3rdnlng Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Secretary of the Navy, Mabus says it's a security issue because we get our oil from volatile regions of the world. I wonder if they thought of drilling all of our own needs right here. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-usa-navy-greenfleet-idUSBRE86106X20120702 "In its tanks, the USNS Henry J. Kaiser carried nearly 900,000 gallons of biofuel blended with petroleum to power the cruisers, destroyers and fighter jets of what the Navy has taken to calling the "Great Green Fleet," the first carrier strike group to be powered largely by alternative fuels. Conventionally powered ships and aircraft in the strike group will burn the blend in an operational setting for the first time this month during the 22-nation Rim of the Pacific exercise, the largest annual international maritime warfare maneuvers. The six-week exercise began on Friday. The Pentagon hopes it can prove the Navy looks as impressive burning fuel squeezed from seeds, algae and chicken fat as it does using petroleum. But the demonstration, years in the making, may be a Pyrrhic victory. Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the fuel's $26-a-gallon price, compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel. They paint the program as a waste of precious funds at a time when the U.S. government's budget remains severely strained, the Pentagon is facing cuts and energy companies are finding big quantities of oil and gas in the United States. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, the program's biggest public booster, calls it vital for the military's energy security." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Drilling here in theory makes sense, but that raw product is sold on commdities markets... are you suggesting nationalized drilling by the government exclusively for the miltary? even if it was a private/ govt partnership, how much would the price per barrel have to be to make it worth it for the private end of that partnership versus selling to the highest bidder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Drilling here in theory makes sense, but that raw product is sold on commdities markets... are you suggesting nationalized drilling by the government exclusively for the miltary? even if it was a private/ govt partnership, how much would the price per barrel have to be to make it worth it for the private end of that partnership versus selling to the highest bidder? Mabus claims that they're using $26 a gallon fuel because of security reasons pertaining to oil being produced in volatile areas of the world. I'm sure we could come up with agreements with the oil companies that lease land (or offshore)that our military has first dibs on all the fuel they need from them at market prices. The agreements are probably not even necessary since there would be less transportation involved. This would be true for all our domestic needs too. Edited July 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Instead of cutting defense, how bout we cut out these pet programs we force the DOD into?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Wish those damn Canadians (who we get much of our oil supply from) would stop being so volatile... Maybe the Green Navy should set sail up there and show them who's the boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Drilling here in theory makes sense, but that raw product is sold on commdities markets... are you suggesting nationalized drilling by the government exclusively for the miltary? even if it was a private/ govt partnership, how much would the price per barrel have to be to make it worth it for the private end of that partnership versus selling to the highest bidder? And what happens if you flood the market? ANY commodity, if it is pushed into the market at a higher rate than demand, FORCES the price lower, making it more affordable to others.. WTF do you think OPEC is so powerful? They regulate the amount of oil on the market huh??? Imagine if some nation, that had no relation to OPEC suddenly started dumping oil on the market? What would happen to the price? I know many of the libertards have no idea of the concept of supply and demand, but I know better of you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 And what happens if you flood the market? ANY commodity, if it is pushed into the market at a higher rate than demand, FORCES the price lower, making it more affordable to others.. WTF do you think OPEC is so powerful? They regulate the amount of oil on the market huh??? Imagine if some nation, that had no relation to OPEC suddenly started dumping oil on the market? What would happen to the price? I know many of the libertards have no idea of the concept of supply and demand, but I know better of you... We're talking two things here, energy independence and market price. We can have energy independence with oil at $100 a barrel. We can also not have energy independence with oil at $50 a barrel. The point I'm trying to make is that it is downright stupid to make our navy use biofuels at $26 a gallon vs. $3.60 and claim it's for security reasons when we have all the oil we need. Now if we became energy independent it would obviously put a lot more oil out on the market. Depending on the world's needs at that time it could bring the price down dramatically or even not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 And what happens if you flood