For example, if an oil well is damaged, to return to production you first need to repair it, recruit workers, train them, etc. all of which require upfront investment. So who to give this rebuilding and extraction opportunity to is the question. The Americans generally take a bidding approach, first of all in the bidding conditions on the U.S. or allied companies tilted in favor of U.S. or allied companies, stipulating that in the Iraq war in the countries opposed to the United States and refused to send troops to Iraq's company ineligible to bid.
Secondly, the bidding process took care of American companies by letting them win the bids.
Also there are direct contracts with American contractors without bidding.
This naturally includes all sorts of gray relationships, and there are quite a few scandals that have been exposed by the media. I'll post a few for you.
Shady Iraq reconstruction contracts exposed as U.S. officials blatantly demanded bribes
2004-4-19 13:30:42
The American-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has recently been accused of taking bribes in bidding projects for reconstruction work in Iraq, according to a report in Britain's Times newspaper. Currently, Washington has sent an investigative team to Baghdad, and some expatriates working in Iraq, will also provide evidence and testimony in the investigation
Capture the starting point of the ascending wave How to start forex trading?
Foreign exchange market through the car No must earn only steady income
. It is estimated that the bribery may have led to large quantities of oil being sold illegally overseas.
U.S. Officials Soliciting Bribes Blatantly, Big Companies Angry
The Times said the bribery issue was poked by a British-born adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and that none of the major media outlets had previously reported on the inside story in any detail. As one of the witnesses to the bribery, the adviser will testify at an inquiry that will take place shortly.
According to insiders, the league's interim administration has been having huge problems handing out contracts. Many experts who have seen the contracted programs have said in amazement at one time or another, "Who would shell out so much money for so little service?" And in response to these experts' comments, Coalition Provisional Authority officials don't seem to care one bit.
The U.S. government has not yet publicly stated what exactly led the investigative team to go to Iraq, but analysts speculate that some big international companies that had lost out in the bidding may have reflected the shady practices to the authorities.
A representative of a major company, who asked not to be named, told The Times that shady practices existed in almost every aspect of the bidding process for work on reconstruction projects in Iraq, and that some officials in charge of the final outcome of the contracts even blatantly demanded bribes from the major companies. "The whole process is simply reckless," the representative told reporters in exasperation.
It is for this reason that the amount of money paid in bribes has become the most important factor in determining the ownership of a contract when it comes to securing contracts in many Western countries. Informants also revealed that in several of the most important contracts, the Coalition Provisional Authority did not conduct any consultations at all, and unaccountably declared a company the eventual winner.
Communications and construction are the hardest hit, and some people rely on oil for profit
It is reported that the reconstruction contracts in Iraq are all huge, with some projects totaling more than a billion dollars. Among these contracts, communications, security, construction and other types of contracts are the most lucrative, but also the darkest competition.
A British company said in an interview that the bidding process for the reconstruction of Iraq is completely underhanded and includes important projects that will determine the future of Iraq's economy, such as communications projects. This company also said that another result of getting orders by paying bribes is that the contracting companies are likely to be shoddy and cut corners, which will have serious consequences once these projects are completed.
There were also officials who said that those suspected of soliciting bribes included not only certain senior officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), but also quite a number of U.S. Pentagon officials, and that, in short, the number and level of officials involved in accepting bribes in these contracts were not low.
Besides the scandals in contracting works, other projects under the responsibility of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) also have many loopholes. The Coalition Provisional Authority got several large oil wells back into production as soon as possible after the Iraq war ended. However, after more than half a year of rest, Iraq's oil production has still not returned to pre-war levels, which has contributed to rising world oil prices.
Insiders revealed that Iraq's real oil production at present may be much larger than the statistics of the Coalition Provisional Authority. This is because much of the oil produced by the wells is not included in the statistics, but is smuggled out by certain oil companies and sold on the international market in exchange for huge profits.
The investigation is now about to get into full swing, and the U.S. government has yet to make any public comments on the matter.
