I observe that it is now over four days since the last post to the comments thread to this article, and nigh on six days since the last clearly 'on topic' post.


I make this observation by way of providing background to what I hope will be encouragement to the article author, Jenny Goldie; the news that her article was topping the 'This week's most popular' display on the Forum main page as at around 8:00 AM Tuesday 9 November 2010. See this Twitpic recording that event: http://bit.ly/caJP3L

I note Jenny Goldie's earlier participation in this discussion. (My apologies, BTW, for mis-spelling your name as 'Jennie': I was guilty of repeating the error of another poster from a copy-and-paste quote I had made. Perhaps my alter-ego was to blame.)



I particularly note that there has been no comment in relation to the apparent conundrum I raised in my earlier post to this thread on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 at 2:04:25 PM (here: http://bit.ly/dmzLYG ), that the development of the UCG-GTL technology of Linc Energy (see: http://bit.ly/arOiJc ) applied to stranded and/or deep central Australian coal deposits would see Australia becoming a nett exporter of refined high grade liquid fuels.



Against the background of the following occurrences, I am hoping the article author (or any other informed poster) can make some illuminating comment with respect to the conundrum I presented:


The utterly unexpected deposing of Australia's former PM, Kevin Rudd, just after his proposing of a new resource rental tax;

the subsequent very public immediate abandonment of that intention by the new PM, Julia Gillard;

the timing, electoral events surrounding, and outcome, of the 21 August Federal elections;

the claimed intended commitment of not less than $43 billion of borrowings to a highly questionable NBN;

the recent 'corporate image' TV advertising campaign of Chevron corporation, despite lack of recognised 'domestic' presence in Australia;

the proposed ASX takeover by Singapore;

and the recent visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

Forest,
I have been away since the 4th otherwise I would no doubt have
made more comment and I have not read all the comments here.
Your comments seem largely off thread anyway.
The crux of he whole problem is the lack of acknowledgement by the
politicians that we have a problem. Quote Tony Abbot
"We know about peak oil do we ?" to an an aid when asked about it in a press conference.
Oh yes said the aid and then then waffled on about petrol price Hmmmmm.

The problem is really serious and made worse by political avoidance.
We could be elbowed out of the international market and have to rely
on our 40 to 50 percent of our usage from our own depleting supplies.
If anyone thinks even the remote possibility of that is a no worries
situation they have another think coming.

Visualise a PM getting up one day in parliament and having to announce
that petrol rationing will be introduced tomorrow.
No preparation having been done and the best idea that they have is
an odds and evens scheme.
No preparation of priority for food supplies, no legislation to force
freight onto rail and shipping.

At present the best outlook is that the price will rise so high that
the number of people to stop buying the fuel will make enough
available for essential services.
But what price will that be ? $5 a litre ? They pay nearly that in
Europe now. So perhaps $10 a litre, or $15 ?
Fuels prices are said to be inelastic, ie people will pay uneconomic
prices for fuel.
What then happens to the economy ?

Hasbeen,
Trying to catch up;

You said;I am not too sure of the current coal seam gas project however.
Linc Energy has a pilot underground coal gasification plant in
Queensland that then produces diesel fuel. They are also going to trial
a fuel cell to produce electricity.
The pilot plant is a success and they are going to build a full scale
plant in South Australia.
It actually burns the coal in situ so they can work at very great depths.

Curmudgeon said;
Just before the big oil price spike of a couple of years ago, none of the experienced oil pundits forecast it.
Just before prices collapsed, analysts thought it would double. So if analysts or oil peakists say something will happen,
then it might be a good idea to expect the exact opposite.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 November 2010 1:05:52 PM

Sorry but they did forecast it !
The Canadian economist Jeff Rubin did and a number of others with
varying accuracy.
One, Kenneth Defreys predicted that oil production would stop increasing in late 2004 and it did in early 2005.
A number of experts had been concerned at the demand/supply situation
in 2007 and were concerned about 2008 prices.
Sadly it came to pass in July 2008 just two months before the Great
Financial Crash. Four of the previous five recessions were preceded by
spikes in oil prices.
It is not that the situation was not prdicted, it is just that no one was listening !

More
Curmudgeon,
Crude oil peaked in early 2005.
Crude oil plus all liquids peaked in July 2008.
In July 2008 oil reached $147 a barrel.
In September the GFC happened and oil dropped to $35 a barrel.
This cycle will repeat as predicted by Colin Campbell one of the
retired oil company engineers and others.

In August oil was around $70, yesterday $85, tomorrow ?

OLO userID 'Bazz', who has posted in many discussions on OLO in relation to what could be described as 'energy security' matters, (See Bazz's OLO user history: http://bit.ly/bJsVae ) in his post of Tuesday, 9 November 2010 at 3:37:34 PM, said:

"I have been away since the 4th otherwise
I would no doubt have made more comment
and I have not read all the comments here.
Your comments seem largely off thread anyway.
The crux of he whole problem is the lack of
acknowledgement by the politicians that we
have a problem."

Bazz, we are not in dispute as to anything in this thread, except perhaps as to your aside that my (more recent) comments "seem largely off thread ...". I can understand your thinking that with your admission that you had not, as of posting, yet read all the comments. Reading my post of Tuesday, 2 November 2010 at 2:04:25 PM (See: http://bit.ly/dmzLYG ) will make clear the conundrum I see with respect to the article's claims and this debate.

It is not me contesting the thrust of Jenny Goldie's article and the implications she as a consequence sees for Australia, but the evidently not widely disseminated online literature of those following the leading-edge Australian players in UCG-GTL and central Australian coal exploration, Linc Energy and Central Petroleum respectively, to name but two. It is to but a small part of that online literature that I have linked (no pun intended) in my earlier post.

Your experience, and that of the Australian public at large, is that our politicians either do not know, or are pretending to not want to know, about the implications of 'peak oil' (or perhaps more immediately and correctly, 'gap oil') for the AUSTRALIANS they are supposed to represent. The linked reference ( http://bit.ly/arOiJc ) expressly contradicts our seemingly shared experience that our politicians, across the board (with the possible exception of Wyatt Roy), do not know/seem not to want to know about this foreseen problem. That reference claims our present government(?) "gets it".

Who is being 'snowed' by whom?