Talk:Bechtel/Archives/2012

Page Name

I propose that the name of this page be changed to Bechtel Corporation. Bechtel is a family name and many people who are not related to the owners of the Bechtel Corporation are not described by having the entirety of this page describe the corporation.

General Proposed Edits

Greetings,

I am opening this discussion page so I can propose a number of edits that I hope will add to and improve upon this entry (I’ll apologize ahead of time for the considerable length of my posting).

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll start off by noting that I am a Bechtel employee and am doing this on behalf of the company. Despite working for Bechtel, however, I want to make it clear that my intention is to update certain information, edit certain passages that may be a little misleading, and only ask for the deletion of passages that are not based on facts (at least none that I am aware of). This will not be an attempt to “white-wash” criticism and I certainly am open to other suggestions, points of view and information.

For the side box, I'd like to add engineering and project management to the industry line. Our revenue for the past year was $18.1 billion, an increase of roughly 4%. Also, Bechtel currently has 40,000 employees.

With my minor proposed edits, the first paragraph would read as follows:

“Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel Group) is the largest civil engineering company in the United States. With headquarters in San Francisco, Bechtel ranks as the 6th-largest privately-owned company in the United States. As of 2005, Bechtel had 40,000 employees working on projects in nearly 50 countries with $18.1 billion in revenue.

Bechtel participated in the building of Hoover Dam in the 1930s. It has also had involvement in several other high profile construction engineering projects, including the Channel Tunnel, numerous power projects, pipelines, refineries, nuclear power plants, BART, Jubail Industrial City in Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong International Airport, the Big Dig, the rebuilding of the civil infrastructure of Iraq funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the hauling and installing of more than 35,000 trailers and mobile homes for Hurricane Katrina victims in Mississippi.”

For the next three paragraphs, I am proposing almost no changes, except to delete “Bechtel has strongly advocated the privatization of utilities, highways, airports and other facilities traditionally managed by governments.” While we have owned and operated a few such facilities, we have not been strong advocates – we haven’t launched lobbying, public relations or other such advocacy campaigns.

The three paragraphs I’m proposing would read as:

“The Bechtel family has owned Bechtel since incorporating the company in 1925. Bechtel's size, its political clout, and its penchant for privacy have made it a perennial target for journalists and politicians since the 1930s. Bechtel has maintained strong relationships with officials in many United States administrations, including those of Nixon, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. The company also has strong ties to other governments, particularly the Saudi Royal Family.

Recently, the company has come under criticism for alleged mismanagement of the Big Dig project, its financial links to the bin Laden family, and the manner in which it received Iraqi rebuilding contracts after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Politicians in the United States and in Europe have made accusations of cronyism between the George W. Bush administration and Bechtel.

For several years Bechtel owned and operated power plants, water systems, and airports in several countries including the United States, Turkey, and Great Britain. Bechtel's long involvement with oil, power, and water overseas has become a focus of criticism by the growing anti-globalization and environmental movements.”

I am proposing no changes to “The Early 1900s” section.

In the “1930s” section, I am proposing to delete “the” before “Hoover Dam.” Unless you are calling it “the Hoover Dam project,” you do not need the; “Hoover Dam” is the official and appropriate name. Additionally, I am suggesting the sentence regarding our work on the Bay Bridge read as follows “From 1933 to 1936, Bechtel helped build the 8 mile (13 km) long San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.” Bechtel was not the only company that worked on the Bay Bridge.

In the “World War II” section, I am proposing to delete the last sentence: “The Committee would later criticize the shipbuilding industry for its wartime activities, including fraud, bribery, and other forms of corruption.” Unless Bechtel was specifically mentioned (and I have not seen anything anywhere suggesting that), I’m not sure what this adds to the entry, beyond trying to insinuate that since Bechtel was part of this industry, we must have been corrupt, committed fraud, etc. I am more than happy to look at material on this issue if it exists.

In the fourth paragraph of the Post-war era: late 40s through 50s section, I am proposing to add the word “commercial” to the sentence so that it reads “In 1956, Bechtel won the right to build the world's first commercial nuclear power reactor, the Dresden-1 in Illinois.”

