Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

China on our doorstep

Jump to new
mullokintyre said:
Hon PJ Keating failed to tell his audience that some of his thoughts may be as a paid shill for the CCP.
Most people would understand that what it means when you get paid by an entity, you support that entity.
Don't know how long he has been on the CDB board, or how much he is paid, but those French Clocks don't come cheap, even on a generous Parliamentary salary.
The thought just popped into my head that Rederob may actually be PJK with a Pseudonym.
There is some similarity in style.
Mick
View attachment 154432
Click to expand...

He said in the interview that he was only paid $5K and is now paid nothing. Hard to believe, but if so, he's now doing their work gratis.
 
Sean K said:
The only thing scarier is Paul Keating's unhinged ramblings at the Press Club today.
Click to expand...

Quoting Peter Dutton is fraught with risk, other commentator's on this forum have questioned the cost and strategic risk in having 8 boats at extreme cost / risk or obsolete soon ish.

Keating is 100% for Australia and its independence the sub deal challenges that concept.

An open mind is the key...eh.
 
JohnDe said:
While other buildings take years to complete, gigafactories are built in just months. Elon Musk is a pioneer in this regard.
Click to expand...
I'll pose the question:

Supposing that a real war, a proper one, starts on 1 January 2024. A date I've picked just for simplicity.

This war cuts off Australian access to anything from China and its allies and due to conflict cuts our liquid fuel supply by 50% or a bit over 500,000 barrels per day.

How quickly could we replace that using some other resource as the feedstock?

It took Shell 500 million work hours over 5 years to build a plant producing 140,000 barrels per day of petroleum liquids from natural gas in Qatar. That doesn't include time spent on design, that's just for construction.

They had about 52,000 workers on site building it. Noting they already had the gas sorted so it was just the GTL plant itself they had to build.

Anyone willing to speculate how quickly we could get four of those built with a war going on?

In Australia at present, we unbolt industrial machinery and send it overseas to be repaired. They send it back then the Aussies just reinstall it. Not all of it obviously but it happens - wouldn't be the first time it was airfreighted too when it's urgent.

Our capabilities aren't zero, there are workplaces still doing this stuff locally, but overall we're seriously short on the required skills and an adequate base of workshops and so on. It'd be one almighty scale up required. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
Quoting Peter Dutton is fraught with risk, other commentator's on this forum have questioned the cost and strategic risk in having 8 boats at extreme cost / risk or obsolete soon ish.

Keating is 100% for Australia and its independence the sub deal challenges that concept.

An open mind is the key...eh.
Click to expand...

Who's quoting Dutton? The sub deal is much more complicated to simply pin an independence label on it. Keating is quite frankly unstable and should be put out to pasture. His idea of having 60 Collins like boats instead of 8 nuclear is laughable. We won't be able to crew the 8 we're after. He said Virginia's fired nuclear torpedoes at one point. LOL. My preferred sub option was to just fund an extra Virginia boat yard and increase the US output to three per year, one extra for us. Then add remote launched smaller subs from the larger ones. I'm sure that's all discussed in the sub thread somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Smurf1976 said:
I'll pose the question:

Supposing that a real war, a proper one, starts on 1 January 2024. A date I've picked just for simplicity.

This war cuts off Australian access to anything from China and its allies and due to conflict cuts our liquid fuel supply by 50% or a bit over 500,000 barrels per day.

How quickly could we replace that using some other resource as the feedstock?

It took Shell 500 million work hours over 5 years to build a plant producing 140,000 barrels per day of petroleum liquids from natural gas in Qatar. That doesn't include time spent on design, that's just for construction.

They had about 52,000 workers on site building it. Noting they already had the gas sorted so it was just the GTL plant itself they had to build.

Anyone willing to speculate how quickly we could get four of those built with a war going on?

In Australia at present, we unbolt industrial machinery and send it overseas to be repaired. They send it back then the Aussies just reinstall it. Not all of it obviously but it happens - wouldn't be the first time it was airfreighted too when it's urgent.

Our capabilities aren't zero, there are workplaces still doing this stuff locally, but overall we're seriously short on the required skills and an adequate base of workshops and so on. It'd be one almighty scale up required. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Energy security is probably our greatest risk. Talked about this in the energy security thread a bit. Our strategic reserve in the US is pitiful and while the US would try and transport more to us in a crisis, they're going to need it themselves. Not sure why we shut down our refineries other than a just-in-time policy shift in what looked to be a long term benign security environment, or a projected rapid shift to electrification that has not occurred. It's been a failure of government strategic planning to have a long term back up plan.
 
