The United State Army has a policy that is killing our wounded troops in Afghanistan. U.S. Army medevac UH60s are unarmed and require by policy an armed escort before proceeding to pick up wounded troops. Given the high demand for AH64 Apache gunships in-theater, this policy results in unnecessary and unreasonable delays. On 18 September, 2011, the unnecessary death of a young soldier was documented by an independent third party. The article disclosing to the world what happened has become known as “RED AIR”.
As reported by war correspondent Michael Yon in his dispatch titled “RED AIR-America’s Medevac Failure” (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm) , on 18 September, 2011, while on a mission in Afghanistan, SPC Chazray Clark had the bad misfortune to trigger an IED, severely wounding the young soldier. Once the unit’s medics were able to assess his injuries, a medevac was immediately called for. The unit immediately returned to their LZ with SPC Clark to await the arrival of the medevac UH60.
What happened was an obscenity.
The call was put in for a medevac Dustoff setting at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) Pasab approximately 5 minutes away. Also based at Kandahar, AB, approximately 15 minutes away, were USAF PEDROs HH60G Pavehawks. Since the weather was good, Army policy dictates that its wounded be medevaced by its own unarmed Dustoff UH60s. The medevac helo waited 30 minutes on the ground for the arrival of the AH64 gunship required for escort by Army policy. 30 minutes which, for SPC Clark, his comrades, and the medevac helo crew must have seemed like an eternity. However, policy is policy, and the rules must be followed . . . SPC Chazray Clark grew weaker as time passed.
It took 65 minutes to get SPC Chazray Clark evacuated to a field hospital for treatment, even though FOB Pasab that the medevac helo was dispatched from was 10 minutes from the landing zone where SPC Clark lay dying. SPC Chazray Clark died just after landing at Kandahar, AB. Had the Army medevac helo been able to leave after notification of the medevac mission, without awaiting armed escort, SPC Clark would have been in the same field hospital within 24 minutes to 35 minutes, depending upon whether or not the medevac mission was launched from FOB Pasab or Kandahar, AB instead of the 65 minutesthat it actually took. Had SPC Chazray Clark been offloaded at the field hospital within 35 minutes, he would have survived his terrible wounds.
Time was the critical element as to whether or not SPC Chazray Clark lived or died after the IED was triggered.
The Army refuses to arm its medevac helicopters and insists on marking them with red crosses on white backgrounds so that the enemy has 1) a good aiming point, and 2) knows that they are unarmed. While conforming to the Geneva Convention, the red crosses are not taken by Muslims with the same meaning as intended under the Geneva Convention.
The Army’s policy stems from WWI when medical personnel and ambulances were marked with red crosses and were technically non-combatants. However, that civilized idea did not last long on the battlefield.
During the war in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), the Army’s Vietnam Dustoff (medevac ) UH1Ds and UH1Hs were still painted with red crosses on white backgrounds, giving the Viet Cong and the soldiers of the Peoples’ Army of Viet Nam readily identifiable aiming points. The medevac helos were armed or not, depending upon policy at the time. A documentary shot in 1966 called “The Anderson Platoon”, a story about the experiences of an infantry platoon of the 1st CAV in the RVN has two medevac scenes with wounded G.I.s being medevaced by armed Hueys marked with red crosses on white backgrounds. The point being, at that time, early in the war, unlike the Army medevac UH60s of Iraq and Afghanistan, in 1966, the Army 1st CAV Dustoff Hueys were armed.
The U.S. Army has a goal of getting any wounded troops to a medical facility within 60 minutes of notification of the need for medevac.
If the medevac site is declared “RED AIR” due to bad weather, then the USAF PEDRO UH60G Pavehawks are called in with their advanced all-weather instruments and sensors. Since the PEDROs are armed, they do not require any gunship escort.
No other service flies unarmed helos in a war zone. No other service forces its wounded to await evacuation based upon a policy that requires waiting for an armed gunship escort.
The courage, commitment, and dedication of Army medevac crews are legend. They are not the issue.
The solution to the Army's situation is simple:
1. Remove the red crosses that are a point of contention between the Muslims and the Army. The red cross was nothing more than a target since the Geneva Convention was written and last revised. In Vietnam, the red cross did not protect our medevac Dustoffs.
