by Peter MacDonald

Based on my analysis of the current geopolitics, it is reasonable to assume the Middle East conflict will continue indefinitely. Hypothetically, if the war remains ongoing, the implications for global crude supply are severe. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively blocked to commercial traffic and Iranian missile and drone attacks threatening regional energy infrastructure, several Gulf producers have sharply reduced output and exports. Some facilities have been temporarily halted for safety, while logistical bottlenecks and shipping risks have forced further precautionary production cuts, removing a substantial portion of the world’s oil supply from the market. This crude normally feeds Asian refineries in Singapore, South Korea, and Malaysia the very refineries New Zealand relies on for refined fuel. Alternative crude flows from West Africa, the US, Brazil, and the North Sea exist, but they are limited, expensive, and prioritised for larger, strategic customers, leaving New Zealand low in the queue. Importantly, the Iranians are deliberately holding off on destroying fuel harbours and refinery infrastructure, recognising that excessive damage would constrain their own post conflict output, as a result, the Gulf continues to operate under limited but intact conditions, creating ongoing constraints rather than permanent destruction.

New Zealand’s position at the back of the line is structural. Singapore and South Korean refineries prioritise their largest, long term, and “too big to fail” customers, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and major Southeast Asian economies. These countries represent much larger volumes of fuel demand, have strategic importance, and are considered geopolitically critical, so they receive first allocation when supply is constrained. By contrast, New Zealand is a small market, not seen as “too big to fail,” and politically less critical, meaning shipments can be delayed, reduced, or rationed, even if alternative crude is technically available.

The root cause of New Zealand’s vulnerability is the decommissioning of the Marsden Point Oil Refinery, the country’s only domestic refinery. Had Marsden Point remained operational, New Zealand could have refined crude domestically, including alternative sources outside the Gulf, maintaining supply even in the face of global disruptions. Domestic refining would have also allowed NZ to blend and store strategic reserves, providing a buffer against international shipping delays and mitigating price spikes. Without it, the country is entirely dependent on overseas refineries, whose supply is now constrained by war, infrastructure shutdowns, and customer prioritization.

If the war drags on indefinitely, New Zealand’s fuel supply will wind down in a predictable sequence. Existing shipments already en route from Singapore will arrive in March and April, temporarily masking the crisis. By late April and into May, Asian refineries will begin rationing output due to depleted Gulf crude, and shipments to NZ will be smaller and inconsistent. Rural areas and smaller towns will be the first to experience shortages, while urban centers may continue to receive some supply, albeit reduced. By May 30, 2026, buffers will be mostly exhausted, alternative crude flows will be insufficient to maintain normal supply, and rationing in cities becomes unavoidable. Pump prices are expected to reach $3.60 per litre in urban areas, with rural areas potentially even higher.

The Marsden Point refinery was more than just an industrial asset it was a national security instrument. Its closure has left New Zealand exposed to global conflicts, shipping chokepoints, and foreign refinery priorities, a vulnerability that could have been mitigated with domestic refining capability. The current scenario demonstrates the folly of the Labour government’s decision to decommission it. Without Marsden Point, New Zealand now faces a fuel crisis that is directly tied to international instability, one that will impact every city and town, disrupt transport and industry, and impose rationing on ordinary citizens. Post Note..

The Marsden Point Oil Refinery was a government commissioned, strategically vital project constructed between 1962 and 1964, with Bechtel as the engineering and construction contractor. While the bulk of the initial capital came from international oil companies, the New Zealand government directed the project to supply petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, and other refined products to the nation, making it critical national infrastructure. In the 1980s, the refinery underwent a major expansion, including a hydrocracker and a pipeline to Auckland under the Muldoon era Think Big policies. This expansion was supported by government backed financing, with levies on petrol and diesel collected at the pump effectively ensuring that taxpayers directly contributed to the upgrade.

