Crude Oil Production Could Plateau

Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food

The President, white media, the corporations, the government have been lying to the ignorant and clueless Americans.

The boat is sinking and people are worried about who has the best seat at the bar.

It is absurd how people are chasing new cars, McMansions, high-paying jobs, fiat dollars, and "edumacation" in an environment that is completely divorced from the realities of energy, economy, and environment.

There are too many oil geologists, researchers, writers, and analysts saying the US lifestyle is unsustainable given its demand for cheap energy.

Whites will be getting off their high horses and stampeding the cities when the reality hits that $16/gallon gas means no more 100-mile commutes, trips to the mall, nor living off credit to get the latest car, fashion, or toy.

It's coming, but non-whites still have time to prepare for the white invasion of the cities.

What's going to be more amazing is seeing the desert cities collapse. It won't be pretty.
 
Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food

Whites will be getting off their high horses and stampeding the cities when the reality hits that $16/gallon gas means no more 100-mile commutes, trips to the mall, nor living off credit to get the latest car, fashion, or toy.

You think so? We witnessed "white flight" in Detroit and those that moved to the burbs took a lot of their businesses with them. Why wouldn't this force businesses to relocate outside of cities? Each city has a different makeup but it'll be interesting.

My biggest fear is that the people will demand that the govt do something :eek:

What's going to be more amazing is seeing the desert cities collapse. It won't be pretty.

I'm in Vegas right now, I'm leavin within 3 months. This area is totally dependent on imports, can't grow a damn thing. When the credit line dries up, you're right, it won't be pretty! But on the other hand, Vegas is "too big to fail"
 
Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food

You think so? We witnessed "white flight" in Detroit and those that moved to the burbs took a lot of their businesses with them. Why wouldn't this force businesses to relocate outside of cities? Each city has a different makeup but it'll be interesting.

My biggest fear is that the people will demand that the govt do something :eek:

All of the infrastructure is built around the cities... the water, energy, food, and distribution.

Without cheap oil, the costs are going to be prohibitive locating far from the city center.

If your business depends on your customers having cars, you won't be in business long, once the cheap oil is gone.

You're right, each city is different. It's just in the case of Detroit, I can already see how this scenario will unfold.

I'm in Vegas right now, I'm leavin within 3 months. This area is totally dependent on imports, can't grow a damn thing. When the credit line dries up, you're right, it won't be pretty! But on the other hand, Vegas is "too big to fail"

I'm glad you're leaving before everyone else does.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens when Las Vegas tries to get a government bailout.

I posted this movie on the main board...

The End of Suburbia
 
Last edited:
The Coming Crisis - Gas Prices are Going A Lot Higher

The Present

Mexico's largest oilfield, the 2nd largest in the world next to Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, is declining fast. 90% of the Mexican government's budget comes from the oil revenues of PeMex, Petroleo Mexico.

If Mexico's production falls below 2 million barrels a day, after use in their own economy, they will have nothing left to export to the United States.

paprpmx.gif


Given that 40% of all oil used in the United States is imported and 1/8 of that comes from Mexico, this country will need to find another source of oil so we can continue indulging our high-maintenance lifestyles at existing fuel prices.

oil-imports.jpg


The Forecast

Matt Simmons, CEO of a financial company for the energy industry, says oil is too cheap. It should be more in the range of about $500-$600 a barrel. That would put gas at the pump around $13.15-$15.77 a gallon.



The Political Response

The US government, the President, the Congress, and the mass media are completely ignoring this issue. They hope it resolves itself because it is going to lead to some very uncomfortable discussions about why the politicians didn't warn the American public about this impending depletion.

I expect the US to continue in denial until this crisis hits and for many to start blaming the weak and powerless (the immigrants, slave descendants, Muslims/Arabs, the enemy dujour, etc.).

As far as the Mexican government, they can't do anything.

They have to keep prices low or else it leads to more instability in their country than is already there.

They can't stop exporting or else lose all their foreign currency reserves (which means no foreign trade).

They can't find new wells in time, whether they existed or not, because of the time it takes to develop an oilfield. That's assuming any more oil was left to be discovered in Mexico.

The only thing I can see them doing is legalizing drugs and reaching an agreement to share power with the drug cartels. But, that is simply my speculation to prevent total collapse of the Mexican government.

The Outlook

If the Mexican government can no longer afford to pay for itself, what do you think will happen to Mexican society. What do you think will happen to the US borders when they see how well Americans are living by comparison?

