsistencies" in their testimony. He was joined in the letter by Bingaman, the energy panel's ranking Democrat.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and five other Democrats asked Domenici to recall the executives and require them to testify under oath this time.

"We deserve truthful answers from the oil company executives. This is an issue that is impacting our economy," said Cantwell.

"We weren't told the truth, and that's unacceptable," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "Shell Oil, in direct response to a question from me, lied to my face."

The executives who testified last week on oil industry profits were Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp.; David O'Reilly, chairman of Chevron Corp.; James Mulva, chairman of ConocoPhillips; John Hofmeister, chairman of Shell Oil Co.; and Ross Pillari, chairman of BP America Inc.

Chevron was not included in the documents cited by the Post. Don Campbell, a Chevron spokesman, said the company did not participate in Cheney's task force but added that its Washington office has had ongoing discussions about energy policy with administration officials and members of Congress.

Pillari said he did not know whether any BP America officials participated because he wasn't at the company at the time. While not commenting specifically about the Cheney task force, BP America spokesman Ronnie Chappell said Wednesday that BP America representatives "routinely meet with government officials."

Exxon Mobil said in a statement that Raymond "correctly confirmed in the recent Senate hearings that Exxon Mobil has not been a participant on the task force and did not meet with the task force to discuss the provisions of the energy policy."”

“Western Oil Companies a Step Away from Iraq's 'Prize'

By Andrew Murray-Watson and Danny Fortson and Tim Webb, The Independent UK. Posted January 7, 2007.

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies.

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.

Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.

James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire."

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair."”

“U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242


VERMONT

Incoming Judiciary Chairman Leahy Targets Corruption
In First Bills Of 110th Congress

Leahy Introduces Bills To Combat War Profiteering, Public Corruption

WASHINGTON (Thursday, January 4) – Signaling a renewed emphasis on combating corruption at home and abroad, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), introduced a package of bills Thursday targeting corrupt officials and private companies seeking to defraud American taxpayers and troops.

“Americans want the culture of corruption to end. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq, to convicted Administration officials, to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even members of Congress, too many supposed public servants have been serving their own interests, rather than the public interest,” said Leahy.

Many Democratic Senators joined Leahy in reintroducing a bill creating criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 builds on earlier efforts by Leahy, who is also a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, to crack down on this type of rampant fraud and abuse. It is similar to legislation Leahy introduced in 2003, that was subsequently passed by the Senate as part of an appropriations bill but later torpedoed by the White House and the House Republican leadership, which stripped out the Leahy provision.

Also on Thursday, Leahy joined with Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), on another anti-corruption measure aimed at strengthening the tools available to federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources that they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished, including extending the statute of limitations on some of the worst crimes.

“The American people staged an intervention during the November elections and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action, and these bills are a good first step toward meeting that call,” Leahy said. “We need to restore the people’s trust by acting to clean up the people’s government.”

# # # # #

Below are Senator Leahy’s statements on the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 and the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007 and, as well as summaries of the two bills and background information detailing a few examples of the fraud and war profiteering that have already occurred in Iraq and elsewhere.

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
On Introduction of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007
January 4, 2007

Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill that creates criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Last year, despite the mounting evidence of widespread contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq, the Republican–controlled Senate would not act on it. Instead, the Congress took a terrible misstep in seeking to end the work of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. I have been proposing versions of this bill since 2003, when it did pass the Senate. Unfortunately, this crucial provision was stripped out of the final version of a bill by a Republican-controlled conference committee.

There is growing evidence of widespread contractor fraud in Iraq, yet prosecuting criminal cases against these war profiteers is difficult under current law. We must crack down on this rampant fraud and abuse that squanders American taxpayers’ dollars and jeopardizes the safety of our troops abroad. That is why I renew my efforts for accountability and action with the introduction of the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to join with Senators Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Wyden, Schumer, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Clinton, Lautenberg and Menendez to introduce this legislation.