JohnDe said:
No weight at all when a real name is not used.

I could be Paul Keating for all you know, but my ramblings would be worth zilch under a pseudonym
Click to expand...
I have corresponded with a many long-time posters at ASF (plus you) and even spoken on the phone with several so I don't hide anywhere, but choose to protect my online privacy. @Captain_Chaza and @Ann know I have a long posting history (again as rederob) on various forums before ASF existed.
On topic, a member at ASF has a copy of a letter of personal thanks I received from a military command for conducting and writing reviews with Commanding Officers on force matters. I don't post in ignorance.

My views on China are identical to Paul Keating's. Whether people like Keating or not is irrelevant as it's his commentary that needs parsing.
Keating put to bed claims he is a paid shill, and destroyed a number of Press Club Journo's questions in his inimitable style.
Keating's main points were:
  • China has never threatened any other nation state
  • China depends on Australia for its industrialisation
  • In the implausible event China sent an armada to invade Australia it would be decimated well before it got here
  • America acknowledges that China has no military interest beyond protecting its periphery, and America intends to contain China within it
  • Nuclear subs are too large to be effective in shallow continental waters and smaller subs are needed for "defence"
    • the purpose of AUKUS is support America's stated containment policy rather than for actual defence of our nation
  • AUKUS is a step back in time in that the UK in particular pretty much left Australia to defend itself after capitulating in SE Asia during WWII
  • Partnerships with Indonesia in particular would be a far more important bulwark against any aggressor, seeing the archipelago is a natural barrier to threats that have no practical alternative than to come from our north
  • Given the rule of thumb places only a third of any fleet at sea at any given time, the three nuclear subs that will fill this role in 20-30 years time would not be as effective five times as many smaller subs that could be bought at the same cost but be in operation much earlier
  • Australia's present foreign policy is subservient to militarisation interests - Penny Wong has been cast adrift.
Keating also made a point yesterday that France offered Australia a nuclear sub deal after we cancelled our contract with them. That may have been a better deal - I don't know the details - but probably did not come with the paltry number of jobs that AUKUS's +$300B could entail. The rub here, however, is that France's promise actually gave us the subs cheaper and earlier, which seems to be what's important in defending our nation from an apparent imminent threat!
 
Smurf1976 said:
I'll pose the question:

Supposing that a real war, a proper one, starts on 1 January 2024. A date I've picked just for simplicity.

This war cuts off Australian access to anything from China and its allies and due to conflict cuts our liquid fuel supply by 50% or a bit over 500,000 barrels per day.

How quickly could we replace that using some other resource as the feedstock?

It took Shell 500 million work hours over 5 years to build a plant producing 140,000 barrels per day of petroleum liquids from natural gas in Qatar. That doesn't include time spent on design, that's just for construction.

They had about 52,000 workers on site building it. Noting they already had the gas sorted so it was just the GTL plant itself they had to build.

Anyone willing to speculate how quickly we could get four of those built with a war going on?

In Australia at present, we unbolt industrial machinery and send it overseas to be repaired. They send it back then the Aussies just reinstall it. Not all of it obviously but it happens - wouldn't be the first time it was airfreighted too when it's urgent.

Our capabilities aren't zero, there are workplaces still doing this stuff locally, but overall we're seriously short on the required skills and an adequate base of workshops and so on. It'd be one almighty scale up required. :2twocents
Click to expand...

None of what you ask is new, though what you state is overly pessimistic but probably necessary in a time of war.