the market? ANY commodity, if it is pushed into the market at a higher rate than demand, FORCES the price lower, making it more affordable to others.. WTF do you think OPEC is so powerful? They regulate the amount of oil on the market huh??? Imagine if some nation, that had no relation to OPEC suddenly started dumping oil on the market? What would happen to the price? I know many of the libertards have no idea of the concept of supply and demand, but I know better of you... The problem is finding someone who has the oil supply and production capacity to flood the market. That's not even counting being willing to do so. Though I do wonder if it was intentional that we're sucking the deserts dry before going after all of our domestic reserves, or whether it just turned out that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) The problem is finding someone who has the oil supply and production capacity to flood the market. That's not even counting being willing to do so. Though I do wonder if it was intentional that we're sucking the deserts dry before going after all of our domestic reserves, or whether it just turned out that way. Hell, we have the capacity. We could take all of our natural gas, compress it and get rid of most of our oil usage and hold the oil in reserve to shake down the rest of the world sometime in the future. That is, until some new fantastic finds are found somewhere. Do you actually think that holding off on drilling our own oil is part of some master plan? This from a country "smart" enough to vote in Obama/Biden? Edited July 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Wish those damn Canadians (who we get much of our oil supply from) would stop being so volatile... Maybe the Green Navy should set sail up there and show them who's the boss. Volatility is not the risk with Canada. The drilling season there is July 2nd-July 17th. It is too cold the rest of the year. Plus the fact that they are stupid makes the production too slow to be reliable. Edited July 3, 2012 by ieatcrayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Mabus 2012 Z0mG!!1!!11! The Mayans and Nostradomus were right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Wish those damn Canadians (who we get much of our oil supply from) would stop being so volatile... Maybe the Green Navy should set sail up there and show them who's the boss. How dare you disrepsect the French, or for that matter the French Canadian..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 How dare you disrepsect the French, or for that matter the French Canadian..... !@#$ the French, and their little Canadian wannabes. Do you actually think that holding off on drilling our own oil is part of some master plan? This from a country "smart" enough to vote in Obama/Biden? If it actually was some form of plan, I'd wager it was drawn up decades ago during the cold war. Oblambam is certainly not smart enough to come up with something like that on his own; he's too busy reading teleprompters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Romney should bring this up in the debates with BO as part of a plan that proposes opening up more US drilling and having the government purchase commodity contracts with oil developers who develop new oil fields within the US. The 900,000 gallons of fuel mentioned in the article equates to roughly 47,000 barrels of crude oil with respect to the yield of gas per barrel. 42 gallons of oil per barrel and roughly 19.5 gallons of gas from that barrel. Of course there are other products that the other roughly 60% of the barrel that isn't turned into gasoline will produce. $608,400,000 was the price tag for the "green" gas which the government could pay the evil oil developers of the 47,000 barrels of crude mentioned above a cool $12,944.68 per each entire barrel before the "green" gas was cost effective. Donald Trump is correct. Our government negotiators are incompetent. They make deals like game show hosts - but often with worse results. At least the game shows are tilted in the show's favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Romney should bring this up in the debates with BO as part of a plan that proposes opening up more US drilling and having the government purchase commodity contracts with oil developers who develop new oil fields within the US. The 900,000 gallons of fuel mentioned in the article equates to roughly 47,000 barrels of crude oil with respect to the yield of gas per barrel. 42 gallons of oil per barrel and roughly 19.5 gallons of gas from that barrel. Of course there are other products that the other roughly 60% of the barrel that isn't turned into gasoline will produce. $608,400,000 was the price tag for the "green" gas which the government could pay the evil oil developers of the 47,000 barrels of crude mentioned above a cool $12,944.68 per each entire barrel before the "green" gas was cost effective. Donald Trump is correct. Our government negotiators are incompetent. They make deals like game show hosts - but often with worse results. At least the game shows are tilted in the show's favor. What's scarier is that your estimate oversimplified enough that it's off by a significant factor (it's not "gas", it's jet fuel, diesel, fuel oil, jet fuel, various lubricants). But even if you're off by a factor of 10, the "green" fuel still costs ten times more. And I'll bet has a larger overall carbon footprint, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 