With a startling move, energy and defense giant Halliburton is moving to Dubai. Not a regional office or a division, the corporate HQ is leaving Houston and moving to Dubai. I wonder how Congress is going to feel about giving tens of billions of dollars in defense work to an Arab company? Clearly a move to distance itself from the United States and pimp business from national oil companies.
Halliburton left Dallas 4 years ago to move to Houston. However, incentives given by Houston prevent it from immediately dispatching jobs in Houston. The city, which was surprised by the announcement (as was the White House), has received assurance that the company will cut no jobs from the 4,000+ in Houston.
The CFO and COO will remain in Houston. The CEO will be in Dubai.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4621008.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1500001.ece
-----------------
I guess we should have seen this coming, since about 40% of the United States professes their hatred for the company. I wonder how long it will be before Phillips, Chevron, Texico, etc. start listening to people tell them how evil they are and pack up their crap and leave.
As pointed out in the Houston Chronicle, ""It would make sense," Brady said, for an oil and gas company to "go where oil and gas is. America these days essentially vilifies our own energy companies."
There is no reason any of these companies needs to have their HQ here nor why they need their accounting, R&D, geography or many staffers here at all. Not only do Americans seem to hate any successful energy company, but they are hated in the rest of the world for being an American company. So why stay?
And for the hippies clapping their hands about this - know that officially incorporating outside the USA means Halliburton is outside the laws of the US. Operating from Dubai, they have no pollution guidelines nor bribery guidelines that they have to follow. If they get a royal charter (which they probably will), they are even outside the bounds of international law. Meaning they could make the Halliburton you have grown to despise look like evil corporation light. Not to mention the slave labor problems that the regime they now support has been having the last few years... what good comes from this for the United States?
As of this morning's tv interview (ABC), they will still be incorporated in Texas, thus still pay all the US taxes. In the same interview, the reporter said the company would save hundreds of millions of dollars if the company were to incorporate outside the US, which is certainly a boom for the owners, who happen to be many of us who own mutual funds and stock,..... the shareholders.
Perhaps after a few major companies start doing the same thing, congress will see higher corporate tax ultimately means lower corporate tax collections.
Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.
How about giving them more work here in the United States? As long as we refuse to expand exporation and refining on our own turf, expansion will be in foreign lands. It will make more and more sense for companies like Haliburton and Schlumberger, who provide services to oil companies, to be closer to their primary workforce and projects.
imo.....good ridin's. They are solely to blame as our Commander In Chief for the BS we are in with Iraq.
All of the Americans will be moving to Dubai.. I guess "Wacko Jacko" will be throwing a party for them..?
"Now isn't that special..?"
[}:)]
Could this be considered the start of a "Cut and Run" before the next administration begins sending them to prison?
quote:
Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.
Say no to record profits? What in the world are you thinking???? It is simple supply and demand that causes these profits. Plus higher profits means more investment in capital projects which means an increase in productivity which means a growing economy. If we say no to companies who know how to operate and actually make a profit, we are damning our economy forever.
Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class??? (Probably not because liberal public schools took it out of high schools, but that is a different subject)
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Could this be considered the start of a "Cut and Run" before the next administration begins sending them to prison?
That's a very valid point. Once GW is out of office there's going to be a whole lot of people in hot water, including himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.
Say no to record profits? What in the world are you thinking???? It is simple supply and demand that causes these profits. Plus higher profits means more investment in capital projects which means an increase in productivity which means a growing economy. If we say no to companies who know how to operate and actually make a profit, we are damning our economy forever.
Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class??? (Probably not because liberal public schools took it out of high schools, but that is a different subject)
I don't see how giving business away to foreign countries increases our productivity. It will eventually just drain money out of our economy. I know you were probably just defending a company's right to make a profit, which is a just cause. But the issue of Haliburton going to Dubai, that does the USA no good whatsoever.
I also don't fully agree that higher profits always mean an increase in productivity.