Widespread Fraud and War Profiteering in Iraq

Congress has sent billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq with too little accountability and too few financial controls. More than $50 billion of this money has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country. This is more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

Instead of results from these companies, we are seeing penalties levied for allegations of fraud and abuse. At least 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000, to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage. Seven other companies with Iraq reconstruction contracts have agreed to pay financial penalties without admitting wrongdoing.

In 2005, Halliburton took in approximately $3.6 billion from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq. Halliburton executives say that the company received about $1 billion a month for Iraq work in 2006. In addition, last month, we learned of new plans to spend hundreds of millions more to create jobs in Iraq.

Last year, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that millions of U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for Iraq reconstruction have been lost and diverted. Yet we continue to send more taxpayer funds to Iraq, without accountability.

Too much of this money is unaccounted for, and many of the facilities and services that these funds were supposed to pay for are still nonexistent. We in Congress must ask – where did all the money go? We need to press for more accountability over the use and abuse of billions of taxpayers’ dollars sent as development aid to Iraq, not less.

Accountability is Long Overdue

A new law to combat war profiteering in Iraq and elsewhere is sorely needed and long overdue. Although there are anti-fraud laws to protect against the waste of U.S. tax dollars at home, no law expressly prohibits war profiteering or expressly confers jurisdiction on U.S. federal courts to hear fraud cases involving war profiteering committed overseas.

The bill I introduced today would criminalize Awar profiteering@ – overcharging taxpayers in order to defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or reconstruction efforts. It would also prohibit any fraud against the United States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort. This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million, or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.

The measure also addresses weakness in the existing laws used to combat war profiteering, by providing clear authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. These are strong and focused sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, both at home and abroad.

The message sent by this bill is clear -- any act to exploit the crisis situation in Iraq or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant gain is unacceptable, reprehensible, and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the sacrifices that our military personnel are making in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. This bill also builds on a strong legacy of historical efforts to stem war profiteering. Congress implemented excessive-profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars, and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach, President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that “a few do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.”

A Fresh Start

Our Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for reconstruction efforts that allow some to profit unfairly. When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of reconstruction contracts – where contracts are awarded in a system that offers little competition and even less accountability – concerns about wartime profiteering are a grave matter.

Combating war profiteering is not a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. Rather, it is a cause that all Americans can support. When I first introduced this bill in 2003, it came to be cosponsored by 21 Senators. The Senate Appropriations Committee also unanimously accepted these provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and this provision passed the Senate. Passing bipartisan war profiteering prevention legislation was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now.

I am hopeful that in a new year, and with a new Congress, we can make a fresh start and forge a bipartisan partnership on this important issue that will result in passage of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

# # # # #

War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007

§ Criminalizes war profiteering, which is defined as materially overvaluing any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war and relief or reconstruction activities

§ Statute would strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors to combat war profiteering by providing clear authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover excessive profits for war profiteering overseas.

§ Prohibits any fraud against the United States, Iraq, or any other foreign country involving a contract for the provision of any goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities.

§ Subjects violators to up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed the greater of $1,000,000 or twice the amount of any illegal gross profits, or both.

§ Prohibits making a false statement in any matter involving a contract for the provision of any goods or services in connection with a war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities.

§ Subjects violators of this provision to up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine not to exceed the greater of $1,000,000, or twice the amount of any illegal gross profits, or both.

§ Creates extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed overseas, and covers any person in the United States or abroad who violates its provisions.

(Background Information)

Billions Of Taxpayer Dollars Lost
To Fraud And Waste In Iraq And Elsewhere

The United States has spent more than a quarter of a TRILLION dollars during its four years in Iraq.

Over $50 BILLION -- more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security -- has been spent to hire private contractors to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country.

BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are unaccounted for, according to a finding by the special inspector general examining the Iraq reconstruction effort.

Since 2000, 10 companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 MILLION IN PENALTIES to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage in connection with other projects.