​
{1} At the start of the Second World War Australia was lamentably unprepared for conflict, especially with regard to supplies of petrol. The First World War provided no guidelines, as although petrol rationing had been considered early in 1918, restrictions would have meant that fewer ships would have made deliveries to Australia. This would have restricted opportunities to export Australian products as back-loading,1 and in the interests of the domestic economy, rationing was delayed. When the Armistice halted conflict in November of that year, plans for petrol rationing were abandoned.....​
​
2} The realities of war started to bite when Britain applied pressure on the Australian Government to reduce petrol consumption in order to assist with Britain's foreign exchange problems. For a country that was entirely dependent on imported petrol, Australia did not have sufficient petrol storage to carry it through any long-term disruption to supply.3 Attempts had been made during the 1930s to increase storage, but motoring was such a growing industry that no real progress was made towards keeping storage ahead of usage. As a result, at the start of the war Australia had sufficient petrol for only three months' normal consumption.4 The limited storage alone should have alerted planners of the need to be prepared for disruptions to supply, but the War Book5 simply noted that "on the threat of war" the Department of Supply should prepare a plan for the rationing of petrol. The Commonwealth Oil Board duly prepared a scheme when war appeared imminent, and presented it to state road transport authorities at a meeting that was in progress when war was declared on 3 September 1939.6 Speaking on behalf of authorities connected with the supply of petrol, the chairman stated that it was not considered necessary to restrict the use of petrol and oil immediately, and that rationing may not be necessary.7 Despite this sanguine outlook, the meeting agreed that some action had to be taken to make the public conscious that Australia was at war, and it proposed that consumers should be swamped with propaganda designed to promote voluntary economy in the use of petrol, in the hope that they would respond with such enthusiasm that rationing would not be necessary.8 What actually happened was that as soon as rationing was mentioned massive hoarding took place.9​
​
{3} Grasping at ways to reduce consumption and hoarding without imposing rationing, the government decided an alternative would be to encourage motorists to use gas producers. The government hoped that if domestic users switched to gas producers all available petrol could be preserved for the armed forces and essential domestic use.....​
​
{4} The problem with getting motorists to switch to gas producers was that they were still a relatively new and largely unknown device. In fact, they were not even in general production, and in order to get production underway quickly the government had to sponsor development and manufacture of the units. That still left the problem of securing supplies of charcoal (the energy source for gas producers) which was not, at the time, commercially produced. To overcome this the government instructed the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to research urgently the production of charcoal, and to draw up production specifications.11 Everything had to be done in great haste and that set the scene for the muddling which followed...​
​
{11} The Commonwealth Oil Board attempted to push the government into implementing petrol rationing when supplies dwindled, as tankers were increasingly diverted from Australia.25 By May 1940 the Board estimated that the oil companies held only 67 per cent of their total capacity of about 140 million gallons. Resellers were estimated to have a storage capacity of about 28 million gallons, which was only about half full.26 When France collapsed, the Minister for Supply stressed to Cabinet that continuity of the already erratic deliveries was under threat, and on 6 June 1940 Cabinet finally made the decision that rationing should be introduced to reduce consumption by 50 per cent....​
​
{31} The petrol outlook became even bleaker during May 1941 as tanker movements became more uncertain and it was estimated that by 31 July 1941 stocks would have fallen to 50,573,000 gallons.​
​
4088890.jpg​
Refuelling a gas producer attached to a car in Melbourne, October 1942​

The previous LNP government has paid to keep a couple of fuel refineries working in Australia.

Australia’s two oil refiners have swung back to profit as both Viva Energy and Ampol posted multi-year high revenues, capping a remarkable turnaround for a sector that was the subject of a federal government subsidy package to secure fuel supplies.​
​
The federal government last May said it would pay Ampol and Viva Energy to keep producing amid heightened fears about Australia’s energy security as both companies struggled against larger Asian refineries and COVID-19 lockdowns.​
​
The scheme pays both Ampol and Viva Energy when refining margins are weak, and the subsidies aided both in the short term before a rapid turnaround in the market made both ineligible.​
​
With soaring demand, both Ampol and Viva Energy on Monday reported bumper profits.​


 
rederob said:
I have corresponded with a many long-time posters at ASF (plus you) and even spoken on the phone with several so I don't hide anywhere, but choose to protect my online privacy. @Captain_Chaza and @Ann know I have a long posting history (again as rederob) on various forums before ASF existed.
On topic, a member at ASF has a copy of a letter of personal thanks I received from a military command for conducting and writing reviews with Commanding Officers on force matters. I don't post in ignorance.

