HALLIBURTON CO - HAL Quarterly Report (10-Q) Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

In our opinion, the condensed consolidated financial statements included herein contain all adjustments necessary to present fairly our financial position as of March 31, 2008, the results of our operations for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, and our cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. Such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. The results of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2008 may not be indicative of results for the full year.

On April 5, 2007, we completed the separation of KBR from us by exchanging the 135.6 million shares of KBR common stock owned by us on that date for 85.3 million shares of our common stock. In the second quarter of 2007, we recorded a gain on the disposition of KBR of approximately $933 million, net of tax and the estimated fair value of the indemnities and guarantees provided to KBR as described below, which is included in income from discontinued operations on the consolidated statement of operations.

We entered into various agreements relating to the separation of KBR, including, among others, a master separation agreement, a registration rights agreement, a tax sharing agreement, transition services agreements, and an employee matters agreement. The master separation agreement provides for, among other things, KBR’s responsibility for liabilities related to its business and Halliburton’s responsibility for liabilities unrelated to KBR’s business. Halliburton provides indemnification in favor of KBR under the master separation agreement for certain contingent liabilities, including Halliburton’s indemnification of KBR and any of its greater than 50%-owned subsidiaries as of November 20, 2006, the date of the master separation agreement, for:

fines or other monetary penalties or direct monetary damages, including disgorgement, as a result of a claim made or assessed by a governmental authority in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Nigeria, Switzerland, and/or Algeria, or a settlement thereof, related to alleged or actual violations occurring prior to November 20, 2006 of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or particular, analogous applicable foreign statutes, laws, rules, and regulations in connection with investigations pending as of that date, including with respect to the construction and subsequent expansion by TSKJ of a natural gas liquefaction complex and related facilities at Bonny Island in Rivers State, Nigeria; and

Additionally, Halliburton provides indemnities, performance guarantees, surety bond guarantees, and letter of credit guarantees that are currently in place in favor of KBR’s customers or lenders under project contract, credit agreements, letters of credit, and other KBR credit instruments. These indemnities and guarantees will continue until they expire at the earlier of: (1) the termination of the underlying project contract or KBR obligations thereunder; (2) the expiration of the relevant credit support instrument in accordance with its terms or release of such instrument by the customer; or (3) the expiration of the credit agreements. Further, KBR and we have agreed that, until December 31, 2009, we will issue additional guarantees, indemnification, and reimbursement commitments for KBR’s benefit in connection with: (a) letters of credit necessary to comply with KBR’s Egypt Basic Industries Corporation ammonia plant contract, KBR’s Allenby & Connaught project, and all other KBR project contracts that were in place as of December 15, 2005; (b) surety bonds issued to support new task orders pursuant to the Allenby & Connaught project, two job order contracts for KBR’s Government and Infrastructure segment, and all other KBR project contracts that were in place as of December 15, 2005; and (c) performance guarantees in support of these contracts. KBR is compensating Halliburton for these guarantees. Halliburton has also provided a limited indemnity, with respect to FCPA governmental and third-party claims, to the lender parties under KBR’s revolving credit agreement expiring in December 2010. KBR has agreed to indemnify Halliburton, other than for the FCPA and Barracuda-Caratinga bolts matter, if Halliburton is required to perform under any of the indemnities or guarantees related to KBR’s revolving credit agreement, letters of credit, surety bonds, or performance guarantees described above.

The tax sharing agreement provides for allocations of United States and certain other jurisdiction tax liabilities between us and KBR. Under the transition services agreements, we continue to provide various interim corporate support services to KBR, and KBR continues to provide various interim corporate support services to us. The fees are determined on a basis generally intended to approximate the fully allocated direct and indirect costs of providing the services, without any profit. Under an employee matters agreement, Halliburton and KBR have allocated liabilities and responsibilities related to current and former employees and their participation in certain benefit plans. Among other items, the employee matters agreement provided for the conversion, which occurred upon completion of the separation of KBR, of stock options and restricted stock awards (with restrictions that had not yet lapsed as of the final separation date) granted to KBR employees under our 1993 Stock and Incentive Plan (1993 Plan) to options and restricted stock awards covering KBR common stock. As of April 5, 2007, these awards consisted of 1.2 million options with a weighted average exercise price per share of $15.01 and approximately 600,000 restricted shares with a weighted average grant-date fair value per share of $17.95 under our 1993 Plan.

