ADF General discussion thread

[SammyC]

Despite it not being competitive in terms of cost at the present time, it might also be worth exploring alternative options with regards to critical fuels.

Specifically with regards to the supply of Diesel and Aviation kerosene.

Options would include the following
- Fuel production from biological feedstock such as Maize or Canola.
- Shale oil production of which we do have some resources in Qld and NSW.
- Coal to Liquid production

I am definitely not advocating for trying to replace all of Australia's fuel imports, however it may be beneficial to have enough local supply to ensure that critical industries and government agencies can continue to function.

Fuel storage could also be increased (and transport usage decreased) by building pipelines between the major capital cities. Build the pipelines either along major rail corridors or along the existing major highway corridors.

It will be interesting to see how Australian fuel security gets shaken out by this event. While the immediate focus is on procuring fuel at any price, there must be a review on how to create at least a basic local supply chain.

Unfortunately everything needed to improve supply security is extraordinarily expensive. Pipelines like the above are in the order of several billions of dollars. So are new refineries of any type. And it would take in the order of at least a decade to implement.

We are ultimately in the situation we have because of a push to lower the cost of fuel. We made over several decades, decisions to obtain cheaper fuel at the cost of long term resilience. We can blame Governments, but we should note that we consistently elected governments with this mandate.

Initially, we can restart fuel supply from the US as an alternative to the middle east and SE Asia. We have just procured a few shipments, however this could be expanded. It provides a supply that is not middle east dependent (Texan refineries are mostly supplied locally, from Canada, and presumably soon Venezuela).

A little known fact is that Australia used to hold much more than the current 30 days of inventory. Back in 2012 we had 90 days and more. Some, but not all of that storage capacity still exists, it just needs to be fully filled. Additional tanks can be built, but that is probably a 12-18 month program. This is perhaps the cheapest and quickest thing we could do to improve security.

Australia also produces a not insignificant amount of crude oil, more than enough to supply the two refineries in Brisbane and Geelong. It is however the wrong type, meaning it is not easily distilled and we don't have a coastal fleet to transport it. We produce light crude, our refineries use heavy crude. It is possible to convert the existing refrineries and contract some ships, but this is a five year build program. It would however mean that at least the 20% of refined products we manufacture, is not dependent on overseas crude oil. This is perhaps the second most cheapest thing we could do for security.

Thereafter, to be contraversial, it is to wean off fuel as soon as possible. Electrify the private car fleet and progressively do the same with trucks.

And a point to make. We will never have cheap fuel again. Even if middle east supplies return undamaged quickly (which I doubt they will), the above is an expensive program that will all be built into the future price of a litre of petrol for ever.

 

[SammyC]

And, fuel is not even Australia's biggest concern. Fertiliser is. Farmers are currently not seeding crops for lack of products like urea. 25% of WA vegetable growers have not planted and will likely miss this season.

Imagine what Coles and Woolies will look like with that reduction in supply in about 2-3 months time.

People worry about $3 a litre fuel. Look forward to $10 lettuce. And forget about buying bananas on an average salary

 

[hauritz]

It will be interesting to see how Australian fuel security gets shaken out by this event. While the immediate focus is on procuring fuel at any price, there must be a review on how to create at least a basic local supply chain.

Unfortunately everything needed to improve supply security is extraordinarily expensive. Pipelines like the above are in the order of several billions of dollars. So are new refineries of any type. And it would take in the order of at least a decade to implement.

We are ultimately in the situation we have because of a push to lower the cost of fuel. We made over several decades, decisions to obtain cheaper fuel at the cost of long term resilience. We can blame Governments, but we should note that we consistently elected governments with this mandate.

Initially, we can restart fuel supply from the US as an alternative to the middle east and SE Asia. We have just procured a few shipments, however this could be expanded. It provides a supply that is not middle east dependent (Texan refineries are mostly supplied locally, from Canada, and presumably soon Venezuela).

A little known fact is that Australia used to hold much more than the current 30 days of inventory. Back in 2012 we had 90 days and more. Some, but not all of that storage capacity still exists, it just needs to be fully filled. Additional tanks can be built, but that is probably a 12-18 month program. This is perhaps the cheapest and quickest thing we could do to improve security.