My views on China are identical to Paul Keating's. Whether people like Keating or not is irrelevant as it's his commentary that needs parsing.
Keating put to bed claims he is a paid shill, and destroyed a number of Press Club Journo's questions in his inimitable style.
Keating's main points were:
  • China has never threatened any other nation state
  • China depends on Australia for its industrialisation
  • In the implausible event China sent an armada to invade Australia it would be decimated well before it got here
  • America acknowledges that China has no military interest beyond protecting its periphery, and America intends to contain China within it
  • Nuclear subs are too large to be effective in shallow continental waters and smaller subs are needed for "defence"
    • the purpose of AUKUS is support America's stated containment policy rather than for actual defence of our nation
  • AUKUS is a step back in time in that the UK in particular pretty much left Australia to defend itself after capitulating in SE Asia during WWII
  • Partnerships with Indonesia in particular would be a far more important bulwark against any aggressor, seeing the archipelago is a natural barrier to threats that have no practical alternative than to come from our north
  • Given the rule of thumb places only a third of any fleet at sea at any given time, the three nuclear subs that will fill this role in 20-30 years time would not be as effective five times as many smaller subs that could be bought at the same cost but be in operation much earlier
  • Australia's present foreign policy is subservient to militarisation interests - Penny Wong has been cast adrift.
Keating also made a point yesterday that France offered Australia a nuclear sub deal after we cancelled our contract with them. That may have been a better deal - I don't know the details - but probably did not come with the paltry number of jobs that AUKUS's +$300B could entail. The rub here, however, is that France's promise actually gave us the subs cheaper and earlier, which seems to be what's important in defending our nation from an apparent imminent threat!
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem or fear in telling us your real name.

How would you feel if all our media organisations and government agencies gave us reports under false names, and then insist that we believe every word because they have spoken to experts.

Any good and robust discussion of ideas must include assessment of facts and their sources, otherwise it just personal points of view.

If you are willing to give your strong views, possible facts, and to name-drop in order to try and legitimise your comments it is only fair for readers to have a means to check and assess.

You may be a professor in the field that we discuss, but unless you are willing to put your name to your views and thoughts it is all just heresy and fun.

The private citizen Paul Keating has the courage to put his name to his personal views.
 
Last edited:
JohnDe said:
None of what you ask is new, though what you state is overly pessimistic but probably necessary in a time of war.

​
{1} At the start of the Second World War Australia was lamentably unprepared for conflict, especially with regard to supplies of petrol. The First World War provided no guidelines, as although petrol rationing had been considered early in 1918, restrictions would have meant that fewer ships would have made deliveries to Australia. This would have restricted opportunities to export Australian products as back-loading,1 and in the interests of the domestic economy, rationing was delayed. When the Armistice halted conflict in November of that year, plans for petrol rationing were abandoned.....​
​
2} The realities of war started to bite when Britain applied pressure on the Australian Government to reduce petrol consumption in order to assist with Britain's foreign exchange problems. For a country that was entirely dependent on imported petrol, Australia did not have sufficient petrol storage to carry it through any long-term disruption to supply.3 Attempts had been made during the 1930s to increase storage, but motoring was such a growing industry that no real progress was made towards keeping storage ahead of usage. As a result, at the start of the war Australia had sufficient petrol for only three months' normal consumption.4 The limited storage alone should have alerted planners of the need to be prepared for disruptions to supply, but the War Book5 simply noted that "on the threat of war" the Department of Supply should prepare a plan for the rationing of petrol. The Commonwealth Oil Board duly prepared a scheme when war appeared imminent, and presented it to state road transport authorities at a meeting that was in progress when war was declared on 3 September 1939.6 Speaking on behalf of authorities connected with the supply of petrol, the chairman stated that it was not considered necessary to restrict the use of petrol and oil immediately, and that rationing may not be necessary.7 Despite this sanguine outlook, the meeting agreed that some action had to be taken to make the public conscious that Australia was at war, and it proposed that consumers should be swamped with propaganda designed to promote voluntary economy in the use of petrol, in the hope that they would respond with such enthusiasm that rationing would not be necessary.8 What actually happened was that as soon as rationing was mentioned massive hoarding took place.9​
​
{3} Grasping at ways to reduce consumption and hoarding without imposing rationing, the government decided an alternative would be to encourage motorists to use gas producers. The government hoped that if domestic users switched to gas producers all available petrol could be preserved for the armed forces and essential domestic use.....​
​
{4} The problem with getting motorists to switch to gas producers was that they were still a relatively new and largely unknown device. In fact, they were not even in general production, and in order to get production underway quickly the government had to sponsor development and manufacture of the units. That still left the problem of securing supplies of charcoal (the energy source for gas producers) which was not, at the time, commercially produced. To overcome this the government instructed the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to research urgently the production of charcoal, and to draw up production specifications.11 Everything had to be done in great haste and that set the scene for the muddling which followed...​
​
{11} The Commonwealth Oil Board attempted to push the government into implementing petrol rationing when supplies dwindled, as tankers were increasingly diverted from Australia.25 By May 1940 the Board estimated that the oil companies held only 67 per cent of their total capacity of about 140 million gallons. Resellers were estimated to have a storage capacity of about 28 million gallons, which was only about half full.26 When France collapsed, the Minister for Supply stressed to Cabinet that continuity of the already erratic deliveries was under threat, and on 6 June 1940 Cabinet finally made the decision that rationing should be introduced to reduce consumption by 50 per cent....​
​
{31} The petrol outlook became even bleaker during May 1941 as tanker movements became more uncertain and it was estimated that by 31 July 1941 stocks would have fallen to 50,573,000 gallons.​
​
Refuelling a gas producer attached to a car in Melbourne, October 1942​

The previous LNP government has paid to keep a couple of fuel refineries working in Australia.

