The director of the Navy’s energy coordination office invoked the bombing of the USS Cole to illustrate the vulnerability the Navy faces because of its heavy reliance on oil, dismissing criticism that alternative energy shouldn’t be a priority in times of shrinking budgets. The 2000 attack on the Norfolk-based destroyer occurred while it was in port in Yemen for refueling. The explosion was carried out by suicide bombers in a small boat and put a massive hole into the side of the ship, killing 17 sailors and wounding 37.
“She pulled in for one reason and one reason only,” Cmdr. James Goudreau said. “She didn’t need parts, she didn’t need food. She needed fuel. She needed liquid energy. We didn’t have an oiler in the area to refuel her, so she pulled into port, tied up and dropped her defenses because she was dependent upon oil. By the end of the day the Navy had a new energy security issue. We had a new energy reality.”
He rejected recent criticism from some Republican members of Congress that the Navy’s investment in alternative fuels is too expensive and serves a political agenda. Among other things, the Navy wants to sail a “Great Green Fleet” with ships running on alternative fuels by 2016.
The Navy wants the alternative fuel it purchases for that fleet to be available at prices that are competitive with conventional petroleum fuels and is subsidizing development to help make that possible. He also noted that for every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, the Navy’s fuel costs rise $30 million.
If alternative fuels aren’t developed and oil prices continue to rise, the Navy risks having to fly its planes and steam its ships less frequently, resulting in a less capable force.