I believe that potential for profit drives money hungry individuals into increasing productivity. If profits were limited, the incentive to increase ingenuity and productivity would flounder. I see the success of captialism based on this balance of people's desire to make money forcing them to come up with innovative and efficient ways to solve problems. But simply linking profits with productivity increase isn't always the case, since there is quite a bit of corruption going on at high levels of power.
Also, energy conservation or the creation of alternative energy would INCREASE productivity, which I am all for. Take every other sector aside from the energy sector: Any money THEY spend on energy is just money down the crapper. They could be a lot more efficient, profitable, or able to spend that extra money on other innovative research if their energy costs were lower. Basic utilities for every single other sector of business are turned into exorbitant profits for one specific sector. Gas and electric have us by the balls for sure, but them making a profit doesnt make business as a whole more productive, it actually cuts into productivity. They say the American economy is fueled by cheap energy. It is becoming less and less true as prices increase, but the claim proves that the greatness of the American economy is heavily based on how LITTLE we spend on burning energy versus actually performing business transactions. Conservation in this instance is not a hippie/liberal/left wing idea, it is a money saving productivity increasing tactic that should be hailed by all true believers in capitalism.
Porky:
Are you just anti Bush and anti capitalist or should I take your comments as an attempt at making a valid point?
If you are glad to see oil companies leave American shores; I would like to know why and like to have you address the issues I raised in that regard.
I would also like to know how you think President Bush will be in trouble when he leaves office. As far as I know he has committed no crime and isnt under investigation nor impeachment. Other presidents have publicly admitted guilt to felonies and been implicated in all sorts of illegal financial activities as well as pardoning his personal friends before leaving office - and nothing happened to them. Hell, even Dick Nixon walked away Scott free. I doubt a president leaving with no legal issues will have many issues.
Though, I dont think Mr. Bush's public speaking career qill be on par with Clinton's. Just different styles (one has one, the other doesn't).
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
Maybe it will be a wakeup call to Americans if they see oil companies move overseas. It would be nice to have Americans get serious about conservation. We do have the power to say no to record profits at these companies, we just have to utilize that power.
Say no to record profits? What in the world are you thinking???? It is simple supply and demand that causes these profits. Plus higher profits means more investment in capital projects which means an increase in productivity which means a growing economy. If we say no to companies who know how to operate and actually make a profit, we are damning our economy forever.
Have you ever taken a macroeconomics class??? (Probably not because liberal public schools took it out of high schools, but that is a different subject)
Are you sure we saw a increase in productivity? Oh yeah, Bush got a war going for them... not my idea of a good productivity gain. And I always love to see record profits from companies who supply essentials. How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us? I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well. Too bad for the poor chump who HAS to buy their gas, it's supply and demand right? Except, you never see a leveling out when it comes to essential commodities. But I'm sure they didn't teach you that in junior high school. You should try macroeconomics in college.
How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us? I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well.
ONG is guaranteed profits by the government who grants them a monopoly.
No body was complaining when Halibutron was losing money. Or are you saying you want all businesses run by the government? If so, you're living in the wrong country.
To be fair, Wilbur, the FERC and DOE guarantee a "chance of a reasonable return" to certain sectors. A truly incompetent company can still lose money or have their charter revoked.
/me has read more FERC opinions than I care to.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us? I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well.
ONG is guaranteed profits by the government who grants them a monopoly.
No body was complaining when Halibutron was losing money. Or are you saying you want all businesses run by the government? If so, you're living in the wrong country.
My understanding is ONG primarily makes their profit from the delivery cost of the natural gas on residential accounts. The actual rate you pay for the gas itself is supposed to be a pass-through with minimal mark-up tied to current trading prices.
Halliburton's war? Turn off Olbermann and quit drinking the Kool-Aid. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
How about ONG raising their price of gas they sell to us? I'm sure they can do it and have a record setting year as well.
ONG is guaranteed profits by the government who grants them a monopoly.
No body was complaining when Halibutron was losing money. Or are you saying you want all businesses run by the government? If so, you're living in the wrong country.
