America Doesn't NEED the Saudi's (persian gulf) Oil

[kc.ink]

They (Saudi's/Corporations) Need US

Information based on 2003 statistics and certainly does not even mention the cost of American Military Soldiers or "coalition" soldiers that have been lost OR the cost of immediate surgical/health care or long term health care problems.

http://www.ethanol.org/documents/04CFDC-002_EnergyBalanceF.pdf

<snip>
The ability of domestic, renewable ethanol to displace imported petroleum has historically been recognized as a primary benefit underlying support for ethanol production and use in the United States. However, detractors of ethanol have for thirty years argued that ethanol production is not an efficient means of reducing petroleum use. While fundamentally incorrect, this assertion has been at the forefront of the public policy debate over expanded ethanol use.

THE COST OF DEFENDING PERSIAN GULF OIL

Military spending to protect the Persian Gulf’s oil fields can be divided into two broad categories: Ongoing Expenditures: Outlays for permanent military capabilities that are maintained to assure the ability to defend Middle East oil supplies.

Onetime Expenditures: Outlays that are made for specific items such as pre-positioned supplies and the ships to carry them. It also includes the cost of specific military operations such as Operation Desert Shield/Storm. For purposes of analysis, onetime expenditures are amortized over a ten-year period.

The bulk of ongoing military expenditures are found within the budget of the United States Central Command, or “CENTCOM.” CENTCOM’s area of responsibility or “AOR” stretches from the Central Asian States to the Horn of Africa and comprises an area of approximately 6.5 million square miles holding 25 countries and 522 million people. According to its official description, CENTCOM’s operations focus “primarily on the Middle East.” Indeed, five of its seven most recent deployments have been to the Persian Gulf.

Since CENTCOM’s operations are not limited to the Middle East, it is necessary to determine what portion of its expenditures can properly be attributed to defending oil. A detailed analysis of its “Order of Battle” (e.g. a list of all of its units and their missions), suggests that at least half of its personnel and operating and maintenance budgets can be properly allocated to the defense of Middle East oil. In addition to these basic outlays within CENTCOM’s budget, expenditures for pre-positioned equipment, strategic mobility and Southwest Asia contingencies from the broader Department of Defense budget may also be assigned to this purpose.

Military Expenditures Related to Imports

1993-2003 (Billions)

ONGOING COSTS / Budget-Based / State Formula / Minimalist

Personnel,O&M / $42.790 / $35.700 / $5.418

Prepos. & Strategic Mob./ $ .518 / $ .518 / $.518

S.W. Asia Contingencies / $1.100 / $1.100 / $1.100

Total Ongoing / $44.408 / $37.318 / $7.099

One-Time Amortized / $.989 / $.989 / N/A

Total Defense Costs / $49.088 / $38.307

Persian Gulf Only

Per Barrel cost / $45.54 / $38.43 / $7.12

Per Gallon cost / $1.08 / $.91 / $.17

All Imports

Per Barrel Cost / $10.71 / $ 9.03 / N/A

Per Gallon Cost / $.25 / $.22

2003-2013 (Billions)

Total Defense Costs / $49.088 / $41.988 / $7.099

Persian Gulf Only

Per Barrel Cost / $49.24 / $42.12 / $7.12

Per Gallon Cost / $1.17 / $1.00 / $.17

All Imports

Per Barrel Cost / $11.58 / $9.90 / N/A

Per Gallon Cost / $.28 / $.24 / N/A


Total Economic Impact of Imports

JOBS IMPACT: 828,400

SUBTOTAL: CURRENT COST $36.7 Billion

DIRECT INVESTMENT LOSS: $35.2 Billion

INDIRECT INVESTMENT LOSS: $88.0 Billion

SUBTOTAL: INVESTMENT LOSS: $123.2 Billion

TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $159.9 Billion

STATE AND FEDERAL REVENUE LOSSES $13.4 Billion

TOTAL ECONOMIC LOSSES: $173.3 Billion

OIL SHOCKS: $74.8 Billion to $82.5 Billion

GRAND TOTAL: $248.1 Billion to $255.8 Billion


In 2001 General Motors commissioned a study to assess the “well to wheel” impact of a variety of traditional and alternative fuels in an effort to assess their complete lifecycle, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. That study compared 15 propulsion technologies and 75 different fuel pathways.

The results were that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional gasoline. Ten percent blends using corn-derived ethanol provided a 20 percent reduction, while biomass-derived ethanol would result in a near 100 percent reduction.

<snip>

Regardless of whether one believes ethanol has a positive energy balance or not, one fact still remains: ethanol lessens America’s reliance on foreign countries for oil. And, buying our energy here, at home, keeps our dollars home and stems the flow of a staggering transfer of U.S. wealth to foreign countries. Every dollar we spend on the ethanol program including dollars on energy—generates seven more dollars in our economy.

<snip>

Effects of a Renewable Fuels Standard: U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2002. This study outlines how a renewable fuels standard would increase corn prices and increase net farm income by $700 million per year, while at the same time reduce the trade deficit by $4.45 billion annually and create 13,500 new jobs in the United States.

<snip>

Emissions from ethanol plants

Most ethanol plants are classified as “minor” emissions sources by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, meaning they emit less than 100 tons of pollutants per year. Contrast this with an average-sized power plant, which may emit more than 20,000 tons per year. Most cars emit about six tons of pollutants in a year, which means that the emissions from an ethanol plant are probably less than the emission from vehicles in an average neighborhood.
Ethanol plants today are built with and utilize the best emission-control technology available. Thermal oxidizers (TOs) control the vast majority of emissions and odors that might come out of a plant.

Ethanol Clean Air Facts:

Ten percent ethanol blends reduce carbon monoxide better than any other reformulated gasoline blend – by as much as 25%.

Ethanol-blended fuel shows a 35-46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 50-60% reduction in fossil energy use.

Ethanol contains 35% oxygen by weight, making it burn more cleanly and completely than gasoline.

E85 has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available, making it burn even more cleanly and even more completely than any other fuel.

E85 contains 80% fewer gum-forming compounds than gasoline.

Ethanol is highly biodegradable, making it safer for the environment.

The Argonne National Laboratory found that: In 2003, ethanol use in the United States reduced CO 2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 5.7 million tons, equal to removing the annual emissions of more than 853,000 cars from the road.

http://www.ethanol.org

[Raster]

1. One would think this would be a "no-brainer," however....

it would appear that our government has no intentions of depriving their Saudi masters of their ready income source. The bush* family is deep in the Saudi's pockets. If rush, hannity or any of the other right-wing propagandists really wanted to cover a story, they should examine the bush* family's ties to the Saudis. Of course that won't happen. And "super-patriot" ollie north, has he made any comment about the wholesale transfer of wealth and sovereignty to the Saudis? Once again, of course not.

"Regardless of whether one believes ethanol has a positive energy balance or not, one fact still remains: ethanol lessens America’s reliance on foreign countries for oil. And, buying our energy here, at home, keeps our dollars home and stems the flow of a staggering transfer of U.S. wealth to foreign countries. Every dollar we spend on the ethanol program including dollars on energy—generates seven more dollars in our economy."

[kc.ink]

2. Imagine, an America for the people and by the people,

if we take it upon ourselves to switch our vehicles over and use the ethanol. Or form ethanol co-ops like the farmers do, combining resources and knowledge to further the development and use of ethanol.
Hm-m-m . . .. . It can be done.

Or am I fantasizing?