Search Results for: "Royal+Dutch+Petroleum"
Top 100 US Defense Contractors
Relevance Score: 5.563 2009-07-08 23:16:05
1. Lockheed Martin Corp. 2. Boeing Co. 3. Northrop Grumman Corp. 4. General Dynamics Corp. 5. Raytheon Co. 6. KBR Inc. 7. L-3 Communications Holdings 8. United Technologies Corp. 9. BAE Systems 10. SAIC 11. General Electric Co. 12. Computer Sciences Corp. 13. Humana Inc. 14. Health Net Inc. 15. Triwest Healthcare Alliance Co. 16. EDS 17. Public Warehousing Co. KSC 18. ITT Industries 19. Textron Inc. 20. Honeywell Inc. 21. URS Corp. 22. Harris Corp. 23. AmerisourceBergen Corp. 24. Bechtel Group Inc. 25. FedEx Corp. 26. Alliant Techsystems Inc. 27. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 28. BP PLC 29. DRS Technologies Inc. 30. Exxon Mobil Corp. 31. Kuwait National Petroleum Co. 32. The Alliance Contractor Team 33. Renco Corp. 34. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings 35. Environmental Chemical Corp. 36. Oshkosh Truck Corp. 37. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 38. Stewart & Stevenson Services 39. Armor Holdings Inc. 40. General Motors Corp. 41. Grindex Pumps A B Sweden 42. Korea Agricultural Cooperative 43. CACI International Inc. 44. Johns Hopkins University 45. General Atomics Technology Corp. 46. Rockwell Collins 47. McKesson Corp. 48. Valero Energy Corp. 49. Aerospace Corp. 50. MITRE Corp. 51. Cardinal Health Inc. 52. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 53. Syracuse Research Corp. 54. Chugach Alaska Corp. 55. Dell Computer Corp. 56. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 57. ARINC Inc. 58. Phillips and Jordan Inc. 59. Refinery Associates Inc. 60. Rolls-Royce PLC 61. United Industrial Corp. 62. IAP Worldwide Services Inc. 63. Government of Canada 64. Hatakeyama Bussan 65. AP Moller-Maersk 66. ChevronTexaco Corp. 67. Battelle Memorial Institute 68. Shaw Group Inc. 69. Parsons Corp. 70. Thales Group 71. Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. 72. Bahrain National Oil Co. 73. Philip Morris Co. 74. Tetra Tech Inc. 75. Chenega Corp. 76. AshBritt Inc. 77. Hunt Building Corp. 78. Ceradyne Inc. 79. Ceres Environmental Services 80. SK Corp. 81. Veritas Capital Inc. 82. CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. 83. Aecom Technology Corp. 84. Washington Group International 85. Goodrich Corp. 86. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. 87. Procter & Gamble Co. 88. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. 89. UBS Provedores 90. Dogog Farm 91. Datapath Inc. 92. Mantech International Corp. 93. Afognak Native Corp. 94. VSE Corp. 95. Accenture 96. IBM Corp. 97. Arctic Slope Regional Corp. 98. Serco Group PLC 99. Kemyong Farm Ltd. 100. Charles Stark Draper Labs
Pentagon Is Trying To Provide Alternative Energy
Relevance Score: 3.625 2010-05-15 23:48:42
The Pentagon is working hard to promote development of biomass fuels that could power future fighter jets and other warplanes, but defense officials say it could take years to get a full-fledged industry on its feet. Top U.S. defense officials and executives from the petroleum, alternative fuels and renewable energy sectors are meeting outside Washington this week to address new technology developments and initiatives such as the Pentagon's work on developing biofuels to power military aircraft. The long-term goal is to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign crude oil, said Air Force Colonel Francis Rechner, director of operations of the Defense Energy Support Center, run by the Pentagon's main logistics agency. Rechner cited the March flight of an Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II attack plane, powered by a mix of biomass and jet fuel, and the flight of the Navy's "Green Hornet," a Boeing Co (BA.N) F/A-18 fighter jet powered a blend of jet fuel and a biofuel made of camelina, a hardy U.S. plant. Both aircraft performed well using the new bio-based fuels, he told Reuters in a telephone interview. Mark Iden, Rechner's deputy, said his agency signed an agreement in March with the Air Transport Association, the main industry group for U.S. commercial airlines, to help promote widespread commercialization of environmentally friendly aviation fuels and become less reliant on petroleum. Together the airline industry and the U.S. military use more than 1.5 million barrels of jet fuel a day. The challenge now was to promote construction of facilities that could produce large quantities of biofuels using algae, camelina and other plants, Iden informed. He said there was a lot of research and development under way, but it could take years to create a full-fledged industry. "We are literally developing it from scratch," Iden said, adding he expected the Pentagon to issue an initial solicitation for bids from industry within a year or two. Iden said