In Australia the bottom line is the oil majors are closing refineries.
That is it.
Not far in the future will import all petrol & diesel.
If there was anything significant available they would be after it.
After all their share price depends on what reserves they have.

*In Australia the bottom line is the oil majors are closing refineries.*

Well of course they are, Bazz. Why would you invest billions into
updating our old and worn out refineries at huge cost, when you
can do it far cheaper through the mega refineries in places like
Singapore? Alot of our gas/oil is in the North and West of
Australia, which is far closer to Singapore, then it is to Sydney,
with its union problems, high labour costs and red tape. The Asians
will do it better, faster, cheaper.

http://www.appea.com.au/oil-a-gas-in-australia/oil.html

Bazz, according to APPEA, we have 50 sedimentary basins in Australia,
34 of them have seen little exploration. There are of course good
reasons for this. When Hawke brought in the Resource Rent tax,
oil was taxed at 40%. Next you have company tax, another 30%.

Given that the Govt takes the large majority of profits from any
oil found, why would you take huge risks drilling in Australian
waters? Best you do what we do now, drill around 100 holes a year,
in areas where you are pretty sure that you might find something.

For companies its all about risk and reward. BHP spends alot of
money drilling for oil, where potential profits are much higher then
can be achieved in Australia. Fair enough, that is good management.

So my point remains, a large chunk of Australia has not been
seriously drilled and we simply don't know what is there, as given
the tax implications etc, its not worth the risk.

“Given that Govt can’t organize pink batts, now you want them to
risk taxpayers funds on deep well drilling!
We have already done the pink batts once beforeYabby, you are starting to repeat yourself
Thank you Bazz, you prove my point that there is not enough for big oil to keep open refineries let alone waste money by drilling.
“Its not worth the risk.” You seem to be all over the place on thisYabby, we should not nationalize the industry but leave it to the big oil, and then you follow on with “they will not take the risk of drilling because of the tax they are charged.
So what is your position on this? Big oil or Big government?
Hurry up though the government has just put out a paper that says that we will have no oil left to produce within 20 years and it takes 20 years to bring a new find into production.

Have a look at the link below , it should frighten you?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3657

*So what is your position on this? Big oil or Big government?*

I guess they could nationalise your house too, Sarnian, but I would
stick up for your rights that they don't. I don't believe in theft.

If the Govt thinks that they could find oil, they are free to cut
back on your pension and use the money to hire half a billion Dollar
deep water rigs and go drilling. We'll soon see how good they are
in the oil business. Why does it have to be one or the other?
The Govt sells oil drilling permits, they could pick the best ones
for themselves. Clearly you would agree with Govt risking your
money in the oil business, if you think that they should own the
industry.

You seem to want oil companies to take these kinds of risks, so that
you can drive your car, but you don't want them to benefit if they
do find oil. Well they are not going to risk huge losses, to keep
you happy, Sarnian.

If the Govt limited it tax take to half of profits rather then
70%, companies might be more interested in drilling for oil in
Australian waters.

In the end, the user pays for finding that oil, one way or another.
The more difficult it is to find, the more it will cost to drive
your car.

Geoff; you refer to the Schneider paper, his last before he died, proving AGW on the basis of a consensus; I rebut it here at comment 61:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/#comments

For those who are interested which does not include Geoff. Schneider uses a circular logic; AGW is real because all those who publish about AGW agree it is real; in other words the consensus is proved by the consensus.

In respect of the McKitrick paper; Geoff, you obviously do not understand this paper; a primer of it is here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/has-co2-warmed-the-planet-at-all-in-the-last-50-years-its-harder-to-tell-than-you-think/#comment-1059587

And Poirot goes on about Heartland noting that various prominent lunatics believe in AGW. It's not what I would have done but then I wouldn't have done this either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og

Pathetic.