Good day Ladies and Gentlemen and welcome to the second quarter 2008 Weatherford International earnings conference call. My name is Ericka and I’ll be your coordinator for today. At this time all participants on a listen-only mode. We will be facilitating a question and answer session towards the end of the conference. (Operator Instructions) I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today’s call, Mr. Bernard Duroc-Danner, Chairman and CEO.

Andy, why don’t you get started.

For our second quarter of 2008 we report fully diluted earnings of $0.43 per share before non-recurring items. During Q2 our operations extended their streak of consistent execution. High quality well site performance, successful ramp up of younger technologies, and incremental seeding of new product lines all continued as expected. Predictably however, Q2 was a challenging quarter for Weatherford from a financial point of view given the seasonal decline in Canada and acceleration of mobilization costs associated with new contracts. Our reported earnings this quarter exclude an uplift of $71 million after tax or $0.10 per share from the following three items: One, an $81 million after-tax gain on the establishment of our joint venture in Qatar with QPC; two, a $17 million in after-tax costs incurred in connection with our exit from sanctioned countries and our ongoing government investigations; (3) $7 million after-tax gain related to our discontinued E&P operations. EPS Comparison; at $0.43 earnings per share are down 14% sequentially and are up 26% year-on-year. The sequential drop of $0.07 was comprised of the following: a $0.06 of sequential decline from the field and a net $0.01 decline from non-operational items. Increases in corporate, R&D, interest, and other cost $0.02 while the 15.9% effective rate for the quarter helped by $0.01. Our effective tax rate for the full year is projected to land between 17% and 18%. On the corporate side, investments in process improvement, supply chain, service delivery, and support functions added to expense. A $4 million loss in fx added to other expense. Year-on-year the field contributed $0.12 while non-operational items hurt earnings by $0.03. Operating Performance Consolidated Overview. On a consolidated basis sequential revenue grew $33 million or 2%. International revenue was up 10% or $111 million with double-digit percentage growth posted by Latin America…

Q2 is never our easiest quarter to shine. As most of you know we are for historical reasons heavily Canadian, far more than our peers. Not that long ago Canada was 25% of our company. This Canadian Q2 was worse than we expected. It wasn’t any better than Q207 was a trough for us. Summing up the forces in motion Q2 saw five moving parts: One, Canada hitting the same trough it reached in 07; two, early and impressive strength across the board in the United States in both volume and pricing; three, good performance for Middle East/Asia Pac in both top line and incrementals; for performance for Europe/West Africa/CIS top line below percent incremental due to mix; four, acceleration of bookings in Eastern Hemisphere was the highest level bookings to date; and five, a conscious decision early in the quarter to start and accelerate mobilization in Mexico. Company-wide sequential comparisons are meaningful because of the relative weight of the Canadian breakup. Year-on-year comparisons [coeless] around the number 25%. Year-on-year Q207 on Q208 grew top line by 23%, earnings by 26.5%, and employee count by 25%. Year-on-year the Eastern Hemisphere and Latin America grew by 30% and 31% respectively. Sequential growth was 9% Eastern Hemisphere and 15% Latin America. Adding the two together the international segment grew sequentially by 10% and year-on-year by 31%. We expect Eastern Hemisphere and Latin America year-on-year growth to accelerate as the year progresses. Sequential incrementals in international segments were unusually suppressed in Latin America. The reason is the margins were reflected by large mobilization costs in Mexico. By contrast sequential incrementals in Middle East and Asia Pac were 29% in spite of their own share of mobilization activity, while Europe/West Africa/CIS incrementals were lower in Q2 for idiosyncratic product mix reasons. Year-on-year incrementals for…

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Jim Crandell - Lehman Brothers.

Good to hear that things are going well at Chicontepec. With the drilling conditions and infrastructure easier than other IPM work there, with your subcontractors lined up, and your facility on or ahead of schedule, what are the risks in your judgment of this being a solidly profitable contract in 09? You talked about the chances, I think you said that it was not even remote that it could be a loss contract, but could go wrong here as far as that project is concerned that could make it say a lower margin project than what you are forecasting?

Given that we’ve assigned no P&L in 08, that gives us I think time to sort out the quality of the crews, good functioning of the equipment, which is typical in those projects. But the answer looking into 09 is I can’t think really of anything that could make this into a non-performing contract in 09. We have six months to sort out the teething problems on the contract.