the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had spurred interest in the Pentagon's work on alternative fuels and underscored the importance of alternative fuels. But the military would rely on petroleum for a long time, he informed. "You're never going to eliminate petroleum." Rechner informed the Obama administration supported the Pentagon's efforts, and President Barack Obama in December nominated Sharon Burke, vice president of the Center for a New American Security think tank, to become the Pentagon's new director of operational energy plans and programs. That post was aimed at coordinating various energy efficiency and alternative energy programs across the various military services, a good step in the right direction, but Burke's nomination was being held up by lawmakers, he informed.
Her Majesty's Royal Coast Guard
Relevance Score: 3.440 2009-05-27 11:46:26
Under current plans, the Royal Navy circa 2020 will be a very strange force. There will be just six high-end warships to protect two 65,000-ton super-carriers, plus a mixed flotilla of old Type 23s and FSCs numbering just over a dozen. It’ll be a top-heavy force with too few destroyers to escort the carriers into a shooting war, and too few frigates to perform day-to-day patrolling during peacetime. It’s a fleet optimized for nothing. For the past few decades, Her Majesty's Armed Forces have steered away from the preservation of empire and colonies, instead configuring themselves in such a way that they can provide a solid bulwark to the US Armed Forces, while operating independently in a single theater, Falklands style scenario. But, the backbone of any British strategy -from the pre-Victorian age all the way up until the Labour Party victory in the mid 1990s- has always been a powerful Royal Navy. The fleet's demise over the past several years has been one of the great tragedies in recent memory. There was a time when the Union Jack protected every major sea lane and trade route on the globe -- today the British can barely protect their own coastline. That's a terrible fall for what was once a mighty sea-faring empire. What's troubling about this report, to me at least, is that the Brits are shaping their fleet in such a way that it will be largely reliant on American protection. Instead of existing as a powerful, independent ally that can operate jointly or independently with its US counterpart, the Royal Navy is becoming a welfare case -- where supporting it with anti-sub and anti-air protection becomes more of a drain on our own resources than a benefit. Watching the British lose confidence in themselves, the oft-lamented "Suez Syndrome," is terrible. But, as much as it pains me to say so, perhaps it's time we look for new, stronger allies for our special defense relationship -- perhaps in the Aussies or Japanese.
Her Majesty's Royal Coast Guard
Relevance Score: 3.436 2009-05-27 11:46:26
Under current plans, the Royal Navy circa 2020 will be a very strange force. There will be just six high-end warships to protect two 65,000-ton super-carriers, plus a mixed flotilla of old Type 23s and FSCs numbering just over a dozen. It’ll be a top-heavy force with too few destroyers to escort the carriers into a shooting war, and too few frigates to perform day-to-day patrolling during peacetime. It’s a fleet optimized for nothing. For the past few decades, Her Majesty's Armed Forces have steered away from the preservation of empire and colonies, instead configuring themselves in such a way that they can provide a solid bulwark to the US Armed Forces, while operating independently in a single theater, Falklands style scenario. But, the backbone of any British strategy -from the pre-Victorian age all the way up until the Labour Party victory in the mid 1990s- has always been a powerful Royal Navy. The fleet's demise over the past several years has been one of the great tragedies in recent memory. There was a time when the Union Jack protected every major sea lane and trade route on the globe -- today the British can barely protect their own coastline. That's a terrible fall for what was once a mighty sea-faring empire. What's troubling about this report, to me at least, is that the Brits are shaping their fleet in such a way that it will be largely reliant on American protection. Instead of existing as a powerful, independent ally that can operate jointly or independently with its US counterpart, the Royal Navy is becoming a welfare case -- where supporting it with anti-sub and anti-air protection becomes more of a drain on our own resources than a benefit. Watching the British lose confidence in themselves, the oft-lamented "Suez Syndrome," is terrible. But, as much as it pains me to say so, perhaps it's time we look for new, stronger allies for our special defense relationship -- perhaps in the Aussies or Japanese.
