Between (admittedly controversial) shale oil extraction via fracking here and the new deposits that keep being found around the world like this one, seems like we won’t run out any time soon.

South Australia is sitting on oil potentially worth more than $20 trillion, independent reports claim – enough to turn Australia into a self-sufficient fuel producer.

Brisbane company Linc Energy yesterday released two reports, based on drilling and seismic exploration, estimating the amount of oil in the as yet untapped Arckaringa Basin surrounding Coober Pedy ranging from 3.5 billion to 233 billion barrels of oil.

  1. Justin says:

    Put it in the red book: America to send aide to tsunami stricken Brisbane.

    • Mayor Bloomburger says:

      If it was easy to get out of the ground it would be gone already.

      • sargasso_c says:

        Good point! I can’t think of a single major oil producing region where oil hasn’t been found laying about in huge surface ponds at some time. In other words, we really haven’t been trying.

      • Lord and Save-your OWN! says:

        And you don’t think the environmentalists or even governments have anything to do with all the “red tape” involved in getting it?!!!

        Sounds like your world it’s full of butterflies farting pixie dust and fairy’s who speak in rhyme.

    • MartinJJ says:

      My red book prediction would be: Australia suddenly gets overrun by nasty islamic terrorists who implement sharia law and next the USA really have to ‘save’ them from all that, yelling ‘human rights’ many times.

    • Congrats to auzzies))

  2. Dallas says:

    Thank you , two term President Obama for helping the world free itself from the Saudi-Bush Oil Cartel.

    • Chuck says:

      Cartoon Boy speaks…again.

      • Dallas says:

        Are you competing with Pedro for biggest waste of contribution? If so, you have a ways to go.

    • MikeN says:

      So do you think Pres Obama should approve the Keystone Pipeline?

      • Dallas says:

        I don’t know some but not enough about the specifics of the pros and cons to form an opinion but figure the informed experts would make the right one.

        What do you think? Balls to the wall a go?

      • LibertyLover says:

        No. I think it is better for Canada to sell the oil directly to China (which they are doing) instead of piping it down to South Texas.

        After all, if 1,000s of Laborers’ International Union of North America members had well-paying jobs building and maintaining a 2500-mile pipeline, they wouldn’t need the government to pay their rent for them.

        This is definitely a win for social services.

        • Dallas says:

          You know as well as I that there are pros and cons of the pipeline. The hairball one you raise was not one of them.
          Why do you want to be like Pedro?

          • LibertyLover says:

            Is anything I said in there false?

            — Canada is now selling the oil to China.

            — 1,000s of people are out of some work.

            — The government must support them now.

            — Social Service workers are guaranteed a job because they have to manage these 1,000s of workers.

            Can you name some cons other than fear?

          • Dallas says:

            – Canada is now selling the oil to China.
            WRONG . Much of the oil currently flows into Oklahoma, which according my map, is in the US. The project is an expansion.

            – 1,000s of people are out of some work.
            1,000’s of people will always be out of some work.

            – The government must support them now.
            The government would then have to support those trucking jobs lost that currently transport the oil. Why do Teapublicans hate truckers?

            – Social Service workers are guaranteed a job because they have to manage these 1,000s of workers.
            The # of government jobs has been reduced under Obama. Truckers and rail workers jobs preserved won’t need social services.

            Can you name some cons other than fear?

            The shit being piped from Canada is highly corrosive and leaks abound. That could effect many white school children.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Just so you can stop while you aren’t completely left in the dust, my company services this industry. I had the potential for a multi-$M contract to do some of that work. I know exactly what is happening because I’ve been chasing this for years.

            – Canada is now selling the oil to China.
            WRONG . Much of the oil currently flows into Oklahoma, which according my map, is in the US. The project is an expansion.

            Not the oil that was going to flow down that pipeline.


            – 1,000s of people are out of some work.
            1,000′s of people will always be out of some work.

