add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Talk Radio Show Tooth Talk Dr. Mitchell A. Josephs D.D.S.Sponsorship radiotoothtalk.com |
[edit] Brown and Root?I had heard from a very reliable source that one of the mergers that haliburton in the early 1900's (1930ish) was aclimed oil company brown and root, owned by george and herman brown, whose company was also based out of texas; i think they took over jim abercrombie's oil company as well.- wiki has no mention of this or any mergers since haliburton's opening. does anyone who actually knows the history of haliburton want to add to this article? [edit] Wikimapia? Link WrongThis link (1) goes to one of its many offices in Houston. There is one on the other side of the beltway, and one on the north loop and JFK. However, if it is supposed to show the headquaters I believe that is in a office building downtown...5 Houston Center (1401 McKinney, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77010). [edit] Chronology?There are multiple references in the section "finances" that seem to be out of date, such as: "by the time they start to expire in 2006" and "this year." I'm not sure where the information's from or anything, so if someone could update that, it'd be great. Thanks. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 08:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] Two ErrorsOne significant error in this article. As reported by National Public Radio ("All Thing Considered," 3/12/07, Media:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7859069), Halliburton isn't moving its corporate HQ to Dubai. It is opening a headquarters in Dubai, and Halliburton Chairman and CEO David Lesar will office and work from there. However, NPR also reported that the corporate HQ and most corporate operations will remain in Houston. This story is being incorrectly reported across the media because so few media organizations do original investigation anymore. Once one of them puts out a story, even if factually incorrect, the rest pick it up from the wire services or the internet and repeat it worldwide almost verbatim. Deep Purple 70.251.247.184 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] Dubai move?Are they moving their headquarters to Dubai? RGDS Alexmcfire YEAH THEY ARE MOVING HQ TO DUBAI!!! SAY SOMETHING PUNK!!! Well I live about 8 miles from the Halliburton HQ in Houston, So I am very sure that they didn't move the whole thing to UAE. Zakneifien 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC) They did not move it to Dubai. The Dubai HQ will handle Eastern Hemisphere operations. The corporate office is still in Houston. In fact all the upper management people are still in Houston with the exception of the CEO. The CEO (Lesar) still lives and works in Houston. While he has an apartment in Dubai and visits often (on his private jet of course), he still lives and works in Houston. All major players in Upper management are being moved to Dubai. The CIO (who is moving as well) has set this so the company can focus more on Eastern hemisphere operations. The office in Houston will not shutdown, but will moved to second in line. [edit] "Dick" Cheney???There are several references to "Dick" Cheney, including in the table of contents. I will do a search-and-replace to correct the name to "Richard", but I'm shocked that anybody let this slip in the first place. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, but sure as hell I'm making a point, idiots!!! 129.98.212.164 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
use Richard "Dick" Cheney... everyone will be happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.159.72 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Uh, no. Use Dick Cheney. What an outrageous claim. I don't think he's ever been referred to as "Richard" so there's no reason to placate this moron by doing so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.33.138 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Copyrighted material in wikipediaPlease do not cut and paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia. That can not be allowed for legal reasons. If there is some other website with a particularly good treatment of the subject, you may add an external link to it. -- Infrogmation 20:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC) Isn't it ironic that this comment is under Halliburton...? Do you see the irony...? It's a dark one. Khranus:.
