It sounds good but I would be surprised if it was possible to get 60 tons of "fresh" oil (do you mean crude or refined ready to use oil?)it might be possible to glean 60 liters from the area you claim but if you can explain in more detail, like trials that have given long term definite proof I would be very interested.

Julian Cribb,

Yes, disruption of our petroleum supplies is a really major risk to Australia. It is a risk with far greater consequence in the foreseeable future than climate change. Yet for over two decades, climate change is the big risk that governments have focused on.

If our electricity systems were disrupted, most people in cities would be dead within a couple of weeks (no water supply, no food, no banks, no money, no petrol so cant escape to the county).

Disruption to oil supplies would be slightly less impact and slower, but still catastrophic. Millions would die if our oil supplies are disrupted.

We’ll have no submarines for a decade, so protecting the ships bringing our oil imports will be weak.

Wow! How vulnerable are we?

However, your advocacy for algae does not look like a rational, considered argument from a pragmatist. It seems like just another pie-in the sky idea, like the other renewable energy schemes that come and go. Just like all the other unrealistic, nonviable (without enormous subsidies forever) renewable energy schemes like: wind, solar, wave, tidal, ocean thermal, ocean current, geothermal, biomass, etc.

If you drive a petrol or diesel powered vehicle, you are powered by algae. Albeit, laid down millions of years ago in sedimentary deposits.
Some algae are up to 60% oil, absorb 2.5 times their own bodyweight in Co2 emission, and grown under optimised conditions, can quite literally double their bodyweight, oil content and that absorption capacity every 24 hours.
Extracting the ready to use oil is as simple as sun drying the product and then crushing it.
The ex-crush material can be used as fodder, or for ethanol production.
As a waste product, and unlike traditional ethanol production, requires no additional energy input.
Different varieties naturally produce different fuel types. Currently we are growing naturally occurring bio-diesel and jet fuel.
In closed cycle systems, such as might be used to scrub smoke stack emission, (clean coal) algae only use 1-2 the water of traditional irrigation.
Therefore, making it an eminently suitable crop for places like the struggling Murray/Darling Basin.
And the 50,000 jobs this industry could create, would virtually guarantee this and other areas, viable and very prosperous futures, as well as returning most of the water to the environment, in a win/win outcome for the populace and the environment.
We need not stop there, given our currently wasted bio-waste could also be converted into virtually free energy and free hot water, with the resulting liqueur, eminently suitable as algae nutrient.
I mean, the average family produces enough biological waste to power the home 24/7.
Ditto any residential high rise, and even more so, in highly populated office towers, hospitals and military basis etc.
The by products of this energy production, include a sanitary carbon rich organic fertilizer, and reusable, nutrient loaded, sanitised water.
Rhrosty.

We think virtually nothing of shelling out a billion for a floating oil rig.
Yet baulk at stumping up half that for comparable bio-diesel production.
The difference being, even the moist productive well eventually goes dry, while bio-diesel/jet fuel production just exponentially ramps up.
So where can we get half a billion to kick start bio fuel production?
Well we the people own a huge gas reserve off our west coast. And the lease holder has since advised us, they no longer intend to proceed with production.
We the people should therefore resume this lease and operate it for profit and local supply production.
As domestic gas and piped directly to the home/shop/factory, it could quite dramatically reduce domestic energy prices, and restart our stalled manufacturing base.
The locally invented ceramic cell runs on NG, and produces mostly water vapour and free hot water!
Prices as low as 3 cents a kilowatt hour are not unimaginable.
Our pollies talk about a carbon neutral economy, but after churning money around the economy, that's all they ever do, talk!
Or put in the words of a famous poet, yakity yak blah blah blah, yakity yak blah blah blah, that's all I hear all day, yakity yak blah blah blah!
Moving forward with action?
A euphemism for endlessly rubbishing the other side of the political divide?
Well, that does seem to be where all the action is happening!
I mean, when the current Govt acquired the treasury benches, we were importing somewhere around 30% of our domestic oil needs, now its closer to 85%!
I rest my case.
Rhrosty.

The reason that most fuel is imported is that the cost of refineries etc are too expensive, and it is cheaper to refine our fuel in Singapore.

Given the vast natural and coal seam gas reserves in this country, there is a potential to run cars on LPG or as in South Africa make petrol from natural gas or coal far cheaper than bio diesel.

A great article and the subject worthy of more than discussion, investment is the answer if the human race wants to go down that road, but for what reason? Just more growth I would suspect.

In the early 1950’s the Earth's population stood at about 3 billion humans. In my late thirties I recognised that things were going wrong here on our little blue-green planet despite the ongoing optimism spread by politicians, economists and this belief appeared to be the primary belief set of the general population, in Australia at least.

Fast forward to 2013 and there are more than 7 billion humans on the planet. Today Australia will officially eclipse the 23 million population threshold. All the disturbing trends I have been following get more and more pronounced as time goes by and are unfortunately inevitably unstoppable, there is no end in sight.

Every single one of those humans needs to eke out a living. There's only one Earth on which they can do so. We are all so busy consuming and living our lives that we ignore the ominous signs that ignore the planets inability to support this rapacious growth.

The evidence is there if you want to see it. We are slowly (and sometimes quickly) causing the human destruction of Earth's biosphere, specifically, the destruction of marine ecosystems, killing off of various species, both large and small, both animals and plants and destroying once fertile soils (particularly topsoil) and polluting our air and water.

Biofuels in the form of algae could be an answer for our future transportation and other energy needs, but if one looks a little further one begins to question why, growth for the sake of growth is really the only answer and at what point do we ask whether not this is actually a good reason.

Is there another way or are we just perpetuating progress toward a more disastrous future for our species some time further down the line?

If algae biofuel is so good how come it hasn't taken off like mobile phones or DVDs? Clearly a workable replacement for some imported oil is compressed or liquefied natural gas (CNG, LNG) in trucks and buses. Perhaps we should work out how much gas we have for various purposes -transport fuel, space heat, process heat, ammonia production, peaking power plant, etc - then see if we can really afford to export so much.

Australia's defacto fuel policy seems to be to sell coal and gas and buy oil. Someone needs to re-assess this in terms of petajoules in and out as well as Australia's role in global emissions. Until algae fuel is shown to be reliable and net high yielding we may be barking up the wrong tree.

I wonder if coal to diesel can match 45 cents a litre retail for algae sourced fuel?
If it could, one would think some savy investor would be making this alternative fuel and reaping massive windfall profits.
Where can I buy some of this coal sourced fuel, Shadow Minister?
The fossil fuel industry is finding it more expensive to recover oil, even though it still only costs a dollar a barrel to recover, in parts of the middle East.
Moreover, in spite of increasing recovery costs, it is raking in over four trillion annually.
And Algae threatens than cash flow and all who benefit from it; including some politicians?
Many deep ocean prospects would become entirely uneconomic, when confronted by algae sourced fuel, retailing at just 45 cents a litre.
I mean, as Shadow Minister has pointed out, refinery costs are cheaper in places like Singapore, yet the cost is still significant given the energy component inherent in refining.
Algae needs no such processing, hence the lower cost.
Extracting the ready to use oil is as simple as sun drying and crushing the product. The only real costs are infrastructure outlays.
Of course the fossil fuel industry is threatened by algae production, and their mouthpieces are busy bagging the industry, in the forlorn hope, they can dissuade the decision makers, and or investors, from getting behind this fledgling industry?
When are we going to get some leaders, who are finally able to put Australia and Australian interests ahead of extremely powerful multi-national petroleum companies?
Rhrosty.

Let me break this into three separate questions

1) Should Australia be researching algal fuels?

As it happens the CSIRO is conducting research into algal biofuels but it's poorly funded.

See: http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Energy/Powering-Transport/biofuel/Algal-biofuel.aspx

Given Australia's "photon density" it's really a no-brainer. The fact that the country is not funding this research adequately illustrates, yet again, the sterility of political debate in this country.

But does anyone seriously expect this type of imagination from Tony Gillard, errh I mean Julia Abbott, errh, well you know what I mean?

2) Are we ready to proceed to the pilot plant stage?

According to a scientist acquaintance of mine at CSRO, yes. But that's the opinion of an enthusiast. I don't know. It's something that could be considered.

3) Are we ready to take the plunge and commit ourselves to full scale biofuel production?

I think that's premature. I think at most we're ready for some pilot projects.

Shadow Minister

I definitely would not use South Africa's oil from coal plants as a model. They were a desperation measure made viable only by all manner of hidden subsidies. If it weren't for fear of an oil boycott they would never have been built.

LNG could be a better option.

Taswegian asks

>>If algae biofuel is so good how come it hasn't taken off like mobile phones or DVDs?>>

Mobile phones and DVD's took off after many billions of GOVERNMENT MONEY had been spent on research to establish the basic science that made them possible. This is not the sort of thing the Ayn Randians like to hear but it is what it is.

Mobile phones, for example, would have been impossible without the development of microcircuits. Much of the fundamental research into microcircuits was funded by the Pentagon because they wanted to cram more electronics into aircraft.

Once the basic research had been done commercial enterprises developed and adapted it.

Stevenlmyer,

>"Given Australia's "photon density" it's really a no-brainer. The fact that the country is not funding this research adequately illustrates, yet again, the sterility of political debate in this country. "

I disagree with your argument. If the basis for funding is that a scientist and some followers believe what they are doing, then there'd be no end of waste on crazy schemes (e.g.: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm )

How much we allocate to research on fossil fuel replacements should be based on expected costs and benefits taking into account risk of success. So far nothing has been presented that suggests an objective, impartial cost/benefit analysis has been done to justify more funding for algae fuel research.

We've spent >30 years throwing money at renewable energy and being continually misled about the prospects. We need to be cautious about continuing down this route.

