Security threat over Africa oil

[seemslikeadream]

13/03/2005 17:13 - (SA)

Abuja - African naval chiefs sparred with US top brass the past week over how to share responsibility for protecting the continent's burgeoning oil supplies from political instability, war, piracy and terrorism.

Senior defence experts and military officers met in the Nigerian capital Abuja for a week-long Pentagon-sponsored seminar on energy security and the implications of a new African oil boom in the troubled Gulf of Guinea region.

While African commanders urged the countries that will come to depend on African oil to fund a rapid expansion in local navies to protect it, western delegates warned that more must be done to combat an oil-fuelled looting spree.

Nigeria, Angola, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea are already major suppliers of oil to the United States and their reserves are about to surge higher as energy majors win the rights to drill huge new fields in deep waters for offshore.
more
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,6119,2-11-1447_1675747,00.html

[DulceDecorum]

1. The Second Coming

of the Europeans.

[Goldeneye]

2. The Africans shouldn't worry

about their oil. Bush Co would be more than happy to take care of it for them.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. After seeing the reports about how much OIL the US MILITARY

uses to operate all their war toys -- it is becoming clear that the military is just a branch of the Petrolarchy.

The US military uses as much of the precious oil resources as most non military segments of the world's population.

All of the US military operations world wide will require more and more oil.

The US military reminds me of a parasite -- going to the source and sucking the victim dry.

[bpilgrim]

4. gotta link?

it really must be enormous.

sometimes i feel like i'm watch'n a simpson's episode regarding the logic of our fearless leaders :crazy:

peace

[chlamor]

6. Five Billion Gals./yr-Aircraft Carrier gets 17ft./gal M1A2 Tank .5Mile/gal

Jet fighter uses more fuel in one hour than the average US motorist uses in two years. US Navy uses 16% of worlds diesel fuel each year. Aircraft carrier uses 150,000 gallons/day. Here is more;

Most of DOD's five billion gallons of annual petroleum use fuels weapons platforms—land, sea, and air—that are manifestly inefficient. To add a little irony, much of the fuel used by the military is exhausted moving fuel around. Of the gross tonnage moved when the Army deploys, 70 percent is fuel.

<snip>


Most of the things we looked at were not, as the saying goes, rocket science. It wasn't hard to decide that 0.56-mpg tanks and 17-feet-per-gallon aircraft carriers are just as unnecessarily wasteful as civilian gas-guzzlers.

<snip>

The Army's formidable half-mile-a-gallon M1A2 tanks are powered by inefficient 1960s-design gas turbines that yield 1500 horsepower to make 68 tons dash around a battlefield at 30 mph (42 on the road). They do that pretty well. But 60- to 80-odd percent of the time, that huge turbine is idling at one percent efficiency to run a 5-kilowatt "hotel load," mostly air conditioning and electronics.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid939.php

[teryang]

9. Much to be said for this article but....

Much of what goes on in the military is an oral tradition. Sure people write it down and put it in texts at various military schools but it gets passed down in training units in the field and at the service schools, but mostly in the field.

Sure this can lead to being overly conservative, but the military personnel work with what the civilian leadership and defense contractors provide. Therein lies the pork barrel problem.

Success in military endeavors involves a successful military culture as well technological development. Too much innovation leads to chaos in the field, because planners of new technology ALWAYS overestimate capabilities and the benefit side of cost benefit analysis. Those familiar with the subject can think of examples I'm sure. On the other hand there is a case to be made for not getting stuck in the last war, with the technology that no longer works.

Aircraft carriers are very efficient. They must be compared to the scores of land based air facilities that one carrier theoretically replaces. Therefore they are a bargain. (this doesn't mean that fuel economy shouldn't be looked at). The most serious problem with them is their vulnerability to subsurface attack. What country would dare to make such an attack? When that occurs, their use may have to be re-evaluated.

[bpilgrim]

11. "not getting stuck in the last war, with the technology that no longer wor

"not getting stuck in the last war, with the technology that no longer works"

sounds like rummy explaining how this is a different war, and definitely NOT vietnam... so, STOP saying that :evilgrin:

but the point isn't JUST about carriers... it is about ALL the gas&oil GUZZLING war beast in our arsenal.

our military is sucking up all our vital 'bodily' fluids :crazy:

peace

[teryang]

18. No it isn't just about carriers

But my point about carriers is that they are more efficient than air forces stationed overseas on land bases. Much more efficient. Therefore this "expert" is missing some major points in doing his efficiency analysis.

The British navy went for fuel economy before the Falklands conflict building lighter more efficient ships. Antiquated A4 bombers literally destroyed three ships of the line and almost defeated the expeditionary force, including the light aircraft carrier's pitifully smaller air force, before they were saved by the AIM 9G. The air to air missile which had finally come of age after many years of developement saved the day for the British. So there we have an example of new technology saving new technology from defeat by the old technology. The new fuel efficient technology failed diastrously without an important tactical component.