Which is which? The Halliburton page says it is a "KBR subsidiary" and the KBR page says KBR is a "subsidiary of Halliburton". You can't have it both ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.112.186.188 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] more news[1] will give you more to write about here. Kingturtle 06:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC) Well this is a well-balanced NPOV article! LOL. --M4-10 04:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Cheney balance sheet"In 2002, Cheney's total asset wealth was valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million." Says who? The IRS? So what are his debts? - Jerryseinfeld 23:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) [edit] the latestif anyone has time, there is information in this news item [2] which could be of use to this article. Kingturtle 10:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) This article appears to be a slam piece against Cheney and Halliburton, not a fair presentation of Halliburton. NPOV seems to be definitely violated. Johnwhunt 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Changes MadePlease note. Johnwhunt 17:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) [edit] Deleted passageThis passage was deleted a couple of weeks ago:
Can anyone tell me why? Unless it's specifically inaccurate, this seems to be a very relevant notation. At the very least the fact that they've seen a 38% revenue increase during a merely so-so economic period is significant in and of itself. The fact that government contracts are a factor is also such. If no one has a reason it should be excluded, I think it ought to go back in. Wally 22:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'm the one who removed it, Wally. I'll try to explain why I did. Inserting quarterly numbers into the article seemed inappropriate because they are quickly dated. And empasizing the impact of one quarter in particular I thought was misleading, particularly since the statement reported revenue. Constuction is so convoluted that revenue in and of itself can be misleading, particularily in an encyclopedia context. Instead, I discussed the fact construction causes fluctuations, showed three years annual profit and loss numbers and current year revenue. The link to the Halliburton website can take the reader who needs to know to their annual reports for indepth discussions. The article states elsewhere the amount of the Iraq conracts and the anticipated profit. Johnwhunt 23:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ChangesRestored Halliburton's net income figures. Corrected the asbestos loss number which had been incorrectly changed. Restored the sentence concerning the nature of international construction. Removed most of the comments inserted about the $108 million cost question, including Waxman and the UN. $108 million is not significant in relation to contract and the UN is scrambling for anything that takes the focus off their handling of Iraqi oil. Johnwhunt 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added conclusion to SEC investigation. Eliminated two dead links. Johnwhunt 20:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) [edit] Anonymous tipsterLadies and Gentlemen, we are not talking about General Motors or Proctor & Gamble. Halliburton is directly involved in the Iraq War. To remove this information makes Halliburton out to be just another company that incidently has immense political connections that have directly impacted its bottom line. Put it back in. Stop pretending to be neutral Wall Street analyst. ~~172.162.227.133
You know there is a certain amount of freedom that comes in not signing your name, isn't there? You start to believe you can insult, degrade, and even lose all sight of grammar. Perhaps unsigned comments should just be deleted. I know mine should. Or else I can just sit here, hand down my pants, throwin' feces at what whoevah wanna make it uh democrat edit. I have a general question: Why are unsigned comments considered so pernicious? Isn't it Wikipedia policy that you do not have to have a registered username in order to be allowed to contribute? And, if someone doesn't have a username, what is accomplished by typing in the 4 tildes? I mean, it seems to me that on any Talk Page where there is some disagreement going on (i.e. every talk page) if someone makes a comment and doesn't "sign" (which I am not sure means (1) that he doesn't have a username, or (2) doesn't type in the 4 tildes, or (3) both), this is condemned by other contributors to the Talk Page. Why is this so? What difference does it make if someone signs or doesn't? Please, someone, answer me; I have been puzzling over this for some time. It seems as if there is an inference that if a contributor doesn't sign, his contribution has some nefarious motive, or he is engaged in vandalism. This is especially puzzling to me, since it is clear that whoever edits these pages has the ability to extract any contributor's IP address, so that no one can "hide" and commit numerous acts of vandalism. In any case, what difference does the lack of a signature have to the point(s) under debate? Also--there is also the possibility that the person simply forgot to type the 4 tildes; this has indeed happened to me once or twice. 66.108.4.183 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