            What?!?! That has got to be the most disgusting response to purposely putting that many people out of work I’ve ever heard.

            – The government must support them now.
            The government would then have to support those trucking jobs lost that currently transport the oil. Why do Teapublicans hate truckers?

            See Item #1, above.

            – Social Service workers are guaranteed a job because they have to manage these 1,000s of workers.
            The # of government jobs has been reduced under Obama.

            State and Local have gone down due to a faltering economy. I guess you could say Obama can take credit for that.

            Federal jobs have gone up. I guess you could say Obama can take for that, too.

            Truckers and rail workers jobs preserved won’t need social services.

            See Item #1, above.

            Now . . . if you want to argue that Obama killed the pipeline because he thought he could persuade Canada to ship it via train and truck, well that certainly backfired, didn’t it.

          • LibertyLover says:

            The shit being piped from Canada is highly corrosive and leaks abound. That could effect many white school children.

            I said that didn’t involve fear.

          • Dallas says:

            Well if you choose to discount the dangers of piping harmful fluids as a legitimate downside, then I suppose we have nothing really to debate. It’s all good.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Christ on a Crutch, Dallas, we pipe oil all over the place now. We ship it on trains and on tanker trucks, which a far more dangerous than a static pipe which is monitored 24/7 by sophisticated leak detection systems.

            There was nothing different on this design than any other other except for the fact the safety regulations were updated a few years ago . . . in favor of more stringent requirements.

            Interestingly enough, these regulations grandfathered in all existing pipelines so this was going to be the safest pipeline in the world.

            Screaming about safety being the reason it was shut down is a cop out and doing nothing but parroting Obamessiah. If you really think safety was the main concern for killing this project, you are too stupid to vote.

          • Dallas says:

            It’s corrosive, poisonous shit. Think of the white blonde children!

            Anyway I never said I was for or against it. That’s what the experts need to decide. You’re no informed expert and neither am I.

          • LibertyLover says:

            That’s what the experts need to decide. You’re no informed expert and neither am I.

            LOL. Actually, I am.

            This pipeline was a game changer for the entire industry. Due to the new regulations, the newest (and more expensive) technology was finally going to get its day.

          • Dallas says:

            No, not so much. You don;t strike me as an expert on the environmental impact aspects of the topic.

            Y0u’re more of an egg head on the topic – you know much about building a pipe. Since you profit from the decision, you need to disqualify yourself. I on the other hand, is arguably better suited to make a decision because I can weigh the pros and the cons with equal vigor.

          • LibertyLover says:

            Gee, I would think someone who knows the technology would be able to make an informed decision on what works and what doesn’t, not someone whose decisions are based on some cult of personality’s sound bite.

  3. Gildersleeve says:

    I’m telling ya – the planet manufactures this stuff. It’s a question of are we burning it faster than it can be made? (Short answer is yes, we are. We need to spend as much money and time on increasing fuel efficiency).

    • Dallas says:

      Actually that’s not the question.

      The question is should we burn that shit 24x7x7 into an atmosphere that is about as a thick as a coat of varnish is the earth were scaled down to a common globe.

      Hint: Our species relies on this thin layer.

  4. Kahless says:

    “Ranging from 3.5 billion to 233 billion barrels…”

    So, is the potential $20 trillion for the 233 billion? If so, and it’s only 3.5 billion, not such a great find, is it.

    • MikeN says:

      The correct range is 133 billion to 233 billion in oil found. The 3.5 billion is the estimate that they can extract at current prices. So the value of the find is that it insures against massive oil price hikes to $400 a barrel. Better technology may make more of that oil recoverable as well, which we have seen recently.

  5. MikeN says:

    But what about peak oil?

    Now if we can just get liberals to get out of the way rather than try to regulate the oil out of existence as they like to do.

  6. wi11iam says:


    First I want to see just how far this fracking thing goes. Really? I doubt it will return that great.