In 1988, the Fourth Labour Government passed the Petroleum Sector Reform Act, deregulating the petroleum industry and allowing the transfer of the refinery’s assets to the newly formed New Zealand Refining Company (NZRC), a consortium of oil companies including Shell, BP, Mobil, and Caltex. As part of this transition, the government provided approximately NZ$85 million in funding over three years to help the refinery adapt to a competitive, deregulated market. This support ensured that the refinery could continue operating reliably under private ownership while maintaining New Zealand’s fuel security.

While some argue the refinery “shut down, not the government,” Marsden Point is a strategic national security asset, and the government was fully aware and involved in approving the transfer and ongoing operations. Private shareholders could not simply decommission the refinery without government consent. The refinery continued as New Zealand’s only large scale refinery until its commercial closure in 2022, leaving the country dependent on imported fuels and more vulnerable to international supply disruptions.

In short, the construction, expansion, deregulation, transfer, and eventual closure of Marsden Point all occurred with government oversight and taxpayer involvement, reflecting its role as a cornerstone of national energy security.

This didn’t just happen in Jacindaland

Dr. Charles Hoffe says his medical career took a dramatic turn after more than three decades in emergency medicine. In a statement circulating online, the physician said he was dismissed from his position after 31 years of service, claiming he had never received a single complaint during his time as an ER doctor.

Hoffe has been vocal about concerns regarding so-called covid-19 ‘vaccines’, alleging that the shots have caused significant side effects and arguing that the spike protein from the vaccines can travel throughout the body. His remarks have sparked intense debate across social media and medical communities alike.

#DrCharlesHoffe#COVID19#COVIDVaccine#VaccineDebate#MedicalFreedom#PublicHealth#Healthcare#PandemicDiscussion#HealthNews#SummersNews#ViralVibes

Kia ora Eva,

Thank you for getting in touch.

I have checked with our ticketing team and it is still the case that SuperGold card holders travel for free on public holidays. This is as well as between 9am and 3pm and after 6.30pm from Monday to Friday, and all day on weekends.

We apologise to the readers of yours who had to pay fares on Waitangi Day. This should not have happened and I have been assured that our operators will be reminded of the SuperGold timeframes for free travel.

Ngā mihi nui,

Grace 

Grace Drysdale-Dunn

Kaitohutohu Pāpāho | Media Advisor

Freedom of religion? Ha!

by Judy Gill

Fear of the Ministry of Education overrides obedience to God

NINE DAYS

That is how long it took a Catholic-ethos primary school to respond after concerns were raised about the contents of a five-year-old child’s compulsory classroom exercise books.

The concern was raised with:

• the classroom teacher

• the school manager

• the principal

• the Board

• the school chaplain

For nine days, nothing meaningful was done.

WHAT WAS INSIDE THE EXERCISE BOOKS

Parents ordering stationery online usually see only the cover of the book.

They do not see the inside pages.

Those internal pages become visible only once the books are opened in the classroom.

Inside one of the books were nine named Matariki atua — spiritual entities described as influencing:

• food sources

• fresh water

• the ocean

• rain

• wind

• crops

• the dead

• human wellbeing

• future hopes

This is not astronomy.

It is a belief system.

In plain terms: religion.

A SECOND BOOK — THREE FLAGS

A second exercise book presented three flags in sequence:

• The United Tribes flag

• The New Zealand flag

• The tino rangatiratanga flag

The Māori flag was described in the material as a “National Māori flag.”

Placed together in this sequence, the page presents the three flags as if they share equivalent national standing.

The United Tribes flag was created in 1834 as a shipping flag for a limited confederation of northern iwi. It was not a national flag of New Zealand.

The tino rangatiratanga flag is widely recognised as a political symbol associated with Māori sovereignty movements.

Presented visually to five-year-old children, the page creates a false equivalence.

That is why I use the word sedition.

And I do not withdraw it.

A CATHOLIC SCHOOL

This occurred in a school that promotes a Catholic ethos.

A Catholic school teaches that there is one God. Yet when nine Māori gods appeared inside a New Entrant exercise book, the reaction from the school was not theological clarity.

It was hesitation.

It was evasion.

And it was fear.

