Pentagon feels fuel price pain

[Rose Siding]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of U.S. military vehicles, ships and aircraft are guzzling fuel every day around the world and with the bill rising the Pentagon is trying harder to conserve.

The U.S. military consumed 144.8 million barrels of fuel in 2004, spending $6.7 billion, according to the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC).

Last year, it consumed only 128.3 million barrels, but spent $8.8 billion, as the average price per barrel rose by almost 50 percent to more than $68.

For 2006, DESC estimates the military will need 130.6 million barrels and pay more than $10 billion for it, at a price of more than $77 per barrel.

"The US Army burned 12 times more fuel per soldier in Iraq than it did in France in 1944 -- nine gallons of fuel per soldier per day in 2004," said Carlton Meyer, a former Marine officer who runs G2mil Quarterly, a Web site on military issues. "Another problem is that truck fuel tankers are easy to identify and destroy by enemy guerrillas."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032000477.html

[wordpix2]

1. What if they gave a war and ran out of fuel?

[SammyWinstonJack]

The upside of Peak Oil. No more war?

[JDPriestly]

3. It's just a matter of time.

[Benhurst]

6. That happened to Hitler.

[Cobalt Violet]

8. Isn't that how the Nazi's lost?

[bemildred]

10. It was part of it.

One of the reasons that Hitler sent the Wehrmacht over to the Caucasus, for instance. But they also did amazing things in the way of making fuel from non-petroleum sources, biomass, coal, etc.

But, fundamentally, the Nazis lost because:

a.) They go too big for their britches.

b.) Hitler was a really bad military commander. He was a bit like Dumbsfeldt in that he didn't allow any sordid facts to interfere with his preconceptions and self-adulation.

[Rude Horner]

2. Awwwwwwww

Almost makes ya wanna feel sorry for 'em. :sarcasm:

[reichstag911]

4. Um...

...that's our money going to the oil companies through the Pentagon fraud machine. Feel sorry for us!

[Rude Horner]

9. It was sarcasm. n/m

[DainBramaged]

5. Don't 'ya love planning for every little possibility and detail?

What a great job Rummy and his boys have done stratigzing this campaign, uh, action, uh conquest, uh, crusade, uh dirty little war.

[Mithras61]

7. I'm sorry, but I just can't find any sympathy for 'em

They've have failed at every turn to require higher fuel economy, so their suppliers did exactly the same thing Detroit did (and is now suffering for). There have been options available for the Pentagon on every single ground and water vehicle (and I suspect that the same is true for aircraft) that would have improved fuel economy, but that has never been the Pentagon's priority, so improved fuel economy never made it into the final vehicle.

[rexcat]

11. Looks like it is time to invade Iran for their oil!

:sarcasm:

[Javaman]

12. A few comments...

1) all the military branches use more fuel that all the consumers in the U.S. combined. So the war on oil is not for us but for the military.

2) more fuel is used per soldier now than in WWII is because of the advent of the personal carrier. Prior to the use of that vehicle, the Army used the deuce and a half. But they were only used in long haul missions, changing fronts and from in-country point to front. After that, the solder walked. Now they are virtually driven everywhere. Much like the disappearance of the "beat cop" in cities.

3) Halliburton has been regularly over charging for the transport of the fuel. I think we all recall that about a year ago there was big news about how they were charging up to 3 times more than what could be had locally. funny how that works.

4) because of the insufficient amount of troops in the country, attacks upon fuel convoys are a regular thing. The rebels aren't dumb, they know that U.S. soldiers drive everywhere and need fuel. So rather than kill soldier, per say, they take out the tankers, thus keeping the soldiers unable to "patrol".

peek oil effects everyone and everything, but when you have a military that runs various vehicles and tracks them by how much they burn by hour as opposed to mile, some serious questions need to be asked.

ponder this thought: an F-18 fighter burns one gallon of gas equal to it's own length while in flight.

Waste? there's no stinking waste around here!!!

It's a nice thought that the military is looking into alt fuel vehicles but it's a horrible thought that they are just preparing for the next of many battlefields.

[populistdriven]

13. is there any chance you can provide references on those stats?

[Javaman]

14. most of this is pretty well known, but I'm sure I can dig it up again...

just need a little time. Most of the info I sighted has been around for a couple of years.

[populistdriven]

16. I'd like to reuse that list but I know I'll get challenged - no worries

I will put google to work

[Massacure]

18. What!?!? Your first point cannot be right.

As per the article, the military used 128.3 million barrels of oil in 2005, which is 350,000 barrels per day. The U.S. consumes about 21 million barrels per day.

[Javaman]

19. You are correct, my error, it should say American drivers....

not total consumption.

[wordpix2]

15. it's the fall of the American empire, happens to the best of 'em

[bemildred]

17. US military eyes coal as fuel source

The Pentagon is trying to persuade investors and the energy industry to embrace an 80-year-old technology to turn coal into liquid fuel to power planes, tanks and other battlefield vehicles.

Officials have been crisscrossing the country, meeting energy companies and state government officials to sell them the idea. At the same time, military researchers have been testing fuel produced by the process to make sure it is suitable for military vehicles, especially older ones.

The military is worried that political pressure or terrorist acts could cut the flow of oil from the Middle East or hurricanes or terrorists could destroy US refineries.

William Harrison, the senior adviser for the Pentagon's Assured Fuels Initiative, said: "We know what the technical challenges are, but we don't see any show-stoppers. There is still a level of uncertainty, but it looks like the technology is mature enough."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6224A66B-D4A9-4CB6-B02B-B9443B7FEA7E.htm