Gnads wrote on Jun 24^th, 2026 at 6:28pm:


You dumb phuk - Australia exports about 96% of its domestically produced crude oil and condensate, averaging roughly 227,000 barrels per day.
You are making an artform of talking through your arse. [/quote]



1. (google)

Domestic production of crude is insufficient, and existing Australian refineries require different blends of crude oils (often heavier crudes) to process into usable transport fuels like petrol, diesel, and jet fuel. Because of this, Australia heavily relies on foreign imports of both crude feedstock and refined petroleum products to meet domestic demand.



So Oz's net oil trade is in deficit - a cost to the nation.

And while Oz is one of the largest gas exporters,  Oz gains the least from this trade; the govt. even allows gas to be sold to Japan which then on sells at a profirt...madness.

(google)

"Japan even collects more tax revenue from these imports than the Australian government collects in royalties."

....

So back to the question I asked of Frank and and lee (quoted above):
Your new chum Pauline (even further Right than the Coalition) will urgently need your suggestions if she is to maintain her upward trajectory in the polls, at the expense of the mainstream "small government" (ie low taxes, privatizationl Lab/Lib)  parties. 

lee wrote on Jun 24^th, 2026 at 3:35pm:


Think of the regrets the last generation on our cooked planet (cooked by AGW) will have, when they realize governments could have financed a transition to green energy for free.

This is the very reason govts are backsliding now (amid the political malaise around the globe); and even 'Red' Ed is considering backsliding on his no-gas-development plans:

(google)

"Red" Ed Miliband is a leading candidate to become the next Chancellor of the Exchequer if Andy Burnham becomes Prime Minister.

With Andy Burnham poised to potentially take over No 10 by July 17, a fierce debate has broken out over who will replace current Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Ed Miliband—who currently serves as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—is being highly touted for the job. However, this potential move is causing intense division.

The Frontrunner: Miliband is a favorite of progressive economists who support his strong focus on net zero and green energy growth.

The Opposition: Leaders from major unions, such as Unite's Sharon Graham, strongly oppose his potential appointment. They argue his policies could hurt traditional industry jobs.

The Internal Split: Many moderate Labour MPs are also reportedly furious at the prospect, as it would likely push figures like Reeves and Pat McFadden to the backbenches.

Disunity - even within UK Labour itself, caused by how to create jobs for all, and fund the government, including net zero, while keeping taxes low....the cause of the current global political malaise.

A pity, as Bill Mitchell (MMT) writes in the latest MMT blog:

Replacing Starmer/Reeves with another captive of the finance sector will change nothing

Poor lee - a 'captive of the finance sector'; he doen't understand money is created 'ex  nihilo' (whether by govt., or private sector commercial banks); hopefully there is no sudden tipping point due to AGW-CO2, giving governments time to realize that there is no financial barrier preventing  governments from transitioning to a green economy. 


Quote:


1. Profit is not required by the public sector.
2. Govt. CAN be good managers. eg via fixed contracts for the required task (lsck of which ios responsible for the  current NDIS private-sector managed debacle.


Quote:


Already addressed in the previous post to Gnads. Private companies aren't interested in rebuliding Oz's refineries, and neoliberal 'low tax' govenments are finance constrained.

Meanwhile coal is declining as an export earner for Oz. (google it) 

Quote:


Addressed above: a green economy producing cheap electricity, expoiting free sun and wind, can be financed for free by the public sector.

Remove your ideological blinkers re money...even so, some private players are seeing the value in green investments, given the unstoppable movement to green, even in Trump's US.    

Quote:


And you - like Frank and Gnads still haven't dared - are too incapable - to suggest the govt. funding policies which Pauline urgently needs, to maintain her surging poll numbers, just as "red" Ed is already being called upon to outline his funding policies in the UK.

As Prof Bill Mitchell has noted...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2026 at 2:11pm:



Now tell us about the other unexplored deposits.

lee wrote on Jun 25^th, 2026 at 3:09pm:


Shale oil - will require fracking - I previously posted that coupla months ago..

https://www.ga.gov.au/aecr2025/oil#gallery-1

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/04/fracking-projects-in-nt-r...

You must judge for yourself on the hazards and the source - there are many groups - mostly civilian or aligned with one version of reality or the other, who oppose fracking... I but the simple messenger.... look it all up for yourselves...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:



Whoever said any business had a guarantee, let alone exploration. You are a dolt.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:


The do it the same way other businesses do it. They amortise the business expense annually. And you are supposed to be a financial whiz?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:



Are yes the old socialist take the wealthie's' money, until we are all poor.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:


I don't read your dribble. You have no expertise.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:


It is. If you give all the wealthies' money away, just once, where do you go next time?

EG - if you taxed all Gina's $38 billion and shared it between Australia's adult population, they would get about $1900 each.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 12:54pm:


You keep telling us MMT is the answer. But you can't show it. It has never been done.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 1:16pm:



It depends on whom the battler's friends are.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 1:16pm:


So that means many Labor and Coalition members are not battlers either. Despite Labor being the battlers' party. Oh dear.

lee wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 1:14pm:


Crippled-brain lee: he is apparently hoping ON can fund 'Pauline's  battlers' by searching for oil of unknown quantity and quality.
 
