All News

By Private Jacob Joseph

Photo: Australian Army Private Ryan Robertson conducts weapon training on the 84mm Carl Gustav with Papua New Guinea Defence Force Corporal Shaun Bereda during Exercise Kumul Exchange 21 at the Townsville Field Training Area. Photo: Corporal Brandon Grey

An annual integration exercise was completed in Townsville this month, with Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) soldiers waving goodbye to Lavarack Barracks after two months of training with the 3rd Brigade.

Fourteen PNGDF soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Pacific Island Regiment, participated in Exercise Kumul Exchange from September 9 to November 12, joining infantry, engineer and combat support battalions in barracks and in the field.

PNG soldiers took part in sub-unit training, such as direct-fire support weapons and mortar courses, and rolled up their sleeves to work on vehicles and equipment, learning logistics and maintenance procedures.

PNGDF armourer Private Steven Malaisa, who was hosted by the 3rd Combat Service Support Battalion, said it was his first hands-on experience working with the EF88 Austeyr rifle.

“It’s good that I came here to learn new things so, in the future, if we have these types of weapons, I’ll be aware of them so I can assist with the fitting,” Private Malaisa said.

Across the barracks, Private Jack Kuhlberg, of 3rd Brigade’s 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, took on a mentoring role during the exercise, training a handful of PNG soldiers in urban-clearance drills.

After a step-by-step demonstration, Private Kuhlberg said the soldiers from the Royal Pacific Island Regiment got the hang of things quickly.

“We demonstrated room clearances, quartering and room-entry drills and they took it all in,” Private Kuhlberg said.

“I think they got a lot out of it.”

Similar training occurred at the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, and the 3rd Combat Engineer Regiment, where the visitors joined basic training on direct fire support weapons, mortars and combat engineering courses.

The exercise was part of the bilateral training activity Olgetta Warrior – an ADF and PNGDF engagement that was first held in 2009.

Kumul Exchange aimed to give soldiers at Lavarack Barracks exposure to working with a Pacific military and enhance the military relationship between Australian and PNG soldiers.

With more PNGDF personnel set to return next year, Private Malaisa said the exercise was something PNG soldiers looked forward to.

“I want to say thank you to the ADF for this opportunity,” Private Malaisa said.

“When we come here, we learn new things. The partnership program helps us in our work back in PNG.”

Terry McCrann

There are three things driving the petrol price, and none of them are oil company greed or service station profiteering.

Why are you paying $1.70 – and more – for your petrol?

And no – for the 368th time, and counting – it is not a ‘diesel fuel subsidy’, even if billionaire Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest seems to think it is.

There are three things driving the petrol price, and none of them are oil company greed or service station profiteering.

They are the very public price of the basic crude oil; tax; and the value of the Aussie dollar.

Right now the oil price is around $US80 a barrel. That’s $111 Aussie.

There are 159 litres in a barrel, so right there is 70c for each litre that goes into your tank.

Try putting crude oil into your tank and see how far it gets you.

It has to be refined – mostly in refineries ‘somewhere’ not in Australia, and then shipped here and distributed around the country.

Second up is tax.

Two taxes, actually: the basic fuel excise which is now 43.3c a litre; and the GST – including the nice little earner for Canberra of a ‘tax on a tax’, the GST on the fuel excise.

At a $1.70 pump price the GST is 15.5c.

That includes 4.3c, which is the GST on the excise tax. So the total tax flowing to Canberra at that pump price is 59c.

At a $1.70 pump price, fully $1.29 is locked in upfront to pay for the crude oil and the tax to Canberra.

That leaves 41c a litre for ‘everything else’. The cost of shipping the crude oil to the refinery, the cost of refining, the cost of shipping the petrol to Australia, trucking it around the country, running petrol stations – and, finally the profits of the oil company and the retailer.

All that has to come out of 41c a litre – and even less than 41c when the petrol price gets competed down to a lower level in a discounting cycle.

Then there’s the Aussie dollar.

If it was at parity with the US dollar – in which oil is priced – and not at US72c, the pump price would be more like $1.45 than the $1.70.

We’d also be paying around 2c less in tax on each litre.

That’s pretty tiny in the scheme of things, but better in your pocket than Canberra’s.

We are not going to see the Aussie back at parity with the Greenback anytime soon.

This is a very good reason why we do not want to see it at, say, US50c either.

It wouldn’t only be petrol we’d be paying a lot more for; but just about everything.

Now, as to the ‘diesel fuel’ subsidy’, it is not a subsidy. It’s a rebate (these days the ATO calls it a “fuel tax credit”) of some or all of the excise paid.

It’s also not just on diesel; its rebated/credited on petrol, LNG, LPG and indeed any fuel used to power business activity.

The reason is simple and unarguable.

In a rational, sane, world you don’t put taxes on business inputs.

Treasury and the Productivity Commission have said that would be nuts.

Importantly, it is only the tax on the business input component of the diesel/petrol/LPG excise that gets rebated.

So yes, ‘Twiggy’s’ Fortescue gets the full 43.3c back on diesel/petrol used at the mines, but Fortescue – and everybody else – only gets 16.6c a litre back on fuel used by heavy vehicles on public roads.

So why does ‘Twiggy’ so seemingly magnanimously want to give it up?

Because he sees a future in which he won’t be using diesel but hydrogen.

And he wants the money ‘redirected’ to hydrogen – and so, still, to that ‘future’ Fortescue.

Except there isn’t any money to be ‘redirected’; and there’ll be less and less as we go, if we go, electric.