I have no proposed changes for “60s and 70s” section.

For the “1980s” section, I am proposing deleting the term “dual-use” just before chemical plant. In the late 1980s, Bechtel was in fact the project manager for a new petrochemical complex designed to support the civilian plastics, rubber, and paint industries. Construction of the complex had barely begun by August 1990, when Iraq arrested Bechtel's employees and their dependents (following the invasion of Kuwait). Bechtel did not work in Iraq again until the start of its USAID contract. Suggestions that the proposed complex might have been intended for military use are unsubstantiated and implausible. Speculation that Iraq planned to convert the plant's intended ethylene output to mustard gas production ignores the fact that Iraq based its mustard gas production on thiodiglycol, not ethylene. Had Iraq ever changed its production technology, it already had ample ethylene supplies from the existing PC-1 petrochemical complex, built in the early 1980s (not by Bechtel).

With my proposed edits, the section would read as follows: “Bechtel's recent history has been fraught with controversy. In 1988, just after Saddam Hussein had earned international condemnation for using poisonous gas against thousands of Kurds, Bechtel signed contracts with Iraq to build a chemical plant. Bechtel never completed the project due to the onset of the Gulf War in 1990.

In 1989, Bechtel repaired the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge after a 30 ft. (9 m) section collapsed as a result of the Loma Prieta Earthquake.”

I am proposing several edits to the “2000 and beyond” section.

With my edits, the first paragraph would read as follows:

“In 2000, activists claim Bechtel signed a contract with Hugo Banzer, the elected president and former dictator of Bolivia, to manage the water supply in Bolivia's 3rd-largest city, Cochabamba. The contract was officially awarded to a company named Aguas del Tunari, a consortium in which Bechtel held a 27.5% interest. Shortly thereafter, water rates in that city went up an average of about 50 percent, which resulted in protests and rioting among those who could no longer afford clean water. (Bechtel argues that its contract was only to administer the water system, which suffered from terrible internal corruption and poor service, and that the local government raised water prices.) Many people had to withdraw their children from school and stop using doctors because of higher costs for water. Martial law was declared, and Bolivian police killed at least 6 people and injured over 170 protesters. Amidst Bolivia's nationwide economic collapse and growing national unrest over the state of the economy, the Bolivian government was withdrew the water contract. In 2001, Bechtel filed suit against the Bolivian government, citing damages of more than $25 million. The continuing legal battle attracted attention from anti-globalization and anti-capitalist groups. This topic is explored in the 2003 documentary film The Corporation and on Bechtel’s website. In January 2006, Bechtel and the other international partners settled their lawsuit against the Bolivian government for a reported $0.30 (thirty cents) after intense protests and a ruling favorable to Bechtel by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.”

Most of the edits are stylistic. From a factual standpoint, Aguas del Tunari technically was not a subsidiary of Bechtel, but rather a consortium that Bechtel was part of. Also, it I think it is important to note that the settlement did not happen until after the ruling by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.

Regarding the next two paragraphs on the Boston Central Artery Tunnel project, I would like to include a hyperlink to our website with our rebuttals. The paragraphs, with my edits, would read as follows:

“In early 2003, the Boston Globe launched an investigation into Bechtel's role in massive cost overruns and accounting irregularities in Boston's Big Dig project totaling over $1 billion. Bechtel rebutted the allegations on its website. The Globe, along with the Associated Press, filed papers requesting that Massachusetts Turnpike Authority make public the results of all Bechtel's performance audits related to the Big Dig. Bechtel sought a preliminary injunction to block the release of the documents, but the superior court judge in the case denied Bechtel's request on April 11, 2003, opening the way for public release of the documents.”

In late 2004, a significant leak sprouted in the Big Dig’s Ted Williams Tunnel, due to a contractor’s failure to remove gravel or other debris before pouring concrete. Bechtel acknowledged failing to catch and correct the error. The Boston Globe also made a major issue of many small leaks that sprang from gaps in the roof of the tunnel; these were later sealed by the tunnel contractors as part of the normal construction process, but resulted in much embarrassment for Bechtel.”