[edit] Disputed costs updateApparantly, the Army intends to reimburse Halliburton for nearly all of the disputed costs for the Iraq contract.[3] I don't have time to add this now, but if anyone is interested in incorporating this update into the article, that link should be helpful. JerryOrr 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC) [edit] Correction of statementI removed the following addition to the Halliburton article: Note: The above statement is not correct. KBR Halliburton never received a no-bid contract. Operation "Restore Iraqi Oil" was invoked under a contract that KBR won in a competitive bid process. The contract is referred to as LOGCAP (Logistical Civilian Augmentation Program) and is managed by the US Army. KBR won the first LOGCAP contract, Dyncorp the second, and KBR the current one, dubbed "LOGCAP III." It's a contingency-based contract that is invoked at the convenience of the Army. Because the contract is a kind of retainer, specific orders are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was) and thus the reason for the confusion. When the contract was invoked during the Balkans crisis under the administration of President Clinton, there was no controversy and very little scrutiny of the contract. KBR performed under this agreement in the Balkans for over 10 years and still maintains a LOGCAP presence there to this day. It was only after the Second Gulf War that the LOGCAP contract was made a political issue by opponents of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. This is not really an appropriate way to update the article. If you believe a previous statement in the article is incorrect, find a source, update the incorrect section (don't just add a note saying it's incorrect, fix it), and cite it appropriately. --JerryOrr 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Using the source Yeago provided, I've tried to clean up the disputed section by making in more NPOV, citing it properly, and removing (in my opinion) unnecessary detail. Hopefully this satisfies everyone! --JerryOrr 11:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Deferred compensation and stock optionsThe part of the article that says Cheney is not bound legally to donate the after tax profit from his stock options are wrong, and I am correcting it. My source is factcheck.org. 82.206.141.122 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)EternalGentleman [edit] Future of HalliburtonIs Halliburton ready to expand its industry to Iran? (cough)==TREASON==(cough) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.100.189 (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I doubt it given current politics. Iran imports gasoline, because foreign companies that can refine oil don't want to risk an investment in that regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC) [edit] Inclusion in Anti-corporate activism categoryThere's been a couple reverts involving the categorization of this article, so I thought I'd start a discussion here. Earlier, I had re-added it to Category:Corporate misbehavior, not realizing that the category was being deleted. However, I still feel that it does not belong in Category:Anti-corporate activism. That category does not have any other corporations in it; it consists entirely people and organizations involved in anti-corporate activism. I feel that this article should be removed from Category:Anti-corporate activism. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd like to hear a convicing argument. If I don't get one, I'll go ahead and remove Halliburton from the category. --JerryOrr 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you guys are gay for spending your time worming through wikipedia articles looking for faults
Now I think you're gay for spending so much time refuting the suggestion you could be gay :) Just sharing the love with you guys. Your doing a great job. Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.54.224 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Questions of balanceI just did some generally light cleanup of the "Allegations of Fraud" section, but I think it needs a -lot- more work. It's not NPOV; we've got a guy voicing considerable outrage, whatever that means. He was explaining something before, but now he's just saying it. I strongly suspect an enterprising PR person put out a statement for Halliburton, and/or an enterprising reporter tried to get Halliburton/KBR/whatever's side of things. I'm going to abstain -- I've got a distant relative working for the company -- but I think someone ought to give this a good lookover to establish NPOV. --Thatnewguy 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Army Terminates Haliburton Contracthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101459_pf.html
