Strategic industry/assets and globalization backlash.

Bear with me, this idea is not fully formed and I hope some discussion can clarify it.

In Australia it has come to light that we are down to 22 days crude, 24 days diesel and 17 days petrol in storage, some 49 days against our IEA obligation to hold 90 days. This is because 4 of our 9 refineries have closed since 2009, we're producing only 40% of the oil we did in 2000 and our refineries are half or 2/3 the size they need to be for competiveness.

The opposition, who is likely to be in government in the next few months, has said they'd build up reserves and further build up a strategic fleet of merchant ships. In any case something needs to be done.

Now as we know globalisation has produced a backlash as many good jobs have gone elsewhere. However it appears that counties cannot go full globalisation due to strategic security requirements, I'm sure Australia is not alone in thinking about fuel security in a fully free market system for example.

So could these issues, if properly addressed before they become problems reduce the backlash from globalization? For example when the refinery in Adelaide was mothballed in 2003 the government could have invested in strategic expansion of other refineries to get them closer to the 200,000bbl a day point of competitiveness. The same goes for other industries that might be kept alive at a certain threshold for strategic insurance purposes, would they employ enough people in good jobs to stave off anti globalization movement?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
This is a political issue, not an industry or supply issue. The ruling party must consider all possible results of their actions. You cut petroleum production without a commensurate increase in other fuel resources, the nation will suffer from shortages. Excessive restrictions on the refiners cuts into profits. Refiners go elsewhere. Any attempt to blame globalization is wrong headed. Money follows profit. So, make energy independence profitable. This will take time, patience and money(investment). Politicians use voters' money. Voters have no patience. Politicians have no time.

Sorry, I'm a bit Laissez-faire, or just lazy.:p

Check out:
 
I'm not blaming globalization for the fuel reserve shortages, that is (mostly?) a separate issue. What I wonder is if dealing with the fuel shortages by ensuring we have a competive refinery or two and a merchant fleet, and other issues related to strategic weakness in various industries , we employ enough people to take the worst sting from the losers of globalization?

This issue can be surprisingly widespread, china restrictions on sales of rare earths to Japan caused Japan to ensure that they had 2 other sources of supply despite paying more for the product, one of those mines being Australian.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I agree with your premise. Alternate sources of supply are imperative. Alternate energy technologies cost horrendous amounts of money for start up costs. Local sources for alternates are also needed. The government can help by encouraging investment, improving infrastructure and education. The US gutted its merchant marine, yet has large investments in offshore based shipping. This was partially a result of union disfunction.
 
Top