Bernard, have Paramex’s plans changed at all relative to Chicontepec? I know there’s been some change orders already; probably some future ones to come which I think have enhanced the outlook for you. Do you think your work within the next 12 months will ultimately exceed this $900 million and will change orders even improve the margin picture from here?

Chicontepec is as I mentioned in my comments a particularly important reservoir field for Paramex. It is a field that is in early development. It is a large field. The development scale, number of wells to be drilled per annum, is in the 1,500 to 1,800 wells per annum or something like that and the time that it’ll take off the field is something north of 10 years. So clearly the architects who are responsible for part of the drilling on Chicontepec will do well operationally. We’ll be in a good position; not a guaranteed position but a good position to stay on that field throughout that period of time and probably grow with the drilling activity to develop that field. So it becomes in a way if you perform well it becomes almost like a contract annuity if I can use that term of a large scale for a very, very long time, almost as if you had acquired a company to a degree by giving you a top line and a source of cash flow. But again you have to perform from an operating standpoint which means you have to be efficient, you have to be fast, you have to be accurate. The wells are not difficult but still you have to be the three things I just mentioned.

Bernard, on your three IPM contract awards in the East that you won this quarter, were these competitively bid awards and are there any of some size you can comment further on?

Of the three, two were competitively bid, one was negotiated. I would say that if you take the eight projects that are being mobilized, in different stages of mobilization right now, and you put them all together, the top line that it should represent in the aggregate for the first year of them all running together would be approximately $1 billion to $1.1 billion a year. Of that number there is about $800 million to $900 million which is our products and services. There isn’t much pass-through. The reason is that those contracts typically in the East do not include tubular. Tubulars normally run 25% or so of any project. The fact they’re not there means the pass-through becomes a very small number as a percentage of the whole. It’s different in Chicontepec.

And you also commented Bernard about wide differences in pricing in the US by product line. Can you elaborate on the areas where you’ve been able to put through more significant price increases and the segments where it’s difficult?

I don’t want to. I can tell you that on the product side we’ve been able to do very, very well. Our products are of course a broader range or moving from artificial lift through to liner hangers and completion, etc. etc. On the service side is where there are major differences. Some of the services are doing very, very well. Other services basically you’re in cost recovery mode essentially. And that’s where the difference is greater. I’d rather not mention the product lines.

Last question for Andy, can you give us a sense given the big ramp up of year-end Canada over some of the revenue growth that you think you can achieve in Canada versus last year and then from the second quarter level the level of incremental margins that can come out of Canada?

You’re thinking year-on-year second half of 08 versus 07?

Yes.

I think it should be in the 20% range.

And what margins, using the second quarter as a base, on the incremental revenue do you think you can achieve coming out of the seasonal trough?

There’ll be very, very healthy margins obviously. They always are in Q3 in terms of incrementals. They’ll be north of 60%. I think we might very well be in that area going into Q4 depending on how we do on pricing and volume. I think it’s safe to assume from a rig count perspective of looking something on or around 400 rigs in Q3 and something north of that in Q4. The healthier that is, the better we do on utilization, the better we do on pricing and it also depends on where the work is in Q4, you could see very healthy incrementals in Q4 and Q3.

Our next question comes from William Herbert - Simmons & Company International. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Bernard and Andy, what was the dollar magnitude of start-up costs for Q2 in Mexico?

It’s hard to be precise about these things because of when you start. I think $15 million is probably right; there about. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: And we’ve got a couple of phases left before year end, so how should we think about a road map for Latin American margins as the year unfolds? Are they flat from this point forward until we get to a sufficient level? Do they go down? Do they revive? How should we think about that?

I think you should see them relatively flat from where they were in Q2. For Q3 and Q4 with a substantial recovery as that project’s margins grow on it, you get the kinks worked out and start-up costs behind you, and the rest of the underlying business for Latin America improves. You should think north of 24%-type margins for full year 09. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Certainly with regard to Mexico once again, what’s the current run rate of Mexican revenues and what should we expect 09 revenues from Mexico to be?

I think you’re running at $250 million in Mexico. And your second question, you wanted the 09? William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Yes. A range is fine.

Bill it depends on where it is. Just take that $900 million of the project, assume better than 25% underlying growth on the rest of the business on a per annum basis, and then how do you want to split that $900 million. And that just depends on when a well site’s ready, how many wells get drilled this year. It’s easier for you to figure out average costs if you will or average revenue per well, so I think it’s better if we report that ex-post so as not to get you too far ahead or too far behind. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: So the current run rate’s $250 million.