[edit] Passage Removed: Misleading, Irrelevant, and False"Despite statements that the company receives low profit margins from their Iraq contracts, their stock value has gone from $9 in mid-2002 all the way up to $69 as of late-2005. Yearly revenues as of December 31st 2002 were $12.5 billion, and as of December 31st 2004 Halliburton revenues have climbed to $20.5 billion. (Yahoo Finance) The stock hit a record high in January 2006." The proceeding was "beleted" because Haliburton stock literally peaked at HALF of $69 in late 2005 (under $35). [4] Facts don't get much easier to check. While the revenue estimates appear to be correct, the "sources" listed as claiming these figures do not even mention revenue or imply those numbers in any way. Interesting... As a secondary point, even if the stock had exploded to $100 a share and the revenues had risen to $100B, it's purely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Did Halliburton as a company, or as individuals within, PROFIT from any such circumstances? Companies don't care if revenues and stock value go through the roof unless profit reflects that. If revenue is 100M, but opperating expenses represent 99.5M of it, that company is in bad shape; their ultimate goal is to increase profit not revenue. To say that a company that averages a 12% profit margin is pushing people over to rake in 1-2% isn't too convincing (if that 1-2% is accurate, and if it isn't; write about that instead). Revenue value, specifically, is especially irrelevant with a company like Haliburton that derives most of its value from services, as opposed to manufacturing. In this particular service based company, revenues are extensively tied to contracts, in contrast to a retail chain that would spend most of its revenue gains on infrastructure expansion that would benefit future viability. Military contracts provide almost no long term benefits or profits for Halliburton. Likewise, stock prices are also irrelevant unless you can show that Halliburton insiders profited (i.e. actually sold the stock at that price). If this is the case, it is a matter of public record and should be cited (instead of just assuming so). How has Haliburton unjustly benefited from US gov't contracts? It isn't because of stock value or revenue totals. I'm not saying Halliburton isn't crooked, but if they are, this isn't why. In summary, the stock prices were removed because they were blatant lies, and the revenue figures were removed because they do not make the point they were intended to. People unfamiliar with the topic might read it and unnecessarily gain a misunderstanding of its significance, and yet worse; they might even pass it on. --75.20.213.195 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Passage Removed again 9/14
[edit] Disputed neutrality?Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? if so, why not adding the appropriate tag? Dan Gluck 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC) disputed? this article one of the millions of reasons Wiki is becoming the laughing stock of the web. It's a joke. Ken (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Merge from Landmark Graphics CorporationThis is the content of Landmark Graphics Corporation, which seemed better merged here (per http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-September/054712.html particuarly):
Merge at will. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Hey, guess what? Bob Limbaugh is my grandfather. For real. 98.198.198.114 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Lindsey [edit] OverchargingI don't know if this should be added. But evidently according to Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, Halliburton charges the United States Government $45 for a six-pack of Coca-Cola and $100 to do a load of laundry. [5] MichaelSH 05:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Iraq for Sale and DailyKos definitely sound POV. Even if I personally agree with that viewpoint, Wikipedia is still NPOV. If that particular reference can be verified (for example, by examining what Iraq for Sale cited their material from), then it can and should be added TetrisAnarchist 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] Employee safetyI cleaned up the wording to make this less POV and more factual. However, I think the entire paragraph should probably be deleted as irrelevant, unless Halliburton's general safety practices are poorer than its competitors in the industry. Lots of truck drivers in Iraq have been kidnapped and killed -- it is one of the most dangerous places on earth. I do not care how much they pay, you gotta have a death wish to take such a job -- it is probably far safer to be a uniformed soldier. Unless they start hiring truck drivers with combat infantry experience, and using armored vehicles instead of ordinary trucks, arming the truck drivers would not make them any safer against organized insurgent ambushes. This is not really indicative of negligence on the part of Halliburton. Most multinationals would not provide such services at all because the risks of loss and liability are too great.RandallC 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
what ?! I just watched "Iraq for sale", they sent their drivers on a "no civillian" road to get killed, and it is implied that they did so to bill the U.S. gov for destroyed materials (trucks and fuel), the trucks didn't even have spare tires and clearly no escort 216.113.96.109 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] Selling of nuclear secretsThe article makes no mention of selling of nuclear secrets by Halliburton to Iran. http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm
[edit] Some odds and endsI think it is worth noticing that the company that is Halliburton actually does not do the construction services in Iraq. That was mostly the KBR subsidiary that has had all the disputed contracts, while Halliburton itself is an upstream oil services company. Also, KBR is no longer a part of Halliburton. There should probably be a separate KBR page at this point since they are a separate company. Sorry for not signing, but this is the first time i have posted here and I don't know how it works. =) [edit] Original Research - Iraq controversyThere needs to be reliable references cited to support the claims made (below). The one reference is not from a reliable source. The text below wioll be deleted as original research, if not supported with a reliable source. Raggz 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Iraq controversy Halliburton $8.3 billion LOGCAP[19] contract, was supposed to supply American troops and support personnel with food, fuel, housing and logistical support. Yet performance has been plagued by cost overruns and shoddy results. Inserting Halliburton as middleman for the operation of dining halls increased costs by more than 40% .With the motivation of a cost-plus contract , Halliburton kept its own personnel at the deluxe Kuwait Hilton Hotel, where the excess costs ran in the range of $300,000 per month. Examination of seven LOGCAP task orders with a combined value of $4.33 billion identified unsupported costs totaling $1.82 billion. Nearly half of every dollar spent (42 cents) could not be justified and yet the Pentagon paid the costs anyway. Halliburton charged the government $45 for cases of locally produced soda and $100 to Wash bags of laundry. Halliburton paid local citizens 50 cents an hour for laundry work. Rather than caring for its equipment, Halliburton bought new equipment and was re-imbursed for the full cost, plus its additional cost-plus percentage. With this incentive, Halliburton abandoned or destroyed $85,000 trucks if they got a flat tire or experienced mechanical problems, and never changed the oil. Halliburton exposed troops and civilians to contaminated water from Iraq’s Euphrates River that they were contracted to purify before use. Halliburton was contracted to feed 600 Turkish and Filipino workers meals .according to their customs. Halliburton charged the government for the service but didn’t prepare the meals. Instead, the Turkish and Filipino workers were given leftover food in boxes and garbage bags after the troops ate. Sometimes there were no leftovers to give them. "[20]
[edit] The factual accuracy of this article is disputed TagThe factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. Someone has inserted this tag. Why? I deleted it and it is reverted. Fine, but what is the issue? Raggz (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I don't mean to be picking knits...But the "controversy" section of this article needs a MASSIVE re-writing. The tone is very opinionated and unprofessional, and not at all in keeping with the attempted standards of Wikipedia. Addseale2 (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BiasThis entire article sounds to be nothing but a Cheney-bash piece, it only talks of bad things and controversies but doesn't really give any insight at all into the company itself other than make it look like the devil incarnate. It needs to be COMPLETELY rewritten. This is not up to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.107.125 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 reportAccording to 2007 report Haliburton is in 70 countries not 120 http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2008/corpnws_012808.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.136.208 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] clean upLooks as if this article was written in 2004/5 and hasn't been updated since. A lot of things are forward looking, but forward looking to 2005/6. Somebody who is more familiar with the company needs to go through it and clean it up. Fix those time lines. If it says something should be a certain way by 2005/6 then that needs to be fixed as it is now 2008.Balloonman (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Whether Halliburton, Enron or anyone Greed is a weapon of mass destructionWhether Halliburton, Enron or anyone Greed is a weapon of mass destruction I'd like to add that sentence to the article. But I though, let's ask if I can. Because everyone is angry because I did some things wrong everybody says that my description of the opera wasn't good, but that's really what I remember seeing when I went to the opera. So, can I add that to the article please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joehoe665 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) [edit] Halliburton in the mediaIt seems that this whole section is really not needed. Showing every little reference ever to Halliburton is rather insignificant. How about on the abortion page, I document every time abortion has been criticized in the media, whether through movies, documentaries, music, or television. This just doesn't make sense and adds nothing of importance to this article. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External LinksThis article has been flaged as needing cleanup so I went through the links. Since this article is disputed I'm making a list here. I'm only going to remove blatent policy violations right now.
Personal Web Sites / Unreliable Dead / No Longer Relavent
Undue Weight - 2004 Election
Are these relavent to the article / maybe they should be used as sources?