The next few paragraphs regarding Bechtel’s connections was the section that I tinkered with the most, but I don’t think my edits take away from the author’s main point that Bechtel is politically connected. We can’t dispute that a number of former government officials have worked at Bechtel, that some Bechtel employees have left the company to serve in the government (we’re very proud to be associated with people like Secretary Shultz), or that Riley Bechtel was a member of the President’s Export Council. Additionally, we can’t dispute that company executives and employees have contributed large sums of money to political campaigns (of both parties, though, not just Republicans).

One issue I would ask to be deleted is the allegation that then Secretary of State Shultz sent current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as an envoy to Iraq with Saddam Hussein a Bechtel contract for an oil pipeline to Jordan. Relevant State Department documents, available from the National Security Archive, show that Rumsfeld had many items on his agenda during visits to Baghdad, including the future of Lebanon, the security of the Gulf, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, terrorism, and containment of the war with Iran. With regard to pipelines, far from giving unconditional backing to Bechtel, Rumsfeld acknowledged problems with the Aqaba route and noted further that Iraq should not limit itself to one route. The administration's policy also was not at all hidden; on the contrary, the media widely reported that Washington wanted to help Iraq export its oil in the face of Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping. Mr. Shultz completely recused himself from any discussion of the Aqaba pipeline. As he notes in his memoirs, all reports on the pipeline project "were withheld from me at the time, as it appeared that the Bechtel Corporation might have a role in such a project and I had totally removed myself from knowledge of any matter than involved Bechtel." (238n)

With my proposed edits, the paragraph would read as follows: “Bechtel has long had close ties to the American government. From 1974 to 1982 George Shultz, former Secretary of Treasury and future Secretary of State, was president and director. Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was general counsel for Bechtel in the late 1970’s. Former Deputy Secretary of Energy W. Kenneth Davis was Bechtel's vice-president. Riley Bechtel, the company's chair, was on President George W. Bush's Export Council. Jack Sheehan, a former senior vice-president of Bechtel, was a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board. The Clinton administration also appointed senior Bechtel managers to advisory posts. Like most large American companies, Bechtel and its employees have contributed large amounts of money to United States politicians (over a million dollars in campaign contributions between 1999 and 2002).”

Regarding the paragraph on our USAID Iraq contract, it is important to note that our contract was in fact awarded through a competitive bidding process (although other contracts clearly were not). Additionally, I am asking that the sentence about an alleged report submitted by Saddam Hussein to the UN revealing that Bechtel had assisted Iraq in its nuclear program because it is not true. Bechtel provided no assistance for Iraq’s weapons programs -- chemical, conventional or nuclear -- and the U.S. government has never accused it of such. Bechtel’s two projects in Iraq in the 1980s were civilian: a hydroelectric dam and the previously mentioned conventional petrochemical plant.

With my proposed edits, the paragraph would read as follows: “On April 17, 2003, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, USAID awarded a $680 million reconstruction contract to Bechtel. Although Bechtel’s contract was awarded by competitive bid, this job placed the company in the spotlight along with other American firms like Halliburton who came under intense international scrutiny for receiving no-bid contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. Critics in both the United States and allies like Britain have questioned the process by which the U.S. awarded Iraq contracts to American companies.” In addition to some minor edits to regarding the paragraph about the New Yorker article, I feel it is important to add a sentence that bin Laden family has renounced Osama bin Laden and his terrorist acts. A reader could mistakenly jump to the conclusion that Bechtel somehow supports or has a relationship with Osama bin Laden, because we do not. The new paragraph with my proposed edits, would read as follows:

“On May 5, 2003, The New Yorker ran an article revealing that the bin Laden family had passively invested several million dollars in The Fremont Group, a private equity fund owned by the Bechtel family. The bin Laden family, prominent in the Saudi construction industry, has renounced al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.”

With minor edits, the last two paragraphs would read as follows: “In 2004, a contract was awarded to Bechtel in Romania for building a highway ("Autostrada Transilvania"). The contract came under criticism from the European Union because it was awarded through negotiation, not competitive bid. In 2005, the new Romanian government held up the project to renegotiate the contract. It was reauthorized in 2006.