Royal Navy carrier programme faces 25% cost hike
Relevance Score: 3.293 2009-07-02 11:46:31
The projected cost of the UK Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier programme has risen by over GBP1 billion (USD1.6 billion) as a result of the government's decision to postpone the ships' in-service dates by up to two years. Details of the increase - of approximately 25 per cent - emerged in a memorandum circulating among the chief executives of the leading contractors in the build programme, which was leaked to the BBC and published on 29 June. According to the memo, the cost of the two 65,000-ton carriers - Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales - is expected to increase from GBP3.9 billion to about GBP5 billion. The document warned that carrier procurement would come under severe pressure from political opponents when the revised figure was released in July, with the Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) annual accounts, prompting a "fight for the programme's survival".
Deployment Of Key Technologies Will Determine US Energy Future
Relevance Score: 3.009 2009-07-30 12:20:48
With a sustained national commitment, the United States could obtain substantial energy-efficiency improvements, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of existing and emerging energy technologies, according to America's Energy Future: Technology And Transformation, the capstone report of the America's Energy Future project of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. Initiating deployment of these technologies is urgent; actions taken - or not taken - between now and 2020 to develop and demonstrate several key technologies will largely determine the nation's energy options for many decades to come. Deploying existing energy-efficiency technologies is a near-term and low-cost way to reduce U.S. energy demand, the report says. Fully deploying these technologies in buildings alone could save enough power to eliminate the need for new electricity generating plants to meet growing U.S. demand. However, some new plants would likely still be needed to address regional supply imbalances, replace obsolete technology, or present more environmentally friendly sources of electricity. Deployment of efficiency technologies in the building, industrial, and transportation sectors could reduce projected U.S. energy use by 15 percent in 2020 and by 30 percent in 2030. Even greater energy savings would be possible with more aggressive policies and incentives. The United States has many promising options for obtaining new sources of electricity over the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage and evolutionary nuclear technologies can be deployed at an adequate scale. However, according to the report, the deployment of these new technologies is very likely to result in higher consumer prices for electricity. In addition, the nation's electrical grid will require expansion and modernization to enhance its reliability and security, accommodate changes in load growth and electricity demand, and to enable the deployment of new energy efficiency and supply technologies, especially intermittent wind and solar energy. In the transportation sector, petroleum will continue to be an indispensable fuel in the coming decades, but maintaining current rates of domestic petroleum production (about 5.1 million barrels per day in 2008) will be challenging. There are limited options for replacing petroleum or reducing petroleum use before 2020, but there are more substantial long-term options that could begin to make significant contributions by 2030 or 2035. Reductions in petroleum use could be obtained through increased vehicle efficiency, production of alternative liuid fuels such as cellulosic ethanol or coal-and-biomass fuels, and expanding deployment of battery electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity and transportation sectors are achievable over the next two to three decades, the report says. In both cases, adopting a portfolio approach - deploying a variety of alternative technologies aimed at reducing emissions - would be necessary. For the electricity sector, enabling this portfolio approach will require demonstrating, within the next decade, that carbon capture and storage technologies are technically and commercially viable in both new and existing power plants and in liquid fuels production. It will also be necessary to demonstrate the commercial viability of evolutionary nuclear plants. To begin accelerated deployments of new energy technologies by 2020, and to ensure that innovative ideas continue to be explored, the public and private sectors will need extensive research development and demonstration over the next decade. The report notes that a broad portfolio approach, supporting basic research through the demonstration stage, will likely be more effective than targeted efforts aimed at identifying technology winners and losers. At the demonstration stage, high-priority technologies include carbon capture and storage, evolutionary nuclear technologies, cellulosic ethanol, and advanced light-duty vehicles. The more long-term research and development needs include new technologies for producing liquid fuels from renewable resources, advanced batteries and fuel cells, large-scale electricity storage, enhanced geothermal power, and advanced solar photovoltaic technologies. In addition, because many barriers exist that could delay or prevent technology deployment, the report recommends that sustained policy and regulatory actions, as well as other forms of incentives, be employed to drive adoption.
