"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:16:28 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:
It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery
requirement.

And yet, this hasn't been stated at all. It's just bald speculation on
your part.

Isn't that what this thread is all about? Weren't you speculating
a sweetheart deal? Don't be so blatantly hypocritical
in your attempts to criticize.

Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.

That's one possibility. However, Halliburton hasn't used that "excuse"
in their defense. One would think that that it would be the first
thing that they would point out.

Halliburton is going to move slowly. False statements in this
kind of situation don't go over very well. They won't say anything
the lawyers haven't confirmed and triple checked.

More likely are "logistical security arrangements", which also apply
to the Turkish distributors, whom they apparently got plenty of gas
from, despite having to truck oil further and probably further through
dangerous Iraq. Kuwait is just across the border from the secured port
in the south. All they'd have to do is get the trucks to the port of
Umm Kasir, right across the border, where it would then be distributed
in country. Seems like it would be far easier to truck gas 50 miles as
opposed to 200 to 500miles depending on the route that they'd have to
take (don't forget that Northern Iraq isn't exactly the most secure
part of the world right now).

More speculation. You don't know where the actual destination was.
It could have been well into Iraq. It might have been cheaper to
buy Kuwaiti gas at over $2/gal than try to move Turkish fuel to southern
Iraq. Certainly quicker.

What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

So much for customer service.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

And yet, they were able to get far more gas from Turkey at half the
price.

Yet there were still shortages.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

Actually, your complaint should be with the Pentagon auditors who blew
the whistle on this.

Not at all. I expect them to ask questions and demand answers. It's the
spin in the New York Times that appears I find counter productive.

Apparently, they didn't see any time issues that
would have caused a problem in dleivery of gas. Of course, we *might*
eventually find out that it's the case, but we haven't heard that yet.

Till then, all we can do is speculate. Still some folks feel the need to
jump to their feet and cry "Gotcha". Why they take such joy in
finding fault with our own government is hard to understand.

ScottW