In July 2007, we acquired the entire share capital of PSL Energy Services Limited (PSLES), a leading eastern hemisphere provider of process, pipeline, and well intervention services. PSLES has operational bases in the United Kingdom, Norway, the Middle East, Azerbaijan, Algeria, and Asia Pacific. We paid approximately $332 million for PSLES, consisting of $328 million in cash and $4 million in debt assumed, subject to adjustment for working capital purposes. As of March 31, 2008, we had recorded goodwill of $166 million and intangible assets of $61 million on a preliminary basis until our analysis of the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed is complete. Beginning in August 2007, PSLES’s results of operations are included in our Completion and Production segment.

In January 2007, we acquired all intellectual property, current assets, and existing business associated with Calgary-based Ultraline Services Corporation (Ultraline), a division of Savanna Energy Services Corp. Ultraline is a provider of wireline services in Canada. We paid approximately $178 million for Ultraline and recorded goodwill of $124 million and intangible assets of $41 million. Beginning in February 2007, Ultraline’s results of operations are included in our Drilling and Evaluation segment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting a formal investigation into whether improper payments were made to government officials in Nigeria through the use of agents or subcontractors in connection with the construction and subsequent expansion by TSKJ of a multibillion dollar natural gas liquefaction complex and related facilities at Bonny Island in Rivers State, Nigeria. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is also conducting a related criminal investigation. The SEC has also issued subpoenas seeking information, which we and KBR are furnishing, regarding current and former agents used in connection with multiple projects, including current and prior projects, over the past 20 years located both in and outside of Nigeria in which the Halliburton energy services business, KBR or affiliates, subsidiaries or joint ventures of Halliburton or KBR, are or were participants. In September 2006 and October 2007, the SEC and the DOJ, respectively, each requested that we enter into an agreement to extend the statute of limitations with respect to its investigation. We have entered into tolling agreements with the SEC and the DOJ.

TSKJ is a private limited liability company registered in Madeira, Portugal whose members are Technip SA of France, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V. (a subsidiary of Saipem SpA of Italy), JGC Corporation of Japan, and Kellogg Brown & Root LLC (a subsidiary of KBR), each of which had an approximate 25% interest in the venture. TSKJ and other similarly owned entities entered into various contracts to build and expand the liquefied natural gas project for Nigeria LNG Limited, which is owned by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Shell Gas B.V., Cleag Limited (an affiliate of Total), and Agip International B.V. (an affiliate of ENI SpA of Italy).

The SEC and the DOJ have been reviewing these matters in light of the requirements of the FCPA. In addition to performing our own investigation, we have been cooperating with the SEC and the DOJ investigations and with other investigations in France, Nigeria, and Switzerland regarding the Bonny Island project. The government of Nigeria gave notice in 2004 to the French magistrate of a civil claim as an injured party in the French investigation. We also believe that the Serious Fraud Office in the United Kingdom is conducting an investigation relating to the Bonny Island project. Our Board of Directors has appointed a committee of independent directors to oversee and direct the FCPA investigations.

The matters under investigation relating to the Bonny Island project cover an extended period of time (in some cases significantly before our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries and continuing through the current time period). We have produced documents to the SEC and the DOJ from the files of numerous officers and employees of Halliburton and KBR, including current and former executives of Halliburton and KBR, both voluntarily and pursuant to company subpoenas from the SEC and a grand jury, and we are making our employees and we understand KBR is making its employees available to the SEC and the DOJ for interviews. In addition, the SEC has issued a subpoena to A. Jack Stanley, who formerly served as a consultant and chairman of Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and to others, including certain of our and KBR’s current or former executive officers or employees, and at least one subcontractor of KBR. We further understand that the DOJ has issued subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining information abroad, and we understand that other partners in TSKJ have provided information to the DOJ and the SEC with respect to the investigations, either voluntarily or under subpoenas.