Honeywell Green Jet Fuel(TM) Powers U.S. Navy Green Hornet for Biofuels Certification Flight
Relevance Score: 2.766 2010-05-01 16:53:46
UOP LLC, a Honeywell (NYSE: HON) company, informed that Honeywell Green Jet Fuel™ manufactured using Honeywell UOP's renewable jet fuel process technology powered a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet flight as part of the Navy's efforts to certify the use of alternative fuels in military aircraft. The F/A-18 Super Hornet, dubbed the Green Hornet by the Navy, was fueled with a 50/50 mixture of Green Jet Fuel made from camelina oil and petroleum-derived military jet fuel. The flight was held at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Patuxent River, Md., and was attended by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. This is one of a series of biofuel test flights that will be conducted by the Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet test program and marks the first flight of a supersonic jet with afterburners flying on a biofuels blend. The fuel was produced by Honeywell's UOP business unit using its Green Jet Fuel process technology under a project for U.S. Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). Honeywell's UOP is producing up to 190,000 gallons of fuel for the Navy and 400,000 gallons for the U.S. Air Force from sustainable, non-food feedstocks, including animal fats, algae and camelina. The Navy plans a total of 17 flights as part of the certification program. The Air Force is undergoing similar testing and held its first demonstration flight with an A-10 Thunderbolt II in March. The aircraft also flew with a 50/50 blend of Green Jet Fuel made from camelina and petroleum-derived military jet fuel in both engines. "These flights are critical to demonstrating the viability of fuels made from non-food, sustainable feedstocks and enabling the certification of Green Jet Fuel for military aircraft," informed Jennifer Holmgren, vice president and general manager of UOP's Renewable Energy & Chemicals business. "We have already proven that our technology produces a viable fuel in commercial flight applications and look forward to the results of these certification tests." Honeywell UOP's Green Jet Fuel process technology was originally developed in 2007 under a contract from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to produce renewable military jet fuel for the U.S. military. The process is based on hydroprocessing technology commonly used in today's refineries to produce transportation fuels. It produces an aviation biofuel that can be blended seamlessly with petroleum-based fuel. When used as part of as much as a 50 percent blend with petroleum-derived jet fuel, Green Jet Fuel is a drop-in replacement that demands no changes to the aircraft technology and meets all critical specifications for flight. Camelina, the biofeedstock that was converted to make the fuel for the Navy test flight, is an inedible plant that grows in conditions where other food crops cannot and is considered a sustainable, second-generation resource because its cultivation and harvesting do not deplete valuable food, land or water resources. Camelina for the Navy demonstration flight was provided by Sustainable Oils. Honeywell's UOP, a recognized global leader in process technology to convert petroleum feedstocks to fuels and chemicals, is developing a range of processes to produce green fuels from natural feedstocks. In addition to its Green Jet Fuel process technology, the company has commercialized the UOP/Eni Ecofining™ process to produce Honeywell Green Diesel™ from biological feedstocks. It has also a joint venture with Ensyn Corp. in Envergent Technologies LLC, which offers pyrolysis technology for the production of renewable heat, power and transportation fuels. Honeywell's Aerospace business unit supplies auxiliary power units, navigation avionics, displays, exterior lighting, wheels, brakes and other mechanical equipment for the F/A-18 Super Hornet. UOP LLC, headquartered in Des Plaines, Illinois, USA, is a leading international supplier and licensor of process technology, catalysts, adsorbents, process plants, and consulting services to the petroleum refining, petrochemical, and gas processing industries. UOP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc. and is part of Honeywell's Specialty Materials strategic business group. Honeywell International is a Fortune 100 diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell's shares are traded on the New York, London, and Chicago Stock Exchanges. This release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements, other than statements of fact, that address activities, events or developments that we or our management intend, expect, project, believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on management's assumptions and assessments in light of past experience and trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other relevant factors. They are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results, developments and business decisions may differ from those envisaged by our forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements are also subject to risks and uncertainties, which can affect our performance in both the near- and long-term. We identify the principal risks and uncertainties that affect our performance in our Form 10-K and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SAR-H: And the winner is...