Examples of Fraud and Waste - Custer Battles, Halliburton and Bechtel

CUSTER BATTLES is accused of bilking the government out of $50 MILLION

Custer Battles billed the government nearly $10 MILLION when its actual costs were less than $4 MILLION, according to a government investigation.

Custer Battles over billed electricity costs by $326,000 - Actual electricity charges of $74,000 were billed at $400,000.

Custer Battles over billed for trucks that did not run by $572,000 – Actual purchase price of $228,000 for faulty trucks were billed to government for $800,000.

The two largest government contractors in Iraq -- Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co. -- have been fined several times in the past four years.

HALLIBURTON CO. averaged about $ 1 BILLION A MONTH from the government for work in Iraq in 2006, according to executives. The company took in $3.6 BILLION last year from contracts to serve U.S. troops and rebuild the oil industry in Iraq.

A pattern of fraud, waste, and corruption by Halliburton in Iraq emerged through news reports between December 2003 and May 2004. In December, a Pentagon investigation found evidence that Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) had overcharged the U.S. government some $61 MILLION for fuel deliveries from Kuwait to Iraq. In January, Halliburton admitted to the Pentagon that two of its employees took up to $6 million in kickbacks for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with work in Iraq. Then in early February it was reported that the company had agreed to repay the U.S. government some $27 million for meals that were never served to American troops.

Bills From Five-Star, Beachfront Hotel And Drivers Paid to Haul Empty Trucks - In May 2006, the Coalition Provisional Authority's inspector general started raising questions about the bills that Halliburton had racked up at a five-star beachfront hotel near Kuwait City. And 12 Halliburton truck drivers claimed they risked their lives driving empty trucks in Iraq while their employer billed the government for hauling absolutely nothing.

Investigation of Overcharging And Potential Connection to Nigeria Bribery Scheme - Federal authorities are also investigating whether Halliburton broke the law by using a subsidiary to do business in Iran, whether the company overcharged for work done for the Pentagon in the Balkans and whether it was involved in an alleged $180 million bribery scheme in Nigeria. The company admitted in 2003 that it improperly paid $2.4 million to a Nigerian tax official.

BECHTEL CORP. paid more than $110,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department in 2000 and 2001 to settle alleged safety and environmental violations. Bechtel has prime construction contracts in Iraq worth more than $2 billion.

Fines Exceeding $86 Million - Bechtel hired three subcontractors in Iraq that have been fined more than $86 million in the past four years, though none had been banned from getting new contracts.

Others Punished For Waste, Fraud and Abuse Of Govt. Contracts

American International Contractors Inc., paid $4.7 million in fines in 2000 after pleading guilty to bid rigging on a U.S.-funded water project in Egypt, according to published reports. AICI has part of a $325 million contract to rebuild Iraq's transportation systems, has a share of a $500 million contract for emergency construction needs in the Pentagon's Central Command region, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, and is in a partnership that has a $70 million construction contract at Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, used to support troops in Iraq.

Fluor Corp., paid $8.5 million to the Defense Department in 2001 to settle charges it improperly billed the government for work benefiting its commercial clients, according to published reports. Fluor and AMEC created a joint venture that has $1.7 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq's electricity, water, sewer and trash removal infrastructure.

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., paid a $969,000 fine in 2002 for environmental damage in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, according to published reports. Bechtel awarded the company a subcontract to clear the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr.

Northrop Grumman Corp., whose Vinnell Corp. subsidiary was awarded a $48 million contract to train the new Iraqi Army last year, according to published reports. Northrop Grumman has been penalized $191.7 million in the past four years, including $750,000 paid to the Pentagon in 2000 in a case involving allegations of providing faulty replacement parts for the JSTARS airborne surveillance system.

# # # # #

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
On Introduction of the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007
January 4, 2007

I am pleased to join with Senator Pryor today to introduce the Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007, a bill to strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished.

In November, voters sent a strong message that they were tired of the culture of corruption. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq to convicted Administration officials to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even members of Congress, too many supposed public servants were serving their own interests, rather than the public interest. The American people staged an intervention and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action. We need to restore the people’s trust by acting to clean up the people’s government.