$250 million looking back. Looking forward stick on a 30% increase or there about and you put as much on Chicontepec as you want in 09. We will not be late. We’re obviously not late. So we’ll be ready. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: And what were the Mexican revenues in 07?

$200 million?

Just south of $200 million. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Last one for me, with regard to US pricing, pressure pumping pricing, what are you guys seeing on that front? Is it bleeding modestly? Is it stagnating? What’s going on-on that front?

It’s not weakening any further which is already a positive. There is recovery for some of the most painful cost increases; example fuel and the like, it does not have the balance on the upside and the other products and service lines have. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: And would you expect before year end in pressure pumping that you would be the beneficiary of net pricing gains?

It depends how much new capacity some of the smaller players - I mean, we’re a small player ourselves but we’re static - but of the smaller players that are more aggressive and also smaller [inaudible] anyway, how much capacity is put on.

Our next question comes from Ole Slorer - Morgan Stanley.

Bernard, I didn’t quite catch what you said about the nine large integrated drilling projects. How do these projects compare in size on average with Chicontepec?

You’ve got eight projects. Nine is eight in the East and one in the West, the one in the West being Mexico. Probably best to look at the numbers. I gave two indications that the overall billings for 09 or the first year of all eight of them running together, which will be by the end of Q1 presumably, that runs about $1.1 billion for 12 months and is about three years commitment. So you’ve got roughly $3.3 billion between the eight, so $3.3 billion divided by eight gives you an idea of what the overall commitments are. Some are large; some are not so large.

So these in aggregate are a little larger than Chicontepec, is that the way we should view it?

I think the average project is about $400 million to $425 million except Chicontepec which is $900 million. But there are eight of them. The other aspect of these projects is that they have a higher Weatherford part of service line intensity than Mexico insofar as you don’t include tubular. That’s a major difference. And tubulars as you know is between 20% to 25% of any project and so the fact there is no tubulars means that the amount of pass-through in the East is something like 15% of the ticket on average whereas obviously in Mexico it’s different.

So the annual run rates on these eight contracts should be larger?

Yes, it is, of course. The eight contracts are contracted for a longer period than Mexico. Mexico is just one year if you think about it. These contracts run roughly at $1.1 billion give and take and then of course without pass-through it’s more like $900 million for one year, so you understand.

What does that [inaudible] in your opinion this step change in integrated project management or whatever you want to call it full year?

First I think it’s rewarding to see that combining expertise in running rigs works very well with directional and on the balance on the rest of it. It really does. It works not only from a marketing standpoint, it also seems to work from an operating standpoint. That is something that is gratifying. The second is that it is what we anticipated. This does not come as a surprise but perhaps the level of interest is a bit higher than we had anticipated, but we thought that would be a useful class of service for our clients. There is a concern on being able to run these things properly because in the end it’s all about efficiency; it’s all about speed of drilling and accuracy of drilling; and we spend a lot of time on making sure that we operate these things properly. And then of course the other reaction is one of managing the process by which we commit to more because the backlog of interest for these things strike us as being strong, actually stronger than it was in the training 12 to 18 months; it was strong already. So there’s a lot of momentum albeit we don’t see this integrated drilling as being more than, right now it’s going to be about 10% of what we do roughly. As you saw Chicontepec may be closer to 15% of what we do in 09 and later on we don’t see that going much beyond 20% of what we do but it’s a very good 20%, a very good 15%. Best we can tell.

You’re forecasting an acceleration in international growth in 2009 relative to 2008. Could you talk a little bit about how you see the incremental margins? You talk about 15% pricing on some of the revenues that you are recontracting or growing. First of all, what percentage of your business is falling over to this new 15%? Are we talking about a two-year contract, so therefore are we talking about a third to half of your business benefitting from this type of rollover or a quarter in the second half of the year? How should we think about this?

It’s hard to have very precise metrics on this but I would say over a period of say six months about a third of the services and contracts in international markets continuously rolled if you will. That’s about right, and that’s a very iffy metric. In terms of the margins, our incrementals, from one quarter to the next you’re going to have things up or things down [inaudible]. Numbers are what they are, but you shouldn’t expect things to be exactly in the right bucket at the right time. However, on any kind of Q3 quarter basis on a trend line basis you’re incrementals in the international market will be north of 30%. We’re quite certain of that.