Relevance Score: 2.632 2010-02-12 12:38:16
Soteria has been announced as the preferred bidder of the UK's Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) contract. The consortium, made up of CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland, was announced as the bidder of choice for the £6 billion Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in Parliament today, following the launch of the programme in 2006. Soteria will be awarded the contract later in 2010. The joint Department for Transport (DfT) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract will end the involvement of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy in Search and Rescue operations and new fleet of SAR-equipped Sikorsky S-92s purchased by the bidder will operate under the banner of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), although some military aircrew, roughly 66, will be retained to operate a handful of the new helicopters. Two-thirds of the money to pay for the PFI will come from the Ministry of Defence, the other third from the Department for Transport. Details released by the government say that the service will continue to be managed by the MOD and MCA and tasking will continue to be allocated by the Aeronautical Rescue and Co-Ordination Centre located at RAF Kinloss. The new service will be phased in progressively taking over site by site, anticipated to start in 2012. The four MCA bases will transition to the new service first and will be followed by the eight MOD bases. The detailed timetable will be finalised as part of concluding the contract. The new fleet will introduce a single black and orange livery which will according to the government: maximise visibility, signal that this is an emergency service, represent the MOD and MCA by including the RAF, RN and MCA insignia on all helicopters and maximise flexibility by being a single colour scheme. Among the tough conditions set by the team are a 98% level of availability for the aircraft and the retainment of all 12 current SAR bases. The bid teams also have to be able to carry out 12 missions concurrently. Aircraft have to launch within 15 minutes during the day, within 45 minutes at night and have to be able to reach all 'Very High Risk Areas' and 75% of 'Medium Risk Areas' within 60 minutes, the service also has to have the ability to surge aircraft when required.
US Army Finds Alternative Energy
Relevance Score: 2.504 2009-04-15 09:49:15
US Marine Corps Major General Richard Zimmer sent the Pentagon a 'priority 1' request for a self-sustainable energy solution to include solar panels and wind turbines, according to The Christian Science Monitor. Anxiety about global warming may keep Major General Zimmer awake at night but, according to the newspaper, it wasn't his primary concern. The remarkable memo noted that without renewable energy, US forces 'will remain unnecessarily exposed' and will 'continue to accrue preventable, serious and grave casualties'. The general's urgent request reflects growing recognition among troops in the battlefield and at the highest level of the Pentagon that the US military needs to quickly reduce its dependence on petroleum to save costs and casualties. "The US military needs to quickly reduce its dependence on petroleum to save costs and casualties."The cost of consuming fuel in the battlefield is far higher than the cost of purchasing it. Prior to the hike in oil prices, the US Army spent about $200m a year buying fuel but it paid a further $3.2bn to transport it to its frontline troops. Moreover the convoys transporting the fuel are vulnerable to ambushes. As Major General Zimmer's memo pointed out: "By reducing the need for [petroleum] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our marines, soldiers and sailors." New targets The US military is already one of the biggest consumers of renewable energy in the world and has set a goal that 25% of its energy should come from renewable sources by 2025. Technology developed by companies such as SkyBuilt Power, which has developed a hybrid