U.S. Halliburton wins another huge contract for Iraq reconstruction, causing controversy 2004-01-21
Because of overcharging the U.S. government 61 million U.S. dollars on the Iraq reconstruction project, Halliburton, the world's largest oil service company, had been strongly criticized by the Americans, and even U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been the company's president, was implicated in the case, suspecting that he had helped. suspected that he had helped from it. However, Halliburton's business has not been slowed down at all, and its subsidiary has just won another 1.2 billion dollars worth of contracts from the US government.
The contract was signed between Halliburton's subsidiary KBR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Defense, and involves projects to extract oil from some of Iraq's oilfields and to process, construct and maintain them. Halliburton is a longtime supplier to the U.S. military.
One Democratic senator called it "unbelievable" and said it was clearly a case of special care, while Halliburton said that being awarded a new contract again proved its innocence.
U.S. company signs contract to rebuild Iraq
U.S. company signs contract to rebuild Iraq 1
Hello, dear listeners, first of all, I would like to wish you all good health and good work! Welcome to the special program we have prepared for you on the reconstruction of Iraq.
It is well known that access to Iraqi oil resources was one of the main purposes of the US and British military invasion of Iraq. Now that Saddam's regime has collapsed, the focus is again on rebuilding Iraq. The work of rebuilding Iraq is now in the hands of US and British companies, as the companies to participate in the reconstruction are chosen by the US.
In the immediate aftermath of the war in Iraq, the situation in the country is gradually stabilizing, but the country's economic, trade and industrial base is in dire need of reconstruction.
Iraq, which has seen three wars in 22 years, is today pinning all its hopes on American companies because the United States now rules Iraq and all contracts are signed in its name.
The U.S. Agency for International Development Assistance (AIDA), under the authority of retired U.S. Gen. Garner, who is currently in charge of Iraq, is the main decision-maker in signing contracts for reconstruction work.
Many of the contracts to rebuild Iraq were drawn up before the Iraq war broke out. According to the Wall Street Journal, several U.S. companies signed billion-dollar contracts with the agency in the days leading up to the Iraq war. Of all the companies, the one called Hal Bolton stands out, which was headed by then US Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000.
On March 24, the U.S. Agency for International Development Assistance (AIDA), led by Ghana, signed a contract with the U.S.-based Duringer Company for the construction of the port of Umm Qasr worth five million dollars, which is not a high value, but the important point is the conditions in which the port is located. This is because Iraq receives sixty percent of its total international humanitarian aid from the sea. It is no wonder that the United States wants to hold this port, and there is much evidence to prove it: on March 24th firefighters from American fire companies entered southern Iraq to fight the oil well fires. But in fact, these men had secretly entered Kuwait three weeks before March 24th to stand by.
The aforementioned U.S. Fire Company was also actually a subsidiary of a Halperton head office that Cheney was in charge of. The company signed a secret military agreement with the U.S. Army before March 24 to fight burning oil wells in Iraq.
Knowing full well that hundreds of billions of dollars would be needed to rebuild Iraq, and knowing of course that the United States was aware that Iraq was the world's second-largest oil deposit, the U.S. company had the temerity to sign the reconstruction agreement. In addition, the President of the United States received from the Congress $2 billion in aid for the reconstruction of Iraq. Bush was the opposite of Blair, who wanted the UN to play a more active role in humanitarian aid activities, but opposed UN meddling in the reconstruction of Iraq. Within the U.S. Powell prefers the British position, but the hawks in the U.S. Pentagon will never allow other diplomatic preferences to sway Bush.
In fact, Garner was also elected as the new Iraqi governor under pressure from Pentagon officials, and Garner was previously an experienced arms dealer. Bush's view: a general needs to be assigned in Iraq to accomplish the mission in Iraq under the supervision of the Pentagon.
Garner contacted about a dozen U.S. companies before the Iraq war began and signed agreements with them to build Iraqi highways, print textbooks for four million Iraqi students, rebuild 25,000 schools, 270 hospitals and 1,000 clinics with U.S. medical equipment within 18 months. Unfortunately there are no French or German companies in these contracts, and even the United Nations has been denied the right to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq and the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies because of its opposition to the U.S. attack on Iraq.