So then comparing that with let’s say Europe/Africa/CIS we had a very strong sequential year-over-year revenue growth. Sequentially you’re margins didn’t really go up, so can you talk a little bit about was this about pricing, was it about mix?

I think I would just say that we really – I mean, in the end it’s a little bit of chaos in all situations meaning that there is some randomness and that if you were to look at the Q3 margins, I don’t suspect they’ll be very good and I will not have much of an explanation for it either. It will be that times of delivery or shipments and the classes of products that have much higher margin than others and there you are. There is nothing more compelling about it and we looked at it about as closely as anyone can.

So, we should not reach through on anything like execution or anything like that.

No. Out of all the eight projects that are being mobilized there is only one in that sub region, right? There’s only one. The other seven are in Middle East, North Africa, Asia PAC, they’re the ones having good margins. They had lots of thought out cost mobilization blah, blah, blah. Actually, the Europeans and African/CIS, they only have one project. It’s a large project but I mean it doesn’t compare to the other seven, right. So, in a sense it’s counter intuitive. This is why the best thing I can tell you is there is always some measure of how numbers line up and that’s how it should be.

So based on that Bernard and what you’re seeing at the moment in Canada, you feel comfortable about the third quarter consensus expectations?

I’m never comfortable fully although I am as comfortable as I can be.

Your next question comes from Dan Pickering – Tudor Pickering & Co. Sec. Dan Pickering – Tudor Pickering & Co. Sec.: You talked about pricing in North America, particularly in the US picking up Bernard between 10% and 15% during the quarter. Can you give us a little bit more color there? Is that driven by cost going up there or just kind of holding the line? Or, is this really an activity pricing move?

It started off as cost Dan and almost as a sort of something we needed to do. Bear in mind that we’re 50% products 50% service at Weatherford. Some of our fields might be 80% service so we have more materials exposure right off the bat and we’re very sensitive to materials cost and we do manage our supply chain with a lot of attention. So, we spotted obviously the trends in all classes of materials early so it becomes one was driven by necessity. But then, when the necessity curve was joined by sensitivity, it had to go up and this was pretty obvious already in Q1 then you have more momentum and then we just went for more. Dan Pickering – Tudor Pickering & Co. Sec.: We’re beating the IPM thing to death but I think it is important. The industry obviously indicated that Weatherford had been very aggressive on pricing with Chicontepec and I’m trying to understand if your mix is different than they’re mix, your cost is lower than their costs or their assumptions and margins are higher than yours? I’m trying to understand why their view of this project and your view of this project is so different.

I would also say consider the course including what I tell you meaning that we’ve got obviously some of our most beloved competitors who are less than happy. First, we operate in Mexico. We have operated in Mexico for a long time. We actually operate in Chicontepec, very modestly in terms of scale but we know our cost structure over there, that’s one. And two, the pricing that was utilized in Chicontepec is actually higher than the pricing we have in Mexico north and south so just as a point of reference. It’s not like we decided to walk in Mexico and we have no idea what the cost structure is and low and behold we won a big contract because we were cheap. No, we operate in Mexico, we know the cost structure and that pricing is actually higher than what we have right now, for what it’s worth. Three, I could take you through the mechanics and tactics of contractual pricing, this is not the place to do it obviously, not on a public call. But, I do chuckle when I listen to the comments of the outrage of this and the outrage of that. If I take you through the mechanics it is not at all the same thing as what has been discussed. But, to a degree, this is irrelevant. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is not so much why we won but it is relevant that we did win and the only question that you should ask is are you going to operate properly, item one. Item two, do you understand your cost structure? Well, I can’t answer the first one because the proof will be in the pudding. The only thing I can tell you is that we are early, we are spudding…

Oh yes, I think it’s actually higher. Just to make you happy, just to say it, we actual think higher. Dan Pickering – Tudor Pickering & Co. Sec.: Two other quick questions, one is, is rig ownership something that you are going to spend more money on, on a go forward basis? And two Andy, if you could just help us with on an all encompassing basis in the second quarter, not just Mexico but where do you think your startup costs in aggregate for these IPM projects were in Q2?

