Bazz, there was some reference to these new oil fields on OLO, in some previous editions.

Look under economics, and hopefully you'll get all the latest info?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Bazz, Look up www.geoexpro.com/articles/2013/06/oil from an ancient reef.

The article talks about the largest accumulation of hydrocarbons in the world, or an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels?

The main problem is the nature of the oil, said to be very heavy, or bituminous.

Meaning there will need to be much hydrocarbon cracking to produce petrol or diesel, which as you know, can and does create four times as much carbon, thanks to the energy dependent refining, as does using traditional Australian sweet light crude.

If we continue to lock away this relatively easily recovered resource, because the largest deposit may well lay under our reef, we will no doubt, find ourselves obliged to import petroleum products from reefs like that found in Edmonton; to the far greater detriment of the global environment!

Better we should exploit and export our very light oil, particularly if some of the expert opinion I remember reading, is confirmed as hydrocarbon deposits to our immediate north, large enough to rival the entire Middle East?

Australian traditional sweet light crude needs only a little insitu chill filtering, to produce a superior, almost sulfur free diesel!
And piping NG through a simple catalyst knocks off a few hydrogen atoms, leaving methanol, a perfectly acceptable high octane replacement for petrol.

And there are few if any vehicles that ply our roads and rail, that won't run nearly as well on CNG!

And we have enough of that to last our industries a hundred years, as opposed to selling it at bargain basement prices to our competitors.

Used in locally invented ceramic fuel cells to produce electric power, produces mostly water vapor as the exhaust product.
And in combination, we could if we were but intelligently led, produce an electric car, that you can fill in a few minutes at the bowsers!

And given the energy coefficient, at 80% for the combination, the cheapest motoring in the world!
Rhrosty.

Baz: when you say "Your arithmetic is interesting. So our fuel cost is 4.8% of GDP." you've not quite understood what I wrote. Our fuel cost at the current prices today is about 2.4% of GDP, but if it were to double (to over $2/L) it would be about 4.8% of GDP. So the 4.8% that you wrote should actually be only 2.4%.

Also when you say "Doesn't sound much does it, I just wonder why it can have such a dramatic effect as it had in 2008." I'm not certain whether you mean the global financial crisis or the spike in prices of 2008. The fuel price didn't cause the GFC-- idiotic banking practices did.

Thinkabit, I expressed that unclearly, the 4.8% I meant for when the
price returns to the previous level.
As far as 2008 is concerned, the bomb was constructed by stupid and
greedy financial people who knew nothing of peak oil in 2005.
So as the price climbed through 2006, 2007 and early 2008 Americans
who almost all drive to work and everywhere else were faced with
rapidly rising food prices (corn into ethanol), rising petrol prices
had a choice to make, buy food, buy petrol or pay the mortgage.

We know what they chose.
The bomb went off.

The real worry is the financiers were bailed out and have not learnt
their lesson and on the next spike will the bomb go off again ?

Thanks Rhosty, I will have a look at it tomorrow.
Re CNG you said;
And we have enough of that to last our industries a hundred years, as
opposed to selling it at bargain basement prices to our competitors.

If used for cars and trucks that hundred years could become 20 years or less.