Australia also produces a not insignificant amount of crude oil, more than enough to supply the two refineries in Brisbane and Geelong. It is however the wrong type, meaning it is not easily distilled and we don't have a coastal fleet to transport it. We produce light crude, our refineries use heavy crude. It is possible to convert the existing refrineries and contract some ships, but this is a five year build program. It would however mean that at least the 20% of refined products we manufacture, is not dependent on overseas crude oil. This is perhaps the second most cheapest thing we could do for security.

Thereafter, to be contraversial, it is to wean off fuel as soon as possible. Electrify the private car fleet and progressively do the same with trucks.

And a point to make. We will never have cheap fuel again. Even if middle east supplies return undamaged quickly (which I doubt they will), the above is an expensive program that will all be built into the future price of a litre of petrol for ever.

If Australia is struggling to deal with this crisis then how would we cope with a major war in the Pacific?

IMO the US is now pretty much done as a superpower. China has basically just sat back and watched the US self destruct. Assuming Australia's economy gets through this relatively intact then we have a lot to think about.

I agree that electrification of our transport system is now close to being our number one priority.

We should also use what we have. Australia is totally self sufficient in LNG. We should start converting our diesel truck fleet to LNG.

 

[John Fedup]

If Australia is struggling to deal with this crisis then how would we cope with a major war in the Pacific?

IMO the US is now pretty much done as a superpower. China has basically just sat back and watched the US self destruct. Assuming Australia's economy gets through this relatively intact then we have a lot to think about.

I agree that electrification of our transport system is now close to being our number one priority.

We should also use what we have. Australia is totally self sufficient in LNG. We should start converting our diesel truck fleet to LNG.

Absolutely agree. Use what you have, LNG, land for solar and wind. For electric vehicles, Australia’s warm climate is good for battery performance, extreme summer temperatures excepted. Few countries have these advantages and they all compensate to a large degree your lack of domestic oil albeit much development work will be required. This development would have eventually happened to combat climate change. The latest ME BS adds incentive to get moving.

 

[swerve]

Australia has huge solar power potential. The only problem is storage. Similar with wind. Perhaps it might also be able to produce a lot of biofuels along the coast. Warm seawater & lots of sun . . . I can imagine big lagoons full of algae. I don't know how practical, let alone economic, it'd be, but maybe.

 

[John Fedup]

Australia has huge solar power potential. The only problem is storage. Similar with wind. Perhaps it might also be able to produce a lot of biofuels along the coast. Warm seawater & lots of sun . . . I can imagine big lagoons full of algae. I don't know how practical, let alone economic, it'd be, but maybe.

Yes, storage is an issue. New battery technology can hopefully address part of this and using excess wind and solar output could be directed to hydrolysis for H-2 production.

 

[SammyC]

I think the population is starting to understand just how much of a weapon international supply can be, and how vulnerable we are to it. This is not even a conflict targeting Australia, or one close to our region. Imagine what it looks like when it is.

I read today that while the ME conflict has shut off about 20% of the global fuel supply, the actual impact is about 5% thanks to strategic inventory releases and ships that exited prior to the closure. The last ships from about four weeks ago reach their final ports about now, and refineries start facing severe shortages over the next four weeks.

So we will soon see what a 20% supply reduction really looks like. $3 fuel prices suddenly look good.

 

[SammyC]

Yes, storage is an issue. New battery technology can hopefully address part of this and using excess wind and solar output could be directed to hydrolysis for H-2 production.

I think this is rapidly changing.

According to Google, the impact of the federal and state home battery schemes resulted in an additional 4.7 GWh of storage in six months across Australia. Expect that to double in the second six months of FY26.

WA has about 5GWh of industrial batteries already installed or in construction, which equates to about 10% of daily requirements. Much more during peak demand.

All new solar and wind project have to come with a battery, else they no longer get approvals.

The traditional duck curve and high power consumption between 3pm and 9pm will significantly change over the next couple of years.

I don't think it is that far away that there will be surplus power to direct to things like electrolysis. Say five years for electrolysis to start becomming economically viable.

 

[Stampede]

All for exploring many forms of of energy generation but the simple fact is that fossil fuels are a big part of the mix today and into the future. Particularly in the transport field for both the military and civilian sectors.

Some perspective ,our economy is the 15th largest in the world by nominal GDP valued at some US$1.83 trillion dollars.