In 2005, Bechtel was awarded a contract by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to install temporary housing for the Hurricane Katrina disaster relief effort. Bechtel installed more than 35,000 trailers and mobile homes, serving nearly 100,000 disaster victims, within six months—a record pace for federal emergency programs.”

Finally, I am proposing some minor edits to the “Former and Current Executives” and the Board of directors” sections. First, I am asking that it be noted that Riley Bechtel was a member of the Export Council for one year. Additionally, General Sheehan retired from Bechtel and also is no longer a member of the Defense Policy Board. Finally, Rick Burt is no longer on the board of directors; Judith Miller took his place. These sections would read as follows. Former and Current Executives • Riley P. Bechtel is the CEO of Bechtel. With a net worth of $3.2 billion, he is the 50th richest person in the U.S. and the 127th richest in the world. In February 2003, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Export Council, which advises the president on international trade issues. He served for one year. • George P. Shultz is the former U.S. Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, former president of Bechtel, and a current Bechtel director. He also serves on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. • The late Caspar Weinberger served as the United States Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan. Prior to holding this position, Weinberger was the Vice President, Director, and General Counsel of the Bechtel Group of companies. • Gen. John J. Sheehan, USMC (ret.) is the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and the former Special Advisor to Asia for the U.S. Defense Department. Sheehan was a former General Manager of the Petroleum and Chemical Business Unit for Europe/Africa/Middle East/South West Asia and is also a Bechtel partner. He is also a former member of the Defense Policy Board. • Ross J. Connelly is the former CEO of Bechtel Energy Resources Corporation. He currently serves on the Overseas Private Investment Corporation under George W. Bush. • W. Kenneth Davis is a former Bechtel senior vice-president and is the former U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary. Board of directors Current members of the board of directors of Bechtel Corporation are: Riley Bechtel, Steve Bechtel, Jr., Alan Dachs, Peter Dawson, Bill Dudley, Tom Hash, Bill Haynes, Sir John Jennings, Jude Laspa, Judith Miller, Nick Moore, Scott Ogilvie, George Shultz, Tim Statton, Foster Wollen, and Adrian Zaccaria.

Thanks for your time in looking through this very long posting. I look forward to any discussion and will make actually enter my edits based on that.

Sincerely,

Tom Glegola External Affairs Associate Bechtel Corporation San Francisco, CA 94105

Wow, I'm impressed by Bechtel's approach to WP, which is (in my opinion) the right one for a company to take. Say what you will about Bechtel, but their approach to Wikipedia is admirable. Paul 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First, just wanted thank the previous gentleman for his kind words. Since no other comments have been made, I edited the entry today (May 5, 2006). One edit I did not mention before is that Mr. Shultz just retired from the Board. If anyone has any concerns regarding the edits, please let me know.

Tom Glegola Bechtel Corporation

Bolivia and rain

This article mentions the claim that it was illegal to collect rain water in Bolivia. It actually makes the much stronger claim of blaming Bechtel for the alledged law. As pointed out above, the Aguas del Tunari consortium not Bechtel was contracted to run the waterworks etc... . This claim also appears in the movie The Corporation. Can anyone provide more references for this point (supporting or debunking)? Funkyj 07:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com has this article that says:

"n Bolivia, a Bechtel subsidiary made it illegal to collect rainwater on one's own property without a permit. [1]"

but the hyperlink for their end note [1] is no longer valid. OK, so these folks make the susidiary verses minority stake in a consortium mistake but lets stay focused rain collecting issue: Did or did not such a prohibition on collecting rain water (e.g. a permit is required) exist? If it did exist, when did it come in to existence? Funkyj 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the chance to clear this question up.

Aguas del Tunari (AdT) did not buy and did not own Cochabamba's water utility or water resources. AdT also did not regulate the collection of rain water. It only charged for water provided through the network it operated as a contractor to the government. It did not charge for water from private or cooperative wells.

The national water legislation, which was unrelated to the AdT concession, placed restrictions on new wells, and was particularly unpopular with both small farmers and wealthy landowners. Under the new water laws, for the first time, ground water resources were designated as national resources, subject to regulation and control by the national government. Opposition to the proposed new water law also came from coca-leaf growers in the Cochabamba region who feared a threat to their livelihood. Their leader, Evo Morales, is president of Bolivia today and was a major force behind the protests against AdT.