The Senate’s new leadership is introducing important lobbying reform and ethics legislation. Similar legislation passed the Senate last year, but stalled in the House. This is a vital first step.

But the most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on getting around the rules and banking that they won’t get caught. These offenses can be difficult to detect and even harder to prove. Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for federal prosecutors to combat it. This bill will do exactly that.

First, the bill extends the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses. Specifically, it extends the statute of limitations from five years to eight years for bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by a public official. This is an important step because public corruption cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often require use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which take time to develop and implement.

Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Since public corruption offenses are so important to our democracy and these cases are so difficult to investigate and prove, a more modest extended statute of limitations for these offenses is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs. Corrupt officials should not be able to get away with their ill-gotten gains just by winning the waiting game.

This bill also facilitates the investigation and prosecution of an important offense known as federal program bribery. (Title 18, United States Code, section 666). Federal program bribery is the key federal statute for prosecuting bribery involving state and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial federal money. This bill would allow agents and prosecutors investigating this important offense to request authority to conduct wiretaps and to use federal program bribery as a basis for a racketeering charge.

Wiretaps, when appropriately requested and authorized, are an important method for agents and prosecutors to gain evidence of corrupt activities, which can otherwise be next to impossible to prove without an informant. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute is also an important tool which helps prosecutors target organized crime and corruption.

Agents and prosecutors may currently request authority to conduct wiretaps to investigate many serious offenses, including bribery of federal officials and even sports bribery, and may predicate RICO charges on these offenses, as well. It is only reasonable that these important tools also be available for investigating the similar and equally important offense of federal program bribery.

Lastly, this bill authorizes $25 million in additional federal funds over each of the next four years to give federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption. Last month, FBI Director Mueller in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee called public corruption the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. However, a September 2005 Report by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. The report also found declines in resources dedicated to investigating public corruption, in corruption cases initiated, and in cases forwarded to US Attorney’s Offices.

I am heartened by Director Mueller’s assertion that there has recently been an increase in the number of agents investigating public corruption cases and the number of cases investigated, but I remain concerned by the Inspector General’s findings. I am concerned because the FBI in recent years has diverted resources away from criminal law priorities, including corruption, into counterterrorism. The FBI may need to divert further resources to cover the growing costs of Sentinel, their data management system. The Department of Justice has similarly diverted resources, particularly from United States Attorney’s Offices.

Additional funding is important to compensate for this diversion of resources and to ensure that corruption offenses are aggressively pursued. My bill will give the FBI, the United States Attorney’s Offices, and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice new resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and prosecutors. They can finally have the manpower they need to track down and make these difficult cases, and root out the corruption.

If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to enforce our public corruption laws. I strongly urge Congress to do more to restore the public's trust in their government.

I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

# # # # #

Effective Corruption Prosecutions Act of 2007

Provides federal investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources needed to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished.

Extends the statute of limitations for the most serious public corruption offenses, including bribery, deprivation of honest services, and extortion by a public official, from five years to eight years.

Facilitates the investigation and prosecution of a key federal statute used for prosecuting bribery involving state and local officials, as well as officials of the many organizations that receive substantial federal money

Authorizes $25 million over each of the next four years to give federal investigators and prosecutors needed resources to go after public corruption.

# # # # #”

“XL and ss are getting hosed by big oil and they're here supporting them. It's funny really.
They do their bit for Exxon every time they fill up.

Oil companies have been very smart on a number of fronts:

1) they have essentially insulated themselves from the costs of the raw material in the incidences where they need to buy it on the open market. The price goes up the same day as the oil price. This eliminates any risk for big oil in the commodities market and passes the risk onto the consumer.

2) They control and have deliberately limited refining capacity in the US and in most other countries to keep the prices at the pump high.

3) They have a major role in many significant oil extraction, meaning after they pay the fee to the country the oil is found in they then benefit from high oil prices.