I know that ONG can't set their rates without government input, but what if they could? What if they could set them to what the market allowed if we wanted true supply and demand? Do you not think they could get record profits every year? That's my point. We complain about the price of gas and oil and read in the papers that gas and oil companies made record profits. And YoungTulsan is correct, a high oil price drains the economy.. there is less innovation when oil companies are making record profits. Instead of giving them tax breaks, or raise hell because they are moving from Houston, why don't we instead start looking for alternative fuels that will lower our consumption of their product? We are creating the very scenario where all oil companies will move to the Gulf because of our increasing demand for oil. Instead of paying out large sums of money for Middle Eastern oil and companies who are located in Dubai, lets try and cut our dependence.
I know that ONG can't set their rates without government input, but what if they could? What if they could set them to what the market allowed if we wanted true supply and demand? Do you not think they could get record profits every year? That's my point.
You pick a poor company for comparison, since there is no other gas company for ONG to compete against, thus the reason they are granted a monopoly. If I don't like ONG's price, i can't go to the 'other' gas company.
Don't like buying gasoline from one company, fine, go buy it from someone else, preferably someone selling it cheaper. Don't like paying a certain price for a car, fine, go buy it from someone else. Exactly what competition creates.
Oil/gas companies are going to create the maximum profits possible, just like any other company wants to do for its shareholders. Want to force them into alternatives, fine, then get companies to make products that utilize oil/gas to make the same products using an alternative fuel. That will force oil/gas companies to change or die. Once again.... competition.
Where did Haliburton start. Oklahoma. Where did they move to? Houston. Right along with every other oil/gas company in Oklahoma. Makes just as much sense moving from Tulsa to Houston as Houston to the Middle East.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Where did Haliburton start. Oklahoma. Where did they move to? Houston. Right along with every other oil/gas company in Oklahoma. Makes just as much sense moving from Tulsa to Houston as Houston to the Middle East.
How does that reasoning dovetail with Haliburton/KBR's big contract operations, such as provisioning the army, building prisons, providing "interrogation services" and rebuilding the infrastructure of *ahem* liberated countries? Being big oil is only a small part of the picture.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I know that ONG can't set their rates without government input, but what if they could? What if they could set them to what the market allowed if we wanted true supply and demand? Do you not think they could get record profits every year? That's my point.
You pick a poor company for comparison, since there is no other gas company for ONG to compete against, thus the reason they are granted a monopoly. If I don't like ONG's price, i can't go to the 'other' gas company.
Don't like buying gasoline from one company, fine, go buy it from someone else, preferably someone selling it cheaper. Don't like paying a certain price for a car, fine, go buy it from someone else. Exactly what competition creates.
Oil/gas companies are going to create the maximum profits possible, just like any other company wants to do for its shareholders. Want to force them into alternatives, fine, then get companies to make products that utilize oil/gas to make the same products using an alternative fuel. That will force oil/gas companies to change or die. Once again.... competition.
Where did Haliburton start. Oklahoma. Where did they move to? Houston. Right along with every other oil/gas company in Oklahoma. Makes just as much sense moving from Tulsa to Houston as Houston to the Middle East.
Wilbur, this is where we diverge in opinions. I don't see the oil business as a truly competitive marketplace... i.e. high entrance barriers to the market, monopoly of resources. With many people believing we are using peak oil, this competition for a scarce resource is going to get even nastier in the future.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Where did Haliburton start. Oklahoma. Where did they move to? Houston. Right along with every other oil/gas company in Oklahoma. Makes just as much sense moving from Tulsa to Houston as Houston to the Middle East.
How does that reasoning dovetail with Haliburton/KBR's big contract operations, such as provisioning the army, building prisons, providing "interrogation services" and rebuilding the infrastructure of *ahem* liberated countries? Being big oil is only a small part of the picture.
Very true. Are we going to allow a Dubai company be our favorite mercenaries when we refuse to let a Dubai company even run (not control) our ports?
quote:
How does that reasoning dovetail with Haliburton/KBR's big contract operations, such as provisioning the army, building prisons, providing "interrogation services" and rebuilding the infrastructure of *ahem* liberated countries? Being big oil is only a small part of the picture.