If the United States cannot find a source of cheap oil to replace Cantarell (not including the depleting imports of Canada), expect to see an unrelenting climb of gas prices and heating costs.

I suspect whatever economic recovery there was, will immediately halt and begin a deeper recession than the current one.

The Federal government will probably begin its first attempts at rationing and price controls. This may help in the short term. But, long term, it is simply forestalling the inevitable... complete collapse of the American way of life (suburbs and jet travel).
 
The US finally admitted it. Peak OIL in 2011

I wonder how long before we're all fighting for scraps of meat in the street.

Source

US sees non-OPEC oil output growth ending in 2011

* Higher oil output from U.S, Brazil, former Soviet Union

* Lower production from Mexico, United Kingdom, Norway

* OPEC share of global oil supply may reach 42 pct in 2011

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - The world will become more dependent on OPEC oil beginning next year as the combined oil output from countries outside of the producer group begins to decline, the U.S. government said on Tuesday.

The Energy Information Administration said in its new monthly forecast that non-OPEC oil supplies will not sustain the 630,000 barrel-per day-increase experienced in 2009.

Output growth is expected to slow to 420,000 bpd this year when production reaches an average 50.7 million bpd and then decline by 140,000 bpd in 2011.

This year's growth in non-OPEC output reflects new projects in Brazil, the United States and the former Soviet states of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan offsetting declining production from mature oil fields in Mexico, the United Kingdom and Norway.

But next year the output drop at these mature fields will overtake the production growth from the new fields, according to the EIA.
 
Oil Shortages to Reappear in 2011, Goldman Sachs Says

I love how these guys say credit causes oil shortages as if credit somehow changes the oil in the ground.

Goldman can BS as well as any politician. I guess they don't want to say less oil means higher gas prices.

Source

By Grant Smith

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said that shortages will reappear in the crude oil market as supply fails to keep pace with a recovery in demand.

Global oil consumption will return to levels seen before the financial crisis by the third quarter of this year, Goldman analyst Jeffrey Currie said in a presentation in London today. At the same time, projects to bring new oil to consumers are still lagging as a result of the credit crunch, he said.

By 2011, the market is back to capacity constraints,” Currie said in slides shown with the presentation. “The financial crisis created a collapse in company returns which has significantly interrupted the investment phase.”

Crude oil futures traded around $78 a barrel in New York today, having recovered 78 percent last year with the passing of the biggest economic shock since World War II.

Investment into new oil capacity is being held up because “political impediments on the flow of capital are still very large,”Currie said at the conference.

Foreign companies have difficulties exploring for oil in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the holders of the two largest reserves, because of the state’s control of production in the former and economic sanctions against the latter.

“It’s as good as it’s going to get right now in terms of supply growth,” Currie said.

Last month Goldman predicted that crude would average $90 a barrel in 2010 and $110 per barrel in 2011. That makes Goldman’s outlook for this year joint-highest among 38 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
 
Peak Everything - It All Will End





Source

The Peak Oil Crisis: A Meeting in California

By Tom Whipple
Wednesday, January 27 2010 22:06

Last weekend, one of the more out of the ordinary meetings in recent memory took place out in Berkeley where some 30 people gathered to begin planning for the world's transition from the industrial age to whatever is to come.

They were a diverse group, coming from all over North America and representing an array of disciplines. Most had grey hair and among them held many advanced degrees and had written stacks of books and papers.

We All Agree On One Thing

There was, however, a common thread that held them together. Not a person in the room needed to be convinced that the world is entering upon a great paradigm shift that will sweep away much of industrial civilization, thoughts of economic growth, and the lifestyles that have grown up in the age of ubiquitous fossil fuels.

The Big 3 Problems We Face

To the agreement of those present, speakers quickly outlined the problem.

In a nutshell, the world is dangerously close to "peak everything" - oil, coal, natural gas, water, minerals, soil, phosphorous, fish, and perhaps the most important of all, the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb more carbon without triggering off life-destroying phenomena.

Problem two is the financial collapse from efforts by too many governments to spend their way out of recession.

The final phenomenon that will force changes, is that there is no sign that mankind is about to make the efforts required to stop spewing carbon into the already saturated atmosphere. Without at least some moderation, it is likely that the atmosphere eventually will have its revenge by raising global temperatures so much that there will be no higher forms of life left.

The Political Response

Absent from the meeting was any representation from our political leadership who are currently busy:1) denying there is a problem; 2) trying to spend our way out of the recession; or 3) simply overcome by the pace of events and do not want to rock the boat by speaking publically on such matters before the next election.

