Navy buys biofuel for $16 a gallon

posted at 7:00 pm on December 11, 2011 by J.E. Dyer

This is going to help the Defense Department weather looming budget cuts, for sure.  Teaming up with the Department of Agriculture (which has a cheery Rotary Club ring to it), the Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.

You won’t be surprised to learn that a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a “strategic advisor” at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy.  Glauthier worked – shock, shock – on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.

The Navy sale isn’t Solazyme’s first trip to the public trough, of course.  The company got a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Solazyme’s partner in the biofuel sale is Dynamic Fuels, a Louisiana company owned jointly by Tyson Foods and Tulsa-based Syntroleum.  Tyson and Syntroleum are distinguished by having profitable lines of business that do not rely on government grants to unprofitable “green” projects.  This does not make their biofuel product price-competitive with fossil fuels, however.  (They were induced to develop biofuel manufacturing processes by a combination of subsidies and tax breaks.)

The Dynamic Fuels plant was opened for business in Geismar, LA in 2010, becoming by far the largest biofuels plant in North America – and reportedly, in combination with a plant in Finland, a producer of 94% of the world’s biofuels.  This is great boosterism stuff, but the biofuels produced by Dynamic Fuels are still considerably more expensive than the fossil-fuel alternative.  Dynamic Fuels has begun supplying aviation biofuel to KLM, the Dutch flag carrier, but of course, the use of more-expensive biofuels by commercial carriers has to be subsidized by governments.

If governments stopped subsidizing biofuels, their artificial “profitability” would disappear overnight.  Price-wise, they can’t compete with fossil fuels.  The day may come when they can, but subsidizing them while they don’t is not a method with any record of success for encouraging price efficiency.  What it does instead is create languishing public dependencies and tremendous opportunities for cronyism, as demonstrated in the Solyndra scandal.

As the Institute for Energy Research article (top link) indicates, the US has enormous reserves of both conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas resources.  Opening them up for exploitation would, among other things, ensure that the US armed forces could buy cheaper fuel – cheaper than today’s prices – produced in the USA.  At a time when federal debt is spiraling and the Defense Department is facing budget cuts that are guaranteed to gut the fighting forces and render them ineffective, it seems to border on insane to eschew a ready, significantly cheaper alternative and require the armed services to quadruple what they pay for fuel as a proof of concept – apparently with the idea that the forces should buy more of the 4-times-as-expensive fuel.  This is, after all, our national security we’re talking about.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

 

 

 

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

16 bucks a gallon. wow.

maybe I was wrong about the military not needing cuts.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Unbelievable! This needs to be SCREAMED from every rooftop, on every station, in every “newspaper”, on every website.

This is nothing kess than straight up fraud, theft and corruption.

KMC1 on December 10, 2011 at 1:35 AM

First on both. Thats how angry I am about this.

KMC1 on December 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Dang! Almost first on both…..

KMC1 on December 11, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Obama did promise skyrocketing energy prices.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:07 PM

I say again: Each of these Obama administration actions that hurts America causes a few more citizens to realize that Obama is intentionally doing all he can to destroy our country.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Solid B+

MTLassen on December 11, 2011 at 7:10 PM

They better get a locking gas cap for around $10,000 each.

Electrongod on December 11, 2011 at 7:11 PM

This “green energy” claptrap has passed the point of absurdity and reached the point of outrageous. This needs to stop NOW. Screw the subsidies – fossil fuels are here and now, tried and proven, are our best bet. When alternative energies become desirable and available to the point of profitability, we will reconsider. This is our military preparedness at stake! And while we’re at it, give consumers a choice: gasoline with ethanol or without ethanol. No mandate. That’s the only thing keeping this boondoggle going. Without the mandate, even subsidies won’t keep the ethanol industry afloat because demand would plummet. They tried the ethanol crap in Germany but didn’t make it a mandate, and it went belly up.

Elric on December 11, 2011 at 7:11 PM

They better get a locking gas cap for around $10,000 each.

Electrongod on December 11, 2011 at 7:11 PM

gold plated toilet seats.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM

0bama has committed several impeachable offenses, and his conduct while president has been awful enough to potentially destroy the republic.
 