From USAToday: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/post_32.html#more
But the case against Halliburton is weak. The company's contracting arm is being spun off and will remain in the USA. For the time being, at least, Halliburton will maintain its Delaware incorporation and pay U.S. corporate income taxes. Only its petroleum field services unit is going to Dubai — to be closer to customers and the world's largest oil fields.
"...why don't we instead start looking for alternative fuels that will lower our consumption of their product? We are creating the very scenario where all oil companies will move to the Gulf because of our increasing demand for oil. Instead of paying out large sums of money for Middle Eastern oil and companies who are located in Dubai, lets try and cut our dependence."
Okie- already being done. Why is it there are still so many people saying we need to investigate alternative energy sources? This has been going on for decades and we are just now getting to a point where they might actually be viable within ten years. It takes time.
At least one leading Democrat candidate for president is trying to dupe the public by making it sound as if nothing is being done about alternative energy which is completely bogus. There has been explosive growth in new plants for bio-d and ethanol in the last five years.
Unfortunately, alternative fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel require feed stock which has the adverse affect of raising livestock, grain, and sugar prices and all the products that impacts. There is new research going on to make fuels with the feedstock waste like corn stalks or switchgrass. Anything you can efficiently extract carbohydrates out of and convert to sugar can be used for ethanol.
Next issue: ethanol and bio-d are still not overly efficient as stand-alone fuels. In order to run them in most vehicles presently on the road without conversion of the fuel system, they are required to be blended with petroleum fuels.
Market saturation appears to have occurred at this point, as construction of new alt fuel plants is starting to slow. If there isn't enough demand for the product at this point, why over-build capacity?
Demand for the fuels will only increase when auto manufacturers get fully on board with alt fuel vehicles. That will only happen when consumers are ready to buy them.
The oil business is EXTREMELY competitive. Texico, Shell, BP, Exxon, Conoco/Phillips, Samson, Kerr-Mcgee just to name some domestic producers.
They dont even count as the big boys anymore compared to some of the government run companies: Saudi Arabian Oil Co., Petroleos Mexicanos, Petroleos de Venezuela, China National Petroleum, Nigerian National Oil Co., Iraq National Oil Co., Kuwait Petroleum. Or the quasi state own Russian firms (LucOil and Petrolas I think).
Then there are thousands of smaller producers at home and abroad that I cant even start to name. Smith Oil Company, so and so and sons... blah blah blah.
While there are *only* a dozen or so companies large enough to buy ocean going rigs - that's still a CRAP LOAD of competition. Way more than in most major industries (automobiles has 9 real players FORD, GM, Daimler, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Hyndai). Dont look for too many major players in heavy mining either. For computers, 90% of the chip making ability is with 2 companies. Commercial aircraft are made by 2 companies. Most cargo ships are made by 1. Tankers - 2.
There is PLENTY of competition in the oil business. The large American firms make money because they are damn good at it. Exxon made more money off of a fraction of the reserves than the Saudi's have... because they run them better.
You can complain about oil, but not because of a lack of competition.
There is no "bye Halliburton," as suggested in the topic.
This simply backs my current theory on the region.
I think perhaps there is new synthesis of both the U.S. military and corporate America to take over the middle-eastern oil supply ahead of an impending energy resource clash with China.
If this is the case, then this move makes perfect sense. Any future attack on Dubai would require U.S. military assistance to "protect U.S. assets."
Furthermore, Halliburton has already stated that the Houston offices will remain open, and that no one is getting layed off from there.
But the CEO will now be stationed in Dubai.
Really, I think this is a stradegy to "go around" public opinion about Dubai (remember the port scandal not long ago?) and continue to strengthn U.S. ties with the region, with energy resource control as the ultimate agenda.
--
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
There is no "bye Halliburton," as suggested in the topic.
This simply backs my current theory on the region.