Recognizing the Future

The meeting's organizer, a seven-year old think-tank called the Post Carbon Institute, has no problem with this, for they know that leaders everywhere will soon enough grasp the message they don't want to hear. Oil will run short, the financial system will collapse, or the atmosphere will do such terrible things to us, that every last person on earth will understand - our lifestyles are not sustainable and we will soon transition to some other manner of life or die off like so many species before us.

The underlying assumption of all this is that in a few decades mankind is going to be left with dwindling supplies of carbon-based fuels, land that will no longer grow sufficient food for the 7+ billion of us, oceans that will not supply fish, dwindling water supply, and an atmosphere that is becoming increasing hostile to live in.

What sets the Post Carbon Institute's efforts apart is that, unlike most, they recognize the seriousness and inevitability of the problem and are starting the search for solutions concerning what mankind can do get through a very bad era-to-come with some semblance of humanity and its cultures still intact.

How Much Is Too Much

This, of course, may be much more difficult than most realize for discussions are underway about how many people the earth can sustain without fossil fuels and abundant fresh water, and with ravished soil and dead oceans. There are currently about 6.9 billion of us (growing at nearly 80 million a year) of which 50 percent live in cities where not much food is being grown.

Some population experts think the earth's "people carrying capacity" in the conditions we are about to encounter will be on the order of 1 or 2 billion. Some pessimists think we should be talking a few hundred million. If this should prove the case, not many of us are going to have descendents a few centuries from now.

Preparing for the Inevitable

As they already have a pretty good idea as to what is about to happen, the Post Carbon folks are starting to look at what it will take to keep some semblance of humanity functioning -- hence the emphasis on transition. Obviously some things than are now taken completely for granted by many such as food, water, shelter, sanitation, medicine, public health will have to change radically.

When cheap artificial fertilizers disappear the amount of food available is going to drop precipitously as our agricultural land has become dependent on them. The end of cheap liquid fuel for transportation will make urban and suburban life increasingly difficult. While some lucky few can migrate closer to what will be left of food supplies, many of the 4 billion or so urban dwellers are going to be caught in that "carrying capacity" problem.

So what can a handful of people sitting around a room in California do about all this? The short answer is to begin assembling enough information so that the rest of us can understand what is happening -- when we come to grasp the magnitude of the problem -- and then to assemble information on how we might transition to and live in a post-carbon world. Many of the people that assembled in California know something about agriculture, ecology, biodiversity - the skills humanity will need to survive after a 200 year binge on fossil fuels.

The next step will be sensitizing people to the problem. Currently this is a difficult task as fossil fuels, water, and food are still relatively cheap and abundant. While those who have recently lost their jobs and cannot find work may be starting to realize there is a deeper problem, most still hope that the politicians can put things back the way they were. Somewhere in the future, and it may be months, years, or perhaps decades, nearly all of us will realize that life as we have known it is over forever.
 
source: The Wall Street Journal.com


November 19, 2007

Soaring energy prices have breathed new life into projects targeting "nonconventional" oil, such as that trapped in sand or shale. But these sources can't be tapped nearly as quickly or inexpensively as the big oil finds of the past.

Vivid Example

Canada's massive oil-sands deposits, which hold the largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia's, offer a vivid example. They contain an estimated 180 billion barrels of oil. But after years of intensive development and tens of billions of dollars of investments, the sands are producing only a little more than 1.1 million barrels of crude a day. That's projected to reach three million a day by 2015. The oil deposits are so heavy that companies must either mine them or slowly steam them underground to get the oil to flow out of the sand.

Randy Udall, co-founder of the U.S. chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, has written that these unconventional oil supplies are like having $100 million in the bank, but "being forbidden to withdraw more than $100,000 per year. You are rich, sort of."



Congress pressuring President over oil pipeline



pipelinelead_.jpg



August 22, 2011


Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill to force the Obama
administration to approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline project by
November 1. The pipeline, developed by TransCanada Corp., would deliver
Canadian crude oil through a 1,700 mile stretch – from northeastern Alberta
through the American heartland to the Gulf coast in Texas.

The source of the crude oil would be Canada's tar sands, also known as oil
sands.

Opponents argue that the process of producing tar sands oil consumes
more energy than extracting regular crude, and environmentalists say the
process also causes more damage to the environment. They also argue
that tar sands oil is more corrosive to pipelines and presents a great risk of
leaks as it crosses through the wetlands of Kansas and ranch land in Texas.