Rebar on December 11, 2011 at 3:23 PM

 
You really believe that, dont you
 
ernesto on December 11, 2011 at 3:50 PM

rogerb on December 11, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Yeah, but don’t you dare make one personal cut to the DoD. We can not reduces the size of government there look else where.

tjexcite on December 11, 2011 at 7:15 PM

“… At a time when federal debt is spiraling and the Defense Department is facing budget cuts that are guaranteed to gut the fighting forces and render them ineffective, it seems to border on IS insane to eschew a ready, significantly cheaper alternative and require the armed services to quadruple what they pay for fuel…”

FIFY

“Cogito, ergo TEA Party!” ~ DeepWheat

DeepWheat on December 11, 2011 at 7:15 PM

So which Friend of Hussein is selling the overpriced biofuel to the military?

You know it has to be a contributor or campaign bundler.

wildcat72 on December 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM

This is, after all, our national security we’re talking about.

I don’t think China is paying that much for it’s military…

… Wait, aren’t we out of money?

I guess we are going to have to borrow from someone again…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on December 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM

The worst part is that Dems force stuff like this, then turn around and scream about military overspending, and not a soul in the media will call them on it.

Rollie on December 11, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Obama launders tax money to campaign cronies who then use the money to donate to his campaign….

albill on December 11, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I sure am glad Obowma is looking forward to the debate on where he wants to take this country…

/

Seven Percent Solution on December 11, 2011 at 7:18 PM

It is much worse than $16/gallon if you add in the original “stimulus”.

jhnone on December 11, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Gee, I wonder if they are going to try to place wind turbines on ships too. There truly is nothing to cut out of the budget, is there?

Sigh….

iheart707 on December 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM

As I understand it, this biofuel is the Navy’s way of looking at alternative fuels in case our current fossil fuel supplies become less accessible (ie New Middle East conflict, another boycott, etc…) They’ve been working on it for a few years and this recent fuel buy is a gamble of theirs in the hopes that the costs will continue to go down over time. The big problem with that is that costs are still going to be higher than regular fuel regardless, but it does look promising, especially considering they were paying twice as much for the fuel in 2011.
Source is here: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/navy-biofuels/#more-65604

Casual_Collector on December 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Broncos Win! Broncos Win!

Weight of Glory on December 11, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Well, when Iran gets bombed, our sailors will feel more comfortable with gas prices here. :-P

ThePrez on December 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Yeah, but don’t you dare make one personal cut to the DoD. We can not reduces the size of government there look else where.

tjexcite on December 11, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Because you have no sarc tag I am assuming that you are serious.
I find no word to characterize your comment other than: stupid. This is not an example of pentagon gone wild spending. This is not an example of military brass going crazy. This is an example of the Obama administration wildly leftist environmental policy doing damage to our economy, with malice aforethought.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM

… Wait, aren’t we out of money?

I guess we are going to have to borrow from someone again…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on December 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Naw. Bernie the banker will just print more.

predator on December 11, 2011 at 7:29 PM

The implication is that the Navy wanted to buy it. Once you get past that myth, the real reason becomes apparent.

Somebody wanted to be able to say that “the Navy uses our green fuels”.

Syntholeum. Only from the mind of Obama

BobMbx on December 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Casual_Collector on December 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM

The problem is that corn ethanol is much less expensive. As is coal liquefaction, which can create a fuel that has a shelf life in excess of a decade for easily stored ready to use fuel reserves around the nation. We already have technology that can create these fuels, and we do not need to wait for their price to go down. The 32 and 16 dollar fuels can keep being made in small labs until they find the proper method to make it a cost competitive endeavor.

I agree that bio-fuels can offer some national security, but at those prices, it actually causes far more harm than good.

astonerii on December 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Putting the Harding era to shame.

rbj on December 11, 2011 at 7:32 PM

This is not an example of pentagon gone wild spending. GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Of course it is.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Of course it is.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:33 PM

prove it than.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Call me crazy…this just seems like a small scale project by the military to test out alternative fuels. They will get experience with these fuels and any assosciated performance issues in case they are necessary in the future. Having an alternative fuel source in case oil sources dry up in the future is not a horrible thing in itself.