Australia’s two oil refiners have swung back to profit as both Viva Energy and Ampol posted multi-year high revenues, capping a remarkable turnaround for a sector that was the subject of a federal government subsidy package to secure fuel supplies.​
​
The federal government last May said it would pay Ampol and Viva Energy to keep producing amid heightened fears about Australia’s energy security as both companies struggled against larger Asian refineries and COVID-19 lockdowns.​
​
The scheme pays both Ampol and Viva Energy when refining margins are weak, and the subsidies aided both in the short term before a rapid turnaround in the market made both ineligible.​
​
With soaring demand, both Ampol and Viva Energy on Monday reported bumper profits.​


Click to expand...
The problem is, energy usage has probably increased a bit since the end of WW2.
According to Oz Govt energy , the total energy use has doubled since 1975 to 2020.
The figures don't go back to WW2, but one might expect that it may have doubled from a very low base in WW2 to 1975.
Thats a lot of ingenuity to be bundled together, especially when large parts of the population have been taught to rely on someone else for their needs.
Mick
 
JohnDe said:
None of what you ask is new, though what you state is overly pessimistic but probably necessary in a time of war.

​
{1} At the start of the Second World War Australia was lamentably unprepared for conflict, especially with regard to supplies of petrol. The First World War provided no guidelines, as although petrol rationing had been considered early in 1918, restrictions would have meant that fewer ships would have made deliveries to Australia. This would have restricted opportunities to export Australian products as back-loading,1 and in the interests of the domestic economy, rationing was delayed. When the Armistice halted conflict in November of that year, plans for petrol rationing were abandoned.....​
​
2} The realities of war started to bite when Britain applied pressure on the Australian Government to reduce petrol consumption in order to assist with Britain's foreign exchange problems. For a country that was entirely dependent on imported petrol, Australia did not have sufficient petrol storage to carry it through any long-term disruption to supply.3 Attempts had been made during the 1930s to increase storage, but motoring was such a growing industry that no real progress was made towards keeping storage ahead of usage. As a result, at the start of the war Australia had sufficient petrol for only three months' normal consumption.4 The limited storage alone should have alerted planners of the need to be prepared for disruptions to supply, but the War Book5 simply noted that "on the threat of war" the Department of Supply should prepare a plan for the rationing of petrol. The Commonwealth Oil Board duly prepared a scheme when war appeared imminent, and presented it to state road transport authorities at a meeting that was in progress when war was declared on 3 September 1939.6 Speaking on behalf of authorities connected with the supply of petrol, the chairman stated that it was not considered necessary to restrict the use of petrol and oil immediately, and that rationing may not be necessary.7 Despite this sanguine outlook, the meeting agreed that some action had to be taken to make the public conscious that Australia was at war, and it proposed that consumers should be swamped with propaganda designed to promote voluntary economy in the use of petrol, in the hope that they would respond with such enthusiasm that rationing would not be necessary.8 What actually happened was that as soon as rationing was mentioned massive hoarding took place.9​
​
{3} Grasping at ways to reduce consumption and hoarding without imposing rationing, the government decided an alternative would be to encourage motorists to use gas producers. The government hoped that if domestic users switched to gas producers all available petrol could be preserved for the armed forces and essential domestic use.....​
​
{4} The problem with getting motorists to switch to gas producers was that they were still a relatively new and largely unknown device. In fact, they were not even in general production, and in order to get production underway quickly the government had to sponsor development and manufacture of the units. That still left the problem of securing supplies of charcoal (the energy source for gas producers) which was not, at the time, commercially produced. To overcome this the government instructed the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to research urgently the production of charcoal, and to draw up production specifications.11 Everything had to be done in great haste and that set the scene for the muddling which followed...​
​
{11} The Commonwealth Oil Board attempted to push the government into implementing petrol rationing when supplies dwindled, as tankers were increasingly diverted from Australia.25 By May 1940 the Board estimated that the oil companies held only 67 per cent of their total capacity of about 140 million gallons. Resellers were estimated to have a storage capacity of about 28 million gallons, which was only about half full.26 When France collapsed, the Minister for Supply stressed to Cabinet that continuity of the already erratic deliveries was under threat, and on 6 June 1940 Cabinet finally made the decision that rationing should be introduced to reduce consumption by 50 per cent....​
​
{31} The petrol outlook became even bleaker during May 1941 as tanker movements became more uncertain and it was estimated that by 31 July 1941 stocks would have fallen to 50,573,000 gallons.​
​
Refuelling a gas producer attached to a car in Melbourne, October 1942​