Proponents of the pipeline say concerns about leaks are over-stated.
They argue the oil would ensure energy security for the United States as
never before. The $7 billion dollar project could create 20,000 jobs when the
country could use them desperately.

The controversial proposal dates back to 2005 and has been under review by
the State Department. In June, State issued a draft of its environmental
assessment, but the federal Environmental Protection Agency quickly
criticized it. The EPA said it failed to fully explore ways to reduce
greenhouse gases and failed to fully consider spill risks.



http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/08/22/20368/keystone-pipeline

 

Dozens more arrested in oil pipeline protest




tar_sands_protest_tAP110820129614_620x350.jpg

A U.S. Park Police officer handcuffs and arrests a protester over a proposed pipeline to bring tar
sands oil to the U.S. from Canada, in front of the White House in Washington, Saturday, Aug. 20,
2011. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)



CBS News/Associated Press
August 21, 2011


(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - Arrests are beginning anew outside the White
House as police remove dozens of protesters who are hoping to convince
President Barack Obama to block TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.

Fifty protesters remain in jail after being arrested outside the White House
on Saturday, the opening day of a two-week civil disobedience campaign.

They're expected to be released Monday night.

By noon today, police began arresting more demonstrators, including 68-year-
old Patricia Warwick of Toronto.

A 65-year-old woman from Massachusetts who's celebrating her birthday was
also arrested.

Protest organizers say a total of 46 will be arrested and will join their
colleagues in jail by day's end.

Background on proposed Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline

Dozens were arrested outside the White House on Saturday after staging a
sit-in to protest the proposed $7 billion pipeline that would boost U.S.
dependence on Canadian oil sands.

Thousands of opponents of the pipeline plan to get arrested, in protests over
the next two weeks that they hope will help persuade the Obama
administration to kill the project.

The State Department is set to issue a final environmental impact report this
month on the Keystone XL pipeline project that would bring oil sands
petroleum from Alberta to Texas refineries. The department hopes to make a
final decision on the TransCanada Corp line by the end of the year.

The pipeline would provide thousands of construction jobs, which could make
it hard for the Obama administration to kill the project.

Opponents want the administration to stop the pipeline, which would deliver
up to 700,000 barrels per day of oil to Gulf Coast refineries, because it would
cross water sources that could be vulnerable to spills. Also, oil sands
petroleum emits more carbon dioxide than average crude oils.

If President Obama approves the pipeline, environmentally minded voters who
cast their ballots for him in 2008 may not be as inclined to back him next
year, especially after the failure of a climate change bill, and after the
administration opened up a large section of Wyoming for mining coal in May.

Holding a sign that read "Obama, will you stand up to big oil?", protesters
lingered outside the White House even after police announced they would
be arrested if they did not move.

One by one, police called protesters out of the crowd, placed them under
arrest and led them into a police vehicle.





http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/21/national/main20095196.shtml

 
<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n7n0fLQwpPA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food


The Geopolitics of Shale



global-affairs.png




By Robert D. Kaplan
Chief Geopolitical Analyst

According to the elite newspapers and journals of opinion, the future of foreign affairs mainly rests on ideas: the moral impetus for humanitarian intervention, the various theories governing exchange rates and debt rebalancing necessary to fix Europe, the rise of cosmopolitanism alongside the stubborn vibrancy of nationalism in East Asia and so on. In other words, the world of the future can be engineered and defined based on doctoral theses. And to a certain extent this may be true. As the 20th century showed us, ideologies -- whether communism, fascism or humanism -- matter and matter greatly.

But there is another truth: The reality of large, impersonal forces like geography and the environment that also help to determine the future of human events. Africa has historically been poor largely because of few good natural harbors and few navigable rivers from the interior to the coast. Russia is paranoid because its land mass is exposed to invasion with few natural barriers. The Persian Gulf sheikhdoms are fabulously wealthy not because of ideas but because of large energy deposits underground. You get the point. Intellectuals concentrate on what they can change, but we are helpless to change much of what happens.

Enter shale -- a sedimentary rock within which natural gas can be trapped. Shale gas constitutes a new source of extractable energy for the post-industrial world. Countries that have considerable shale deposits will be better placed in the 21st century competition between states, and those without such deposits will be worse off. Ideas will matter little in this regard.

Stratfor, as it happens, has studied the issue in depth. Herein is my own analysis, influenced in part by Stratfor's research.