Editorials
If this is important the text of the bill should probably come from a direct source ie congress Who Cares' Whew, ok leave any comments you might have. If I don't get any I'm going to delete most of the Questionable pages in a few days. →(Speak•MorgothX•Havoc) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Halliburton claims to never have been contracted to do work in iraq (official FAQ)First of all: This is my first time posting on wikipedia. I do not intend to edit the article on Halliburton. Just putting this out there. And maybe someone will pick it up. I stumbled uppon the offical link halliburton FAQ today and noticed this: Q: What work is the Company performing in Iraq? A: Halliburton Company has never been contracted for services by the U.S. government, particularly none of the logistics support services frequently discussed in the media today. Also, Halliburton and its subsidiaries have no employees or work in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'm no expert on this subject, but from what i gather KBR did most of the dirty stuff in iraq. And KBR is a former subsidiary of Halliburton. Could it be that now that Halliburton is no longer the parent company of KBR they claim that they (Halliburton) have never been to iraq? I did some searched on google (ie. iraq site:halliburton.com) and found plenty of articles about halliburton in Iraq. I had to read them from googles cache. I could not find these articles on the Halliburton site. Heres two of the articles: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:bjVvZbShHnoJ:www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2004/corpnws_031804.jsp http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:C3n9sGewP9MJ:www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2004/corpnws_020504.jsp I find it strange that i can find all these articles about Halliburton in Iraq (on their own site) and yet they claim in the FAQ that they have never been contracted for services by the U.S. governement (not any at all?)(Bottekott (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC))
[edit] New suggested editsDear Wikipedians, We are the PR representing Halliburton and we would like to seek for your expertises in helping us with this article. We are new in the world of Wikipedia, but we have read the policies. We are providing you at the bottom few items opened for discussions regarding the history and facts of the company. Looking forward to hear from you. Source #1: Press Release Boilerplate (created by us. At the end of each press release. See end of PR in following link. http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2009/corpnws_081109.html Proposal #1: Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. With more than 50,000 employees in approximately 70 countries, the company serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the life cycle of the reservoir - from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field. Source #2: 2008 Annual Report http://ir.halliburton.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-reportsAnnual Proposal #2: Halliburton’s customers are major, national, and independent oil and gas companies throughout the world. Source #3: Info taken from 2009 Annual Report and edited by DG. Will need to go through Legal approvals. Proposal #3: Halliburton locations around the world consist of manufacturing, technology, research and development, campus and office facilities. In addition, there are over 200 field camps across the globe from which Halliburton products and services are delivered. Halliburton also has numerous small facilities that include sales offices, project offices, and bulk storage facilities throughout the world. Source #4: Provided to multiple media inquiries including the Wall Street Journal. Also 2008 Corporate Sustainability Report. http://www.halliburton.com/AboutUs/default.aspx?navid=981&pageid=2279 Proposal #4: Halliburton maintains dual corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas and Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Source #5: Press Release – April 3, 2009 http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2009/corpnws_040309.html Proposal #5:
Halliburton relocated its corporate headquarters to Houston in 2003 from Dallas, where it was located since 1961. In 2007, the company opened a second corporate headquarters office in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, retaining its corporate headquarters and principal executive offices in Houston. Source #6: 2008 Corporate Sustainability Report. http://www.halliburton.com/AboutUs/default.aspx?navid=981&pageid=2279 Proposal #6: Halliburton operates in two divisions. The Drilling and Evaluation Division, which consists of six product service lines (PSLs), provides field and reservoir modeling, drilling, evaluation and precise wellbore placement solutions that enable their customers to model, measure and optimize well construction activities. This segment consists of Baroid, Sperry Drilling, Drill Bits and Services, Wireline and Perforating, Software and Asset Solutions, and Testing and Subsea. The Completion and Production Division, consisting of three PSLs, delivers cementing, stimulation, intervention and completion services. This segment consists of Production Enhancement, Completion