The SEC and DOJ investigations include an examination of whether TSKJ’s engagements of Tri-Star Investments as an agent and a Japanese trading company as a subcontractor to provide services to TSKJ were utilized to make improper payments to Nigerian government officials. In connection with the Bonny Island project, TSKJ entered into a series of agency agreements, including with Tri-Star Investments, of which Jeffrey Tesler is a principal, commencing in 1995 and a series of subcontracts with a Japanese trading company commencing in 1996. We understand that a French magistrate has officially placed Mr. Tesler under investigation for corruption of a foreign public official. In Nigeria, a legislative committee of the National Assembly and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, which is organized as part of the executive branch of the government, are also investigating these matters. Our representatives have met with the French magistrate and Nigerian officials. In October 2004, representatives of TSKJ voluntarily testified before the Nigerian legislative committee.

TSKJ suspended the receipt of services from and payments to Tri-Star Investments and the Japanese trading company and has considered instituting legal proceedings to declare all agency agreements with Tri-Star Investments terminated and to recover all amounts previously paid under those agreements. In February 2005, TSKJ notified the Attorney General of Nigeria that TSKJ would not oppose the Attorney General’s efforts to have sums of money held on deposit in accounts of Tri-Star Investments in banks in Switzerland transferred to Nigeria and to have the legal ownership of such sums determined in the Nigerian courts.

As a result of these investigations, information has been uncovered suggesting that, commencing at least 10 years ago, members of TSKJ planned payments to Nigerian officials. We have reason to believe that, based on the ongoing investigations, payments may have been made by agents of TSKJ to Nigerian officials. The government has recently confirmed that it has evidence of such payments. The government has also recently advised Halliburton and KBR that it has evidence of payments to Nigerian officials by another agent in connection with a separate KBR-managed project in Nigeria called the Shell EA project and possibly evidence of payments in connection with other projects in Nigeria, potentially including energy services projects. In addition, information uncovered in the summer of 2006 suggests that, prior to 1998, plans may have been made by employees of The M.W. Kellogg Company (a predecessor of a KBR subsidiary) to make payments to government officials in connection with the pursuit of a number of other projects in countries outside of Nigeria. We are reviewing a number of more recently discovered documents related to KBR’s activities in countries outside of Nigeria with respect to agents for projects after 1998. Certain activities discussed in this paragraph involve current or former employees or persons who were or are consultants to KBR, and our investigation is continuing.

In 2006 and 2007, KBR or Halliburton suspended the services of two agents in and outside of Nigeria, including the agent in connection with the Shell EA project and another agent who, until such suspension, had worked for KBR outside of Nigeria on several current projects and on numerous older projects going back to the early 1980s. Such suspensions have occurred when possible improper conduct has been discovered or alleged or when Halliburton and KBR have been unable to confirm the agent’s compliance with applicable law and the Code of Business Conduct.

The SEC and DOJ are also investigating and have issued subpoenas concerning TSKJ's use of an immigration services provider, apparently managed by a Nigerian immigration official, to which approximately $1.8 million in payments in excess of costs of visas were allegedly made between approximately 1997 and the termination of the provider in December 2004. We understand that TSKJ terminated the immigration services provider after a KBR employee discovered the issue. We reported this matter to the United States government in 2007. The SEC has issued a subpoena requesting documents among other things concerning any payment of anything of value to Nigerian government officials. In response to such subpoena, we have produced and continue to produce additional documents regarding KBR and Halliburton’s energy services business use of immigration and customs service providers, which may result in further inquiries. Furthermore, as a result of these matters, we have expanded our own investigation to consider any matters raised by energy services activities in Nigeria.

If violations of the FCPA were found, a person or entity found in violation could be subject to fines, civil penalties of up to $500,000 per violation, equitable remedies, including disgorgement (if applicable) generally of profits, including prejudgment interest on such profits, causally connected to the violation, and injunctive relief. Criminal penalties could range up to the greater of $2 million per violation or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss from the violation, which could be substantially greater than $2 million per violation. It is possible that both the SEC and the DOJ could assert that there have been multiple violations, which could lead to multiple fines. The amount of any fines or monetary penalties that could be assessed would depend on, among other factors, the findings regarding the amount, timing, nature, and scope of any improper payments, whether any such payments were authorized by or made with knowledge of us, KBR or our or KBR’s affiliates, the amount of gross pecuniary gain or loss involved, and the level of cooperation provided the government authorities during the investigations. The government has expressed concern regarding the level of our cooperation. Agreed dispositions of these types of violations also frequently result in an acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the entity and the appointment of a monitor on terms negotiated with the SEC and the DOJ to review and monitor current and future business practices, including the retention of agents, with the goal of assuring compliance with the FCPA.