solar-power and wind-generator system that fits into a standard shipping container, will help the military to achieve its ambitions. SkyBuilt Power claims that its system, which can be air dropped to a mountain or desert, can deliver 95% fuel savings. The army is also working on big solar projects to reduce energy consumption at its bases in the US. It is installing a 500MW solar thermal plant in Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert and purchasing 4,000 small neighbourhood electric vehicles to replace the SUVs used at its bases. The need for fuel efficiency is also driving the development of the army's flagship modernisation programme, future combat systems. The scheme's new 27t manned ground vehicles (MGVs) use an electric propulsion system that consumes 6gal a mile at a speed of 30mph – a third of the fuel consumption of the army's 72t Abrams. Swedish automaker Volvo received a grant in October 2008 to develop hybrid trucks for the army. It has so far almost completed a project to produce seven hybrid trucks for the US Air Force. The engine and transmission systems are designed to be more fuel efficient, cleaner and more easily maintained than conventional diesel powertrains. Dr Gary Leatherman, senior associate, energy technology and markets, at Booz Allen Hamilton, a strategy and technology consulting firm, told us that the US Army is also looking at advanced engines and fuel cells for auxiliary power, so that it can reduce the idle time on its tanks. Booz Allen Hamilton is advising the US Government on how to cut fuel costs. "The US military needs to quickly reduce its dependence on petroleum to save costs and casualties."Meanwhile the army is focusing on developing alternative fuels. To gain an insight into present developments in the field, we spoke to Dr Ellen Stechel, who works at Sandia National Laboratories, which develops science-based technologies to support US national security. "We are having great success in developing alternative fuels, although we are at an early stage and there is a high technical risk," says Stechel. Sandia is pursuing two avenues, according to Stechel. "We are attempting to create liquid hydrocarbon fuels much like the ones we use today but using carbon dioxide and water as the feedstock and solar power as the energy source. We ultimately want to achieve reverse combustion." Stechel says that while alternative energy would have to be economically competitive with existing fuels, the primary motivation behind the pursuit of alternative sources of power is strategic. "We are very concerned about the potential for supply disruption and not being able to obtain fuel at any cost." Another goal is to achieve savings from eliminating logistics trails. "If we can make these fuels in the battlefield or at forward operating bases, we can make savings in the high cost of getting fuel to the troops," she says. And, as Major General Zimmer points out, being able to make fuels in the battlefield could also save lives. In Stechel's opinion alternative fuels would be applicable to land, sea and air theatres. "Where they use liquid fuels today, we would like to give them a substitute that is equivalent and can potentially be made in the field – or at least domestically." But it could take more than a decade to reach this goal. Unstoppable momentum Not even falling oil prices will have an impact on Sandia's drive to develop alternative fuels, says Stechel. "We're going to press ahead because, one way or another, we will continue to experience petroleum supply issues. We're motivated more by concerns about the security, rather than simply the cost, of supply." The US military may have begun to focus on cutting energy only when the price of oil shot up two years ago. But the momentum behind the programmes is now unstoppable. Sound tactical and strategic motivations aide the drive towards fuel efficiency. As advances in military technology inevitably migrate to the civil sector, the US military might in the end make the greatest contribution of all to improving the environment.