So let's look at who has shale and how that may change geopolitics (For the future will be heavily influenced by what lies underground):

The United States, it turns out, has vast deposits of shale gas: in Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and elsewhere. America, regardless of many of the political choices it makes, is poised to be an energy giant of the 21st century. In particular, the Gulf Coast, centered on Texas and Louisiana, has embarked upon a shale gas and tight oil boom. That development will make the Caribbean an economic focal point of the Western Hemisphere, encouraged further by the 2014 widening of the Panama Canal. At the same time, cooperation between Texas and adjacent Mexico will intensify, as Mexico increasingly becomes a market for shale gas, with its own exploited shale basins near its northern border.

This is, in part, troubling news for Russia. Russia is currently the energy giant of Europe, exporting natural gas westward in great quantities, providing Moscow with political leverage all over Central and particularly Eastern Europe. However, Russia's reserves are often in parts of Siberia that are hard and expensive to exploit -- though Russia's extraction technology, once old, has been considerably modernized. And Russia for the moment may face relatively little competition in Europe. But what if in the future the United States were able to export shale gas to Europe at a competitive price?

The United States still has few capabilities to export shale gas to Europe. It would have to build new liquefaction facilities to do that; in other words, it would have to erect plants on the Gulf of Mexico that convert the gas into liquid so that it could be transported by ship across the Atlantic, where regasification facilities there would reconvert it back into gas. This is doable with capital investment, expertise and favorable legislation. Countries that build such facilities will have more energy options, to export or import, whatever the case may be. So imagine a future in which the United States exports liquefied shale gas to Europe, reducing the dependence that European countries have on Russian energy. The geopolitics of Europe could shift somewhat. Natural gas might become less of a political tool for Russia and more of a purely economic one (though even such a not-so-subtle shift would require significant exports of shale gas from North America to Europe).

Less dependence on Russia would allow the vision of a truly independent, culturally vibrant Central and Eastern Europe to fully prosper -- an ideal of the region's intellectuals for centuries, even as ideas in this case would have little to do with it.

This might especially be relevant to Poland. For Poland may have significant deposits of shale gas. Were Polish shale deposits to prove the largest in Europe (a very big "if"), Poland could become more of an energy producer in its own right, turning this flat country with no natural defenses to the east and west -- annihilated by both Germany and the Soviet Union in the 20th century -- into a pivot state or midlevel power in the 21st. The United States, in turn, somewhat liberated from Middle East oil because of its own energy sources (including natural gas finds), could focus on building up Poland as a friendly power, even as it loses substantial interest in Saudi Arabia. To be sure, the immense deposits of oil and natural gas in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Iran will keep the Middle East a major energy exporter for decades. But the shale gas revolution will complicate the world's hydrocarbon supply and allocation, so that the Middle East may lose some of its primacy.

It turns out that Australia also has large new natural gas deposits that, with liquefaction facilities, could turn it into a principal energy exporter to East Asia, assuming Australia significantly lowers its cost of production (which may prove very hard to do). Because Australia is already starting to emerge as the most dependable military ally of the United States in the Anglosphere, the alliance of these two great energy producers of the future could further cement Western influence in Asia. The United States and Australia would divide up the world: after a fashion, of course. Indeed, if unconventional natural gas exploitation has anything to do with it, the so-called post-American world would be anything but.

The geopolitical emergence of Canada -- again, the result of natural gas and oil -- could amplify this trend. Canada has immense natural gas deposits in Alberta, which could possibly be transported by future pipelines to British Columbia, where, with liquefaction facilities, it could then be exported to East Asia. Meanwhile, eastern Canada could be the beneficiary of new shale gas deposits that reach across the border into the northeastern United States. Thus, new energy discoveries would bind the two North American countries closer, even as North America and Australia become more powerful on the world scene.

China also has significant deposits of shale gas in its interior provinces. Because Beijing is burdened by relatively few regulations, the regime could acquire the land and build the infrastructure necessary for its exploitation. This would ease somewhat China's energy crunch and aid Beijing's strategy to compensate for the decline of its coastal-oriented economic model by spurring development inland.​



Who Might Not; Who Might Suffer


The countries that might conceivably suffer on account of a shale gas revolution would be landlocked, politically unstable oil producers such as Chad, Sudan and South Sudan, whose hydrocarbons could become relatively less valuable as these other energy sources come online. China, especially, might in the future lose interest in the energy deposits in such low-end, high-risk countries if shale gas became plentiful in its own interior.