U.S. Companies Sign Contracts to Rebuild Iraq 2
Hello, dear listeners, and first of all, I wish you all good health and success in your work! Welcome to the second part of our program "American companies sign contracts to rebuild Iraq". Please listen to today's program.
The United States has recently adopted a unilateralist policy and unilateralist military actions on many issues, which are the result of the one-sided view of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Britain, as an old colonialist country is very experienced in controlling Islamic countries, and Britain believes that: it is impossible to militarize an Islamic country for a long period of time.
Secretary of State Colin Powell also believes that the United States can continue to control Iraq only through indirect, non-military means. Powell even expressed concern about U.S. diplomatic pressure on other countries, arguing that other countries could be involved in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq. But Pentagon officials simply won't listen to his advice.
In view of this, Powell traveled to the Arab countries around the Persian Gulf, hoping that Arab countries would also try to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq. Powell believes: the war in Iraq has created a good opportunity for the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, because the Arab countries can increase oil production to make up for Iraq's vacancy in the oil market. Of course the United States has not lost hope in the future of Iraq, the United States is well aware of the fact that Iraq produces 6 million barrels of oil a day, and the oil revenue can be up to $ 50 billion a year.
Since the United Nations implemented the oil-for-food program for Iraq, all of the $2.4 billion in oil revenues received by Iraq have been credited to the account of the BNP Bank in Paris, the New York branch under the supervision of the United Nations. In addition, some 8 - 9 million barrels of Iraqi oil, equivalent to $225 million, are stored in the Turkish port of Jihad.
The United States also now intends to create an image of Iraq as an oil power in the international oil market, although this will require the reconstruction of Iraqi refineries that were damaged during the period of sanctions against Iraq at a cost of 5 billion dollars. The U.S. is doing this in order to bring the four major U.S. oil companies back into the Iraqi oil sector again. And all the oil companies from Romania to Northern Europe are also eager to enter the Iraqi oil sector to get more out of it. The French company is also lining up behind the British and Western companies, looking forward to see if the United States is gracious enough to allow the company to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Today's U.S. companies intend to increase Iraqi oil production from 2.5 million barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day in the short term. After that it will further reach the daily oil production of Saudi Arabia, which currently amounts to 8 - 9 million barrels of oil per day.
U.S. officials now intend to privatize Iraqi oil in order to annul all Iraqi oil contracts signed during the Saddam era. In response, Russia's semi-privatized Rukh Avil oil company has decided to defend its rightful rights to Iraq's Sigurna refinery, stressing that it wants to make the United States eat badly. The company's president, relying on his close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, threatened the United States with $20 billion in damages, or else he would sue in an international court.
The U.S. chiefs need to invest $35 billion in order to increase Iraq's current oil production from 2.5 million barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day. An additional $20 billion would be needed to bring Iraq's oil production to 9 million barrels a day.
French oil company Tuttle made similar claims about Iraq's Mamut and Ibn Omr River fields, claiming that it has been studying the development of Iraq's above fields for more than a year. France wants the United States to believe their claims that at least they too can benefit from the Iraqi oil industry.
Some oil companies, on the other hand, do not want to make long-term investments in Iraq while U.S. forces control the country. They see it as risky and, more importantly, they have no trust in the military government. They argue that it is better for Iraqis to run the country's oil industry than for U.S. forces to take control. At least the procedure for signing a contract is simpler: it takes three months to gather the relevant information, six months to study it, and at most two years to formally sign the contract. The situation would be very different if the United States controlled the Iraqi oil industry, where it would take as little as five to seven years, and as much as 10 years, to produce oil from the time it enters the oil area.
In Iraq's communications industry, the United States would need to invest a billion dollars to restart Iraq's landline telephone lines. French companies had invested in Iraq's communications infrastructure before this war broke out, and it goes without saying that French companies certainly want to be involved in rebuilding Iraq's communications industry.
To date, the US has not announced many reconstruction programs for Iraq, and there is no doubt that everything from starting up cell phones in Iraq to transportation and securing all the necessities for the Iraqi people would be enough to keep the US industry running for years.