I think I’ll have a hard time giving you these kinds of numbers because we didn’t try to isolate them whereas we did in Mexico. But, I’ll let him work on that while I answer the first question. Only Dan, on the rig side when there is an interest in combining rig operation with products and services whether a formal interest or an informal interest. Meaning, in some instances we actually have clients who will still contract all of their products and services separately from the rig as if they were distinct. But, it is clear that because we have one we’ll get the other and under that circumstances or under the formal integrated drilling project type circumstance, we’d be interested in investing in rigs. Otherwise, no. As for the other question do you want to answer that.

Mexico you know. Dan Pickering – Tudor Pickering & Co. Sec.: Mexico we know, we’ve already pinned that right around $15 million.

In the East Dan, I’d really rather not go there in terms of where it is and where it’s going to be for the remainder of the year. Trust that startups in the East are factored in to the 30% incremental guidance that we give. We have better visibility on that because we look at a portfolio of projects on any given time and we feel that it’s fair and we tend to be accurate on assumptions as to what will fall away and what will not and what kind of start up costs are associated with those projects on average. We’ve baked that in to our thinking for the year. What was unique about Mexico is we were actually awarded the contract during the quarter so we really had to get on with it in terms of the mobilization and startup was much more rapid from the time perspective and things were compressed and so that was just not something baked in to the thinking after the Q1 call and that’s really the only reason we pointed out to you this time.

Because the Mexico decision, we behaved like a private company. If you were a private owner you would have moved immediately because what your risk is in Mexico is not performing operationally, your risk is not whether you understand your cost and all that kinds of stuff, that’s not the case. The risk is are you going to operate properly and that means being there early, that’s step one.

Your next question comes from David J. Anderson – UBS. David J. Anderson – UBS: As I recall about a year ago you had about five IPM projects under your belt and now you’re talking about nine I know you’re talking about nine right now. Where do you think this goes another year and what are your constraints in terms of adding more of these projects?

Obviously of the five of a year ago, if I remember correctly there should be already three that are running and then we are faced by another three and then we add another four. And that’s going to be a moving target. David, if we were to talk in 2010, I’ll just go right about 2009, I think the integrated activity will be approximately 20% of our top line or something like that. And I’m trying to stay as close as possible to 20% that would be essentially our own products and service lines and not take on too many projects that have a lot of pass-through. Yes, I know Mexico is an exception but Mexico is unique in many respects.

I think you had mentioned it before, but what do you expect that to be in 09? What percentage?

In 09 we expect to have in the East about $1.1 billion running, maybe $1.2 billion of integrated drilling projects; that’s item 1. And in South America you’re going to get, I don’t know let’s call it $700 million, $800 million, $900 million worth of Chicontepec, maybe $800 million. And so between $1.1 billion and $1.8, we’re at $2 billion. So depending on what your denominator is for us in 2009 that will give you the percentage.

On a different subject, you’d highlighted the higher labor costs and material costs. Is there any particular region that you’re taking more of a hit in than others due to say produce mix or some other reason?

David, I don’t know. Probably that isn’t the case. Steel and stainless and so forth and [inaudible] pricing by and large.

Do you have any kind of sense as to how many in terms of basis points how much is kind of knocked off in terms of your margins?

So far I think we’ve managed to cover things nicely with pricing. And I’ll mention something else on the labor side, let me not forget, but on the pricing we managed to cover really the cost of the cost of business and I suspect we’ll do a little bit better than that on a forward-looking basis, so that’s one thing. I don’t think you have any movement on the margin side at all that’s cost driven. I reported on the cost because I think it’s an important thing that people ought to know. On the labor side as I think it through, your question, let me modify my answer. I think it is on a trailing basis the [inaudible] factor in the international market as it has been in North America. On the forward basis I suspect it will be less of a factor in the international market and more of a factor relatively speaking in North America. Why is that? Well it’s the gradual process David of replacing OECD personnel with non-OECD personnel. Non-OECD personnel is being trained. We certainly hire and train at a rate which probably is among the highest in the industry and of course once they are hired and trained, what is the difference between a non-OECD and an OECD personnel? It’s much cheaper. As the non-OECD mix in the labor pool, it grows over a period of time. It doesn’t take a lot of time, David. Actually your labor costs are going to go down. So let me summarize as I think my comment on the labor side should be taken. They are correct from a training basis. But they should be taken probably as more indicative of a cost issue in North America and in the North Seas. For the rest I think on the contrary, the labor side will actually go the other way and I’m pretty certain of this David. The material side you get the same everywhere you go. There are some markets where materials are regulated. There aren’t that many.