These investigations could also result in third-party claims against us, which may include claims for special, indirect, derivative or consequential damages, damage to our business or reputation, loss of, or adverse effect on, cash flow, assets, goodwill, results of operations, business prospects, profits or business value or claims by directors, officers, employees, affiliates, advisors, attorneys, agents, debt holders, or other interest holders or constituents of us or our current or former subsidiaries. In addition, we could incur costs and expenses for any monitor required by or agreed to with a governmental authority to review our continued compliance with FCPA law.

As of March 31, 2008, we are unable to estimate an amount of probable loss or a range of possible loss related to these matters as it relates to Halliburton directly. However, we provided indemnification in favor of KBR under the master separation agreement for certain contingent liabilities, including Halliburton’s indemnification of KBR and any of its greater than 50%-owned subsidiaries as of November 20, 2006, the date of the master separation agreement, for fines or other monetary penalties or direct monetary damages, including disgorgement, as a result of a claim made or assessed by a governmental authority in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Nigeria, Switzerland, and/or Algeria, or a settlement thereof, related to alleged or actual violations occurring prior to November 20, 2006 of the FCPA or particular, analogous applicable foreign statutes, laws, rules, and regulations in connection with investigations pending as of that date, including with respect to the construction and subsequent expansion by TSKJ of a natural gas liquefaction complex and related facilities at Bonny Island in Rivers State, Nigeria. We recorded the estimated fair market value of this indemnity regarding FCPA matters described above upon our separation from KBR. See Note 2 for additional information.

Our indemnification obligation to KBR does not include losses resulting from third-party claims against KBR, including claims for special, indirect, derivative or consequential damages, nor does our indemnification apply to damage to KBR’s business or reputation, loss of, or adverse effect on, cash flow, assets, goodwill, results of operations, business prospects, profits or business value or claims by directors, officers, employees, affiliates, advisors, attorneys, agents, debt holders, or other interest holders or constituents of KBR or KBR’s current or former subsidiaries.

In consideration of our agreement to indemnify KBR for the liabilities referred to above, KBR has agreed that we will at all times, in our sole discretion, have and maintain control over the investigation, defense and/or settlement of these FCPA matters until such time, if any, that KBR exercises its right to assume control of the investigation, defense and/or settlement of the FCPA matters as it relates to KBR. KBR has also agreed, at our expense, to assist with Halliburton’s full cooperation with any governmental authority in our investigation of these FCPA matters and our investigation, defense and/or settlement of any claim made by a governmental authority or court relating to these FCPA matters, in each case even if KBR assumes control of these FCPA matters as it relates to KBR. If KBR takes control over the investigation, defense, and/or settlement of FCPA matters, refuses a settlement of FCPA matters negotiated by us, enters into a settlement of FCPA matters without our consent, or materially breaches its obligation to cooperate with respect to our investigation, defense, and/or settlement of FCPA matters, we may terminate the indemnity.

We also provided indemnification in favor of KBR under the master separation agreement for all out-of-pocket cash costs and expenses (except for legal fees and other expenses of the arbitration so long as KBR controls and directs it), or cash settlements or cash arbitration awards in lieu thereof, KBR may incur after November 20, 2006 as a result of the replacement of certain subsea flowline bolts installed in connection with the Barracuda-Caratinga project. Under the master separation agreement, KBR currently controls the defense, counterclaim, and settlement of the subsea flowline bolts matter. As a condition of our indemnity, for any settlement to be binding upon us, KBR must secure our prior written consent to such settlement’s terms. We have the right to terminate the indemnity in the event KBR enters into any settlement without our prior written consent. See Note 2 for additional information regarding the KBR indemnification.