Tools, and Cementing. Source #7: Press Release – April 5, 2007 http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2007/corpnws_040507a.html Proposal #7: With the separation of KBR in April 2007, Halliburton became a pure oilfield services company able to focus on global growth opportunities in their core energy services business. Halliburton Company has never been contracted for services by the U.S. government, particularly none of the logistics support services frequently discussed in the media today. All of the government services and engineering and construction businesses have been and remain with KBR. Proposal #8: Static List on Right-Hand of Page: Founded 1919, Dallas, Texas, U.S. Products Technical services to the petroleum industry; Construction Employees 57,000 – March 2009 Thank you! Halliburton PR (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Proposal: on what to do with the list of historical eventsThe list format of the History article is inappropriate, I think we can agree. The first thought in addressing this is to merge the atomic claims into prose, but I am concerned that this would not provide the proper context, and leave many gaps. An alternative would be to split the list into a separate article, Timeline of Halliburton, similar to Timeline of Electronic Frontier Foundation actions, and start from scratch with a properly-weighted history. Another option would be to remove the history altogether and start over. Thoughts? Skomorokh 21:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
We've finally consolidated the history timeline and as you suggested, we have it in a prose format. For now, we have the timeline from 1919 to the end of 1940s. Let me hear your thoughts on them! :) 1910s Erle Halliburton starts New Method Oil Well Cementing Company. (Reference: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=HAL) 1920s In 1920, Erle Halliburton brings wild gas well under control, using cement, for W.G. Skelly, near Wilson, Oklahoma. (Reference: http://www.epmag.com/archives/oilFieldHistory/407.htm) On March 1, 1921, the Halliburton “method and means of excluding water from oil wells” is assigned a patent from the U.S. Patent Office. Halliburton invents the revolutionary cement jet mixer, to eliminate hand-mixing of cement, and the measuring line, a tool used to guarantee cementing accuracy. (Reference: http://www.epmag.com/archives/oilFieldHistory/407.htm) In 1922, Company prospers from Mexia, Texas, oil boom, cementing in 500th well in late summer. (Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Halliburton-Jeffrey-L-Rodengen/dp/0945903162#reader) In 1924, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company is incorporated in Delaware, with 56 people on payroll. Stock of the corporation was owned by Erle and Vida Halliburton and by seven major oil companies: Magnolia, Texas, Gulf, Humble, Sun, Pure and Atlantic. (Reference: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/doh8.html) In 1926, First foreign venture begins with sale of equipment to Burma and India. (Reference: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:gDIT0_w-wOAJ:www.egyptoil-gas.com/read_article_issues.php%3FMID%3D21%26arch%3Dtrue%26AID%3D28+Halliburton+1926+equipment+sale+to+Burma+and+India&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) In 1927, The Halliburton first motor-powered cementing unit goes into the field. (Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Halliburton-Jeffrey-L-Rodengen/dp/0945903162#reader) In 1928, H.C. Otis founder of Otis Engineering (now part of Halliburton) gains industry recognition by replacing an inoperative single master valve on a flowing well. (Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Halliburton-Jeffrey-L-Rodengen/dp/0945903162#reader) In 1929, Halliburton constructs first laboratory to test cement. Crews and equipment move into Canadian oil fields. (Reference: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/doh8.html) 1930s In 1934, Halliburton performs a 3,000-sack cement job at Binger, Oklahoma. Halliburton introduces three-pump steam-type cementing unit. (Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Halliburton-Jeffrey-L-Rodengen/dp/0945903162#reader) 1935, Halliburton performs first acidizing job in Kansas. (Reference: http://search.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1931-37/data/pg/0021/0004/0500/0500.htm) 1936, Halliburton forms its electric wireline department, which is later merged with Welex in 1957. (Reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=egwARS-qgQsC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=1936+halliburton+and+Welex&source=bl&ots=QIOCOQEo_R&sig=VVZpZeU6w5LLX2nL4fpr-pxrEUY&hl=en&ei=OuS3StfaIo2CtgfWneSxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=1936%20halliburton%20and%20Welex&f=false) In 1938, Halliburton cements the first offshore well using a truck on a barge off the Louisiana coast. (Reference: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:gDIT0_w-wOAJ:www.egyptoil-gas.com/read_article_issues.php%3FMID%3D21%26arch%3Dtrue%26AID%3D28+1938+halliburton+offshore&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) 1940s In 1940, Halliburton opened offices in Venezuela and introduces bulk handling of cementing to the industry. (Reference: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/doh8.html) In 