ZippyZ on December 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM

16 bucks a gallon. wow.

maybe I was wrong about the military not needing cuts.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Brother, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I love the military, and they should have what they need to fight and win wars in a timely manner.

But a 400% markup from free market prices is not the exception, it’s the rule when the military goes shopping.

Hog Wild on December 11, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Read the story, and you’ll find this nugget:

Substantial hurdles remain, however. The Navy previously paid about $1,000 for each barrel of biofuel it bought to test out in its jets. This new purchase, at first, will cost just as much: $26 per gallon, or $1,092 per barrel.

It’s not $16 per gallon, no….its $26 per gallon. It only comes down to $16 per gallon AFTER THEY MIX IT WITH FOSSIL FUELS!

BobMbx on December 11, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Jiminy Crickets!

Cindy Munford on December 11, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Hog Wild on December 11, 2011 at 7:37 PM

I ain’t your Bro.. Bro.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:40 PM

You won’t be surprised to learn that a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a “strategic advisor” at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy. Glauthier worked – shock, shock – on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.

Does the name of another one of their strategic advisors sound familiar ?

R. James Woolsey
James Woolsey is a Venture Partner with VantagePoint Venture Partners of San Bruno, California. Currently, Mr. Woolsey is also the Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University; chairs the Strategic Advisory Group of the Washington, D.C. private equity fund, Paladin Capital Group; is a Senior Executive Advisor to the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton; and is Of Counsel to the Washington, D.C. office of the Boston-based law firm Goodwin Procter. In the above capacities he specializes in a range of alternative energy and security issues.

Mr. Woolsey previously served in the U.S. Government on five different occasions, where he held Presidential appointments in two Republican and two Democratic administrations, most recently (1993-95) as Director of Central Intelligence.

http://www.solazyme.com/strategic-advisors

burrata on December 11, 2011 at 7:42 PM

We have arrived at the literal definition of insanity.

Yoop on December 11, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Having an alternative fuel source in case oil sources dry up in the future is not a horrible thing in itself.
 
ZippyZ on December 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM

 
It’s weird, but I sort of remember hearing our president and commander in chief threaten a veto solely over a huge supply of fuel from a peaceful neighbor who enjoys our military protection.
 
Nah, nevermind. I must be mistaken. That wouldn’t make any sense. Not with us doing this biofuel “investment” thing and all.

rogerb on December 11, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Time for an audit!!
(sarc)

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Hey, it could be worse. Last year! The Navy paid $424 a gallon for 20,000 gallons of biofuel.

http://www.dailytech.com/Navys+New+Experimental+Ship+Runs+on+Algae+Biofuel+Which+Costs+424Gallon/article20018.htm

Jobius on December 11, 2011 at 7:47 PM

This is a really bad idea, and the cost is the least of the problem. The national lab I work at bought a bunch of bio-diesel to run their backup generators. Bio-diesel spoils much faster than regular diesel fuel, and because the generators only ran during emergencies and for testing, the fuel spoiled in the tanks. Not only did the tanks have to be drained and flushed, the spoiled bio-diesel disposed of, and replacement diesel purchased, but many of the generators were fouled by the spoiled fuel and had to have their fuel systems re-built. Imagine what that would do to our Navy’s combat readiness.

Socratease on December 11, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Of course it is.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Where are you getting your information, or analysis? This is being driven by an Obama appointee.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Syntroleum is people! That’s why it’s “green!”

Personally, I think they should modify jets to run on used deep fryer grease instead of JP5. That would save a lot of money.

Elric on December 11, 2011 at 7:48 PM

During Vietnam, I was in the Navy and stationed on a Fleet Oiler. We carried 2-1/2 million gallons of JP-5 so this piddly 450,000 gallons of biofuel is all for show and probably making a donor rich, but in the big scheme of things, it’s hardly a blip.

bflat879 on December 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

But we’re being green…

/signed/ Retired Navy guy

Khun Joe on December 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

prove it than.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM

“Wild” is a a subjective term, but the DoD is at least endorsing bad energy policy with real monetary consequences: “Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security”–Navy Secretary Ray Mabus

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Personally, I think they should modify jets to run on used deep fryer grease instead of JP5. That would save a lot of money.
Elric on December 11, 2011 at 7:48 PM

and when Mooch will ban deep frying , then what ‘ll we do ?

burrata on December 11, 2011 at 7:58 PM

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

No Link?