Why on early we we didn’t at least meet 90 days reserve. I do not understand. This is made worse by the fact we are an island and have no land boards where we can pipe our truck through supplies. Even the talk of of running out of fuel and all the uncertainty on the news and personal conversations amongst friends indicates how much we rely on fuel to keep our society going. A few billion dollars on fuel storage and rotating and pipes and all the infrastructure to make this work is small Change at the end of the day..
We don’t know where this conflict is going, but we do know the uncertainty brings.

We need to take this lesson and act upon it as soon as possible.


Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

All for exploring many forms of of energy generation but the simple fact is that fossil fuels are a big part of the mix today and into the future. Particularly in the transport field for both the military and civilian sectors.

Some perspective ,our economy is the 15th largest in the world by nominal GDP valued at some US$1.83 trillion dollars.

Why on early we we didn’t at least meet 90 days reserve. I do not understand. This is made worse by the fact we are an island and have no land boards where we can pipe our truck through supplies. Even the talk of of running out of fuel and all the uncertainty on the news and personal conversations amongst friends indicates how much we rely on fuel to keep our society going. A few billion dollars on fuel storage and rotating and pipes and all the infrastructure to make this work is small Change at the end of the day..
We don’t know where this conflict is going, but we do know the uncertainty brings.

We need to take this lesson and act upon it as soon as possible.


Cheers S

90 days equates to about 12 billion litres. At a cost of say $2 that equates to $24 billion in fuel holdings that is not being used. Somebody paid for that and that somebody wants a return. If they expect a minimum market return of say 8%pa, that is $2 billion, which equates to approx 5 cents per litre for every litre sold.

The infrastructure for 12 billion litres is probably a similar amount of capital and maintenance.

So a 90 day fuel inventory impacts fuel prices at the pump by about 10 cents. A 30 day holding by comparison, is about 3 cents. We ended up with a 30 day holding to save 7 cents per litre.

 

[SamB]

90 days equates to about 12 billion litres. At a cost of say $2 that equates to $24 billion in fuel holdings that is not being used. Somebody paid for that and that somebody wants a return. If they expect a minimum market return of say 8%pa, that is $2 billion, which equates to approx 5 cents per litre for every litre sold.

The infrastructure for 12 billion litres is probably a similar amount of capital and maintenance.

So a 90 day fuel inventory impacts fuel prices at the pump by about 10 cents. A 30 day holding by comparison, is about 3 cents. We ended up with a 30 day holding to save 7 cents per litre.

This is the tyranny of technology. Today your regular old interstate road train operator if something breaks down can pump everything with grease guns and bang on it until it works but with advanced systems that use magnetic energy to move freight around the computer gets a vote. So if the tolerances are off slightly the computer just shuts down. Then you gotta call up the sparkies (not cheap for 24/7 go anywhere in Australia roadside assistance and then you gotta wait for the parts).

The military and aviation and heavy transport are going to be almost impossible to abate. Residential and projects have already begun it's overhaul towards the Paris Agreement net zero carbon by 2050.

Beyond that the overhaul of Australia's energy grid has to be consistent with its targets that are already agreed to. When the nickel and lithium reserves are leveraged against global electric cars and battery requirements it'll ease the burden of costs associated with overhauling Australia's energy grid. But until then get used to $3 per litre of petrol.

 

[Volkodav]

Australia has huge solar power potential. The only problem is storage. Similar with wind. Perhaps it might also be able to produce a lot of biofuels along the coast. Warm seawater & lots of sun . . . I can imagine big lagoons full of algae. I don't know how practical, let alone economic, it'd be, but maybe.

Storage is not the issue because we also have space. High volume storage such salt and sand batteries are good options here.

 

[Stampede]

90 days equates to about 12 billion litres. At a cost of say $2 that equates to $24 billion in fuel holdings that is not being used. Somebody paid for that and that somebody wants a return. If they expect a minimum market return of say 8%pa, that is $2 billion, which equates to approx 5 cents per litre for every litre sold.

The infrastructure for 12 billion litres is probably a similar amount of capital and maintenance.

So a 90 day fuel inventory impacts fuel prices at the pump by about 10 cents. A 30 day holding by comparison, is about 3 cents. We ended up with a 30 day holding to save 7 cents per litre.