THE SCHOOL’S THREE RESPONSES

RESPONSE ONE

“I AM NOT A THEOLOGIAN.”

The school manager’s response was simple:

“I am not a theologian.”

The question raised was not complex theology.

It was basic monotheism.

The First Commandment states:

“You shall have no other gods before me.”

— Exodus 20:3

The concern raised was polytheism appearing inside a Catholic classroom resource.

Yet the school appeared unconcerned.

The answer avoided the substance of the question.

RESPONSE TWO

“PRAGMATIC.”

The principal and the school manager both described the decision not to act as “pragmatic.”

The books had already been distributed.

The children had begun writing in them.

Replacing them would be inconvenient.

Another explanation followed:

“We don’t teach it.”

But the images are still there.

Five-year-old children see them every day.

Young children are highly visual.

If something appears in their books every day, it becomes part of the world the school has placed before them.

Passive exposure still shapes understanding.

Normalization still occurs.

RESPONSE THREE

“THE CHILDREN KNOW WHO THEY ARE.”

The third response came from the school chaplain.

“The children know who they are.”

But the concern raised was not about identity.

The concern raised was the presence of nine named gods inside classroom material used by a Catholic school.

Those gods are certainly not the Holy Spirit.

Yet their presence appeared to cause little concern.

Most New Zealanders had barely heard the term Matariki until it was introduced as a national holiday in 2022.

Polynesian atua have now arrived in the classroom.

Perhaps they have not yet arrived in Rome.

As the Epistle of James states:

“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.”

— James 2:19

THE TRANSPARENCY ISSUE

Another issue soon became clear.

The classroom teacher had covered the original covers of the exercise books and relabelled them.

• one book became Maths

• another became Art

No parental consultation was required for this.

It was considered normal classroom practice.

A parent then supplied contact paper and offered enough for the entire class so the imagery inside the books could be covered.

The response was no.

Not because it could not be done.

But because doing so would draw attention to what was printed inside.

A teacher may alter the outside of a child’s workbook without consultation.

But drawing attention to the inside content appears to be avoided.

That is not transparency.

It is concealment.

DAY NINE

After nine days something finally happened.

The principal spoke personally to the parents of the New Entrant class.

Only that class.

Nothing was put in writing.

There was:

• no email to the wider school community

• no notice on the school’s HERO communication system

• no written explanation to parents

The matter was contained within the one classroom and handled verbally.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CLASSROOM THAT DAY

On that same day something else occurred.

The children learned the Hail Mary.

They made their own rosary beads.

They said the Hail Mary together.

Perhaps this was coincidence.

Perhaps it was part of the religious programme.

Or perhaps it was a deliberate symbolic response.

Were they casting the demons out?

Were they making a statement that this is a Catholic school and it does not recognise Māori gods?

No explanation was given.

But the timing was striking.

THE REAL FEAR

One concern, however, was clearly expressed.

Fear.

Fear of:

• media attention

• public criticism

• the Ministry of Education

• possible consequences for funding or status

The impression left was unmistakable.

The fear was not theological.

It was institutional.

THE LARGER QUESTION

This story is not only about one school.

It raises a broader question.

Religious and political symbolism is increasingly appearing in classroom materials used by very young children.

Parents are shown the cover of the book.

But not the content inside.

If schools want trust from parents, transparency must come first.

Parents have the right to know what worldview material is placed before their children.

And they have the right to question it.

THE FINAL TRUTH

Nine days of silence.

Nine Māori gods inside a New Entrant exercise book.

A verbal message to one classroom.

No written notice.

Then rosary beads and the Hail Mary.

That is not confident leadership.

It is panic management.

And the conclusion may be unavoidable.

The only god this school appears to fear is the Ministry of Education.