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Obama gives his friends government goodies, while I, as only a worker for a defense firm in the dreaded private sector would know, are seeing my co-workers getting laid off with regularity. We don’t have funding to advance our missile defense capability but we have plenty of taxpayer funds to pay 16 bucks a gallon for fuel from Obama’s cronies. And the dopes listening to the network news will be clueless to the whole scandal. What a country.

drewinmass on December 11, 2011 at 8:03 PM

“Wild” is a a subjective term, but the DoD is at least endorsing bad energy policy with real monetary consequences: “Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security”–Navy Secretary Ray Mabus

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

V e r y s l o w l y n o w: Mabus is an Obama appointee.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM

So, how much of that money will somehow find its way back into indirect accounts and funding for this years media ads?
Stimulus? Oh yea…Joe Biteme can account for every dollar…I forgot!

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM

This list is so outrageous I thought it was a fake when I first saw it. It’s not a fake, I really liked the D’s list.

mixplix on December 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Whoops forgot the site, sorry. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

mixplix on December 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM

The only reason we ever cared about the Middle East, aside from Isreal, was Oil. Now that we’ve found enough HERE to last 200 years, time for a re-think? Maybe?

Boneheads….Drill, baby Drill, and frack-away!

Who is John Galt on December 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

“Wild” is a a subjective term, but the DoD is at least endorsing bad energy policy with real monetary consequences: “Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security”–Navy Secretary Ray Mabus

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM

theperfecteconomist:We need stink’n facts,and links to back up
what,or what did not get said!!
=====================================================

Navy Seeks Boost From Biofuels
December 5, 2011 | 12:31 p.m.
******************************

“We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters,” Mabus said. “Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”
(More……)
===============

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/navy-seeks-boost-from-biofuels-20111205

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Actually, it is not so outrageous.

The plant is a 30 minute drive for me to reach. Groundbreaking was in 2008 and it uses PIG FAT to make the fuel. This fuel is approved for military JETS.

Now imagine what would happen if the U.S. threatened to fly over MECCA with jets sending out atomized reconstituted PIG Fat raining down for the good pilgrims to breath.

Kermit on December 11, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Whoops forgot the site, sorry. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

mixplix on December 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Good grief! Just from a quick scan of letters A thru M, I saw at least a dozen agencies that could be either eliminated and/or merged.

Flora Duh on December 11, 2011 at 8:24 PM

How many sorties would use up 450,000 gallons? Seriously military tankers deliver this much jet fuel to a single carrier all the time. This is a barge load, one single barge load.

Kermit on December 11, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Whoops forgot the site, sorry. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

mixplix on December 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM

mixplix:Good linky,heres the Contractors!!:)
============================================

Department of Defense Websites
*******************************

http://www.defense.gov/RegisteredSites/RegisteredSites.aspx

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM

During Vietnam, I was in the Navy and stationed on a Fleet Oiler. We carried 2-1/2 million gallons of JP-5 so this piddly 450,000 gallons of biofuel is all for show and probably making a donor rich, but in the big scheme of things, it’s hardly a blip.

bflat879 on December 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Was that an AOR? I was on Kalamazoo in the early 80s. We carried 5 million DFM and 2.5 million JP-5. Nimitz class would take all our JP-5 in one hit and they could come back every 3rd day if they had a lot of flight ops.

TugboatPhil on December 11, 2011 at 8:27 PM

No Link?

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Google: 0.28 seconds

MTLassen on December 11, 2011 at 8:28 PM

It probably won’t change until there are a few dozen of the theives swinging from the lamp posts.

deimos on December 11, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Tyson and Syntroleum are distinguished by having profitable lines of business that do not rely on government grants to unprofitable “green” projects.