Just one thing to add, David. With the recovery in Canada that’s expected, you should expect and we do expect and what’s factored into our thinking is a decent rise in labor costs. It always happens with an increase in activity especially coming out of a slump. And US, not too different. We’re at such a high level of activity, I know it wasn’t very exciting a year ago to talk about the US as if we were stuck in a tunnel of sorts, but still a tunnel that was a high average rate count. And here we are stepping up above 1,900 rigs probably going across 2,000 and higher and labor gets expensive and so with that wages go up.

One last question on Canada. I think if I’m not mistaken Canada comprised about 15% of your overall top line a few years back.

25% David. As bad as that. J. David Anderson – UBS: Where do you expect that to get? Obviously we have a ramp up coming. How high can that get again? I know things have changed a little bit.

Let me just have fun with that question if I can David because it isn’t always easy to have fun on a conference call. I suspect that Mexico will be larger than Canada. And I also expect Canada to do well.

Our next question comes from Michael LaMotte - J.P. Morgan.

Andy, quick question on some numbers for you, first of all on the investigation related charges there’s $0.04 in the first half. Where do we stand with those and when can we expect those to start coming out?

Boy, I hope as soon as possible. We keep everybody updated through our public disclosures and I’d like to stick to those in terms of progress and what not. But obviously it’s a distraction and we’d like to see it all be finished up as quickly as possible. Until it is finished, we’ll continue to incur costs at least on the fees and consulting side to take care of things.

Do you all feel challenged at all in terms of bidding for some of these international projects as a consequence of that?

No. I would say that probably the expense that we incur, partly because the company tries to do absolutely everything it possibly can to look at every aspect of what we do so that it’s not only compliant but I think a bit ahead of compliant. On the other hand, no it does not. It should not really.

On the acquisition front, what are we looking at in terms of the run rate of annualized revenue contribution from the I guess it’s 17 now deals done year-to-date?

We should give you a list of how much [inaudible] so much year-to-date. Year-to-date has been acquisitions of I hate to say it of technology because that’s not something that’s terribly popular insofar as it has a bang later on. It has a bang a year later or two years later, sometimes even longer than that. Andy, do you have a sense of how much revenues the ones that are not technology?

It would be very dominium for 08. For those that are not technology, if we are let me just say exceedingly fortunate, you might be looking at $40 million to $50 million of top line contribution for all of 08.

And where was the revenue going to go, Andy? Probably half and half?

It’s going to depend especially on the technology side. I would say even spread with where we are today but many of the things that we look at and try to get ramped up is obviously to push things through our supply chain, and it’s going to depend on where orders hit and how quickly if it’s a service type business we can set things up in international markets.

Last one from me. When did construction begin on your facilities in Poza Rica? 100,000 square feet’s pretty significant.

Andy, do you want to answer that?

Sure. We actually began construction almost two months ago. The facility that we had was actually an existing facility on a nice piece of land. We were very fortunate to get it. I was actually just there about three weeks ago. They’ve made a great amount of progress on it and it’ll be a facility we’re proud of. We haven’t always been proud of our infrastructure in every place. We’ve worked hard to try to do better especially in Mexico and other places; put up places that we can bring our clients to and that suit our operations and help us work efficiently. So it was about two months ago that things started in terms of the acquisition of that facility and working on it.

Two things are happening currently David. On the one hand we started mobilizing equipment, people are taught in the training program, etc. At the same time we went on an expedited process of the two facilities, the one which is not really in the field but on the edge of the field. [Inaudible] being sort of the more urban facility even though it’s outside of Poza Rica. At the same time we commissioned the two building constructions and as Andy said the first one was an existing structure. We just modified and converted it, etc. We did have a location on and around Chicontepec. It was very modest but appropriately modest. The business we have is very modest too. And that’s that. With not only the scale but the expected timing of the longevity of the contract called for a different infrastructure.

One more question on the 750 people addition to the headcount. I assume at least at the start a good number of those will be non-Mexican nationals. Is that mix going to change over the duration of the contract? Are you going to cycle people through?