Julian I'd be very careful quoting Obama funding as a positive. Just like his billion given to mates in the now defunct solar industry, any funding is likely to be political rather than scientific.

From what I have read, Algae could fuel Oz, but why bother. We have more than enough oil to fuel Oz for a century in central Queensland. All we have to do is harvest it.

It was only dirty politics that stopped the Rundle shale oil project, after it had been proven economic many years back.

The really stupid thing is letting the oil companies get away with closing the refineries. A simple requirement that to sell oil in Oz a company must refine a percentage say 60% in Oz would fix that.

This would not only trim the wings of Coles & Woolworths, before they own everything, but ensure our supplies.

To say we are badly governed is putting it mildly.

Julian,

Algae as a form of renewable energy may have its merits but like other forms such as wind, solar, geo-thermal and bio mass, there is no remaining mechanism to bring these to market, they have all collapsed.

No Kyoto, no CO2 trading markets and no renewable energy investment markets. Without investment in such markets they cannot survive.

<< RENIXX is the key international stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007. (Sources; The Australian and NZ Climate Science Foundation)

In the USA alone eight of their largest subsidized renewable energy manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy between 2007 and 2012. Beacon Power Corp, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Babcock and Brown, Mountain Plaza Inc and Solar Millennium. The cost to the US taxpayer is U$ 3.9 Billion.

A further six subsidized green energy companies are in default or in decline at a cost to the US taxpayer of U$ 6 Billion. The wind industry in the USA, the largest in the world, is predicted to lose 70 to 90 percent of its orders. Investors predict its total demise.

As at March 28 2013, “CHINA'S Suntech reached its zenith as the world's largest solar panel producer, but has plunged to the nadir of bankruptcy in just a year, highlighting the woes of the industry it shaped”. (Sources; the Global Warming Policy Foundation and The Australian) >>

So until and unless the CAGW “science’ is good enough to kick start the three essential economic pillars, renewables has nowhere to go.

Shale oil, enough to last for a century? The economics of recovery is a factor, and the amount of processing another.
I mean shale oil produces four times the carbon of others oils, from raw product to usable fuel.
We likely have reserves to rival or eclipse the entire middle east, and in sulphur free forms that require little or no refining. (NG, sweet light crude.)
Our reaction? Lock away the most promising potential oil reserves in our marine economic zone.
It's not an either or, when it comes to our politicians, just neither.
The Algae plants currently operating in Australia, are just pilot plants, as was the massively subsidised Rundle project.
The difference being, once you've dug up your shale or whatever, it gone. It's a once only resource!
Whereas Algae, is a prospect that can just grow and grow as long as life is possible on the planet!
And growing it is the same as harvesting Co2 directly from the atmosphere.
Our real problems are myopically focused people like Julia Abbott or Tony Gillard, and all the others, who know nothing about either, you know what I mean?
Rhrosty.

Putting algae in the same basket as solar and wind renewable, is like confusing coal with uranium.
They may produce similar outcomes, but are very different.
Detractors will tell you that nuclear power in Australia, is just pie in the sky, and even less viable than wind or solar power.
Those same detractors will tell you that the nuclear option is only ever viable with massive Govt subsidies.
And waffle on about the waste and how toxic it is.
Typically, those that see the nuclear option as a threat to the status quo, are the most vocal in their condemnation.
Ditto those that feel threatened by alga. Or rather the naturally occurring bio-fuels that it produces.
I remember as a very young man owning an old grey Massey Ferguson, that ran on power kero, (jet fuel).
We had to start it with petrol. But once the motor was warm and the kero warmed by the exhaust manifold, it was possible to switch over to kero.
Given we can produce a very light oil from algae, very similar to power kero, it ought to also be possible to run conventional internal combustion engines with it.
Most farmers could produce all the on farm fuel they need, just by growing a few tanks of algae, utilising just some of the organic material that collects and concentrates in yards, feed lots and dairies.
The best combination would be bio digesters, that make methane, which can be converted to methanol via a simple catalytic conversion process, and then used in lieu of petrol.
Alternatively, the methane can be made directly into electricity, via a ceramic cell; and then used to power pumps, household appliances, etc.
The resultant liqueur is a nutrient loaded medium that is then eminently suitable for continuous algae production.
The ex-crush material, suitable as fodder, or for ethanol production.
Entrepreneurial farmers could, after supplying all their on farm needs, run a servo, as a very profitable aside.
Very smart, given, we can rest assured energy prices are almost certain to rise, in the face of diminishing supplies.
Rhrosty.

I agree with the concept that algal fuels may well be the way of the future.

Also, the throught of Australia having basically no oil refining capacity is scary beyond belief.

However, what is the use of doing research if we have no company in Australia which can, or has even the least interest, in commercialising the research.

I find this a complete conundrum, as so few of our companies have any vision beyond the end of the trading day. How does Australia move forward with so little vision in our business community?