Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With most of the world gearing towards SE Asia, it would seem that Darwin would be the largest port in Australia as it is much closer to the SE Asia market than Sydney or Melbourne.
I realize the historical reason why it didn't develop was because the British preferred the cooler climates that were more "like London" at the time, but now with air conditioning that shouldn't be an excuse. I mean there are far hotter cities that are far larger that are doing just fine.
I would think this is the biggest opportunity being missed by Australia. Also, because there is indeed a "rainy" season in Darwin, the issue of water as a scarce commodity isn't an issue as long as reservoirs are built to cover the dry season, which has been done.
I just don't understand how Darwin is so small given the advantageous location that it has.
This article shows just how little Australia realizes about the strategic importance of Darwin, wherease the US and China understand it fully:
Darwin might be one of the 'major' population centres in the north, but in terms of economic activity its dwarfed by a lot of large mining and resource projects across northern Australia, most of which are significant on a global scale. The difference is that those projects are staffed mainly by a fly-in, fly-out workforce working maybe two weeks on, two weeks off. At the end of your time on, five hours on a plane and you can be back in Sydney, Melbourne or Hobart.
Why move somewhere remote permanently when you might only be on a two or three year contract?
Darwin might be one of the 'major' population centres in the north, but in terms of economic activity its dwarfed by a lot of large mining and resource projects across northern Australia, most of which are significant on a global scale. The difference is that those projects are staffed mainly by a fly-in, fly-out workforce working maybe two weeks on, two weeks off. At the end of your time on, five hours on a plane and you can be back in Sydney, Melbourne or Hobart.
Why move somewhere remote permanently when you might only be on a two or three year contract?
Does everyone in Australia prefer to live in the big cities?
I know in the US a lot of people would prefer to live in cheaper areas where you can afford a large lot instead of in the cramped conditions of the cities.
Darwin might be one of the 'major' population centres in the north, but in terms of economic activity its dwarfed by a lot of large mining and resource projects across northern Australia, most of which are significant on a global scale. The difference is that those projects are staffed mainly by a fly-in, fly-out workforce working maybe two weeks on, two weeks off. At the end of your time on, five hours on a plane and you can be back in Sydney, Melbourne or Hobart.
Why move somewhere remote permanently when you might only be on a two or three year contract?
How are these minerals transported? Are they trucked out or are they put on rail? Shouldn't they be put on rail for shipment out of Darwin? Wouldn't that be the easiest way to get them to market instead of putting it on rail or truck to SE cities?
With most of the world gearing towards SE Asia, it would seem that Darwin would be the largest port in Australia as it is much closer to the SE Asia market than Sydney or Melbourne.
I can only agree, when looking at the map you can almost reach Indonesia with a good swimming session
But the region is empty and terribly far from all the big southern cities. It won't be easy to make the shift to the North.
Does everyone in Australia prefer to live in the big cities?
I know in the US a lot of people would prefer to live in cheaper areas where you can afford a large lot instead of in the cramped conditions of the cities.
Do you see huge numbers of Americans packing up an moving to remote parts of Alaska, Canadians to the Arctic North, or Russians to Eastern Siberia? So why would Australia be any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach
How are these minerals transported? Are they trucked out or are they put on rail? Shouldn't they be put on rail for shipment out of Darwin? Wouldn't that be the easiest way to get them to market instead of putting it on rail or truck to SE cities?
They simply build port, airfield and any connecting rail infrastructure on site.
How are these minerals transported? Are they trucked out or are they put on rail? Shouldn't they be put on rail for shipment out of Darwin? Wouldn't that be the easiest way to get them to market instead of putting it on rail or truck to SE cities?
They are put on trains and shipped out . Except the ports are in northern queensland and northern WA. Far closer to the areas the minerals are extracted from.
They are put on trains and shipped out . Except the ports are in northern queensland and northern WA. Far closer to the areas the minerals are extracted from.
Wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate all port operations into one city? There are savings in a reduction of redundancy. Yes you need a longer rail line, but instead of building 5-6 small ports you build one massive one, economies of scale.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
