Jul 10 2009, 1:23PM
Who pays more than $5.61/gallon of gas? You do, when it's for the US military....
How much do we really pay for the gasoline we use? What we pay at the pump is only the beginning, with direct and indirect subsidies and tax breaks appearing on our tax returns on April 15, environmental costs showing up at the ER and banking in the atmosphere, and the opportunity costs... Well, I won't go on because we just don't have a legitimate estimate. And because we don't know how much the gas really costs us, we are less inclined to make those supposedly economically rational decisions that will lead our economy away from oil dependence. Some suggest taxes to make the pinch real, but there's hardly any political support for that.
Enter the US military, the world's largest purchaser of petroleum. After many decades of accounting for the cost of oil as only the amount they paid refiners, they have recently started accounting for the cost of delivering the gas to the tank where it will be used. The result is amazing, and it may be enough to change the calculus of how the military uses energy. The average peacetime delivered cost of fuel purchased for $2.30 a gallon and used on military bases averages out to $5.61 a gallon when the costs of delivery are added in. (For the details, see this post in the always-interesting DOD Energy blog, and then download the pdf.) Camp Casey, in the Republic of Korea, averages $11.04 a gallon. Later in the pdf there's a screen that seems to show that it's $13 or so for fuel in Iraq, but it may be higher. I've heard that the military spends about 9 gallons getting a single gallon of fuel to its destination in some conflict areas. (Is this true? Please! Correct me if not.)
There is plenty of criticism that the military is not doing enough to move to alternative fuels, like this from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (And from what I've heard , the biofuel and synfuel programs described here have been modified since this was written. Again, correct me if this is wrong.)
But the new cost calculus makes such things as portable garbage -to-fuel converters, and today's green media darling, the urine-powered fuel cell, feasible. According to this article, Ohio University's Geraldine Botte's lab is using urine to produce the equivalent of a gallon of gas for 90 cents. (Insert moderately tasteless pun here.) No. There is simply nothing I can say to top that whole scenario, except that the cost of war will fall dramatically if we find a way to turn soldier's pee into fuel at less than 1/6 the cost of gasoline.
It is easy to be smug and snarky about the military paying high prices for fuel - just what makes Haliburton an easy target in fact.
How much does it cost to have a tanker of gasoline delivered in say, Irag or Afghanistan versus to the Chevron station down the street from the Starbucks where Lisa Margonelli hangs out?
The fact is the cost of delivery is huge and that fact is not - or should not be - surprising. It is a non sequitur to suggest that the military adopt green/ alternative energy. Whatever makes the planes and other vehicles run optimally is the only thing I am interested.
There is a lot that goes into the expense the military has to swallow that is not included in this article. Because of this, the information presented is mis-leading.
Due to many obligations and laws foisted on the military leaders by congress, the military pays more than most civilians for the resources it uses. Each base or unit is required to spur competition, to consider and take bids from all sources. Then they are often required to consider minority contractors or local contractors (vendors) before large companies; this is the law. Top this off, when in a foreign country they are required by the SOFA (status of forces agreement, each country develops their own with the military leadership in that country), to hire, purchase from, or develop contracts with local national companies, often at a premium price greatly elevated over other options. Another aspect, and this one is recent in the Ft Riley area, the top leadership of a base is required to support the local economy and cannot build their own, create their own, or ship their own resources, housing, and more.
Now, despite all of these rules, the military is working constantly to develop technology that will reduce their fuel footprint. They strive, also by regulation, to 'green' their fleet and how they get to and from forward operations as well as how they operate in garrison.
Each year the budget goes through more layers than you or I could ever imagine, and the cost of fuel and resources used by the military is a major concern that receives more scrutiny than other areas. The Navy and the Air Force are required to budget JP fuel (jet fuel) based on defense needs and training is often restricted to keep from going outside of the limitations on their fuel usage. This goes for environmental concerns as well; too much flight time in one area is limited to keep from raising pollution concerns.
The military has a long way to go, but they have made huge strides. I think it would be nice to look at how successful they have been, the improvements they have facilitated, and what savings they have incorporated for the US economy as a whole.
But again, one of the largest forms of frustration for the leadership I work with is how they are forced to not save budgetary dollars because they must go with disabled or minority vendors as it will help the economy and keep these businesses viable.
The military is an easy target, but that is unfair since so many of their actions are determined by 535 congressional and senatorial members. These politicians develop laws that govern all aspects of the military based on their own political maneuverings and agendas; they do not consider the huge, whole picture. When the law is passed and the military acts in accordance with that law, they get the flack, not the politician that passed the law in the first place. Often the politician is seen as the hero for passing what seems to be a good law, while the military is the gluttonous monstrosity that is destroying the environment and spending tax payers dollars.
I am, by all means, not saying that every decision made by the military is correct, that would be naive and simplistic. But not all things are what they appear; too many layers and leaders for that. The ones raised in this article need further, thorough investigation. Scraping the top layers of this issues as the author has done is not presenting a balanced or honest appraisal of the issue. I wish I had more concrete answers, but I can only suggest that Lisa do more digging than the few sites she quotes, I would suggest reading the Quadrennial Defense Review, the National Defense Strategy, and the POM (presidential budget). These are only the beginning, but they will highlight some of the obligations the military must consider when they carry out the defense of our nation.
It is a huge kettle, and I am not sure which fish to shoot first. Kind of overwhelming, isn't it?
Signed, Veteran Air Force Member Now Employed as a Senior GS Manager Married to Senior Army Leader