    Second everyone over states the amount of oil.

    Third Australia is part of the Pacific Trade Pac and will likely ship oil the shorter distance to China. Surprising no one has noticed the signing of this trade agreement.

    • bob says:

      You really don’t understand the concept of oil as a commodity do you?

      Try educating yourself a little before posting on a topic you clearly do not understand. As much as I hate referring to Wikipedia, this entry would be a good place for an uneducated person to start:

      • msbpodcast says:

        And you don’t understand the concept of oil being a fungible commodity.

        The oil will flow to whoever pays more for it.

        Americans are used to cheap oil.

        Everybody else on this friggin’ planet is used to paying more, a lot more.

        The pain per barrel is less of a shock when you’re already used to high prices.

        • jaebee says:

          Lol, that’s not what fungible means. Fungible in economic terms just means something (ie a commodity like oil) is mutually substitutable (read: equivalent) for a like thing.

          Example: If I borrowed your car and you told me to bring it back with a full tank when I was done you wouldn’t care whether it was Texaco, Chevron, or BP gasoline as long as it was the same grade of gasoline you so desired. But you would be pretty mad if I put diesel in your car because diesel and gasoline are not the same commodity.

          It has nothing to do with a maximum price value obtained from said good or commodity. It’s merely a property that certain goods and commodities have that makes them appear interchangable with like units.

  7. Sarah Park says:

    I hope the new sites found to have oil will help lessen the price of oil in the worldwide market.

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Everyone posting so far except almost Egon demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of this issue that ObamaGod has put on the front burner (hee, hee!).

    I’m gonna keep posting this until I hit oil: “IF we had a magical spigot that spewed forth all the premium grade oil anyone could use so that it was free—FREEEEEEEE I tells ya==WHAT would be the relevant issue?

    1. If you said, what will Big Oil do to capture and hide this spigot, you are playing in the wrong ballpark.

    No, my oil drenched fools, the question would be==what can we do as fast as possible NOT TO USE THIS POLLUTING/KILLING ENERGY SOURCE!!!

    You see–carbon pollution is killing the human race. We only have allergies and respiratory diseases, the tinge of weather change, and changes to animal and plant populations. Big changes coming are past the tipping point.


    If ObamaGod had Balls, he would stop oil support totally and go green. He’s too politically pragmatic for that though. Like Gays and Guns, this issue will wait for more extreme situation to bring forth the leader we are needing.

    Yea, verily!

    • Grandpa says:

      Great points but you miss one of the most important issues. Religion is destroying mankind. Their refusal to support birth control is causing, or has caused, 7 billion humans to over populate the earth. Something has to give.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Thanks Grandpa

        I don’t think “I missed” that point. THIS thread is about “What Oil Shortage.”

        Plus–I don’t think religion drives population increase as much as poverty and lack of education although the three do pretty much go hand in hand.

        Religion poisons the mind==not the environment.

        Big Differences.

  9. Uncle Patso says:

    The idea that petroleum is from dead dinosaurs is a myth — it’s actually more from pond scum. Algae in shallow seas lived, died and drifted to the bottom to form sediments that got covered by more of the same over millions and billions of years, compressed, heated and baked and voila! Oil!

    • Dallas says:

      Pond scum? How much oil will Pedro make once he’s buried for a million years ?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        In this scenario, unlike Pedro, pond scum is useful and a resource. Obviously, Pedro is more like the frothy Santornum you find on the beach when the wind has been blowing.

        As always Dallas, even at your worst, you give Pedro too much credit.

        • Dallas says:

          Trying to see if he might have any worth in a million years. At this point it’s not looking good 🙁

  10. Publius says:

    OK as a consequence, that frees up another 3000 days after the production of the rest of the world runs dry.

    Somehow, I’m not catching the idea of 3000 days being anywhere close to infinity for my family’s purposes anyway. The rest of you have fun now chatting about… whatever it is that most of you chat about here.