Yeah, maybe not “green” projects, but Tyson, at least has been in dozens of unholy alliances with the government, from back when they bought both Clinton and Dole in ’96, just to hedge their bets. And I’d guess with a little looking, many members of Syntroleum’s board of directors, or upper-level management have lots of connections in Washington. It’s way easier, and way more profitable, than trying to sell product to the private sector.

notropis on December 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Crap,correction on above posty,not(Contractors),sorry!
(canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:26 PM)

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:30 PM

“Without the federal subsidies, the DoD would have had to have paid more than $23/gallon, so green energy initiatives have actually saved the DoD more $7/gallon! It’s as if the DoD is being paid $3 for every gallon of green gas they buy. That’s how math works. You should be thanking me!” — An Imbecile from Indonesia

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 11, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Contracts!
==========

Contracts valued at $5 million or more are announced each business day at 5 p.m. Contract announcements issued within the past 30 days are listed below. Older contract announcements are available from the contract archive page. Contract announcements are also available by e-mail subscription. Go to DOD News for more information and for links to other news items.
==============================================

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:31 PM

“We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters,” Mabus said. “Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”

What a crock! this guy is obviously an Obama appointee whose duty is to enrich bundlers with taxpayer money in advance of the next election – so they can funnel more money back toward The One. Spending more money for inferior fuel does NOT make us better fighters – it makes us dumber procurers. And how is the use of fossil fuels a threat to our national security? If that’s the case, all naval vessels should be immediately converted to nuclear power.

Elric on December 11, 2011 at 8:32 PM

The level of waste in defense is astronomical, yet conservatives go nuts when anyone suggests cutting some defense budgets. Holy hell they are at near record highs right now, you would think that with wars drawing down so would the budgets, but then you realize that these republicans are no different than the democrats, its just they want their big government to be focused on defense and social crap.

thphilli on December 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Had this bookmarked for a few years,for resource purposes!
===========================================================

News, views and contacts from the global Air Force industry

Company A – Z
View Products & Services alphabetically
***************************************

http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/indexAtoZ.html

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM

This is great news.

When a dog-poop powered Carrier Battle Group takes up station off Iran, they’ll know we mean business.

CorporatePiggy on December 11, 2011 at 8:40 PM

thphilli on December 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM

There is waste at all levels of government but why does Obama go after defense first when he has not made a single effort to curb waste fraud and abuse in say, medicare. It’s politics. I agree that cuts can be made to the military too, but we should start across the board first with every department. Democrats have not made any effort at all.

mike_NC9 on December 11, 2011 at 8:41 PM

The real issue is the current administration shutting down access to available fossil fuel in the US, to force the use of substitute materials, which are mostly tied to the money-sucking Greens of the Left.

Fischer–Tropsch chemistry, with 90 years of research effort, is still not competitive with fossil fuel wells, although it has it’s place. Likewise, the bio-gas processes like algae fuel do not have the world-class scale needed. The pilot plants are expensive, and we have cheaper fuel available.

A new Navy Research Lab process would take CO2 from seawater and turn it into fuel. It need a lot of power to work it, even if they optimize the catalysts. The entire apparatus could be powered by a nuclear reactor. Lots of highly flammable intermediates reduce the potential for ship-board use. My look at the ACS talk on this is that it would be better on a non-moving platform or at a beach. It’s not very efficient, but long term, it could be helpful.

Fuel requirements for the jet fuel the Navy uses (JP-5) are quite stringent. These include:

- the correct not-to-exceed flash point, so the risk of auto-ignition in onboard fires is minimized
- good viscosity over a wide temperature range
- non-corrosive
- resists bio-fouling
- non-jelling in the cold
- no sediment to clog gas turbine engines.
Jet engines need good fuel for planes to fly without worries. Not any fuel can be used.

Surface combatants of today also have a large number of propulsion gas turbine engines (LM2500 based), but the fuel doesn’t have to be so pure because it is conditioned and purified in filter systems. These systems are too large and heavy to be used by any aircraft. Additionally, in some storage systems the fuel floats on top of sea water.

Bottom line — a money drain the military does not need today. Pilot plants are OK, but not full scale production in world-class refineries. It takes a lot of energy to overcome the unfavorable thermodynamics.