Thanks SammyC
Yes dollars
But is it really prohibited.
We use to be able to have greater reserves.
Also relative to our economy it’s no big deal.
What do we do…… shut down the nation for a few billion.
I think not.
It’s also about confidence.
We should not be having such fuel fear in the news
As a nation we should be bigger and better than this situation that we created.
That’s correct, we created.
The events overseas are not of our making.
Our lack of adequate fuel reserves are

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

It will be interesting to see how Australian fuel security gets shaken out by this event. While the immediate focus is on procuring fuel at any price, there must be a review on how to create at least a basic local supply chain.

Unfortunately everything needed to improve supply security is extraordinarily expensive. Pipelines like the above are in the order of several billions of dollars. So are new refineries of any type. And it would take in the order of at least a decade to implement.

We are ultimately in the situation we have because of a push to lower the cost of fuel. We made over several decades, decisions to obtain cheaper fuel at the cost of long term resilience. We can blame Governments, but we should note that we consistently elected governments with this mandate.

Initially, we can restart fuel supply from the US as an alternative to the middle east and SE Asia. We have just procured a few shipments, however this could be expanded. It provides a supply that is not middle east dependent (Texan refineries are mostly supplied locally, from Canada, and presumably soon Venezuela).

A little known fact is that Australia used to hold much more than the current 30 days of inventory. Back in 2012 we had 90 days and more. Some, but not all of that storage capacity still exists, it just needs to be fully filled. Additional tanks can be built, but that is probably a 12-18 month program. This is perhaps the cheapest and quickest thing we could do to improve security.

Australia also produces a not insignificant amount of crude oil, more than enough to supply the two refineries in Brisbane and Geelong. It is however the wrong type, meaning it is not easily distilled and we don't have a coastal fleet to transport it. We produce light crude, our refineries use heavy crude. It is possible to convert the existing refrineries and contract some ships, but this is a five year build program. It would however mean that at least the 20% of refined products we manufacture, is not dependent on overseas crude oil. This is perhaps the second most cheapest thing we could do for security.

Thereafter, to be contraversial, it is to wean off fuel as soon as possible. Electrify the private car fleet and progressively do the same with trucks.

And a point to make. We will never have cheap fuel again. Even if middle east supplies return undamaged quickly (which I doubt they will), the above is an expensive program that will all be built into the future price of a litre of petrol for ever.

Electrify and hydronise the transport fleets. My wife has a client who has electrified their local fleet and gone for hydrogen for their regional (one day out from depot) fleet.

They made this shift a couple of years back for operational and cost reasons, interestingly a big saving was nolonger needed to freight fuel in to their regional depots.

 

[CJR]

This is the tyranny of technology. Today your regular old interstate road train operator if something breaks down can pump everything with grease guns and bang on it until it works but with advanced systems that use magnetic energy to move freight around the computer gets a vote. So if the tolerances are off slightly the computer just shuts down. Then you gotta call up the sparkies (not cheap for 24/7 go anywhere in Australia roadside assistance and then you gotta wait for the parts).

Well...
1. The computer gets a vote in most modern cars, trucks, etc., so not that much of a difference diesel vs battery...
2. Electric motors have fewer moving parts to bust than a combustion engine and associated drive-train and are thus less prone to breakage.

Electrify and hydronise the transport fleets. My wife has a client who has electrified their local fleet and gone for hydrogen for their regional (one day out from depot) fleet.

They made this shift a couple of years back for operational and cost reasons, interestingly a big saving was nolonger needed to freight fuel in to their regional depots.

Also, get more of the inter-state freight onto rail. And (while likely not possible in the short term) electrify the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane rail corridor...

 

[SamB]

Well...
1. The computer gets a vote in most modern cars, trucks, etc., so not that much of a difference diesel vs battery...
2. Electric motors have fewer moving parts to bust than a combustion engine and associated drive-train and are thus less prone to breakage.
Also, get more of the inter-state freight onto rail. And (while likely not possible in the short term) electrify the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane rail corridor...

Defence talk veterans are really big on through life costs. Time frames were already behind before the costs all of a sudden has been dumped on us all at once. There needs to be clear eyes and a clear plan of what is going to be built but you're right sometimes project needs to be pushed out or brought forward depending on where the demand is. Overhauling Australia's energy policy has to safeguard maintenance and operations and if you don't do that then costs blow out which is another thing Defence Talk veterans are big on.