Despite both government and AdT assurances, the ambiguity of the law led to popular confusion regarding water rights which, fed by demagogic political campaigners, inflamed popular protests in Cochabamba.

For further information from an independent source, I would encourage you to read an article published by the Bulletin of Latin American Research in January 2002, “The Limitations of Water Regulation: The Failure of the Cochabamba Concession in Bolivia,” by Andrew Nickson (professor from the School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham, England) and Claudia Vargas (the water superintendent for La Paz, Bolivia). You may access this article at the following: http://www.idd.bham.ac.uk/research/publications/Staff/water_reg.pdf

I hope this helps,

Tom Glegola Bechtel Corporation

Thanks Tom. As a Bechtel employee it is your job to be biased. None the less I must complement you on your professional presentation of the Bechtel side of the story. Funkyj 23:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and your willingness to consider Bechtel's side. Also, just wanted to alert anyone reading this to a slight edit I made to the paragraph about the Bechtel family owning the company since it was incorporated in 1925. After reading it a second time, that wasn't completely accurate, so I changed it to "The Bechtel family incorporated the company in 1925."

Tom Glegola Bechtel Corporation

Shame on you, Wikipedians. I have no information directly related to this area, but it seems to me that WP users are being completely taken in by Mr Glegola's company propaganda. While Bechtel and its employees are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution, and I will not undertake to make unresearched edits or reverts, please read his (for example) last paragraph in reply to the water question carefully; you will see that he says nothing in direct response to the query. That reply ought to be edited out not for inaccuracy or falsehood, but simply for irrelevancy. I have no axe to grind on this topic, but am simply annoyed that a company spokesperson (no matter what company) makes routine contributions to an encyclopedia article about the company, which go unchallenged. Common sense and business experience dictate that such contributions be assumed completely false unless and until independent research verifies. Whenever a response does not genuinely reply to the original question or comment, it is generally clear that there is an embarrassing truth being concealed. Anyone who has worked in the business world knows this, or ought to know this. It is generally true in the non-profit domain as well. E.g., a foundation questioned on its grants: If they engage in the kind of obfuscatory language, evasion, etc. of diplomats and politicians, and Mr. Glegola here, it is generally obvious that something (usually improper) is being concealed. Shame on you, Wikipedians. 66.108.4.183 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

i agree. the article seems slanted towards betchel now. i think the language used seems bland and obscure. the article needs checking; how can an independent encyclodpaedia rely on a multinational corporation for its facts when the share price of that company depends on good its pr is.

Take notice, on the front page it states Bechtel is privately owned. There is no share price. Just thought I'd clear that up. Sincerely, Another Bechtel Employee

OUR COMPANY IS CORRUPT. THEY HAVE A COMPLETE MONOPOLY OF INFORMATION. SIMPLY BY POSTING THIS TO WIKIPEDIA, I RUN THE RISK OF BEING TERMINATED BY BECHTEL. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THIS CORPORATION IS ACTUALLY ABOUT, LOOK UP THE FILM "THE CORPORATION" ON WIKIPEDIA. - Another Bechtel Employee

To "Another bechtel employee": If you hate your employer so much should should probably quit. I find your lack of loalty to those employing you disgusting: You have every right o disagree with them but if you do so the the extent that you seem to I think that taking their money (and doing their bidding) is a little hypocritical. Also: ALL CAPS ARE NEVER NEEEDED!111!! (see how stupid that looks?).