I think perhaps there is new synthesis of both the U.S. military and corporate America to take over the middle-eastern oil supply ahead of an impending energy resource clash with China.
If this is the case, then this move makes perfect sense. Any future attack on Dubai would require U.S. military assistance to "protect U.S. assets."
Furthermore, Halliburton has already stated that the Houston offices will remain open, and that no one is getting layed off from there.
But the CEO will now be stationed in Dubai.
Really, I think this is a stradegy to "go around" public opinion about Dubai (remember the port scandal not long ago?) and continue to strengthn U.S. ties with the region, with energy resource control as the ultimate agenda.
--
Wow, what an original theory Hawkins! Let's see you obviously didn't take that one from the liberal talking points did you? [B)]
The Dubai port issue was hardly a scandal. That's just Keith Olbermann talking there. To him everything GBII does is a scandal.
People tend to overlook the fact that without American technology, there would be no oil fields in the Middle East, Russia, China, Venezuela, Mexico, et. al. ad nauseum.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
There is no "bye Halliburton," as suggested in the topic.
This simply backs my current theory on the region.
I think perhaps there is new synthesis of both the U.S. military and corporate America to take over the middle-eastern oil supply ahead of an impending energy resource clash with China.
If this is the case, then this move makes perfect sense. Any future attack on Dubai would require U.S. military assistance to "protect U.S. assets."
Furthermore, Halliburton has already stated that the Houston offices will remain open, and that no one is getting layed off from there.
But the CEO will now be stationed in Dubai.
Really, I think this is a stradegy to "go around" public opinion about Dubai (remember the port scandal not long ago?) and continue to strengthn U.S. ties with the region, with energy resource control as the ultimate agenda.
--
Wow, what an original theory Hawkins! Let's see you obviously didn't take that one from the liberal talking points did you? [B)]
The Dubai port issue was hardly a scandal. That's just Keith Olbermann talking there. To him everything GBII does is a scandal.
People tend to overlook the fact that without American technology, there would be no oil fields in the Middle East, Russia, China, Venezuela, Mexico, et. al. ad nauseum.
Forgive me, but I don't watch much television, and consider it an insult to be considered a member of either major political party.
Who is Keith Oberman? And what are you talking about?
I did not mean to suggest that I personally held an opinion on the Dubai port issue, simply that the current political leadership and corporate leadership is going around the public outcry that resulted from it--and is continuing to strengthen it's relationship with the region.
I'm looking at this from a positively nuetral perspective, and speculatiing that this is an energy-resource consolidation on the eve of higher demand and competition from Asia.
The Dubai port issue amounted to a two week fart in the mass media.
Your suggestions of conspiracies between the "current administration" and large U.S. corporations are hard to swallow without tasting some liberal slant in it.
Well, Conan, its been rammed down our throats non-stop that Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and that Bush is a Texas oil man.
So if the shoe fits... I don't really consider it a conspiracy theory, nor is this any different than what past administrations have done throughout the history of our government.
Notice though I'm not implying its all about a few guys getting rich, it is also about strategic control of energy reserves ahead of a clash with China.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Porky:
Are you just anti Bush and anti capitalist or should I take your comments as an attempt at making a valid point?
If you are glad to see oil companies leave American shores; I would like to know why and like to have you address the issues I raised in that regard.
I would also like to know how you think President Bush will be in trouble when he leaves office. As far as I know he has committed no crime and isnt under investigation nor impeachment. Other presidents have publicly admitted guilt to felonies and been implicated in all sorts of illegal financial activities as well as pardoning his personal friends before leaving office - and nothing happened to them. Hell, even Dick Nixon walked away Scott free. I doubt a president leaving with no legal issues will have many issues.
Though, I dont think Mr. Bush's public speaking career qill be on par with Clinton's. Just different styles (one has one, the other doesn't).
Have you been watching the news or reading the paper over the past 5 years? Do you accept outsourcing and illegal immigration? Are you a supporter of our troops being killed over a lie in Iraq by GW? Do you find support in the death of over 100,000 Iraqis by our interference with their country?