1947, the Halliburton first marine cementing vessel goes into service. (Reference: http://www.epmag.com/archives/oilFieldHistory/407.htm) In 1949, Halliburton pioneers hydraulic fracturing stimulation with the industry’s first commercial stimulation job. (Reference: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:lk3eXCQaNyUJ:www.docstoc.com/docs/4594746/Press-Releases-http-www-halliburton-com-news-archive-jsp+1949+halliburton+hydraulic+fracturing&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Vana2009 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Company Profile and Other Information - to be updatedHello everyone, Thank you again for everyone's help previously. As dicussed in our IRC conversation, please find below some more credible resources for the Company Profile (right hand box) and couple statements in the article. Halliburton Earnings: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2009/07/20/businesswire126895546.html http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2009/Q209_Earnings_Release_final.pdf Company Profile: Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the energy industry. With more than 50,000 employees in approximately 70 countries, the company serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir - from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2009/07/20/businesswire126895546.html Founded in Duncan: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/S/ST030.html http://books.google.com/books?id=dCWjHf71PFgC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=halliburton+founded+in+duncan&source=bl&ots=wIS9qEtQH8&sig=XWLRYyisHsnQuGo9HEUKYA6sJwM&hl=en&ei=DWSpSp3IA5Oxngfr8-2kDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=halliburton%20founded%20in%20duncan&f=false
(sentences to be considered for "during Involvement in the Iraq war" section of the article - as we are stating both party in a NPOV, making sure that the timeline of KBR is included) All of the government services and engineering and construction businesses have been and remain with KBR. http://www.kbr.com/news/2007/corpnews_070405.aspx http://thesop.org/business/2007/04/17/halliburton-company-announces-final-results-of-kbr-exchange-offer With the separation of KBR in April 2007, Halliburton became a pure oilfield services company able to focus on global growth opportunities in their core energy services business. Much of the Iraq War activity was through the former service line KBR which was separated from Halliburton in 2007. http://thesop.org/business/2007/04/17/halliburton-company-announces-final-results-of-kbr-exchange-offer http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/side/6230399.html http://usacc.org/contents.php?cid=74 http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/06200752298.htm http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WhosProfitingFromTheIraqWar.aspx Please let me know if you have any question! Thank you as always for your constant support and guidance! Vana2009 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Company Profile - UpdatedUpdated minor information on the Company Profile for Halliburton. The headquarter location is in Duncan and the statics number from Yahoo Finance. All of the informtion are NPOV and they are from credible resources. Sorry, I could not help myself and made the edits myself as I did not hear back. Please let me know if this is valid. Vana2009 (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Standard for controveries/scandal content in articles on companiesThe minimal content in this article on any controversies, illegalities or other misconduct by the company is very interesting. Seems to indicate that the standards of article inclusion (e.g., WP:NOT and WP:NPOV) are very strong, even for a company as controversial and scandal prone as Halliburton. Antisoapbox (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Defense Appropriations AmendmentWhy is there no discussion on this page about the defense appropriations amendment that was introduced in response to a rape incident that occurred to a Halliburton employee? There is a section on employee safety and one on abuse and Iraq war involvement, and it seems like this incident could be included under one of these headings. The incident was all over the news recently, so it seems strange for it to not be here. --Sibilance77 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Categories: B-Class Companies articles | High-importance Companies articles | B-Class WikiProject Business articles | Mid-priority WikiProject Business articles | B-Class energy articles | Mid-importance energy articles | B-Class Houston articles | Mid-importance Houston articles | WikiProject Houston | B-Class Dallas-Fort Worth articles | Unknown-importance Dallas-Fort Worth articles | WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth articles | B-Class Texas articles | Mid-importance Texas articles | B-Class United Arab Emirates articles | Unknown-importance United Arab Emirates articles | B-Class Dubai articles | Unknown-importance Dubai articles | WikiProject Dubai articles | WikiProject United Arab Emirates articles | Unassessed Oklahoma articles | Unknown-importance Oklahoma articles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