What is the fuel economy cost of having forces stationed in over a hundred countries? The cost of overextended lines of communication is huge. It seems like the experts in the Pentagon deliberately inflate costs to benefit the shareholders of old capital. The Pentagon could be reduced by a half without any significant effect on the world balance of power, if we weren't trying to take over the whole world. Personally, I believe in spending money on human resources and cutting down on the super wazoo next generation of aerospace which is and has been ridiculously expensive for decades.

The air force is the most wasteful service, with the biggest budget, with the least throughput. Unsustainable world wide deployment in interior land masses encourages its use. The army uses commercial airliners which rarely fly anywhere empty like their air force counterparts.

The truth is that airliners armed with cruise missiles could have replaced pork hogs like the B52, B1, B2, and stealth and a lot of people in the industry know it.

[chlamor]

8. More on Military fuel use-In Iraq 15 million gals/day

During fiscal year 2002, DESC purchased a total of 7.5 billion gallons, which was about 2 to 3 percent of that year's U.S. commercial consumption. Of all the fuel products procured by DESC, JP-8 and JP-5 aviation turbine fuels typically represent the largest fraction.

Typically, for operations in foreign countries, fuel represents more than half the tonnage needed to sustain military actions.

In Iraq, for example, U.S. logisticians are working to create a network that supplies a force consuming 15 million gallons of fuel a day.

[bemildred]

12. Almost sounds like a weakness or "achilles heel" if you think about it.

[bpilgrim]

13. "half the tonnage needed to sustain military actions." no wonder rummy

doesn't want to armor up... don't they realize, like everyone else that it is cheaper to BUY it instead of TAKING it by force and at the rate their using it up they are just exacerbating the problem?

on the other hand that seems to be their main strength, EXACERBATING PROBLEMS :argh:

peace

[DELUSIONAL]

16. I read it within the last week here at DU

The one eye popping number I remember -- Bradley Tanks use 5 gallons PER mile.

All the tanks etc. are high oil consumers -- with tankers following them.

Here are some numbers I found googling.

http://www.iags.org/es040403.html

Fueling coalition forces in the desert
The nightmare of military logistics planners in Iraq is for advancing military units to outrun their fuel supply. Logistically, fuel is a huge burden for an army on the move. If Napoleon's army "moved on its stomach," today's ground forces move on diesel fuel. For heavy divisions, fuel accounts for 70 percent of the weight of supplies that have to be delivered to the front lines. For lighter divisions, fuel still makes up 30 percent.


A 1999 study on fuel economy in the military by the Rocky Mountains Institute showed that many of the vehicles, tanks, aircraft and vessels currently used by the military suffer from poor fuel economy partly due to anachronistic design but mainly due to flawed calculation of the real cost of fuel. "The venerable B-52 bombers now being flown by the children of their original pilots have inefficient, low-bypass engines from the 1960s. Those could be refitted to modern ones using a third less fuel to achieve up to half again as much range. But they haven't been, because the fuel is thought to be cheap," says the report. Another primary platform, the Army's half-mile-a-gallon M1A2 tanks are powered by inefficient 1960s-design gas turbines enabling to cruise at 3 miles per hour. But 60-to 80 percent of the time, that huge turbine is idling at one percent efficiency to run low power systems like air conditioning and electronics. "Most civilian vehicles would use a small auxiliary power unit to serve such tiny, steady loads efficiently. Tanks don't, because their fuel was assumed to cost about a buck a gallon," said Amory Lovins the report's author. When the tanks advance hundreds of miles into the desert, away from their logistics base, the cost of refueling increases drastically. The cost of delivering fuel to the tank either by tankers or cargo helicopters can rise to $400-600 a gallon. Similarly, refueling bombers and jetfighters in midair makes refueling costs prohibitive.
But fuel waste doesn't just cost money; it inhibits war fighting. Each tank is trailed by lumbering fuel tankers. "An armored division may use as much as 20, perhaps even 40, times as many daily tons of fuel as it does of munitions."
For the future, the military is committed to creating a lighter, faster force that uses a lot less fuel. The U.S. military is currently developing hybrid systems, efficient diesel engines, and gasoline engines enhanced by auxiliary power units. The military is also interested in fuel cells to replace generators in the field. For the most part the fuel cells will likely be auxiliary power units, with hydrogen produced from water using diesel at least in the foreseeable future.