4) They have effectively created another layer of insulation from the consumer. By operating a franchise system they eliminate any real competition between them at the pump level, leaving it to the franchise holder to strike better deals where they can.
Why do you think that Exxon can't offer, for example, consistently lower prices than, say BP, especially close to a large refinery.

5) They've managed to do all this with the support of the naive like Stove Stomper and XL who cheer the fact that they are being gouged every time they go to the pump.

Does it strike you as funny that oil and gasoline prices start to tumble when a party which is more likely to restrict the activities of big oil comes to power in congress? Crude goes up only 22cents today despite oil workers being killed in Nigeria?
last edited: 1/16/07 9:47:16 PM”

“You should stick to making stoves - this stuff seems to be beyond you - well if all you can do is respond with this?

Then it's typical of the right, confuse them with issues and facts and they turn to soundbites and pictures.”

“


Confuse Y2 with issues and facts and he tells you to go suck treebeard's dick.
All this guy deserves is funny pictures.
He has no cred.
last edited: 1/16/07 10:25:05 PM”

“Bush's uncle tangled in options probe: SEC

By Tim McLaughlin 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush's uncle, William H.T. "Bucky" Bush, was part of a group of outside directors at a defense contractor who realized about $6 million in unauthorized pay from an options backdating scheme, according to U.S. securities investigators.

Bush and other non-employee directors who served on the board of Engineered Support Systems Inc., now owned by DRS Technologies Inc., are not accused of any wrongdoing in a civil complaint filed on Tuesday by the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC complaint, however, says the non-employee directors benefited from stock options not approved by shareholders.

"As a result, the company provided significant additional compensation to its outside directors beyond what shareholders had approved," the SEC complaint said. "These same directors later realized approximately $6 million from the exercise of their addtional stock options."

The complaint did not break out how much Bush and the other outside directors received from a total of 132,000 shares of unauthorized shares.

Bush, whose brother is former President George H.W. Bush, was unavailable for comment. He served on St. Louis-based ESSI's board from 2000 until the St. Louis defense contractor was acquired last year for nearly $2 billion by DRS, which sells engineering services to the U.S. military.

Bush served on ESSI's audit committee and received $2,500 a month in consulting fees, an arrangement that later was ended for him and other outside directors. Bush also received a fixed amount of ESSI shares each year for his work on the board.

Before the DRS deal was approved in January 2006, Bush held ESSI shares worth $3.8 million, SEC filings show.

Between 1995 and early 2005, ESSI's stock climbed nearly 900 percent as the company sold cargo loaders, generators and trailers to the
Pentagon. ESSI's board was politically connected and included several retired generals.

The SEC on Tuesday accused ESSI's former chief financial officer, Gary C. Gerhardt, and former controller, Steven J. Landmann, of orchestrating a backdating scheme that spanned six years. In all, executives and directors netted $20 million in unauthorized pay, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis.

Outside directors received backdated options issued in 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2001, the SEC complaint alleges.

Landmann has agreed to give back about $519,000 in option-related compensation while paying $367,585 in penalties and interest. He did not admit or deny the SEC allegations, and will be permanently barred from serving as an officer of publicly-traded company.

Records unsealed in federal court in St. Louis late last year show that the SEC is investigating Michael F. Shanahan Sr., who co-founded ESSI; his son, who served on the board's compensation committee; and Shanahan Sr.'s son-in-law, David Mattern, who was general counsel.

The SEC wants the Shanahans and Mattern to produce e-mails, meeting notes, telephone logs and board meeting minutes related to the pricing of Engineered Support stock options, court papers show.

The SEC's complaint against Gerhardt said nearly half of the unauthorized and undisclosed gains from options backdating, or about $8.6 million, went to Shanahan Sr. He has not been charged by the SEC.

Court records also show there is an ongoing criminal investigation that mirrors, in part, the SEC's probe.”

“Five Americans Indicted in Iraq Bid-Rig Probe
NBC News

Wednesday 07 February 2007

Three reservists among those accused of taking cash, goods tied to projects.