The previous LNP government has paid to keep a couple of fuel refineries working in Australia.

Australia’s two oil refiners have swung back to profit as both Viva Energy and Ampol posted multi-year high revenues, capping a remarkable turnaround for a sector that was the subject of a federal government subsidy package to secure fuel supplies.​
​
The federal government last May said it would pay Ampol and Viva Energy to keep producing amid heightened fears about Australia’s energy security as both companies struggled against larger Asian refineries and COVID-19 lockdowns.​
​
The scheme pays both Ampol and Viva Energy when refining margins are weak, and the subsidies aided both in the short term before a rapid turnaround in the market made both ineligible.​
​
With soaring demand, both Ampol and Viva Energy on Monday reported bumper profits.​


Click to expand...

Interesting history of what happened at the day. I assume rationing would occur today and resources diverted to essential services if supply was limited. Such as maintaining deliveries to Dan Murphys during the pandemic.

Do we have any refineries or storage on care and maintenance @Smurf1976 or would we have to completely rebuild some to increase sovereign capacity?
 
IFocus said:
Seen a report of Dutton saying the same as you word for word for the life of me I cannot find it however I now suspect Dutton was quoting you :).
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything he's said on this, so perhaps he has. :D
 
Sean K said:
Do we have any refineries or storage on care and maintenance @Smurf1976 or would we have to completely rebuild some to increase sovereign capacity?
Click to expand...

I know a fair bit about the BP refinery here in WA when it was in full operation mode, just on the control systems and instrumentation / electrical infrastructure (HV and LV) you would have to start again that's before you get to the vessels piping etc.

None of it these days is off the shelve.
 
IFocus said:
I know a fair bit about the BP refinery here in WA when it was in full operation mode, just on the control systems and instrumentation / electrical infrastructure (HV and LV) you would have to start again that's before you get to the vessels piping etc.

None of it these days is off the shelve.
Click to expand...

I thought that was one of the two we still had operational? Can it be expanded?
 
mullokintyre said:
The problem is, energy usage has probably increased a bit since the end of WW2.
According to Oz Govt energy , the total energy use has doubled since 1975 to 2020.
The figures don't go back to WW2, but one might expect that it may have doubled from a very low base in WW2 to 1975.
Thats a lot of ingenuity to be bundled together, especially when large parts of the population have been taught to rely on someone else for their needs.
Mick
Click to expand...

True, but the point is that we are a little more prepared now than we were before WWII when we had no refinery production and poor process implementation of rationing.
 
IFocus said:
Refining of the fuel for vehicles in Australia all the Oil refineries run at a loss BP from memory tried to shore up costs by refining niche fuels. For the capital outlay / lack of scale the numbers don't line up.


bp to cease production at Kwinana refinery and convert to fuel import terminal​


Click to expand...

www.afr.com

Oil refineries roar back with bumper profits

Australia’s two oil refiners have swung back to profit as both Viva Energy and Ampol completed a stunning comeback after struggling in recent years.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
 
IFocus said:
Refining of the fuel for vehicles in Australia all the Oil refineries run at a loss BP from memory tried to shore up costs by refining niche fuels. For the capital outlay / lack of scale the numbers don't line up.


bp to cease production at Kwinana refinery and convert to fuel import terminal​


Click to expand...

However many we have, I'm sure they are on a targeting matrix somewhere in Beijing and would be wiped out within a few minutes.
 
Sean K said:
However many we have, I'm sure they are on a targeting matrix somewhere in Beijing and would be wiped out within a few minutes.
Click to expand...

14 minutes, so they reckon

7news.com.au

Hypersonic missile 'could hit in 14 mins'

As Australian, British and American leaders commit to cooperate on hypersonic weapons, the deputy prime minister has highlighted the nature of the threat.
7news.com.au 7news.com.au
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top