Synthetic Future
Relevance Score: 2.331 2009-03-13 14:46:09
After topping off at almost $150 a barrel last July, oil now sells for less than $40. But the price collapse hasn't altered U.S. Air Force plans to fly its jets on fuel made from coal, natural gas, even animal fat. "We are still on track to complete certification of all aircraft to fly on synthetic fuels by 2011," Air Force spokesman Gary Strasburg said. And by 2016, the Air Force wants half of the jet fuel it uses in the United States to be synthetic. That means about 400 million gallons of fuel made from coal, biomass, natural gas and other nonpetroleum sources. And that may be a problem. At present, there are no U.S. plants producing enough synthetic fuel to meet more than a fraction of the Air Force needs. Several companies have plans to build plants for turning coal and biomass into synthetic fuel. But the plans were developed when high-priced oil made alternative fuels much more appealing, at least in terms of cost. In January, the Air Force itself pulled the plug on plans to let a private company build a plant for turning coal into 25,000 barrels of jet fuel a day on federal property at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. The service declared plans for the plant "not viable," but cited security concerns, not cost, as the fatal flaw. Still, the push toward synthetic fuel goes on. "We have completely certified the B-52 and B-1" bombers and C-17 cargo planes to fly on synthetic fuel, Strasburg said. In addition, the Air Force has flown F-22 and F-16 fighters, B-2 bombers, KC-135 refueling tankers, C-5 cargo planes and T-38 trainers using a 50-50 mixture of synthetic fuel and standard JP8 military jet fuel. For testing and certification purposes, the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center has been buying synthetic fuel from South African synfuel producer Sasol. Ultimately, though, the Air Force wants domestic sources, Strasburg said. The intent is to boost national security by reducing dependence on imported oil. Synthetic oil becomes competitive when petroleum costs about $60 or $70 a barrel, said Tim Edwards, a senior chemical engineer at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Propulsion Directorate. Oil Cost Could Surge Again Despite the relatively cheap price of oil today, pursuing synthetic fuel "is still a good idea," Edwards said. As long as the United States continues to import about 70 percent of the oil it burns, "there's no way to prevent oil from going to $170 a barrel," he said. The Air Force hopes its considerable appetite for oil provides the economic foundation for a U.S. synthetic oil industry. Airlines are beginning to experiment with synthetic fuel, too. And the International Air Transport Association, which represents airlines around the world, has said it wants to replace a quarter of petroleum-based fuels with synthetics by 2025. In January, the Air Force began buying fuel from Rentech, a Los Angeles-based synfuel company that claims to have the only working Fischer-Tropsch fuel plant in the United States. For now, Rentech turns natural gas into jet fuel at a rate of 10 barrels - 420 gallons - a day at a plant in Colorado. But the company plans to build a plant in Mississippi that will eventually produce 30,000 barrels of synfuel a day from coal, petroleum coke and biomass. Rentech also plans to produce jet fuel from purely renewable feedstocks. Rentech makes synfuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process. That involves heating the feedstock - coal, petroleum coke, wood, corn stalks or other biomass - to about 1600 degrees Fahrenheit until it turns to gas. Various unwanted products in the gas, such as mercury, sulfur and others, are removed, leaving carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The carbon dioxide (C02) and hydrogen are fed into a reactor where a catalyst of iron particles suspended in liquid wax converts them into a form of synthetic fuel called wax. The synthetic wax is then refined into jet fuel, diesel fuel and similar products using essentially the same process used for turning petroleum into those products. The process produces a lot of carbon dioxide, and that is a major drawback. Petroleum-based fuel produces about 27 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. Coal-based synthetic fuel produces about 50 pounds, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Carbon dioxide is produced when the coal is turned into gas. More is created when the finished fuel is burned in an engine. CO2 is the most abundant of the greenhouse gases believed responsible for global warming, and the goal is to produce less of it, not more. Concerned that liquid fuel made from coal would increase CO2 emissions, Congress passed a law in 2007 to make it illegal for the U.S. government to buy synthetic fuels that emit more greenhouse gases than do fuels already in use. Rentech and other Fischer-Tropsch advocates offer at least two solutions to the CO2 problem. Capturing Karbon One is carbon sequestration. Instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, it is captured and buried underground. Rentech proposes capturing CO2 and piping it to oil fields near the company's Mississippi plant. Pressurized CO2 would be pumped underground into partially depleted oil wells, where it would push unrecoverable oil into locations where it can be pumped out. If the carbon dioxide can be captured and then injected into the ground, the fuel produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process can produce 11 percent to 23 percent less CO2 than standard jet fuel, said Julie Dawoodjee, Rentech's director of investor relations. Another way to reduce CO2 emissions is to use biomass along with coal to produce liquid fuel. Biomass is considered to be carbon-neutral. That's because when it grows, biomass takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. When it is burned as fuel, it is simply returning what had been removed from the air by growing plants. It's often referred to as carbon recycling. The U.S. Energy Department estimates there are 1.3 billion tons of biomass available annually - from plants, grain crops and wood residue to animal manure and garbage - that could be turned into liquid fuel. And it's not just for airplanes, Edwards said. The Air Force plans eventually to use synthetic fuel to power trucks, generators and heaters, he said. more > defensenews.com