Washington - Three Army Reserve officers and a U.S. contractor were indicted Wednesday as part of a bid-rigging scam that steered millions of dollars of Iraq reconstruction projects to a contractor for cash, luxury cars, jewelry and other pricey goods.

The husband of one of the military officials also was charged with helping to smuggle at least $10,000 into the United States that the couple used to pay for improvements to their New Jersey house.

The scam was outlined in a 25-count indictment filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

The reservists are charged with pushing the contracts to companies hired for working on nearly 30 reconstruction projects. They included work to build police stations, libraries, and a shelter for women who were victims of domestic violence.

Federal authorities say the soldiers awarded the contracts in small increments, each worth no more than $500,000, because that was the limit of their approval authority.

Demands for Cash, Gifts Alleged

The three U.S. Army Reserve officers were responsible for supervising how the U.S.-managed Coalition Provisional Authority spent an estimated $2.1 billion available for reconstruction projects.

The indictment says the three officers - Col. Curtis G. Whiteford of Utah, Lt. Col. Debra M. Harrison of New Jersey and Lt. Col. Michael B. Wheeler of Wisconsin - directed at least $8 million to a construction and services company. In return, they allegedly demanded cash, a Nissan sports car, a Cadillac SUV, real estate, a Breitling watch, business-class plane tickets and other items.

The contractor, identified in the indictment as Seymour Morris Jr., allegedly acted as a go-between for the military officers and the construction company by illegally wiring money and securing the goods. Morris is a U.S. citizen who lived in Romania, and owned and operated a Cyprus-based financial services business.

Last week, a former Pentagon contractor was sentenced to nine years in prison for helping steer millions in Iraq rebuilding funds to a company operated by U.S. citizen and businessman Philip H. Bloom. Bloom already has pleaded guilty to the scam and awaits sentencing.

Wednesday's indictments were announced the day after House Democrats grilled the former U.S. occupation chief in Iraq over how he doled out up to $12 billion in Iraqi money without accounting for it.

Firing back in a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing Tuesday, L. Paul Bremer III insisted that he did the best he could in the middle of a war and repeatedly said he had spent Iraqi - not U.S. - money. Bremer ran the country for 14 months.

-------”

“argh.”

“Cuomo to Sue Exxon Over Pollution in Brooklyn
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: February 8, 2007

ALBANY, Jan. 8 — Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo moved today to sue ExxonMobil and four other companies over millions of gallons of oil lying under the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn and to repair environmental damage inflicted on the nearby Newtown Creek.

The decision marks a sharp turning point in the state’s handling of the half-century-old spill, which in recent years has sparked lawsuits by Greenpoint residents, local elected officials and environmental groups. A 1990 agreement between ExxonMobil and state environmental officials had required the company to recover the spilled oil, but specified no deadline, levied no penalties for the pollution and required no remediation of either the creek or the polluted soil under Greenpoint.

At least 8 million gallons of oil and petroleum byproducts remain under the neighborhood, and soil tests have revealed toxic vapors emanating from the spill into the homes and businesses above. Mr. Cuomo’s action will seek a far faster pace for recovering the oil, extensive scientific testing to determine damage to the soil and groundwater under Greenpoint, and significant fines under federal environmental laws.

“This is one of the worst environmental disasters in the nation, larger than the Exxon Valdez and slower in the cleanup,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. “ExxonMobil must and will be held accountable. The toxic footprint of ExxonMobil is found all over this area. It is ExxonMobil’s oil that remains under the homes and businesses. And it is ExxonMobil that has dragged its feet and done as little as possible to address the dangers that it created.”

Mr. Cuomo also filed notices of intent to sue against four other companies that have had operations along Newtown Creek: BP, Chevron, Keyspan, and Phelps Dodge. Along with a company later acquired by ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP operated storage sites along the creek that leaked oil into the ground.

Phelps Dodge operated a copper smelting plant on the creek’s north bank, in Queens. Studies of the site have found heavy metals, petroleum byproducts, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB’s, on the site.