2. Arm the UH60A and UH60L medevac variants used in Afghanistan. They have the same engines, payload, and performance as the UH60 Slick utility helicopters that are presently armed with M240 7.62mm machine guns. The .50 caliber machine guns carried by the USAF PEDROs using basically the same helicopter with more sophisticated all weather sensors and in-flight refueling capability belie the Army's argument that the 168lbs for two M2 .50 cal machine guns and 100 lbs of ammo for both guns would negatively impact the performance of the UH60A or L medevac Dustoff variant used by the Army. See photo 3 of Nicole Sobrecki's photo series (link below) showing an Army Dustoff unit in Afghanistan and the interior of the UH60A.
The issue is an Army policy that has no place on the modern battlefield, which serves only to reduce the effectiveness of its medical evacuation capability. It is time this policy was changed. To mark or not to mark or to arm or not to arm the Army's medevac helicopters in a war zone should be a division command level decision. The in-country, in-theater war fighter commander should have that authority. The Army's ability to timely evacuate a wounded soldier should not be held hostage to an inflexible and outdated policy that has never been observed by any enemy since WWII.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/16/bureaucracy-killing-us-troops-in-afghanistan/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/01/military-lawmaker-arm-medevac-helos-to-save-more-lives-011712/
http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/index.php?storyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navytimes.com%2Fnews%2F2012%2F01%2Fmilitary-lawmaker-arm-medevac-helos-to-save-more-lives-011712%2F
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure.htm
CBS News interview with LTG Campbell regarding RED AIR and the Army's policy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57362374/did-military-rules-cost-a-soldier-his-life/?tag=mncol%3Blst%3B1
Locally, the Frontiersman published my op-ed on the issue:
http://www.frontiersman.com/opinions/columnists/medevac-policy-is-costing-lives/article_3bf39468-3f52-11e1-8999-0019bb2963f4.html
Photographs by Nicole Sobecki of an Army medevac unit in Afghanistan. Photo 3 shows the interior of a UH60A medevac helicopter. The gunners would sit in the two seats behind the sitting Marine that face outward toward the windows just behind the pilots. This configuration belies the Army's argument that he UH60 would suffer degraded performance and cause the removal of two litters from the helo were two .50 caliber machine guns to be mounted on the fuselage.
http://www.nicholesobecki.com/#/dustoff--us-army-medevac/NS_AF_113010_Medevac14_002
The U.S. Army's Public Affairs Office response to the criticism of the Army's medevac policy:
http://www.army.mil/article/72250/Army_statement_on_MEDEVAC_issue/
Alaska has two Army brigades at JBER near Anchorage, and JBEW near Fairbanks. Several hundred Alaska soldiers and at least one company of Alaska Army National Guard troops are presently deployed to Afghanistan. This policy of having to await armed escort will have an impact upon these troops.
Please call or write Senator Mark Begich, Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young and ask them to look into the Army policy of requiring an armed escort for medevac missions, which cause delays in reaching the wounded. Were the UH60s armed, they would not need an armed escort, thus saving time.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Alaska needs the 24 in NG pipeline to south central, NOW!
Last session (2008), the Legislature appropriated $4M to ANGDA to perform additional studies regarding early delivery options for the proposed ANGDA “bullet” NG pipeline, which, I hope, anyway, will provide NG for the Mat-Su Valley, the Kenai Penninsula and Anchorage.
Man oh man. When you want something screwed up, let government get involved.
First, the Governor asked for $8M for ANGDA for the study, and I assume other uses.
The Legislature cut that amount in half.
Normally, I would say, good job on cutting costs.
Then, one finds out what the money is to be used for, which is just another study on top of hundreds of millions spent on studies over the last 10 years regarding moving our NG from the North Slope to market.
Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel in the face of a 2005 study undertaken by DNR that focused on a bullet line to south central?
ANGDA focused on the immediate--and I mean immediate, as it is 2008, folks--NG crisis in this area. ANGDA’s solution was a 24 inch diameter bullet line to remedy the shortsightedness of the Murkowski Administration’s Canadian give away to the exclusion of the impending NG shortage in this area.