At Petrobras’ direction, KBR replaced certain bolts located on the subsea flowlines that failed through mid-November 2005, and KBR has informed us that additional bolts have failed thereafter, which were replaced by Petrobras. These failed bolts were identified by Petrobras when it conducted inspections of the bolts. A key issue in the arbitration is which party is responsible for the designation of the material to be used for the bolts. We understand that KBR believes that an instruction to use the particular bolts was issued by Petrobras, and as such, KBR believes the cost resulting from any replacement is not KBR’s responsibility. We understand Petrobras disagrees. We understand KBR believes several possible solutions may exist, including replacement of the bolts. Estimates indicate that costs of these various solutions range up to $140 million. In March 2006, Petrobras commenced arbitration against KBR claiming $220 million plus interest for the cost of monitoring and replacing the defective bolts and all related costs and expenses of the arbitration, including the cost of attorneys’ fees. We understand KBR is vigorously defending and pursuing recovery of the costs incurred to date through the arbitration process and to that end has submitted a counterclaim in the arbitration seeking the recovery of $22 million. The arbitration panel held an evidentiary hearing during the week of March 31, 2008 and took evidence and arguments under advisement.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (“AMSF”) v. Halliburton Company, et al. We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In early May 2003, we entered into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon which the Moore class action would be settled. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure (the “Dresser claims”). The memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our CEO. The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and Halliburton. In response to a motion by the lead plaintiff, on February 26, 2007, the court ordered the removal and replacement of their co-lead counsel. In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a United States Supreme Court opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of our CEO. The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008. In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. A hearing was held in March 2008, and we await the court’s ruling. The case is set for trial in July 2009.

At December 31, 2004, we resolved all open and future asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and our other affected subsidiaries that had previously been named as defendants in a large number of asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits. During 2004, we settled insurance disputes with substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the resolution of our Chapter 11 proceedings, we have agreed to indemnify our insurers under certain historic general liability insurance policies in certain situations. We have concluded that the likelihood of any claims triggering the indemnity obligations is remote, and we believe any potential liability for these indemnifications will be immaterial. Further, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be made. At March 31, 2008, we had not recorded any liability associated with these indemnifications.

On February 16, 2007, we were informed that M-I, LLC, a competitor of ours in the drilling fluids market, had sued us for allegedly attempting to monopolize the market for invert emulsion drilling fluids used in deep water and/or in cold water temperatures. The claims M-I, LLC asserted were based upon its allegation that the patent issued for our Accolade® drilling fluid was invalid as a result of its allegedly having been procured by fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that our subsequent prosecution of an infringement action against M-I, LLC amounted to predatory conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. M-I, LLC also alleged that we falsely advertised our Accolade® drilling fluid in violation of the Lanham Act and California law and that our earlier infringement action amounted to malicious prosecution in violation of Texas state law. This case was settled in the first quarter of 2008 for an immaterial amount.

In April 2005, Dirt, Inc. brought suit in Alabama against Bredero-Shaw (a joint venture in which we formerly held a 50% interest that we sold to the other party in the venture, ShawCor Ltd., in 2002), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and ShawCor Ltd., claiming that Bredero-Shaw disposed of hazardous waste in a construction materials landfill owned and operated by Dirt, Inc. Bredero-Shaw has offered to take responsibility for cleanup of the site. The plaintiff did not accept that offer, and the method and cost of such cleanup are disputed, with expert opinions ranging from $6 million to $144 million. On November 1, 2007, the trial court in the above-referenced matter entered a judgment in the total amount of $108 million, of which Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. could be responsible for as much as 50%. We are pursuing an appeal and believe that it is probable that the Alabama Supreme Court will reverse the trial court’s judgment because, among other things:

In addition to the federal laws and regulations, states and other countries where we do business often have numerous environmental, legal, and regulatory requirements by which we must abide. We evaluate and address the environmental impact of our operations by assessing and remediating contaminated properties in order to avoid future liabilities and comply with environmental, legal, and regulatory requirements. On occasion, we are involved in specific environmental litigation and claims, including the remediation of properties we own or have operated, as well as efforts to meet or correct compliance-related matters. Our Health, Safety and Environment group has several programs in place to maintain environmental leadership and to prevent the occurrence of environmental contamination.

We do not expect costs related to these remediation requirements to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or our results of operations. Our accrued liabilities for environmental matters were $70 million as of March 31, 2008 and $72 million as of December 31, 2007. Our total liability related to environmental matters covers numerous properties, including the property in regard to which Dirt, Inc. has brought suit against Bredero-Shaw (a joint venture in which we formerly held a 50% interest that we sold to the other party in the venture, ShawCor Ltd., in 2002), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and ShawCor Ltd. See “Dirt, Inc. litigation” in this note for further information regarding this matter.