Companies later acquired by Keyspan owned gas processing plants along the waterway that contaminated the creek’s sediments with some of the same pollutants, along with other toxic chemicals.

Together, the moves significantly widen the scope of state legal action against pollution of the creek, a dirty, 3.5-mile estuary that marks Brooklyn’s northern border and flows into the East River. Environmental advocates said today that they believed the lawsuits paved the way for a long-overdue cleanup of the creek and its transformation into a recreational waterway, a goal shared by many local politicians.

“ExxonMobil’s days of treating Greenpoint like a dumping ground are numbered,” said Alex Matthiessen, the president of Riverkeeper, an environmental group that brought its own lawsuit against the company in 2004.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who took over investigation of the spill from the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation last year when he was attorney general, praised Mr. Cuomo’s decision.

“This is an important day for the people of Greenpoint, Brooklyn,” Mr. Spitzer said. “It is imperative that ExxonMobil and the other companies responsible for this pollution be held fully accountable.””

“Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $40.6 billion — on Friday as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from historic crude prices at the end of the year.

Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007, beating its own mark of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005.

The previous record for annual profit was $39.5 billion, which Exxon Mobil had in 2006.

snip

The record profit for the October-December period amounted to $2.13 a share versus $1.76 a share in 2006. Year-ago net income was $10.25 billion.

Also extraordinary was Exxon Mobil’s revenue, which rose 30 percent in the fourth quarter to $116.6 billion from $90 billion a year ago. For the year, sales rose to $404.5 billion — the most ever for the Irving, Texas-based company — from $377.64 billion in 2006.”

“Nice post Tango. I wonder how many Americans posted a 30% increase in thier salary for the 4th quaterter of 2007? If any, I'm sure it was those that recieved a massive tax cut.”

“If Americans are willing to pay these oil monopolies 30% increases every quarter, then maybe I should ask the same for the employees I represent every quarter. I'll bet that 30% increases in Union Members pay jolst the economy MUCH MUCH better that a 30% increase in oil company pay.

SIDE NOTE - my theory is based on the fcat that they'll spend that extra dough in the conomy, as well as the fact that the people I represent actually PAY TAXES, unlike oil companies.”

“Makes me sick. And the worst part are all the subsidies that they still get unlike any alternative energies!”

“But, they pretend the minimum wage hike is inflationary. Exxon hardly can be called an oil company, since they do so little exploration, making them more a bank than anything.”

“Big oil is obviously raising their profit margin along with their increases in cost.

I work for a company that manufactures products for rescue, tactical/military and climbing. Our materials, shipping and other costs has risen by at least 15%. Even if we increase the final cost of our product to keep the same margin, we don't come up with a profit increase.

Now if we raised the profit margin of our products 30% we could see that type of increase....but then no one would buy the products.

For big oil to make these kinds of profits, they have to be raising the profit margin as well. Of course, they don't have to worry about you buying you gas somewhere else, or not buying it at all.
last edited: 2/01/08 6:26:47 PM”

“Exactly Mtnsteve. I would really do the used veggie oil route if I could. I sure would like to say eat it to all of big oil! I am waiting for hydrogen cars!”

“What energy will make the hydrogen?? We've got to get busy on generating plants for electrics and H2s.”

“The days of cheap oil are over and it'll only get more expensive with more the world demanding more and more oil. That's not even including supply disruptions because of weather, wars, or terrorism.

One of the problems with alternative fuels is that it takes oil to make them. The real problem is finding a substitute for oil and so far there isn't one. Modern life was built on affordable oil. Oil is in just about everything in one form or another. Once that becomes scarce or too expensive, the world economies will suffer. Wars will likely break out over the remaining supplies.”

“Americans are now pumping 938 million gallons of fuel more annually than they were in 1960 as a result of extra weight in vehicles. And when gas prices average $3 a gallon, the tab for overweight people in a vehicle amounts to $7.7 million a day, or $2.8 billion a year.