The Conoco Phillips-BP NG pipeline announced a few weeks ago is no solution, as that will not start construction for at least another 10 years.
What good does another study do, when the estimated time when Alaska will have to start importing NG is around 2012, and, if the line were started today, we might have NG flowing down here by 2012, if the environmentalist will allow Alaskans to meet their energy needs with this pipeline.
Of course, we all know, that the second construction is announced, every greenie organization in the nation will jump on the litigation bandwagon to raise money. Alaska has always been a cornucopia of issues for fund raising for these organizations.
Remember TAPS and the years of litigation to halt or slow the construction?
Therefore, why is our Governor and Legislature acting to delay the only solution that promises to provide NG from Alaska before we run out in this area?
I have to ask our Legislators and our Govenror, what’s the point of any appropriation that does not culminate in an immediate start in construction of the ANGDA pipeline?
The permits are in place, the studies have been done, let’s get on with it!
I am puzzled by the need to study additional means of delivering NG to south central or elsewhere for that matter.
Delay, delay, delay and do nothing, but more studies?
In 2012, and at the latest, 2014, we will be buying imported NG from the Producers. NG that will come from a very high priced foreign source--the Middle East, Sakhalin Island or from Indonesia. NG that will cost far more than the local source from the North Slope. And, joke of jokes, imported by LNG tanker.
Remember, it was just too expensive to transport Alaska NG to a U.S. market by LNG tanker.
Conversely, the Producers have already stated that LNG transported by LNG tankers will be means to resolve the Cook Inlet NG shortage if there is no pipeline built by then.
Interesting how in that case it will not be too expensive to import foreign NG to Alaska.
Couple a dramatic increase in the cost of NG to our homes, the rapidly increasing cost of motor fuels—if you think it is expensive now, just wait!—and the ever increasing burden of local government run amuck, who will be able to afford to live here?
Between property taxes and fuel costs, life as we know it now will be considerably degraded, as everything comes by ship, airplane or truck, which means food, clothing, and anything on the store shelves will be ever increasing in price.
Remember the Carter years with 18% inflation?
We can at least mitigate the home heating bill, if ANGDA can get started on a gas line.
To put Alaskans to work immediately, and to provide relief for an impending crisis requires our Governor to direct ANGDA to get to work, and for the Legislature to have the courage to underwrite the project.
Instead, our elected officials did what elected officials always do in the face of impending crisis, they called for another . . . study.
State employees had better not get any cost of living increases or other benefit increases until there is a solution to the NG crisis. They need to feel the pain just like the rest of us peons.
Looks like natural gas to diesel conversion for home heating is going to get a big boost, if the State does not give the ANGDA proposal impetus and money, instead of lip service. Time is something that is running out.
Already, Agrium has closed the ammonium nitrate plant at Nikkiski due to there being no natural gas available for the projection of ferilizer for Alaska's agricultural industry. Not only did that closure cost the State 60 jobs, but will drive the cost of our agriculture up, as fertilizer must once again be . . . imported.
The natural gas LNG plant that is being used to export natural gas to Japan is now scheduled to be converted into a receiving plant for LNG imports INTO Alaska. A minimum of 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the North Slope of Alaska, and Alaska may have to import natural gas if we cannot get a small pipeline built by 2014. Now, that's just wrong.
ANGDA needs a very serious priority. Now.
Otherwise, some legislators and a governor will go down in history as seeing the importation of LNG when a solution was immediately at hand.
Man oh man. When you want something screwed up, let government get involved.
First, the Governor asked for $8M for ANGDA for the study, and I assume other uses.
The Legislature cut that amount in half.
Normally, I would say, good job on cutting costs.
Then, one finds out what the money is to be used for, which is just another study on top of hundreds of millions spent on studies over the last 10 years regarding moving our NG from the North Slope to market.
Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel in the face of a 2005 study undertaken by DNR that focused on a bullet line to south central?
ANGDA focused on the immediate--and I mean immediate, as it is 2008, folks--NG crisis in this area. ANGDA’s solution was a 24 inch diameter bullet line to remedy the shortsightedness of the Murkowski Administration’s Canadian give away to the exclusion of the impending NG shortage in this area.
The Conoco Phillips-BP NG pipeline announced a few weeks ago is no solution, as that will not start construction for at least another 10 years.
What good does another study do, when the estimated time when Alaska will have to start importing NG is around 2012, and, if the line were started today, we might have NG flowing down here by 2012, if the environmentalist will allow Alaskans to meet their energy needs with this pipeline.
Of course, we all know, that the second construction is announced, every greenie organization in the nation will jump on the litigation bandwagon to raise money. Alaska has always been a cornucopia of issues for fund raising for these organizations.
Remember TAPS and the years of litigation to halt or slow the construction?
Therefore, why is our Governor and Legislature acting to delay the only solution that promises to provide NG from Alaska before we run out in this area?
I have to ask our Legislators and our Govenror, what’s the point of any appropriation that does not culminate in an immediate start in construction of the ANGDA pipeline?
The permits are in place, the studies have been done, let’s get on with it!
I am puzzled by the need to study additional means of delivering NG to south central or elsewhere for that matter.
Delay, delay, delay and do nothing, but more studies?
In 2012, and at the latest, 2014, we will be buying imported NG from the Producers. NG that will come from a very high priced foreign source--the Middle East, Sakhalin Island or from Indonesia. NG that will cost far more than the local source from the North Slope. And, joke of jokes, imported by LNG tanker.
Remember, it was just too expensive to transport Alaska NG to a U.S. market by LNG tanker.
Conversely, the Producers have already stated that LNG transported by LNG tankers will be means to resolve the Cook Inlet NG shortage if there is no pipeline built by then.
Interesting how in that case it will not be too expensive to import foreign NG to Alaska.
Couple a dramatic increase in the cost of NG to our homes, the rapidly increasing cost of motor fuels—if you think it is expensive now, just wait!—and the ever increasing burden of local government run amuck, who will be able to afford to live here?
Between property taxes and fuel costs, life as we know it now will be considerably degraded, as everything comes by ship, airplane or truck, which means food, clothing, and anything on the store shelves will be ever increasing in price.
Remember the Carter years with 18% inflation?
We can at least mitigate the home heating bill, if ANGDA can get started on a gas line.
To put Alaskans to work immediately, and to provide relief for an impending crisis requires our Governor to direct ANGDA to get to work, and for the Legislature to have the courage to underwrite the project.
Instead, our elected officials did what elected officials always do in the face of impending crisis, they called for another . . . study.
State employees had better not get any cost of living increases or other benefit increases until there is a solution to the NG crisis. They need to feel the pain just like the rest of us peons.
Looks like natural gas to diesel conversion for home heating is going to get a big boost, if the State does not give the ANGDA proposal impetus and money, instead of lip service. Time is something that is running out.
Already, Agrium has closed the ammonium nitrate plant at Nikkiski due to there being no natural gas available for the projection of ferilizer for Alaska's agricultural industry. Not only did that closure cost the State 60 jobs, but will drive the cost of our agriculture up, as fertilizer must once again be . . . imported.
The natural gas LNG plant that is being used to export natural gas to Japan is now scheduled to be converted into a receiving plant for LNG imports INTO Alaska. A minimum of 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the North Slope of Alaska, and Alaska may have to import natural gas if we cannot get a small pipeline built by 2014. Now, that's just wrong.
ANGDA needs a very serious priority. Now.
Otherwise, some legislators and a governor will go down in history as seeing the importation of LNG when a solution was immediately at hand.
Alaska's Natural Gas and Oil can benefit the U.S., or not.
Former Gov. Walter Hickel wrote an editorial in another paper that tried to demonstrate that there was a basis for an all-Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez. His premise was that Red China, and I mean RED China must be acknowledged as a potential player in any future natural gas market for Alaska natural gas. His editorial was also critical of the Palin Administration backing of the only AGIA applicant, Trans-Canada, a Canadian company that has proposed a 4.5 billion cubic feet per day natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe through Canada to the U.S. market.
He quoted Sen. Charlie Huggins as holding to the philosophy of positive engagement through world trade rather than exclusion as the route to economic prosperity and peace.
Red China, or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Japan and the rest of Asia are heavily dependent upon imported fuels and natural gas. These economies are in competition with Europe for the world’s oil and natural gas.
The principle suppliers of oil and natural gas being the Middle East, Russia, and Indonesia.
Brazil may become an oil exporting nation, provided the recent discoveries off the coast can be developed.
I agree with the need in Asia for Alaska NG, which is just part of the justification for an all-Alaska NG pipeline to Valdez. The fact that NG is exported from Nikkiski is a demonstration of the viability of the Asian market. A market that Alaska could certainly develop. However, I agree only if the U.S. continues to be stupid and refuse Alaska gas and oil development to ease dependence upon foreign oil and natural gas.
Alaska, as a sovereign State in the Union of States should have the opportunity to develop its resources to benefit Alaska, if the U.S. fails to understand that the primary desire of Alaskans is for our oil and natural gas to be used to benefit the U.S. first, and foreign markets second.
It has always been a paradox as to why natural gas was being exported to Japan from Cook Inlet reserves by LNG tanker, but Alaska could not develop its North Slope reserves to ship to U.S. markets by LNG tanker?
Were all of Alaska’s NG produced exported to foreign markets, Alaska could reasonably export by LNG tanker up to 4.5bcf per day, or the expected import of foreign NG into the U.S. market.
Alaska’s NG would most certainly affect the U. S. market by displacing largely imported Middle Eastern NG, and, because of competition, result in a lower price to the U.S. consumer of natural gas. A situation unremarked by the Producers in any discussion of marketing Alaska’s natural gas.
It is this displacement of foreign natural gas being imported at exorbitant prices into the U.S. market that is the dream of every Alaskan. Not just the benefits to the State: jobs, infrastructure, income, and, if a portion of the liquids are retained, industry from those liquids.
The energy policy of the U.S. can be viewed as insane on one level, and shrewd on another. If we suck the Middle East dry of oil and gas, then, we eventually eliminate the benefit of the income provided to those oligarchies who then contribute to the jihadis that want nothing more than to kill us infidels. On the other hand, we are paying high prices for oil and gas that is funding our enemies. That is the insane part, especially in the face of ANWR, off shore, and U.S. and Canadian oil and gas potential. Alaska could supply the 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that will be imported from Qattar, Indonesia, and Saudia Arabia by the end of 2012. Alaska’s natural gas reserves would completely displace Middle Eastern supplies.
Let the PRC buy those Middle East supplies and also take in the thousand of young wahabbist Saudis that now come into the U.S. under the deal brokered by G.H. Bush along with the $50 million spent each year by the Sauds to build new mosques in the U.S.
Somehow, we (the U.S.) are expected to absorb this burgeoning 5th column of Islam and continue on without any affect upon our economy or society. I would think the pictures of police carrying fully automatic M16s and HK MP5 variants in full body armor would clue someone that this policy is costing us. Especially since most of the hijackers who commandeered the jets on 9-11 were Saudis. This shortsightedness has cost the U.S. billions and will continue to cost us billions to keep the threat of now home grown jihadis in check. Yet, we still import oil and gas from the Middle East to fuel this hate.
The U.S. has more coal than anywhere in the world. Under the North Slope of Alaska is a high grade, low sulfer bituminous coal. It is my understanding that this field extends across most of the North Slope. Add that to the U.S. reserves, and there is no raw material shortage for fuel or gas.
The U.S. military is pioneering the development of new coal to diesel and kerosene jet fuels for aircraft. This is an extremely promising development in my mind and a significant policy shift. The question is, will the Obama Administration allow these projects to go forward?
Off shore reserves of oil and gas are just now being realized. New technologies in drilling and production are making deep sea recovery possible. The large reserves off of Brazil are an indication that oil exploration is far from over on the continental shelves around the world. Off of Israel new gas reserves verify this, even in the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, Obama is now considering one again denying off shore development.
Yes, Alaska can send its hydrocarbon resources elsewhere, if necessary. Or, Alaska can contribute to the reduction of the impact of foreign oil and natural gas to the detriment of our security, economy, and culture. Alaska’s hydrocarbon resources can fuel Red China, a burgeoning enemy, or the U.S.
Your decision.
He quoted Sen. Charlie Huggins as holding to the philosophy of positive engagement through world trade rather than exclusion as the route to economic prosperity and peace.
Red China, or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Japan and the rest of Asia are heavily dependent upon imported fuels and natural gas. These economies are in competition with Europe for the world’s oil and natural gas.
The principle suppliers of oil and natural gas being the Middle East, Russia, and Indonesia.
Brazil may become an oil exporting nation, provided the recent discoveries off the coast can be developed.
I agree with the need in Asia for Alaska NG, which is just part of the justification for an all-Alaska NG pipeline to Valdez. The fact that NG is exported from Nikkiski is a demonstration of the viability of the Asian market. A market that Alaska could certainly develop. However, I agree only if the U.S. continues to be stupid and refuse Alaska gas and oil development to ease dependence upon foreign oil and natural gas.
Alaska, as a sovereign State in the Union of States should have the opportunity to develop its resources to benefit Alaska, if the U.S. fails to understand that the primary desire of Alaskans is for our oil and natural gas to be used to benefit the U.S. first, and foreign markets second.
It has always been a paradox as to why natural gas was being exported to Japan from Cook Inlet reserves by LNG tanker, but Alaska could not develop its North Slope reserves to ship to U.S. markets by LNG tanker?
Were all of Alaska’s NG produced exported to foreign markets, Alaska could reasonably export by LNG tanker up to 4.5bcf per day, or the expected import of foreign NG into the U.S. market.
Alaska’s NG would most certainly affect the U. S. market by displacing largely imported Middle Eastern NG, and, because of competition, result in a lower price to the U.S. consumer of natural gas. A situation unremarked by the Producers in any discussion of marketing Alaska’s natural gas.
It is this displacement of foreign natural gas being imported at exorbitant prices into the U.S. market that is the dream of every Alaskan. Not just the benefits to the State: jobs, infrastructure, income, and, if a portion of the liquids are retained, industry from those liquids.
The energy policy of the U.S. can be viewed as insane on one level, and shrewd on another. If we suck the Middle East dry of oil and gas, then, we eventually eliminate the benefit of the income provided to those oligarchies who then contribute to the jihadis that want nothing more than to kill us infidels. On the other hand, we are paying high prices for oil and gas that is funding our enemies. That is the insane part, especially in the face of ANWR, off shore, and U.S. and Canadian oil and gas potential. Alaska could supply the 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that will be imported from Qattar, Indonesia, and Saudia Arabia by the end of 2012. Alaska’s natural gas reserves would completely displace Middle Eastern supplies.
Let the PRC buy those Middle East supplies and also take in the thousand of young wahabbist Saudis that now come into the U.S. under the deal brokered by G.H. Bush along with the $50 million spent each year by the Sauds to build new mosques in the U.S.
Somehow, we (the U.S.) are expected to absorb this burgeoning 5th column of Islam and continue on without any affect upon our economy or society. I would think the pictures of police carrying fully automatic M16s and HK MP5 variants in full body armor would clue someone that this policy is costing us. Especially since most of the hijackers who commandeered the jets on 9-11 were Saudis. This shortsightedness has cost the U.S. billions and will continue to cost us billions to keep the threat of now home grown jihadis in check. Yet, we still import oil and gas from the Middle East to fuel this hate.
The U.S. has more coal than anywhere in the world. Under the North Slope of Alaska is a high grade, low sulfer bituminous coal. It is my understanding that this field extends across most of the North Slope. Add that to the U.S. reserves, and there is no raw material shortage for fuel or gas.
The U.S. military is pioneering the development of new coal to diesel and kerosene jet fuels for aircraft. This is an extremely promising development in my mind and a significant policy shift. The question is, will the Obama Administration allow these projects to go forward?
Off shore reserves of oil and gas are just now being realized. New technologies in drilling and production are making deep sea recovery possible. The large reserves off of Brazil are an indication that oil exploration is far from over on the continental shelves around the world. Off of Israel new gas reserves verify this, even in the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, Obama is now considering one again denying off shore development.
Yes, Alaska can send its hydrocarbon resources elsewhere, if necessary. Or, Alaska can contribute to the reduction of the impact of foreign oil and natural gas to the detriment of our security, economy, and culture. Alaska’s hydrocarbon resources can fuel Red China, a burgeoning enemy, or the U.S.
Your decision.
National Energy Policy
Like Winnie the Pooh, who ignores the obvious, the United States of America is slowly declining into straits that would be familiar to the second and third world.
It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the power grids of America. In California the highest power demand ever was recorded at 5.3 gigawatts as a result of the recent high temperatures. 20 small California communities suffered rolling blackouts as power was shuffled to keep Los Angeles residents’ air conditioners functioning.
Fuel prices continue to skyrocket, which will result in accelerated inflation until demand, speculation, and supply stabilize.
Unlike, Europe and Japan, our gas prices have more to do with the lack of refining capacity than government taxes. The U.S. national tax on motor fuels is 24 cents per gallon for diesel and 18 cents per gallon for gasoline. E.U. taxes are a minimum of $.42 EU per liter. This is amounts to a rough equivalent of $1.68 per U.S. gallon for taxes in the EU.
For those who believe motor fuels costs in the U.S. should be as high as it is Europe or Japan, that means increasing taxes on motor fuels by up to at least 5-8 times over the current level of taxation.
There is a potential answer to this energy dilemma that you will not hear about in the main stream media. The United States Air Force is working to wean the USAF off of fuel refined from foreign oil to support domestic training and operations.
The USAF is building a pilot refinery to convert coal to fuel and another to convert bio sources to fuel. Were these refineries to be proposed on private lands, they would be opposed by the nimby crowd and the eco freaks. Law suits would blossom in the courts as prolific as dandelions in a Spring lawn. Fortunately, the USAF showed some intelligence in its planning and provided for the location of these facilities on its own military reservations.
The largest landholder in the U.S. is government at every level.
Military reservations can become a haven for new refineries and new power plants.
It would be logical for the military to provide for its own needs by reducing dependence and competition with the civilian market for fuel sources.
Coal fired power plants can be built, new coal to fuel conversion plants can built, and new nuke power plants can be built on government lands. Either on military reservations exclusively, or upon government lands away from population centers, but within the surface transportation infrastructure and within the electrical power grid infrastructure.
To meet the needs of the U.S. in general, the use of other government lands could provide locations for the refining and power generation infrastructure necessary for the civilian market.
What it would take to ensure the success of such an initiative to prevent the U.S. from degenerating into a third rate power, is a mandate from the President authorizing the various branches of the U.S. military to utilize military lands for the installation of power plants and refineries in order to become independent of foreign oil using the USAF model. That is the first step.
The next step is for the President to declare a national emergency and to prioritize increased energy generation capacity and fuel refining capacity to resolve the looming energy crisis. The President could do this by authorizing the utilization of government lands to be leased to power companies and leased to companies desiring to build large scale refineries and fuel conversion facilities. Lands that would be reasonably situated, lands that would not require decades of impact studies before construction could begin.
The courts have been the tool of those who desire the U.S. to be less. By making this a national emergency/defense issue, the courts would no longer play spoiler.
The cost of fuel is high in the United States for one basic reason. Refining capacity in the U.S. has been artificially limited by those in this country who put their own interests above that of the nation. There is plenty of oil. Oil supply is not the underlying problem.
There is no doubt that between developing coal to fuel conversion capacity, tar sands development, increasing nuclear power generation capacity, lifting the ban on oil and gas drilling off the coast of the U.S., opening ANWR to oil and gas development, and constructing a natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska’s natural gas to market in the U.S., that the United States would eventually be in the enviable position to virtually eliminate foreign oil and natural gas dependence.
Nuclear power generation would free natural gas for home heating, fuel cell, and other uses, by reducing the need for natural gas for power generation.
To remove the need for foreign oil would also reduce rising tensions in the world over the supply of that oil.
Increasing power generation capacity reduces the cost of power, and should favorably impact the economics associated with hydrogen generation, and electric automobiles. Reducing cost of power should accelerate the introduction of these alternatives.
Seems to me, the nimbys and the eco freaks would figure this out.