====================

http://www.energybulletin.net/4226.html
Militarizing energy policy
US leaders have responded to this systemic challenge to stability in oil-producing areas in a consistent fashion: by employing military means to guarantee the unhindered flow of petroleum. This approach was first adopted by the administrations of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower after World War II, when Soviet adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab upheavals in the Middle East seemed to threaten the safety of Persian Gulf oil deliveries. It was given formal expression by president Jimmy Carter in January 1980 when, in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran, he announced that the secure flow of Persian Gulf oil was in "the vital interests of the United States of America", and that in protecting this interest the United States would use "any means necessary, including military force". Carter's principle of using force to protect the flow of oil was later cited by president George H W Bush to justify US intervention in the Gulf War of 1990-91, and it provided the underlying strategic rationale for America's recent invasion of Iraq.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Petroleum_Insecurity.html
Oil and the US Military

Today, troops, tanks, combat aircraft, transport ships and most battle ships cannot move without oil. In peace time, the U.S. military, the largest oilconsuming organization in the world, consumes about 110 million barrels of petroleum products each year (more than one percent of total U.S. consumption). In war, the U.S. military consumes far more fuel. The Abrams MIA tank consumes on average one gallon of fuel for every six-tenths of a mile it travels. The fuel-efficiency of combat aircraft is much worse. No military commander wants to limit the intensity, scale, or duration of military operations because of a lack of fuel, and the U.S. military has gone to great lengths to make sure this never happens.
For decades now, the U.S. government has charged its military planners with developing and implementing strategies to ensure access to foreign oil supplies. For the military today, this is no small challenge, as most of the remaining proven oil reserves are to be found in the strife-torn Middle East.

[bpilgrim]

17. thanks everyone for the links - DU is awesome

keep'm coming :toast:

peace

[seemslikeadream]

5. U.S. and Nigeria host high level seminar on African oil security

The conference on "Energy and Security in Africa" was organized by the US Defense Department's Africa Center for Security Studies and by the defense ministry of Nigeria, Africa's largest oil producer.

Generals, diplomats and ministers from 15 African oil and gas producers joined military officers and defense experts from the United States, Britain, France, Canada and Denmark and executives from international oil giants.

Africa -- and in particular the Gulf of Guinea region off the continent's western coast -- is a rapidly expanding source of oil, but also prey to violent political instability which could threaten US and European supplies.
more
http://us-politics.news.designerz.com/us-and-nigeria-host-high-level-seminar-on-african-oil-security.html?d20050307

[seemslikeadream]

7. Prime Minister Erdogan's African connection

In the 1980's, the then Head of State General Kenan Evren initiated an African Policy for Turkey. Reports were made, missions were sent, but Africa's realities prevailed. Today little has changed in Africa. The basic problems remain. With the exception of South Africa, Africa has little to contribute to world globalization.

Erdoðan's focus on South Africa is well advised and timely. South Africa has sophisticated technology, including arms, which it is ready to export with the main focus being Asia and Australia. The attack helicopter Rooivalk is the pride of their military industry and said to be better quality than the U.S. version the Apache. South Africa is ready for counter trade agreements. It is also interested in building a nuclear reactor for a power plant in Turkey and ready to bid along with Russia, Germany, the U.S. and Canada. South Africa has joint venture companies in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The EU dominates its trade with more than 50% and Asian countries with more than 30%. Fifty percent of Africa's energy is produced in South Africa, along with 45% of its mineral wealth, 40% of industrial production and 50% of buying capacity.

South Africa's overall exports are $52 billion and her imports total $54 billion. Turkey's 2004 exports to South Africa were a mere $190 million, including paper tissues, toilet paper and nappies next to tractors, automotive spare parts, home textiles, marble, electric appliances etc., whereas its imports from South Africa are a huge $1 billion plus, mainly coal and gold, cowhides, iron and chrome. Turkey buys South African gold through European Swiss dealers paying an extra $1 billion for $4 billion worth of sales over four years. Would it not have been possible to buy South African gold directly from South Africa, I wonder? There are more than 60 Turkish companies with investments in South Africa, including six small factories, totaling a modest $60 million mainly in textiles, electric appliances, coal mines, tourism, construction, food and service sectors though South Africa has as yet no investments in Turkey. There are at present six major trade agreements for facilitating and encouraging trade between Turkey and South Africa and it is hoped that THY's Johannesburg flights will be resumed. Erdoðan's African visit started with Ethiopia as one of the poorest African countries, where Turkey can be an inspiration of development, and ended in the richest, South Africa, with a great potential for joint ventures to be explored.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=7917

[shadowknows69]

10. No, we're not trying to secure the world's oil reserves for ourselves.

peak oil? no such thing.

[bpilgrim]

14. yeah, it's ALL in your heads! a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY THEORY that makes us

all look like KOOKS... no wonder they hate us ;->

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

psst... pass the word

peace

[chlamor]

15. US Military is also Worlds Greatest Polluter-Excellent Link Here

Go to this website look to your left and click leaflets and brochures. Once there click on most recent article SUPERPOWER-SUPERPOLLUTER. It is a two page hand out sheet. I've made a few hundred copies over the last few months and passed them along and posted them. As for the above article I think to have a lean GREEN killing machine is an exercise in technomadness. WTF Amory Lovins? It is also dated, at present the Pentagon is using 7.5 bill. gals/yr. And the Abrams tank gets 4 Gals./mile (not a misprint).

Link: www.warresisters.org