The numbers are added costs linked directly to the extra drain of body weight on fuel economy. In a paper to appear in the October-December issue of the journal The Engineering Economist, the scientists conclude that each extra pound of body weight in all of today�s vehicles results in the need for more than 39 million gallons of extra gasoline usage each year.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/1024auto.html”

“When something that takes milions of years to produce is used up in just a few centuries..... You "hit the wall" fairly quickly.”

“There is a hydrogen station in Orlando and several in Calif; just for fleet cars though. How do they make H2 now? I know we used it at the power plant. With energy I am a huge solar power fan and for cars H2 is for me!!!”

“I'm glad my car doesn't run on bottled water or milk.

Big water and big milk ... the debil.”

“Hydrogen cars are here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/automobiles/autoreviews/09HONDA.html

The infrastructure isn't. I wonder how long it will take Exxon to capture that market?”

“Oh my. This is too funny. You peeps crack me up.

Remember this campaign slogan?
"It's The Economy, Stupid"

Holy cow! Looks to me like the economy is booming. That's a good thing, folks - A GOOD THING!

Rejoice!

God Bless America!”

“Employers trimmed jobs from their payrolls in January, according to a government jobs report Friday that showed the first decline in employment in four years. That raised new concerns about the risk of recession for the weakening U.S. economy.


Construction spending fell by a record 2.6% in 2007 - mostly reflecting record cutbacks in home-building projects by private companies.

Private companies last year slashed residential projects by 18.3%, the largest drop on records dating back to 1993, the Commerce Department reported Friday. Such spending was flat in 2006 and was up by 13.5% in 2005.

the Commerce Department, in a preliminary estimate, said the gross domestic product rose by a 0.6 percent rate in the last quarter of 2007. This was the lowest rate of growth since the first quarter of last year. In the ensuing year, the banking system wrote off billions of dollars in bad debt, housing prices fell by more than 7 percent”

“From what I've been reading about hydrogen as a replacement fuel for oil, it won't cut it. It requires 20 to 50 grams of platinum to build a fuel cell so in order to replace 1/4 of the world's fleet of cars it would take between 4.2 billion and 10.5 billion grams of platinum required for the conversion. The world platinum production is currently 240 million grams per year most of which is used in industrial processes. 80 per cent of the worlds platinum exists in South Africa.

Other problems with hydrogen are the inability to store massive quantities at low cost.

The electrolysis process is a simple one, but unfortunately it consumes more energy than it produces.

The massive cost of building a hydrogen infrastructure comparable to the natural gas pipelines in place now. Estimates range as high as 200 trillion dollars.

It seems a hydrogen fueled economy isn't all that it cracked up to be and can't replace oil.”

“Gasoline has only a 15% energy gain. Other wise, it takes 85% as much energy to make as you receive. So gasoline is just another battery form.
The sun has zero delivery and zero tax, enough said, those are the facts.
last edited: 2/02/08 3:05:29 PM”

“RichB, I don't think there is any one answer. But I do think all the minds we have on the problem may come up with who knows? I just saw something on Discovery that some scientist is working on making batteries from bacteria!?! I am sure there are all kinds of things we haven't heard of yet. At the very least I am hopeful.

Love the solar Salebored! Except, all the junk that goes into solar cells, but even those are being improved all the time.”

“First Solar uses no silicon which has been in limited supply.
Solar thermal generation is on its way to being available in smaller and less intrusive units, but $$$$.
A credit card economy, debt is our friend we'll be your buddy if you've got plenty to lend.”

“hydrogen can't be mined... it isn't found naturally. it must be produced.

hydrogen is generally produced from hydrocarbons... usually natural gas (a fossil fuel). the process that does this releases lots of greenhouse gas. while it is possible to capture the greenhouse gas (carbon capture) most producers today don't. anyway, you are left with waste that must be disposed of.

of course there are other processes that produce hydrogen that don't involve fossil fuels but they require a lot of energy and are not very efficient.

1 lb of hydrogen has about the same energy as 1/2 gallon of gasoline.”

“as far as solar energy goes... to create fuel that would power one (1) hydrogen car you would need a solar array the size of a football field.”