 

[StevoJH]

Well...
1. The computer gets a vote in most modern cars, trucks, etc., so not that much of a difference diesel vs battery...
2. Electric motors have fewer moving parts to bust than a combustion engine and associated drive-train and are thus less prone to breakage.
Also, get more of the inter-state freight onto rail. And (while likely not possible in the short term) electrify the Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane rail corridor...

It should be possible to move most of the Inter-nodal freight onto rail. It should be possible to electrify all the major railways which would get around the energy density issues of batteries for long distance transport.

A move towards containerised cargo would then make it easier and quicker to transfer to trucks for that last 5-100km distance. The trucks for intra-nodal deliveries can be diesel, LNG, BEV, Ammonia or whatever. As well as cutting down on fuel requirements it would also create massive efficiencies in terms of actual people required in the transport cycle. Two drivers in a train could potentially carry the same amount of cargo that would require 40-60 individual B-Doubles on the highway.

Probably worth while going back to regional depots for liquid fuel storage as well. Deliver a train load of fuel out to major regional centres once or twice a week and distribute from there rather then using road transport from the refineries and terminals.

High value or time-sensitive deliveries would still have to be transported by road or air freight.

Will it cost money initially? Sure. Will it be more efficient and more durable in the long run though? I'm not a logistician or economist.....

 

[SammyC]

It should be possible to move most of the Inter-nodal freight onto rail. It should be possible to electrify all the major railways which would get around the energy density issues of batteries for long distance transport.

A move towards containerised cargo would then make it easier and quicker to transfer to trucks for that last 5-100km distance. The trucks for intra-nodal deliveries can be diesel, LNG, BEV, Ammonia or whatever. As well as cutting down on fuel requirements it would also create massive efficiencies in terms of actual people required in the transport cycle. Two drivers in a train could potentially carry the same amount of cargo that would require 40-60 individual B-Doubles on the highway.

Probably worth while going back to regional depots for liquid fuel storage as well. Deliver a train load of fuel out to major regional centres once or twice a week and distribute from there rather then using road transport from the refineries and terminals.

High value or time-sensitive deliveries would still have to be transported by road or air freight.

Will it cost money initially? Sure. Will it be more efficient and more durable in the long run though? I'm not a logistician or economist.....

Rail is far more fuel efficient than trucks, about 3-5 times.

There is massive capacity to change. For instance the proportion of freight between Sydney and Melbourne on rail is literally less than 5%, and only 11% across the eastern seaboard. It's about 70% between Sydney and Perth in comparison.

Lets say that 70% of road freight could be moved to rail. Trucks currently consume approx 25 million litres per day (about 20% of total fuel consumption) that's a reduction of about 15 million litres per day. That would be a meaningful reduction in nationwide fuel consumption, and that is before any electrification.

Rail has for decades been starved of capital. The in construction inland rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane is for instance expected to cost $30 billion. That is just one of many investments that would be needed to achieve 70% on rail.

Bringing this back to a defence theme, we have a modern target of 1.5% GDP ($45 billion) to be put towards infrastructure that improves military capability (part of the 5%). I would have thought rail is a high value area for investment as it enables bulk and quick movement of defence equipment over long distances. There is a reason places like Russia move military gear on rail.

 

[StevoJH]

Standardisation of gauge across the state rail networks is also something that could be worked towards.

Freight terminals for rail freight are also pieces of infrastructure that can be constructed and brought online relatively quickly.

Shipping containers are readily available, and construction of additional rail rolling stock and road freight trailers are relatively simple though large.

 

[SamB]

Standardisation of gauge across the state rail networks is also something that could be worked towards.

Freight terminals for rail freight are also pieces of infrastructure that can be constructed and brought online relatively quickly.

Shipping containers are readily available, and construction of additional rail rolling stock and road freight trailers are relatively simple though large.

Standardisation of gauge across the state rail networks is also something that could be worked towards.

Freight terminals for rail freight are also pieces of infrastructure that can be constructed and brought online relatively quickly.

Shipping containers are readily available, and construction of additional rail rolling stock and road freight trailers are relatively simple though large.

Long haul trucking is the last six figure salary job that doesn't require a degree. There will be consequences. The federal government failed to protect taxi drivers from uber I think they should move to protect this one. Letting go of the Falcon and Commodore was a kick in the guts but road trains too?. Are you sure.