NaCly dog on December 11, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Google: 0.28 seconds

MTLassen on December 11, 2011 at 8:28 PM

:) where is the link? I know you all are new, but the rules don’t stop or change if someone asks for proof. :)

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Army Logistician
****************

The Reality of the Single-Fuel Concept
by Maurice E. Le Pera
**********************

To simplify fuel operations, the Department of Defense (DOD) has adopted a single-fuel concept (SFC) that requires U.S. forces to use only one fuel while deployed. Although the concept has merits, it also has shortcomings. The challenge is to develop a policy that will best meet all military fuel needs.
(More….)
==========

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr05/reality.html

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:45 PM

[url]Mabus is an Obama appointee.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM[/url]

So? Just because he’s appointed doesn’t mean he’s not part of the defense organization.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 8:45 PM

:) where is the link? I know you all are new, but the rules don’t stop or change if someone asks for proof. :)

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:43 PM

upinak:I dug it up for ya!:)
=============================

Navy Seeks Boost From Biofuels
December 5, 2011 | 12:31 p.m.
******************************

“We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters,” Mabus said. “Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”
(More……)
===============

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/navy-seeks-boost-from-biofuels-20111205

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:47 PM

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:43 PM

It’s from the first paragraph of the first link from J.E. Dyer’s post.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 8:47 PM

So? Just because he’s appointed doesn’t mean he’s not part of the defense organization.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 8:45 PM

so.. about that link?

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:47 PM

OT: Steady increase in violence at Eugene Oregon Occupy camp
But of course, their ‘leaders’ say the public should be glad to pay the extra costs to society because their message is so important, or something like that…

Marcola on December 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Why is the DOD so corny?

Let food be food and fuel be fuel.

There is something immoral about this use of what are primarily foodstuffs to make fuel.

Sherman1864 on December 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I have never ever thought i would see so much corupption and see the media be so quiet!! I remember all the investigations in the media during Pres.Bushs term. It makes me very afraid.

lisa fox on December 11, 2011 at 8:52 PM

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Interesting…. you figured out how to quote.. yet no linky.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Marcola on December 11, 2011 at 8:50 PM

aren’t these the OWS who have their hands cemented in a barrel? Still don’t care.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:54 PM

16 bucks a gallon. wow.

maybe I was wrong about the military not needing cuts.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Bing. These mandatory cuts can’t happen fast enough for me. Time to horse-whip O’Baaahma’s political military force back to reality. Let’s fire some Admirals while we’re at it.

Jaibones on December 11, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Ray Mabus
*********

Raymond Edwin “Ray” Mabus, Jr. (born October 11, 1948) is the 75th United States Secretary of the Navy. Mabus served as the 60th Governor of the U.S. state of Mississippi from 1988 to 1992 and as United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1994 to 1996

Secretary of the Navy
************************
Mabus meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, June 2010.On March 27, 2009, Mabus was nominated by President Obama as Secretary of the Department of the Navy.[20] He was informally sworn in on May 19, 2009,[21] however it was not until an official ceremony at Washington Navy Yard on June 18, 2009 that Mabus was officially sworn in by the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.[22][23][24][25] In April 2010 a furor arose when it was reported that Mabus made the controversial proposal to name a United States Navy warship after the late Pennsylvania Democrat, John Murtha. Secretary Mabus has a presence on Facebook and frequently comments about his daily activities. This is the first case of a branch secretary maintaining a web presence.

President Obama has asked him to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists and other Gulf residents”.[26]
================================================

Tidbit!
********

In August 2007, he joined the board of Enersys, the world’s largest manufacturer, marketer and distributor of industrial batteries.[18] From 2006-April 2007, he was Chairman and CEO of Foamex International and helped lead it out of bankruptcy.[citation needed] Less than nine months after his appointment, Foamex emerged from Chapter 11.
(More…)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mabus#
=======================================

Foamex International Inc.
*************************

http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/fuel_cell_markets/member_view.aspx?articleid=1142&subsite=1&language=1

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Interesting…. you figured out how to quote.. yet no linky.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 8:53 PM

The first paragraph of the first link of J.E. Dyer’s post

Or the main article from the first paragraph of that link.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 9:00 PM

JP-5 is for aircraft. DFM (Diesel Fuel Marine) is for ships.