What's scarier is that your estimate oversimplified enough that it's off by a significant factor (it's not "gas", it's jet fuel, diesel, fuel oil, jet fuel, various lubricants). But even if you're off by a factor of 10, the "green" fuel still costs ten times more. And I'll bet has a larger overall carbon footprint, too. Could be. Eye wuz never good at maff. I just took the 900,000 of gas in the vessel at face value slap/dash and did not account for the costs of refining, transportation, etc. And yes, the remaining (non-gas) in the barrels of oil would produce fuel oil, kerosene (jet fuel), lubricants and coal tar that could be used repave the highways all those shovel-ready Civil Engineering projects across the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Could be. Eye wuz never good at maff. I just took the 900,000 of gas in the vessel at face value slap/dash and did not account for the costs of refining, transportation, etc. And yes, the remaining (non-gas) in the barrels of oil would produce fuel oil, kerosene (jet fuel), lubricants and coal tar that could be used repave the highways all those shovel-ready Civil Engineering projects across the land. Yeah...my point wasn't that you're an idiot, as much as that you could be off by an order of magnitude and it's still completely !@#$ing stupid. (Not that you're NOT an idiot...it just wasn't my point.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Yeah...my point wasn't that you're an idiot, as much as that you could be off by an order of magnitude and it's still completely !@#$ing stupid. (Not that you're NOT an idiot...it just wasn't my point.) You're exactly right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 Romney should bring this up in the debates with BO as part of a plan that proposes opening up more US drilling and having the government purchase commodity contracts with oil developers who develop new oil fields within the US. The 900,000 gallons of fuel mentioned in the article equates to roughly 47,000 barrels of crude oil with respect to the yield of gas per barrel. 42 gallons of oil per barrel and roughly 19.5 gallons of gas from that barrel. Of course there are other products that the other roughly 60% of the barrel that isn't turned into gasoline will produce. $608,400,000 was the price tag for the "green" gas which the government could pay the evil oil developers of the 47,000 barrels of crude mentioned above a cool $12,944.68 per each entire barrel before the "green" gas was cost effective. Donald Trump is correct. Our government negotiators are incompetent. They make deals like game show hosts - but often with worse results. At least the game shows are tilted in the show's favor. Romney needs to make the economy THE issue. He can bring into the conversations energy independence, the ACA and burdensome regulations but only as to how they relate to the economy. Obama is going to do everything he can to get him off message. Romney needs to avoid that at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Secretary of the Navy, Mabus says it's a security issue because we get our oil from volatile regions of the world. I wonder if they thought of drilling all of our own needs right here. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-usa-navy-greenfleet-idUSBRE86106X20120702 "In its tanks, the USNS Henry J. Kaiser carried nearly 900,000 gallons of biofuel blended with petroleum to power the cruisers, destroyers and fighter jets of what the Navy has taken to calling the "Great Green Fleet," the first carrier strike group to be powered largely by alternative fuels. Conventionally powered ships and aircraft in the strike group will burn the blend in an operational setting for the first time this month during the 22-nation Rim of the Pacific exercise, the largest annual international maritime warfare maneuvers. The six-week exercise began on Friday. The Pentagon hopes it can prove the Navy looks as impressive burning fuel squeezed from seeds, algae and chicken fat as it does using petroleum. But the demonstration, years in the making, may be a Pyrrhic victory. Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the fuel's $26-a-gallon price, compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel. They paint the program as a waste of precious funds at a time when the U.S. government's budget remains severely strained, the Pentagon is facing cuts and energy companies are finding big quantities of oil and gas in the United States. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, the program's biggest public booster, calls it vital for the military's energy security." So let me get this straight. The same people who're bitching like hell that we need to become "Energy Independent" are pissed that the Navy demonstrated that if necessary, in an emergency, they could complete their assigned missions using an (admittedly) extremely expensive fuel to substitute for the normal fuel. Did I miss something here? This was a Demonstration/Test of an Emergency Use Back-Up Fuel! And now a pack of partisan idiots and their sheeple want to turn it into a political football. Would you clowns be happier if the military wasn't exploring alternate fuel usage? Would you be happier if the Joint Chiefs came out and stated that if we run out of fuel for some reason we'll be in the wardroom playing Acey-Duecy until somebody finds some for us? Partisan Frickin' Idiots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts