Back to SoWal Lounge

US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan

mtlinscomb avatar
Beach Fanatic
3,308 views
US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan | Raw Story

Last year, the price of gasoline in the United States topped the $4 per gallon mark.
This year in Afghanistan, the price has topped $400.
The stunning revelation emerged Thursday in a report from the Pentagon to House officials. The information conveyed offers new insight into a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, which found that the US spends $1 million per year for each servicemember on the ground in Afghanistan.
Why so much? The cost includes shipping, which sometimes includes the pricetag of a helicopter flight. Sending fuel by helicopter is woefully inefficient, because it uses up almost as much fuel as it carries.
Speaking to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, House Appropriations chairman John Murtha (D-PA) said the figure was ?worrisome? and "we started looking into it.?โ€‹
โ€‹
Afghanistan is also landlocked, meaning that fuel must be transported in ways that stretch the limits of economic reason.
Because the country has no seaports, fuel is shipped to Karachi, in Pakistan, then carried across land by commercial trucks through Afghanistan. For remote bases, gasoline is sometimes transported by air.
"One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel," the Hill notes.
The paper notes that the $400 pricetag is referred to in Pentagon argot as the ?fully burdened cost of fuel.?
The government's Defense Energy Support Center provides fuel to the military at $2.78 per gallon, the conveyance of which then grows exponentially more expensive as it travels through dangerous combat zones.
Gen. James Conway, who runs the Marine Corps, told a Navy forum that perilous risky routes up gasoline that originally cost $1.04 gallon up to $400.
?These are fairly major problems for us,? Conway was quoted as saying.



:eek:

Replies

78
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#27
Really? The US is wasting BILLIONS of dollars on this and the discussion has already ended ....................

Calling all teabaggers, libertarians, taxpayers, and people with a brain!!!
Blair avatar
Beach Fanatic
#28
Really? The US is wasting BILLIONS of dollars on this and the discussion has already ended ....................

Calling all teabaggers, libertarians, taxpayers, and people with a brain!!!


teabaggers????? :roll:

not you too....
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#29
What? :idontno:

Don't the teabaggers keep saying they are so worried about spending, the debt, the deficit?

Seems like a pretty big issue they could be taking a stand on! ;-)
Blair avatar
Beach Fanatic
#31
What? :idontno:

Don't the teabaggers keep saying they are so worried about spending, the debt, the deficit?

Seems like a pretty big issue they could be taking a stand on! ;-)


How bout we just send in the troops we need, kick some ass and get the hell out of there and worry about gas prices here.....seems more productive than *****ing about Haliburton
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#32
What is so wrong with questioning insane expenditures by the government?

In case you haven't noticed, there is a lot of red ink and debt that I think we need to be aware of and dealing with.

People pitched an absolute fit when gas cost us $4 a gallon - so why can't I be concerned that we are outright wasting so much money instead of finding better methods overseas?
Blair avatar
Beach Fanatic
#33
What is so wrong with questioning insane expenditures by the government?

In case you haven't noticed, there is a lot of red ink and debt that I think we need to be aware of and dealing with.

People pitched an absolute fit when gas cost us $4 a gallon - so why can't I be concerned that we are outright wasting so much money instead of finding better methods overseas?

Nothing at all....It's our duty

Stevie Wonder could see that!....

People did but not everybody....You can be concerned all that you want but it's not like they're pulling up to a BP station in Afghanistan and getting a $100,000 fill up...I think they'd be open for suggestions
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#34
I know that isn't the price we're paying at the pump - but as I pointed out earlier, this type of war is not new and is what we will be continuing to deal with in the future so we need to find a BETTER way to deal with the issue.
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#35
Nothing at all....It's our duty

Stevie Wonder could see that!....

People did but not everybody....You can be concerned all that you want but it's not like they're pulling up to a BP station in Afghanistan and getting a $100,000 fill up...I think they'd be open for suggestions


I will say this in plain English. It is NOT happening and the entire story is fabricated. How easy some are to follow the seed of the false information circle.

I will say it again. WE Tank our own petrol into the area for many reasons. Security being one. And having control of having access. Anyone that would take a step back and think for a minute might figure this out. I know we are not the brightest light on the street but come on... We will pay $400.00 per gallon for unsecured random petrol? Even the best Gomer Pyle?s would know better.

I do not need any "Articles" to read to know the facts on that. As I said, I KNOW that is not and has not ever happened.

Proof here is that there are some that will drink the kool aide and post to just post for cause even when it?s not true. Interesting.

Jack
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#36
Noone is saying that we are PAYING $400 a gallon for gas, what we are saying it that it is COSTING us $400 a gallon (or more) to get gas to our troops.

EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME for thinking it's time to find a better solution and either reduce or redirect those BILLIONS of dollars.
Blair avatar
Beach Fanatic
#37
I will say this in plain English. It is NOT happening and the entire story is fabricated. How easy some are to follow the seed of the false information circle.

I will say it again. WE Tank our own petrol into the area for many reasons. Security being one. And having control of having access. Anyone that would take a step back and think for a minute might figure this out. I know we are not the brightest light on the street but come on... We will pay $400.00 per gallon for unsecured random petrol? Even the best Gomer Pyle?s would know better.

I do not need any "Articles" to read to know the facts on that. As I said, I KNOW that is not and has not ever happened.

Proof here is that there are some that will drink the kool aide and post to just post for cause even when it?s not true. Interesting.

Jack



I think we're on the same page here dude......:wave:
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#38
Noone is saying that we are PAYING $400 a gallon for gas, what we are saying it that it is COSTING us $400 a gallon (or more) to get gas to our troops.

EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME for thinking it's time to find a better solution and either reduce or redirect those BILLIONS of dollars.


Scooterbug, I honestly am not questioning your stance on this. The TITLE of this thread is we are spending $400.00 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan. I can Honestly tell you factually that this is an incorrect statement and one that belongs on snopes.com. This is the old $5,000.00 hammer and the $50,000.00 screw theory. No doubt the government waste money. But they are certainly not paying $400.00 per gallon. Truth be known when you look at the cost per gallon for our troops you would most likely come up with less than $1.00 per gallon. Keep in mind the majority of the cost on petrol is taxes. We do many odd things but I seriously doubt the government is taxing the troops fuel. Hope you have a wonderful day.

Jack
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#39
I think we're on the same page here dude......:wave:

Yes Blair, I posted on yours as a continuum not as a rebuttal. You are correct in your posting on this.
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#40
Scooterbug, I honestly am not questioning your stance on this. The TITLE of this thread is we are spending $400.00 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan. I can Honestly tell you factually that this is an incorrect statement and one that belongs on snopes.com. This is the old $5,000.00 hammer and the $50,000.00 screw theory. No doubt the government waste money. But they are certainly not paying $400.00 per gallon. Truth be known when you look at the cost per gallon for our troops you would most likely come up with less than $1.00 per gallon. Keep in mind the majority of the cost on petrol is taxes. We do many odd things but I seriously doubt the government is taxing the troops fuel. Hope you have a wonderful day.

Jack

Jack: Did you read the article? According to the article, it is costing our government $400 per gallon. Please come up with a source that disputes that. Have a nice day.
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#41
The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the ?fully burdened cost of fuel.?

?The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,? said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.

The DESC provides one gallon of JP8 fuel, which is used for both aircraft and ground vehicles, at a standard price of $2.78, said Iden.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.

?These are fairly major problems for us,? Conway said, according to the publication.

The fully burdened cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, said Kevin Geiss, program director for energy security in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.

And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#42
Jack: Did you read the article? According to the article, it is costing our government $400 per gallon. Please come up with a source that disputes that. Have a nice day.


For both you and scooterbug, I am not going to argue with either of you on this. I know as a FACT the article is very misleading and not to mention very amateur in its report. I will simply say this, if someone wants to believe it?s a turkey and they are set on it being a turkey, to them it is a turkey. I suggest reading these off the wall sources and taking them to claim as fact I might do a tad bit of research so as not to post with poor if at all correct information. I repeat just in case you did not see it, I know, as a FACT this report is full of misinformation and written by a poor journalist.

Jack
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#43
For both you and scooterbug, I am not going to argue with either of you on this. I know as a FACT the article is very misleading and not to mention very amateur in its report. I will simply say this, if someone wants to believe it?s a turkey and they are set on it being a turkey, to them it is a turkey. I suggest reading these off the wall sources and taking them to claim as fact I might do a tad bit of research so as not to post with poor if at all correct information. I repeat just in case you did not see it, I know, as a FACT this report is full of misinformation and written by a poor journalist.

Jack

It's kinda funny that you state that it is a FACT that this article is full of misinformation, but you won't privilege us with your source of the correct information. Please tell us. Thanks
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#44
It's kinda funny that you state that it is a FACT that this article is full of misinformation, but you won't privilege us with your source of the correct information. Please tell us. Thanks


You?re just not getting it. I will leave it for your digestion. I will state this for you again. I know what I have stated to be a Fact. Now with that being said, May I ask you other then what you have read from the postings here on sowal.com and the internet what proof do you have that my statement is not correct? Have a wonderful weekend.
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#45
You?re just not getting it. I will leave it for your digestion. I will state this for you again. I know what I have stated to be a Fact. Now with that being said, May I ask you other then what you have read from the postings here on sowal.com and the internet what proof do you have that my statement is not correct? Have a wonderful weekend.

Oh, I get it now...it's because you said so. :floor::floor::floor:
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#46
I'm not trying to be rude or snarky. I'm trying to find out information on this subject. I have to decide whether to believe an article written in The Hill, a reputable news site, as far as I know, which contained numerous quoted sources, or whether to believe an anonymous guy named Beanstaulk, who emphatically refutes this article without any sources. Decisions, decisions...
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#47
I'm not trying to be rude or snarky. I'm trying to find out information on this subject. I have to decide whether to believe an article written in The Hill, a reputable news site, as far as I know, which contained numerous quoted sources, or whether to believe an anonymous guy named Beanstaulk, who emphatically refutes this article without any sources. Decisions, decisions...

Other then reading the hill here on sowall, what do you have to support they are reputable news site as you say? You question my reputation on this matter so please feel free what has the hill provided other then what I have here on sowal?

The difference between the hill and me is very simple. They claim to be providing accurate information. Which just by reading this article shows they are quoting 2nd and 3rd hand parties. I find it difficult to entrust an opinion on those sources.

Now, on the other hand, I would have hoped that you would have figured this out by now, but let me help you along. I have 1st hand knowledge of this so-called information. I know as a FACT these headlines are nothing more but a pig in the poke attempt to get uninformed people to give these baseless stories creditability because it hits their " I Told You So Button" and their desire to be Important in passing on inflammatory information. Now you can hide behind the computer and pretend to be somebody, (Not meaning you directly) and copy and paste information off the internet and think your posting with authority, or you can research and look into the story to make sure what your wanting to post as a FACT without 1st hand knowledge and live in a world of false and half truth information.

I myself have researched this claim and I have first hand experience with the two-posted authorities being used here. Now, The choice is yours. Trust in a known biased slanted reporting agency on the Internet, or gain the correct information for yourself and at that time make an informed opinion when you have the facts in front of you.

I have learned in the past 60 plus years that trusting sources that you have little or no experience with only leads you into making poor judgments or decisions on matters. You have posted "Who should you TRUST" My answer is simple. Trust only the information you have researched and scrutinized for yourself and not follow the lead of what someone else says (Post) as the final answer. Have a wonderful day!
Lake View Too avatar
SoWal Insider
#48
Other then reading the hill here on sowall, what do you have to support they are reputable news site as you say? You question my reputation on this matter so please feel free what has the hill provided other then what I have here on sowal?

The difference between the hill and me is very simple. They claim to be providing accurate information. Which just by reading this article shows they are quoting 2nd and 3rd hand parties. I find it difficult to entrust an opinion on those sources.

Now, on the other hand, I would have hoped that you would have figured this out by now, but let me help you along. I have 1st hand knowledge of this so-called information. I know as a FACT these headlines are nothing more but a pig in the poke attempt to get uninformed people to give these baseless stories creditability because it hits their " I Told You So Button" and their desire to be Important in passing on inflammatory information. Now you can hide behind the computer and pretend to be somebody, (Not meaning you directly) and copy and paste information off the internet and think your posting with authority, or you can research and look into the story to make sure what your wanting to post as a FACT without 1st hand knowledge and live in a world of false and half truth information.

I myself have researched this claim and I have first hand experience with the two-posted authorities being used here. Now, The choice is yours. Trust in a known biased slanted reporting agency on the Internet, or gain the correct information for yourself and at that time make an informed opinion when you have the facts in front of you.

I have learned in the past 60 plus years that trusting sources that you have little or no experience with only leads you into making poor judgments or decisions on matters. You have posted "Who should you TRUST" My answer is simple. Trust only the information you have researched and scrutinized for yourself and not follow the lead of what someone else says (Post) as the final answer. Have a wonderful day!

Again, Jack, I am trying very hard to understand this issue and you keep saying you know first hand knowlege of this matter and you won't seem to say what source you get this first hand knowlege from. Am I just suppose to believe this because you say so? Again, I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant, but from what you've commented, you don't come across as any more informed than the article. So I guess I won't believe either one of you. Thanks.
scooterbug44 avatar
SoWal Expert
#49
Please explain HOW this information is wrong/misleading or provide an alternate source.

Nothing jumps out as being illogical or manufactured when I read the article and your comments so far make me think you didn't actually read the article, just saw the headline and reacted.

Telling us it's wrong w/o any explanation, supporting evidence or source has no validity.
Beanstalk avatar
Beach Lover
#50
Please explain HOW this information is wrong/misleading or provide an alternate source.

Nothing jumps out as being illogical or manufactured when I read the article and your comments so far make me think you didn't actually read the article, just saw the headline and reacted.

Telling us it's wrong w/o any explanation, supporting evidence or source has no validity.


I feel I have come to the end of my ability to attempt to get you to understand my position. But respectfully I choose to admonish the two authorities as reference in this thread and only hope that one would look further then the sources supplied here as the means to form an intelligent decision on the truth and purpose of the mentioned articles.
Wish you well. Hope you have a super day! I am finished on this thread as I continue to only find myself repeating what I have already shared.
Jack
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#51
I feel I have come to the end of my ability to attempt to get you to understand my position. But respectfully I choose to admonish the two authorities as reference in this thread and only hope that one would look further then the sources supplied here as the means to form an intelligent decision on the truth and purpose of the mentioned articles.
Wish you well. Hope you have a super day! I am finished on this thread as I continue to only find myself repeating what I have already shared.
Jack

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again? Why not just enlight us as to where you get your information instead?

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.