In general, the coming of shale gas will magnify the importance of geography. Which countries have shale underground and which don't will help determine power relationships. And because shale gas can be transported across oceans in liquid form, states with coastlines will have the advantage. The world will be smaller because of unconventional gas extraction technology, but that only increases the preciousness of geography, rather than decreases it.

Editor's Note: Stratfor offers a combination of geopolitical insight, source-driven intelligence and objective analysis to produce customized reliable information and forecasting for businesses, organizations and government agencies.

For more information about Stratfor's client solutions offerings, click here: http://info.stratfor.com/solutions/







 
Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food

raised back from the dead. I still think there will not be a shortage of oil and gas inside the earth.

they talking that bullshit and alot of people cant realize
 
Re: Peak Oil, Peak Food

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9822955/Trillions-of-dollars-worth-of-oil-found-in-Australian-outback.html

Up to 233 billion barrels of oil has been discovered in the Australian outback that could be worth trillions of dollars, in a find that could turn the region into a new Saudi Arabia.

The discovery in central Australia was reported by Linc Energy to the stock exchange and was based on two consultants reports, though it is not yet known how commercially viable it will be to access the oil.

The reports estimated the company’s 16 million acres of land in the Arckaringa Basin in South Australia contain between 133 billion and 233 billion barrels of shale oil trapped in the region’s rocks.

It is likely however that just 3.5 billion barrels, worth almost $359 billion (£227 billion) at today’s oil price, will be able to be recovered.

The find was likened to the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale oil projects in the US, which have resulted in massive outflows and have led to predictions that the US could overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer as soon as this year.

Peter Bond, Linc Energy’s chief executive, said the find could transform the world’s oil industry but noted that it would cost about £200 million to enable production in the area.



Shale oil is more costly to extract than conventional crude oil and involves the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking.

This involves introducing cracks in rock formations by forcing through a mixture of water, sand at chemicals at high pressure.

“If you took the 233 billion, well, you’re talking Saudi Arabia numbers,” Mr Bond told ABC News.

“It is massive, it is just huge If the Arckaringa plays out the way we hope it will, and the way our independent reports have shown, it’s one of the key prospective territories in the world at the moment.

"If you stress test it right down and you only took the very sweetest spots in the absolute known areas and you do nothing else, it is about 3.5 billion [barrels] and that’s sort of worse-case scenario.”

Australia is currently believed to have reserves of about 3.9 billion barrels of crude oil - about 0.2 per cent of the world’s total - and produces about 180 million barrels a year.

The latest find, at the lowest estimate, would make Australia a net oil exporter; at the higher estimate, Australia would become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters.

Tom Koutsantonis, South Australia’s mining minister, said the reserves were deep and remote and it was too early to confirm whether they can be profitably tapped.

“All these things are luck and risk,” he said.

“What we’re seeing up there is a very, very big deposit If the reserves and the pressure was right over millions of years and the rocks have done the things they think they’ve done, they think they can extract vast reserves of oil out of South Australia which would have a value of about $AUS20 trillion. (£13 trillion)”

The consultants reports, based on drilling and geological and seismic surveys, did not indicate how easily the oil can be tapped or profitably produced.

John Young, a resources analyst at investment group Wilson HTM, said the reserves were “massive” but the actual volumes that may emerge remained uncertain.

“The numbers are going to be very large, but we really need to move from that [to] the quality of the resource - how good is it, how economic will it be, and that’s going to take a significant amount of exploration and appraisal work before the industry’s in a position to determine that,” he said.

South Australia recently had a setback when BHP Billiton announced it was shelving a £20 billion plan to build the world’s biggest open-cut mine at Olympic Dam, which has the biggest known uranium deposit and the fourth biggest copper and gold deposits.

As Mr Koutsantonis, the state’s mining minister, said of the latest find: “Whether it’s economic to recover or not is still the question South Australia is blessed with abundant resources but there are a few setbacks and those setbacks are that they’re remote and they’re deep.”
 
Every place is the new Saudi Arabia when you are unwilling to change the very behavior that created this mess.

The US will be the new Saudi Arabia.
Africa will be the new Saudi Arabia.
Azerbaijan will be the new Saudi Arabia.
The Arctic will be the new Saudi Arabia.

Everything is the new Saudi Arabia.

That is called a drowning man grasping at straws.

When will people get it through their heads that gas is triple the price of 2001 and that means it is running out!

The United States had better realize that this show-off/race-war lifestyle is doomed and start doing something productive with the oil it has left. Otherwise, the Great Depression will look like a breeze compared to what the masses are going to see in their lifetimes.
 
Back
Top