We have subsidiaries that have been named as potentially responsible parties along with other third parties for 9 federal and state superfund sites for which we have established a liability. As of March 31, 2008, those 9 sites accounted for approximately $10 million of our total $70 million liability. For any particular federal or state superfund site, since our estimated liability is typically within a range and our accrued liability may be the amount on the low end of that range, our actual liability could eventually be well in excess of the amount accrued. Despite attempts to resolve these superfund matters, the relevant regulatory agency may at any time bring suit against us for amounts in excess of the amount accrued. With respect to some superfund sites, we have been named a potentially responsible party by a regulatory agency; however, in each of those cases, we do not believe we have any material liability. We also could be subject to third-party claims with respect to environmental matters for which we have been named as a potentially responsible party.

In the normal course of business, we have agreements with banks under which approximately $2.4 billion of letters of credit, surety bonds, or bank guarantees were outstanding as of March 31, 2008, including $1.1 billion that relate to KBR. These KBR letters of credit, surety bonds, or bank guarantees are being guaranteed by us in favor of KBR’s customers and lenders. KBR has agreed to compensate us for these guarantees and indemnify us if we are required to perform under any of these guarantees. Some of the outstanding letters of credit have triggering events that would entitle a bank to require cash collateralization.

Excluded from the computation of diluted income per share are options to purchase four million shares of common stock that were outstanding during the three months ended March 31, 2008 and options to purchase three million shares that were outstanding during the three months ended March 31, 2007. These options were outstanding during these quarters but were excluded because they were antidilutive, as the option exercise price was greater than the average market price of the common shares.

In February 2006, our Board of Directors approved a share repurchase program of up to $1.0 billion. In September 2006, our Board of Directors approved an increase to our existing common share repurchase program of up to an additional $2.0 billion. In July 2007, our Board of Directors approved an additional increase to our existing common share repurchase program of up to $2.0 billion, bringing the entire authorization to $5.0 billion. This additional authorization may be used for open market share purchases or to settle the conversion premium on our 3.125% convertible senior notes, should they be redeemed. From the inception of this program, we have repurchased approximately 89 million shares of our common stock for approximately $3.0 billion at an average price of $34.28 per share. These amounts include the repurchases of approximately 10 million shares of our common stock for approximately $360 million at an average price of $37.26 per share during the first quarter of 2008. As of March 31, 2008, approximately $2.0 billion remained available under this program.

In March 2008, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 161, “Disclosure about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities – An Amendment of FASB Statement No. 133.” SFAS No. 161 requires more disclosures about an entity’s derivative and hedging activities in order to improve the transparency of financial reporting. SFAS No. 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early application encouraged. This Statement encourages, but does not require, comparative disclosures for earlier periods at initial adoption. We will adopt the provisions of SFAS No. 161 on January 1, 2009, which we do not expect will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements,” which is intended to increase consistency and comparability in fair value measurements by defining fair value, establishing a framework for measuring fair value, and expanding disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies to other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007 and interim periods within those fiscal years. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 157-1, “Application of FASB Statement No. 157 to FASB Statement No. 13 and Other Accounting Pronouncements That Address Fair Value Measurements for Purposes of Lease Classification or Measurement under Statement 13,” which removes certain leasing transactions from the scope of SFAS No. 157, and FSP FAS 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157,” which defers the effective date of SFAS No. 157 for one year for certain nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities, except those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis. On January 1, 2008, we adopted without material impact on our consolidated financial statements the provisions of SFAS No. 157 related to financial assets and liabilities and to nonfinancial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis. Beginning January 1, 2009, we will adopt the provisions for nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities that are not required or permitted to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis, which include those measured at fair value in goodwill impairment testing, indefinite-lived intangible assets measured at fair value for impairment assessment, nonfinancial long-lived assets measured at fair value for impairment assessment, asset retirement obligations initially measured at fair value, and those initially measured at fair value in a business combination. We do not expect the provisions of SFAS No. 157 related to these items to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.