    – Current aggregate world oil production = 84 billion barrels per day (wikipedia)
    – Supply = Demand
    – Between X and Y is based on a symmetric distribution with mean half-way between
    – Use the mean production capacity of the new find to estimate the number of days it can sustain the world

    Improvements on this quick model of the situation, anyone??

  11. Publius says:

    This new oilfield appears to push the “peak” in peak oil to the right, by oh, say, 3000/2 = 1500 days, roughly.

    1500 days is a big number for a dog. He seems to think the definition of forever is whenever I leave the house.

  12. Rick says:

    Just because you can drill for more oil doesn’t mean you should.

    • LibertyLover says:

      I agree that petroleum-based energy is not the greenest solution there is.

      However, until we can come up with a source of energy with the energy density transportability of petroleum, I don’t see we have much of a choice . . . unless we want to crawl back into the trees.

      For instance, solar power was discovered 180 years ago. Wind power was first used over 2,000 years ago. If either of these were worth a flip, they would be in use today. Subsidies don’t improve the technology. Profit improves the technology. And the math just isn’t there.

      Now, if you want to talk carbon neutral petroleum products, look to bio-fuels (The CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere during creation and then released during burning). They have a 10:1 energy density ratio to ethanol (1 acre of algae to 10 acres of corn). Studies predict it might even be possible to get 600:1 with more research (although I think it that is pushing credibility). When that happens, you’ll see the end of the “oil” industry.

      So, if you really want to maintain your standard of living AND save the planet, invest in bio-fuels.

  13. Yoshiro says:

    Saturn’s moon titan contains rivers and oceans of hydrocarbons worth of mega giga bucks, enough for several earths for many, many years.

    You know what’s the problem? You must spend energy to produce energy. The energy barrier needed to launch and land ships with this oil means you would need to spend much more energy than you could possibly gain from the imported oil.

    It’s called EROEI, I recommend further reading about it.

    Shale deposits are similar to oil rivers on Titan – shale is not oil, and the energy needed to cook the final products from kerogen or to crack the formation and build more and more wells may well not be worth it.

    Economists should not write about oil, people should seek advice from geologists.

  14. Glenn E. says:

    Oil is just another artificially rarefied commodity, like raw diamonds. The oil well output is controlled, just as diamond mining is controlled, worldwide. The distribution of the raw product is controlled in both cases. And the end refined product of both is also controlled and managed to just barely meet demand.

    For decades OPEC members have operated their oil output in a cabal of production level fixing. And in more recent years, so have many of the non-OPEC oil producers. Like Venezuela. Who realized it was to their advantage to NOT under-price their oil, compared to the OPEC minister’s set price. Never mind that the US help set up all of Venezuela’s oil production. But then, perhaps it’s really the US owners of these oil fields, who are fixing the oil prices. And not the countries themselves.

    So Wall Street makes up its own mind what oil is worth, and then takes advantage of the speculation, that they also profit from. OIL is no long a luxury commodity. Most countries life and economies would grind to a halt, without oil. And almost nearly does, whenever there is a huge increase in its price. So why should it continue to be traded as if it’s only a speculative commodity like gold and silver? Or, as if it was supplied by independent producers, like Wheat and Corn (which aren’t so Mom & Pop farmed, anymore)?

    Oil should be taken out of the price speculation game. Like the low dollar human commodity that’s often sacrificed to protect it. Is there any trading speculation of the troops and weapons in that regard? Not that I’ve ever heard. Maybe the price per barrel of oil should be expressed in the numbers of humans who died or lost arms and legs, defending oil owner’s monopoly. How many “man hours” is a human life worth, when it’s lost?

    • LibertyLover says:

      I produce products to help the oil and gas industry make money. They in turn pay me handsomely for my products. How are you going to make me develop these products if I’m not getting paid what I feel I’m worth?


Bad Behavior has blocked 5460 access attempts in the last 7 days.