First of all, Paramex provides a number of people. That is number one, so that you understand. Number two, I would think Michael that most of the new employees will be Mexican. It’s true. You’re right. There will be Colombians, Argentines, Valenzuelans with some experience that will be - it’s already happening - that are going to be directed towards Chicontepec but to act more in a way trainers and to provide some measure of guidance to the younger hires on the Mexican side, but I would say that of the 750 people and excluding the Paramex contingent I would say about 80% to 85% would be from Mexico.

Just trying to get a sense in terms of training component I guess as opposed to reallocation of that human resource.

Very, very heavy on the training side to the extent Latin America’s been growing very quickly. We recognize that it’s a cost-sensitive market overall; all of Latin America. And it behooves you to have locals. It’s no different than any other place that we look at on a global basis, so there’s been very heavy training out of markets in terms of local training on wireline, directional, underbalanced, what I call more blue collar technical areas and the folks that come out of the program, there’s already 50 individuals who’ve already cycled through on the directional and underbalanced side and about an equal number on the wireline side. And those folks are ready to go. So stay local.

One last comment, Michael, there’s so much focus on just one single contract. If you sort of step back, we are doing the hiring and training and so forth and so on of more than twice the number of people that we’re working on in Chicontepec in the East. I mean there’s very little focus on that and this is going on at the same time. You’re going to be hiring something close to 2,000 people in different parts of the world. We’re doing it as we speak for the other eight contracts. So it’s not unique and we do not use experts unless we absolutely have to use experts. And if we use experts it is a transition; it is not a permanent assignment. Can’t afford them. One last question Operator if there is one and then we’ll follow with the end of call here.

Our next question comes from Robert Mackenzie - Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Robert Mackenzie - Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co.: Thanks for all the color Bernard on Chicontepec. That helps a lot. I have a follow up question to beat a dead horse I guess probably for Andy here, though. Andy with your guidance of Latin American margins flat in the third and fourth quarter from this, however in the press release you guys talked about starting to mobilize four rigs a month starting in August, so it seems like Mexican costs compared to 2Q should be up in 3Q and 4Q once again. What else in Latin America is serving to offset that on the strong side to give you flat margins?

Well don’t forget to include the revenue. You’ll have a healthy revenue uptake in Q3 and Q4 again, associated with that project as well as margin on it. So that does enough if you will to offset the costs associated with the start-up. The rest, let’s just think about outside of the project but heaven forbid it becomes all of Latin America much less all of Weatherford, this quarter we signed $450 million of incremental contracts just out of Mexico. Don’t focus on just one thing. Brazil market is incredibly vibrant. Venezuela is coming to life; doing very well. Both Mexico and Brazil were up 20% sequentially from a revenue perspective. Colombia’s coming back. Ecuador with the strike stuff unresolved is a very healthy market.

Even Argentina.

Argentina with their poor commodity pricing constraint so it’s very wide spread. For us Latin America’s not all about Mexico. It’s going to be an important market for us but there’s a lot of other progress being made.

I had a closing comment, which is that if we did not have Chicontepec I would still suggest that in 09 Latin America would grow at the same rate as the Eastern Hemisphere which is 40%. In other words, absent Mexico, absent Chicontepec, Latin America is as strong as the East and it makes now for one market which is the international market with a lot of differences locally is growing at the same rate. Absent ex-Chicontepec. Robert Mackenzie - Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co.: And a quick follow up Bernard to your comments on service pricing. Can you give us some color surrounding, and our costs, how much fuel cost inflation has impacted you, not just North America but everywhere around the world? And is that kind of inflation, in essence where your customer sells it to you, is that going to be the catalyst you guys need to get some of these underperforming product lines vis-à-vis pricing starting to recapture their cost inflation here?

We are getting protected on the fuel side outside of North America. Within North America other than logistic costs there are just one or two service lines in direct exposure to this, the primary one being stimulation. And that’s just a North American phenomenon because outside you’re well protected. So there is no fuel charge margin erosion going on outside of North America. Within North America there is certainly some on and around stimulation. I think now we are able to get proper protection on the margin side for fuel costs escalation. That’s a good thing. Probably the only comment I made on that particular type of service is that I am less red-blooded on increases in pricing for stimulation only because we’ve got an aggressive supply expansion which is continuing. So therefore it is harder to see major expansion in pricing above the cost of recovery. But it’s just stimulation in North America. The fuel impact internationally, and in other kinds of services in North America, is not an issue. That concludes the conference call. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your participation in today’s conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect and have a wonderful day.