I am not advocating money. Just a means to provide the land upon which to build the infrastructure to keep this country from becoming less and less by reducing the opportunity for sabotage through the courts of needed new refineries and power plants.
The USAF has shown the way.
It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the power grids of America. In California the highest power demand ever was recorded at 5.3 gigawatts as a result of the recent high temperatures. 20 small California communities suffered rolling blackouts as power was shuffled to keep Los Angeles residents’ air conditioners functioning.
Fuel prices continue to skyrocket, which will result in accelerated inflation until demand, speculation, and supply stabilize.
Unlike, Europe and Japan, our gas prices have more to do with the lack of refining capacity than government taxes. The U.S. national tax on motor fuels is 24 cents per gallon for diesel and 18 cents per gallon for gasoline. E.U. taxes are a minimum of $.42 EU per liter. This is amounts to a rough equivalent of $1.68 per U.S. gallon for taxes in the EU.
For those who believe motor fuels costs in the U.S. should be as high as it is Europe or Japan, that means increasing taxes on motor fuels by up to at least 5-8 times over the current level of taxation.
There is a potential answer to this energy dilemma that you will not hear about in the main stream media. The United States Air Force is working to wean the USAF off of fuel refined from foreign oil to support domestic training and operations.
The USAF is building a pilot refinery to convert coal to fuel and another to convert bio sources to fuel. Were these refineries to be proposed on private lands, they would be opposed by the nimby crowd and the eco freaks. Law suits would blossom in the courts as prolific as dandelions in a Spring lawn. Fortunately, the USAF showed some intelligence in its planning and provided for the location of these facilities on its own military reservations.
The largest landholder in the U.S. is government at every level.
Military reservations can become a haven for new refineries and new power plants.
It would be logical for the military to provide for its own needs by reducing dependence and competition with the civilian market for fuel sources.
Coal fired power plants can be built, new coal to fuel conversion plants can built, and new nuke power plants can be built on government lands. Either on military reservations exclusively, or upon government lands away from population centers, but within the surface transportation infrastructure and within the electrical power grid infrastructure.
To meet the needs of the U.S. in general, the use of other government lands could provide locations for the refining and power generation infrastructure necessary for the civilian market.
What it would take to ensure the success of such an initiative to prevent the U.S. from degenerating into a third rate power, is a mandate from the President authorizing the various branches of the U.S. military to utilize military lands for the installation of power plants and refineries in order to become independent of foreign oil using the USAF model. That is the first step.
The next step is for the President to declare a national emergency and to prioritize increased energy generation capacity and fuel refining capacity to resolve the looming energy crisis. The President could do this by authorizing the utilization of government lands to be leased to power companies and leased to companies desiring to build large scale refineries and fuel conversion facilities. Lands that would be reasonably situated, lands that would not require decades of impact studies before construction could begin.
The courts have been the tool of those who desire the U.S. to be less. By making this a national emergency/defense issue, the courts would no longer play spoiler.
The cost of fuel is high in the United States for one basic reason. Refining capacity in the U.S. has been artificially limited by those in this country who put their own interests above that of the nation. There is plenty of oil. Oil supply is not the underlying problem.
There is no doubt that between developing coal to fuel conversion capacity, tar sands development, increasing nuclear power generation capacity, lifting the ban on oil and gas drilling off the coast of the U.S., opening ANWR to oil and gas development, and constructing a natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska’s natural gas to market in the U.S., that the United States would eventually be in the enviable position to virtually eliminate foreign oil and natural gas dependence.
Nuclear power generation would free natural gas for home heating, fuel cell, and other uses, by reducing the need for natural gas for power generation.
To remove the need for foreign oil would also reduce rising tensions in the world over the supply of that oil.
Increasing power generation capacity reduces the cost of power, and should favorably impact the economics associated with hydrogen generation, and electric automobiles. Reducing cost of power should accelerate the introduction of these alternatives.
Seems to me, the nimbys and the eco freaks would figure this out.
I am not advocating money. Just a means to provide the land upon which to build the infrastructure to keep this country from becoming less and less by reducing the opportunity for sabotage through the courts of needed new refineries and power plants.
The USAF has shown the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)