My name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle.

Terence writes the following Coal-fired power plants:

First coal-fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of the modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plants that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at an efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of the total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me, no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence. The major percentage of power in Europe and the U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.

Yes, it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist

Yes – wind and solar generators are being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained continuously because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This, of course, depends on where they are located but usually, they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a ‘baseload ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only a small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro-Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snowmelt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydroelectric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation, much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.

Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case, they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, – not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the ‘believers’, the CO2 in the air has risen from .034% to .038% in the air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in the air in a clearer perspective;

If you had a room 3.7  x  3.7  x  2.1 metres the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1% of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world’s total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their figures, they state the CO2 in the air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by…004%.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008%.  (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that, because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 %. Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments want to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 =…00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their figures.

That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.

For that, they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology Renewable Energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous is that?

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.

T.L. Cardwell

Australia and the United States are collaborating on a joint project to discover new planets capable of sustaining human life, slated to deliver results by the middle of the decade.

A proposed telescope will search for planets around Earth’s closest neighbour Alpha Centauri, a triple star system located just over four light-years away but is three-times closer than the next nearest sun-like star.

Operations began in April under a joint mission with scientists from the University of Sydney, Breakthrough Initiatives in California, Saber Astronautics in Australia and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

This will mark a major step for Australia’s space industry as the nation attempts to discover what numerous countries have tried for many years.

Project leader Professor Peter Tuthill from the Sydney Institute for Astronomy said: “Astronomers have access to amazing technologies that allow us to find thousands of planets circling stars across vast reaches of the galaxy.”

“Yet we hardly know anything about our celestial backyard. Getting to know our planetary neighbours is hugely important,” he said.

These planets could be our “best prospects” for finding possible signals of life, Professor Tuthill said.

Specific to the project, the telescope needs to be more finely tuned for discovering smaller planets.

Dubbed the Telescope for Orbital Locus Interferometric Monitoring of our Astronomical Neighborhood (TOLIMAN), it will use a diffractive pupil lens that makes it easier to detect star movements which could lead to “telltale signs” for orbiting planets.

“Our TOLIMAN mission will launch a custom-designed space telescope that makes extremely fine measurements of the position of the star in the sky,” said Dr Eduardo Bendek, a member of the team from NASA’s JPL.

“If there is a planet orbiting the star, it will tug on the star betraying a tiny, but measurable, wobble.”

Thousands of exoplanets – small planets that orbit the outside of the Solar System – have been located by NASA’s telescopes, but the TOLIMAN project requires a “real leap in precision measurement,” said Pete Klupar, chief engineer of Breakthrough Initiatives.

Breakthrough Initiatives is a suite of scientific and technological programs in search of extraterrestrial life, founded by Israeli science and technology investor and philanthropist Yuri Milner.

This came in this morning from a subscriber, apparently, John J, Wall, the person who wrote this is a college (law) student. 

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is our separation agreement: –Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

–We don’t like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them.

–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU

–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and bio-diesel

–You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks

We’ll keep Hannity, Carlson, and Bibles, and give you NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and Hollywood

–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

–You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

— When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

-We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the UN. but we will no longer pay the bill.

–We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt, Tesla, and Leaf you can find .

–You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practising doctors.

–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”

–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine,” “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing,” “Kumbaya “or” We Are the World.”

–We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J Wall

Law Student and American!

1. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

In 1964 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when this woman got pregnant her senior year in high school, the principal told her she would not be allowed to graduate

She begged the school to change its mind.

It did, but there were conditions.

She was not allowed to talk to the other students.

She was barred from eating in the cafeteria.

She could not come to school more than five minutes in advance of the opening bell, and she had to leave school within five minutes of the closing bell.

And she was not allowed to get her diploma on stage with the rest of the students.

She did marry the father of her child, but it lasted only a year. He was not a good husband and not a good father.

After the divorce, he never had any contact whatsoever with his ex-wife and their son.

A couple of years later, she married a Cuban emigrant, a good and decent man. He adopted her son and gave him his name.

Many years later, in 2013, the biological father was operating a bicycle shop in California when a writer/reporter came by and asked if he could talk to him.

That was when the biological father, Ted Jorgensen, found out that his biological son is Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world.

When Bezos exited the space capsule, the first person he hugged was his mother

AMAZON founder Jeff Bezos sought the help of his parents to kick start his company back in 1995.

Since then, Amazon has become one of the top five wealthiest companies globally, with a net worth of over $314billion.

Jeff Bezos’ and his parents Jacklyn and  Miguel ‘Mike’ BezosCredit: AFP

Who are Jeff Bezos’ parents?

Bezos,  57, was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Jacklyn and Ted Jorgensen.

Jacklyn was 17-years-old when she gave birth to Bezos and was still a high school student at the time.

Bezos’  dad Ted owned a local bike shop in the city.

The pair divorced in 1965 and Jacklyn met Miguel “Mike” Bezos shortly after and fell in love.

She and Mike moved to Houston with Bezos and asked him to adopt her son when he was four years old.

Mike agreed and raised Bezos, even granting him his last name.

Mike came from a Cuban immigrant family and worked as an engineer for Exxon when he moved to the US. Did  Jeff Bezos’ parents help him with Amazon?

Bezos presented Mike and Jacklyn with the idea of Amazon back in 1995.

His parents lent him $245,573, which at the time was considered a large sum of money and a massive risk as the internet was fairly new.

Bezos turned $245,573 into $1trillion as of 2021 and is the world’s wealthiest person as of July 2021.