Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Hein on October 25, 2009 at 7:21am

It's World News Daily folks. I would take half a day to figure out what was truth, opinion, distortion, and flat out falsehood.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 25, 2009 at 8:57am

World News Daily

Tell me about the World Daily News and why it's not accurate. I hate sloppy reporting.

Thank you in advance, Mike.

Here's the article the $400/gal figure was based on:

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
By Roxana Tiron - 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET
The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.

The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.


Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.


“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”


The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.


The Obama administration is engaged in an internal debate over its future strategy in Afghanistan. Part of this debate concerns whether to increase the number of U.S. troops in that country.


The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has requested that about 40,000 additional troops be sent.
Democrats in Congress are divided over whether to send more combat troops to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of waning public support for the war.


Any additional troops and operations likely will have to be paid for through a supplemental spending bill next year, something Murtha has said he already anticipates.


Afghanistan — with its lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks — is a logistical nightmare for the U.S. military, according to congressional sources, and it is expensive to transport fuel and other supplies.


A landlocked country, Afghanistan has no seaports and a shortage of airports and navigable roads. The nearest port is in Karachi, Pakistan, where fuel for U.S. troops is shipped.


From there, commercial trucks transport the fuel through Pakistan and Afghanistan, sometimes changing carriers. Fuel is then transferred to storage locations in Afghanistan for movement within the country. Military transport is used to distribute fuel to forward operating bases. For many remote locations, this means fuel supplies must be provided by air.


One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel.


The cheapest way to transport fuel is usually by ship. Other reasonable methods to provide fuel are by rail and pipeline. The prices go up exponentially when aircraft are used, according to congressional sources.


The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”


“The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,” said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.


The DESC provides one gallon of JP8 fuel, which is used for both aircraft and ground vehicles, at a standard price of $2.78, said Iden.


The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.


“These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway said, according to the publication.


The fully burdened cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, said Kevin Geiss, program director for energy security in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.


And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.


Energy consumed by a combat vehicle may not even be for actual mobility of the vehicle, Geiss said, but instead to run the systems onboard the vehicle, including the communications equipment and the cooling systems to protect the electronics onboard.


Some 8o percent of U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are due to improvised explosive devices, many of which are placed in the path of supply convoys — making it even more imperative to use aircraft for transportation.

According to a Government Accountability Office report published earlier this year, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events while delivering fuel to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan in June 2008 alone.


High fuel demand, coupled with the volatility of fuel prices, also have significant implications for the Department of Defense’s operating costs, the GAO said. The fully burdened cost of fuel — that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving and protecting fuel in systems during combat — has been reported to be many times higher than the price of a gallon of fuel itself, according to the report.


The Marines in Afghanistan, for example, reportedly run through some 800,000 gallons of fuel a day. That reflects the logistical challenges of running the counterinsurgency operations but also the need for fuel during the extreme weather conditions in Afghanistan — hot summers and freezing winters.


With the military boosting the number of the all-terrain-mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles (M-ATVs) in Afghanistan meant to survive roadside bombs, the fuel consumption will likely rise even higher, since those vehicles are considered gas-guzzlers.


The Pentagon comptroller’s office did not return requests for comment by press time.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-anot...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hein on October 25, 2009 at 9:28am

Actually, I had gone and read the thehill.com news piece after I posted and didn't get a chance to come back and post. I understand that the $400/gallon figure is a fully loaded cost and that the Pentagon is the source of the number.


I think it's a misleading number and misleading reporting because nobody is getting paid $400/gallon. It is a weighted cost that is made up mostly of transport costs. Accurate? Yes but what's the point. It's just an item that the WND uses in an editorial piece (that I happen to think is simplistic but that's another story). WND does editorial pieces not reporting which is why I find it difficult to take seriously.

You and I disagree on Afghanistan, Nate, which is fine. I just think that the 'headline number' on the gas price is a bit sensationalized.

Be well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 25, 2009 at 10:09am

I appreciate your candor and respectful tone, Mike. I don't think the article suggests that anyone is getting paid $400/gallon. It says that's what it costs. In some cases, the article noted, $1000/gallon may be more accurate. If that's true, the $400/gallon figure is not sensational.

I agree that Afghanistan is a complicated mess. I understand the opinion that the Taliban must be contained. I just think it misses the point.

It's just an item that the WND uses in an editorial piece (that I happen to think is simplistic but that's another story). WND does editorial pieces not reporting which is why I find it difficult to take seriously.

The Paul Craig Roberts piece was clearly editorial. I think that's apparent immediately upon reading it.

Be well.

You do the same, Mike.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hein on October 25, 2009 at 10:39am

See, people can disagree on things and not be shitty about it. :) Seriously though, there is too much anger and nastiness in these discussions, even among the supposedly rational A/N gang. I think it's critical that we (the world 'we' not just you and I or A/N) can disagree civilly and continue the discussion.

I'm sure this discussion will pop up again, eh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Starscream on October 25, 2009 at 11:59am

i wonder what percentage of the fuel the military uses costs that much. Certainly aircraft flying from aircraft carriers or 'safe' bases have cheaper fuel. As the article said, jet fuel is 'only' $2.78/gal (i know they use a ton of it though).

Reaching the 'frontlines' to power tanks and Humvees probably does cost that much or more, but it might be a small percentage of the total fuel usage. And airplanes transporting fuel or convoys are indeed expensive, but I'm sure the trip includes other items such as food, ammunition, etc. I'd be interested to know how they divide the flight/travel costs into these other goods? Does water also cost $400/gallon to transport?

Sounds like American General needs to be working on a hybrid humvee. The fuel savings alone would pay for any efficiency gains whatsoever almost no matter the cost. Even if you doubled the base price of the vehicle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 25, 2009 at 12:38pm

As the article said, jet fuel is 'only' $2.78/gal (i know they use a ton of it though).

The fuel is provided by the Defense Energy Support Center for that price.

Here's what happens next:

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.


“These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway said, according to the publication.


The fully burdened cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, said Kevin Geiss, program director for energy security in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.


And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.

Does water also cost $400/gallon to transport?

Probably not. Water can be transported over land without the danger inherent in transporting a volatile material like fuel. Hence the use of helicopters for the more remote and more dangerous areas.

One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel.

The Taliban is smarter than we've given them credit for. If their goal has been to destroy the U.S. financially, and not militarily, like the U.S. crippled the USSR, they're doing a fine job. They can keep the U.S. and NATO crawling around those mountains for decades. All the while the people of Afghanistan suffer, the corrupt Afghani opportunists prosper and the people of the U.S. see trillions squandered on an unwinnable war.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on October 25, 2009 at 9:48am

This just points out the need for solar tank technology. Or at least hybrids - any chance Toyota is working on this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hein on October 25, 2009 at 10:39am

lol. sick but strangely accurate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FreeThinker on October 25, 2009 at 9:50pm

As I was driving through northern Indiana today, passing a section of land with hundreds of wind turbines, I got to thinking that we should put windmills on the tops of cars...that way, the wind would power the turbine, which could recharge the electric motor, which would propel the car, which would cause the turbine to go faster and create even more energy. It's the perfect plan, I tells ya! lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on October 26, 2009 at 3:19pm

I got to thinking that we should put windmills on the tops of cars...that way, the wind would power the turbine, which could recharge the electric motor, which would propel the car, which would cause the turbine to go faster and create even more energy.

They're already here:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on October 25, 2009 at 9:44pm

Not credible.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page