To everyone else: I think this artical comes off as distinctly biased AGAINST Bechtel... I was visiting the Bechtel page to find more information on the company for two reason: 1. I read that they were (or still are involved in the construction of the mile high tower and 2. The president of the company I work for spoke very highly of them. I was suprised to find NO positive sounding material here and a lot of negetive. Also I am in favor of removing the enviromental section entirely: The incidents mentioned were by NO standards large or numorous enough (given the size of the company) to warrant inclusion in this artical... Their presence indicates SIGNIFICANT negetive bias... Believe me I do not visit talk paged often... To get me here the bias had to be pretty noticable. I must say I trust wikipedia in general and regularily defend it to co-workers and friend but in this case I am highly dissappointed. Finally: No I do not work for Bechtel, I do not own any part of Bechtel, the company I work for is neither a customer or supplier of Bechtel's... I have no relation to them at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.57.171 (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

• Bantrel is a major subsidiary of Bechtel based in Canada. They are heavily involved in the oil sands development in the province of Alberta. I have corrected the name from Bantrel Inc. to Bantrel Co as per the usage on their webpage (see "Contacts"). The "Inc." is now depreciated.

Warren A. Bechtel

With no predjudice I question the accuracy of the heritage of the company's founder, as described in the article: Jewish-American. I understand that the family's background is German/Catholic, with immediate roots in Pennsylvania.

It's highly unlikely that the family background is Jewish. Many Bechtel's in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Ontario, Canada are Mennonite. All of these trace their roots to the German part of Switzerland. - Trevor Bechtel

Does a corporate PR release like this meet Wikipedia's standard of even handedness?

1.  I agree that this article is mistitled, and should either be retitled using the company's corporate name, or linked via a disambiguation page.  "Bechtel" is a family name, just like my family name "Kellogg".  The only difference is that entering "Kellogg" in the search box takes you to a disambiguation page with lots of significant Kelloggs, whereas entering "Bechtel" simply takes you to this page, which is nothing more than a corporate PR piece.

2.  The value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is that its authors are strongly encouraged to be even handed, presenting pros and cons, the good and the bad, in their articles. And in most cases they try to.  Sorry, but corporate PR by its very nature can't possibly be even handed.

There's an awful lot of good things that can be said about Bechtel Corporation and the company's successes and abilities. Excellence in engineering and engineering techniques is one of them, as well as its old saying of "On time and within budget!" There's only passing reference to Bechtel's leadership in the development of nuclear reactors in the United States, of the complexities and logistics of the oil refineries it has built, nothing about the work and rigors of the Alaska pipeline and ship terminal on the Kenai Penninsula, nothing about the work, planning, and building of the transcontinental gas and oil pipelines, and much more.  I think the company deserves a whole lot better than this flack PR piece, no matter how hard the author worked on it.

Personally, as a former employee of Bechtel in San Francisco during the early 1970's (in Employee Relations: Corporate Policy and Procedures and Wage and Salary administration) my recommendation is that this article be deleted as corporate PR, and as well as for its not meeting the standards expected of a well-written encyclopedia article for Wikipedia, especailly for a major U.S. corporation that has contributed so much to the industrial development of the United States.

K. Kellogg-Smith 04:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

KAPL/Bettis Contract

It was recently announced that Bechtel was awarded the joint contract to operate Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory and Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory.Colinsweet (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Omissions

Wasn't Bechtel involved with the original contruction of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ? Also didn't Bechtel build Experimental Breeder Reactor I, West Valley Reprocessing Plant, got the Three Mile Island accident contract, the infamous Freeport mine, the Ok Tedi Mine, etc. Shouldn't there be a listing of Bechtel's lobby groups like the United States Committee for Energy Awareness, and the US Indonesia Society, etc.?122.106.228.67 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bechtel was also involved in the engineering of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, located in Lusby, MD, which is a notable power plant, on the leading edge of power production. - Dslayer202 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevance & Scale

The reference to a $5000 fine within the Environmental History section is petty and irrelevant. If one listed all similar fines incurred by any company, WP would be Gigabytes larger as these are customary and common in even small construction projects. Dkar3 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)dkar3

Chunnel/Russia

How come no-one has said anything about the Chunnel? I thought Bechtel was involved here too. Also, I know that Warren Bechtel died while he was in Moscow, Russia. They were helping them build some sort of dam. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section, is this a PR controlled article ?

a company this big is bound to have had major fuck ups in the past, how can there possibly not be a criticism section ?

no mention of that book that mentions this company, "confession of an economic hitman"

I have a hard time believing a one sided article like this can stand, there are no advertisers on wikipedia for exactly this reason !!!

76.68.151.36 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)