Massive Oil Discovery Is Deathblow For Saudis

Wrabbit2000

Hmm.. Gee.. how exciting. I'm sure the wreck left of a piece of Australia will be large enough to see from orbit for as much as they'd be after.

(Shale Oil Extraction - Photo from collections on net)

Hi Wrabbit, is that a before or after photo? Ha ha that photo looks a lot like the land where this oil is anyway, and it is so remote that in my opinion nobody will care except the tree huggers of course, but even they will have a hard time finding a tree to hug out there, even if they could find it or were willing to endure the heat out there to protest. I doubt the media would bother to go out there to cover any greenpieces protests (they'll probably hold them in Sydney where it is far more comfortable and they can go get a coffee and a joint afterwards).

For the sake of accuracy it is worth pointing out that although the Queen is very probably a shareholder in RioTinto- there is no evidence she is a majority shareholder.

Given her wealth it is very probable she owns shares in a wide range of similar blue chips as that what share portfolios are....

I think it's fair to say that the Queen doesnt deserve to be a millionaire/billionaire as she has never earned it, but without proof of a majority shareholding she is just another typically greedy investor that makes money without responsibly considering social/health/ moral consequences.

The problem isn't reserves but production rate, and production rate is affected by energy returns. Energy returns are low and decline curves steep for unconventional oil:

"The Myth of 'Saudi America'"

www.slate.com...

In general, there is lots of oil underground, but most of it is too deep or requires more processing. That's why it is economically feasible to access only a fraction of it. And since we're now essentially scraping the bottom of the barrel by resorting to unconventional oil, we now see production that can barely catch up with demand.

reply to post by bellagirl


Actually, Australia is part of the Commonwealth, and HM The Queen is Head of State. Any natural reserves belong to the Crown, unless stated otherwise.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


For $140 you buy a mining license which transfers the minerals you find to you. After admin fees and currency conversions, how much of that do you think she gets?

It's nice to fantasize about getting off of "dependence on Middle East oil", and to see Saudi Arabia wiped out, but the truth is that all oil is traded equally on international markets irrespective of where it comes from and only dependent on its grade. Even if all that oil were to be there and were to be put into production, all it would mean would be lower oil prices because there's more oil on the market. You'd still have a certain percentage of the oil you get coming from the Middle East. And the Saudi's would be poorer -- but that's a relative term.

In order for it to be different, major laws would have to enacted, restricting where oil imported into the US can come from. Good luck at getting such laws passed.

Wrabbit2000
As Spacedoubt mentioned, this looks real enough, but it's not Oil in Saudi Arabia terms. This is Alberta style shale oil and so much of it, it's a curse, IMO, not a blessing.

Alberta Canada isn't what Australia should seek to become. No offense Canada, but I understand you guys are no happier about having it done to you than some of us are about seeing it done.

Hmm.. Gee.. how exciting. I'm sure the wreck left of a piece of Australia will be large enough to see from orbit for as much as they'd be after.

(Shale Oil Extraction - Photo from collections on net)

edit on 26-11-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: *Added Graphic

I'm proudly from Alberta(aka Oil country), and the picture you posted is of the oil sands(see Ft. McMurray) not of shale oil reserves, there is a major difference. Oil sands destroy vast areas of land, where as the shale oil uses vast quantities of fresh water in the fracking process. Neither is good for the enviroment.
In an area like Australia the extraction in a shale formation would not be cost effective, due to water not being as readily available as here.

reply to post by JRDACOWBOY


I'm not sure what you mean.... I went to looking a bit deeper, since you raised the question and found these...

Basic information on oil shale, oil shale resources, and recovery of oil from oil shale.

That gives a good breakdown and explanation which seems to indicate the methods are subsurface mining or surface mining. It describes another method in demonstration/experiment phase and which carries it's own issues for actually heating the oil subsurface by wells at 700 degrees, so it liquifies for conventional type extraction. A "Freeze Wall" as they call it, is supposed to make that safe from impact beyond the intended area. (Hmm.. I'd want to see more on that last part and this didn't show the counter point on it)

Photographs of oil shale, tar sands, mining activities, and related equipment and facilities.

Those 2 are a Government sites and the last one shows mining/refining facilities in Alberta, the U.S. and Australia. I also found one other link here: Local Australian View. That comes from the Australian Newcastle Herald, which I've never heard of ..and maybe a local Australian can indicate good/bad for basis ..but some down there seem decidedly unhappy with everything being extracted for export.

I kinda feel the same way, now that I think about it.

Urantia1111
Stand by for the Obama Admin to suddenly connect Australia with Al Qaida terrorism.

No need for it.

We've always done as we were told.

The catch is production rate, not reserves. That's why shale oil production is expected to peak after only a few years.