Gatekeeper on December 11, 2011 at 9:00 PM

So? Just because he’s appointed doesn’t mean he’s not part of the defense organization.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 8:45 PM

You’ve got me there: He is the Obama appointed Secretary of the Navy, a liberal democratic hack, but he is part of the military. So, let’s bash the “military” for this idiotic leftist radical environmentalist attack on our economy and our military.
No need to respond: I can’t handle your logic.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 9:03 PM

This is not an example of pentagon gone wild spending. GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Of course it is.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 7:33 PM

prove it than.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM

No econ, you didn’t prove it. It was like pulling teeth for you to even get a clue about answering me. This is about the Agriculture making the DoD take the Obama bait… which happens to be the Navy Brass as usual.

upinak on December 11, 2011 at 9:06 PM

So,Obama has his little fingers,micro-managing,
Bio-Fuels related to Government Contracts by the look of it!

Mabus was,

From 2006-April 2007, he was Chairman and CEO of Foamex International and helped lead it out of bankruptcy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mabus#
****************************************************

So,when do the Hearings begin on Obama’s Conflict of Interest(s)!

How much loot,does he have in various Fuel-Cell Companies,
or Bio-Fuels/Solar Panel Companies!!

And,it seems,anyone connected to Bio-Fuels gets a Government
High-Positioned Job,qualified or not!!!

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Man, that’s an old photo. Tomcats on deck.

viking01 on December 11, 2011 at 9:11 PM

You won’t be surprised to learn that a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a “strategic advisor” at Solazyme,

dude;

Solyndra
Lightsquared
now Solazyme….

obama is icarus and he has certainly flown too close to the sun.

ted c on December 11, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Man, that’s an old photo. Tomcats on deck.

viking01 on December 11, 2011 at 9:11 PM

great eye!

ted c on December 11, 2011 at 9:17 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I never bashed the military, and it’s vulgar of you to insinuate such.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Obama $510M ‘Blueprint’ advanced biofuels program: industry reaction
Aug 17 2011
**************

“The Administration’s investment in commercializing advanced biofuels is a matter of national security.

Here are the facts. The U.S. Defense Department is a one of the world’s largest consumers of fuel, representing close to 2 percent of annual U.S. petroleum use. In 2008, DOD purchased $16 billion worth of fuel, using 119 million barrels of petroleum. Together, with the private commercial airline industry, DOD uses 1.5 million barrels (63 million gallons) of jet fuel per day. Armed with just these few facts, you can see that our nation’s defense is at the mercy of the market just as much as we are when we pull up to the gas station.”
(More…..)

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/08/17/obama-510m-blueprint-advanced-biofuels-program-industry-reaction/

canopfor on December 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM

How do we stop this insane waste and still remain strong?

trickychicken on December 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I never bashed the military, and it’s vulgar of you to insinuate such.

theperfecteconomist on December 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Not only does your logic stink, but you attempt to criticize me for something that you think I insinuated, which is dependent on your, seemingly, weak ability to read. But please, please, don’t call me vulgar.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 11, 2011 at 9:28 PM

How do we stop this insane waste and still remain strong?

trickychicken on December 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Proportionally, there is less waste in Defense. We spend for a world-class military that is the primary instrument of world peace between major powers, and we get the best military in the world.

Contrast that with our entitlements, which involve much more money, and spending on Education and other money sink of government. That money is essentially wasted, for all the good it does. Most of that is decoupled from results. Education is the poster child for that, with 3 times the federal dollars spent for no increase in test score or evidence of smarter students.

All we got from massive spending on the war against poverty from 64-94 (many times more than DOD) was crippled rotten cities, crippled sub-cultures, and less riots. Poor ROE. It did good in some cases, but …

NaCly dog on December 11, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Ya know, screw this; where do I sign up to get a ‘grant’ from this administration? I don’t even need a $29.5million one, just a few million will do me just fine, thanks – and because it’s less, Obama can include it in his ‘budget cuts’ malarkey!

Midas on December 11, 2011 at 9:33 PM

How do we stop this insane waste and still remain strong?

trickychicken on December 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM

The short answer is to cut entitlements, defund plenty of the government, reduce flag officer numbers and eliminate most SES positions. We are top heavy in government, with plenty of overhead.

NaCly dog on December 11, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2