View this post on Instagram

Australian PM Anthony Albanese gave Donald Trump model nuclear submarine on golden plate at White House

The Blinken-Biden regime was openly stealing Syria’s oil, so it’s true to form for the US Deep State. The Iran war is obviously foremost on behalf of the Netanyahu government in Israel, but this may be seen as a perk.

from the Daily Standard

JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 White House official says the US will seize "all the oil" from Iran. pic.twitter.com/SXHqEif4c3

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) March 7, 2026

The Western elite has finally shed its mask completely. For weeks, we were bombarded with hypocritical talk about “nuclear threats” and “security” to justify the bloody bombing of Iran. But the true, sickening reason behind this neoconservative war frenzy has now been unequivocally stated. As always with American imperialism, it’s all about resources. The White House has literally announced that the United States plans to confiscate Iran’s vast oil reserves.

During a shocking television appearance, Jarrod Agen, the executive director of the National Energy Dominance Council, laid out the sinister end goal of this escalation. While global oil prices are exploding and Dutch citizens are being taxed to the bone at the pump [NZ will be soon too —Eds], Washington is rubbing its hands with glee.

Read more

by Andrew Korybko

Russia’s oil clients would be coerced under pain of sanctions into dumping it or scaling support for Ukraine if this bill passes.

Anti-Russian hawk Michael McCaul, who importantly serves as the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced the introduction in the House in early February of the bipartisan “Decreasing Russian Oil Profits” (DROP) Act that was earlier introduced in the Senate last December. If it passes, then Trump would have the power to impose targeted sanctions against anyone buying, importing, or facilitating the export of Russian oil, with exceptions only possible under one of three conditions.

The first is that the funds owed to Russia for such purchases must be credited to an account in their country, can only be used “to facilitate transactions in agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices”, and their government must commit to significantly reduce its purchase of Russian oil. The second is that such funds are used to either arm or rebuild Ukraine, while the third is that the government of their country provides significant economic or military support to Ukraine.

The first two conditions are unacceptable to Russia, but the third isn’t since it’s already selling oil to countries that significantly support Ukraine. The condition of providing significant economic and military support to Ukraine, which is an arbitrary distinction since no minimum level of each is described, in exchange for no targeted sanctions could lead to more arms and funds flowing into Ukraine. That could in turn impede the fulfilment of Russia’s goals and perpetuate the conflict unless Russia compromises.

Therein lies the purpose of the DROP Act: its authors envisage the US successfully coercing Russia’s remaining oil clients across the world into replacing their imports with other suppliers’ (since Russia wouldn’t realistically continue exports under the first two conditions) or scaling support for Ukraine. This makes it an unprecedented weapon of financial warfare, which could also be paired with Indian-like punitive tariffs if legal workarounds are employed, thus likely raising the number of parties that comply.

Market factors are the only real limits to this policy with respect to the targeted person’s/country’s exposure to the US’ financial market, which makes them susceptible to the DROP Act’s threatened sanctions, and the oil market’s ability to replace lost Russian exports. Therefore, even if most of Russia’s remaining oil clients are exposed to the US’ financial market, there might not be enough oil on the market for them to replace their imports so they might scale support for Ukraine instead of dump Russia.

That’s the most likely scenario amidst the oil price surge caused by the Third Gulf War and the US’ resultant flexibility in temporarily waiving its sanctions on India’s import of Russian oil, the primary target of its financial warfare in this regard thus far, for maintaining the viability of its partner’s market. The quid pro quo for sanctions waivers to other major trade partners could be a pledge to allocate some funds for arming Ukraine or rebuilding it once the oil crisis passes and they can more comfortably do so.

In any case, regardless of whether they dump Russia or scale support for Ukraine, the DROP Act is designed to create problems for Russia. They might not materialize as expected, or even at all in any significant way, but the takeaway is that this is a very hostile piece of legislation. Trump 2.0’s wielding of this unprecedented weapon of financial warfare against Russia, in the event that it passes (which isn’t guaranteed), could further complicate ties with Russia and possibly ruin their nascent rapprochement.

Of course Napoléon Macron could be substituted with Der Reichsführer or Starmer; they all have a bromance with the little crook.

In this version of Titanic, there's only one good hero – the iceberg. pic.twitter.com/yu21iFEsa9

— Olga Bazova (@OlgaBazova) March 8, 2026