Quote:


So "drill baby drill", except Oz can never compete with ME oil unless prices are high enough to make development of - possible - Oz oil economically viable, thereby increasing c-o-l pressures on average wage earners.

(google)

The Bass Strait oil reserves have not completely run out, but they are nearly gone.

After decades of heavy drilling since 1969, production has dropped by about 90 per cent. The vast majority of the easy-to-access crude oil has been extracted

What does this mean for Australia?

Because the Bass Strait oil fields have matured, Australia now relies on imported oil and refined fuels for the vast majority of its needs.

And any discoveries in Oz, compared with prospectively oil-rich regions around the globe  - are likely to exhibit Bass Strait-like reserves at best - which will be more expensive to extract (since the easy to get resreves are gone) and soon be  exhausted.

[Development/exploitation expenses in Oz are partly responsible  for Oz gas failing to make Oz rich like Qatar, a comparable gas exportor,  where extraction  costs are much lower....nnd lack of state ownership, as in Qatar....

Quote:


Ah yes -  according to capitalism driven by neanderthal greed/individual survival instincts; the world has sufficient resources to accomodate Musk (provided he spends responsibly to develop the economy sustainably)  AND deliver  the essentials for all, via  good governance. 

Wake Up.

Quote:


Your error: c-i govts are not finance constrained, they don't need to tax or borrow interest-bearing money from the private sector, they can create money out of thin air - just like priavte sector banks do. 

Quote:


Which is why I don't propose taxing the rich***; I'm merely looking at how Pauline and Burnham can keep a majority of the electorate onside...the MMT article linked discusses current plans to fund Burnham's government, while Bill Mitchell examines the alternatives.   

Quote:


Given there are sufficient resources which can be mobilized by the public sector, to ensure the essentials for all,  while accomodating  appropriate levels of  private sector mobilzation of resources (driven by individuals' self interest and 'aspiration' ),  funding government via free national treasury-issued money IS the answer, to solve the current political dysfunction and cost of living crises around the globe. 

But you - a greedy capitalist driven by Neanderthal individual survival instincts - see no reason to change the status quo.

Deplorable.

*** "Money doesn't grow on rich people": Stepahie Kelton....a witty rejoinder to the mainstream aphorism "money doesn't grow on trees".   

lee wrote on Jun 26^th, 2026 at 3:50pm:


"Apparent", because you refuse to say - are too mentally incompetent to say -  how Pauline can fund the 'battlers', to keep them onside.

Quote:


...tech which is expensive (eg US shale oil, cf, cheap Arabian oil); and  "aim" isn't  "achievement".

Quote:


(google)

Australia has enormous potential for unconventional oil, which includes shale oil, tight oil, and oil shales. However, these resources are largely undeveloped due to higher extraction costs and environmental regulations

"Higher extraction costs" (compared with the vast ME reserves)...ouch.
Still wont help Pauline to fund the"battlers", which you 'apparently'....oh never mlnd  ... 

Quote:


Well, the issue is policies that will assist Pauline to deal with Oz's c-o-l crises, which higher costs certainly won't achieve. 

As for fuel security, renewables plus storage is the cleaner, more secure way to go - just build the infrastructure, funded by the national treasury.  Drilling and hoping for good outcomes is NOT secure. 

Note: won't cause inflation because - unlike your low-intellect Zimbabwe understanding of inflation, money will only be created to buy available resources. 

Quote:


Crippled brain lee (blinded by neanderthal survival/greed instincts); the world has sufficient resources to allow governments to  deliver essentials for all ("socialism") while accomodating   'aspirational' individuals  who seek to build their own wealth by means other than working for a wage.   

Quote:


1. Journalists report on current political and economic affairs, inter alia. Some of them are intelligent capable individuals.

And heterdox economists use their brains to consider how the economy can work for all, not just the wealthy few. 

Quote:


ah - resorting to the inflation argument: government can manage resources to avoid inflation, via planning and price controls when necesary,  rather than restricting money supply by hiking interest rates, to wreck (aka "save") the economy...   

Note: the Zimbabwe govt. should not have ousted white farmers (which caused food inflation) even though they stole the land from blacks; it should have funded houses and jobs for disadvantaged blacks, just like Menzies did for returning soldiers and refugees post WW2, via Keynesian deficit spending, to grow the economy without inflation. 


Quote:


Can you rewrite that garbled nonsense?

The point I made addresses how can Pauline and Burnham fund the government while staying onside with a majority of their electors (including the "battlers"); Bill Mitchell explores that issue in the linked MMT post.

Quote:


1. You determine the standard of essentials (eg, safe housing including public housing, utilities) needed by all, which avaiable resources and  the econmy is capable of delivering. 

2. There in NO shortage of resources in Oz, and renewables plus storage (plus gas) can supply Oz's fuel needs, (with Oz exports funding purchase of cheap oil imports untii we electrify the economy (renewables + storage).

Funded by deficit spending financed by the treasury, not taxes....    

Quote:
 

How are Gina (or Elon in the US) making money grow for Pauline's (or the US's) 'battlers'?  That's a question facing every 'populist' (non-mainstream)  politician today hoping to capitalize on the public's disillusionment with the mainstrean parties. 

[It will be facinating to see how the  'non-comformist Trump polls in the midterms: has he delivered enough to US battlers, by taxing the rest of the world via illegal tariffs ?]

Meanwhile every nation on the planet is grappling with inadequate government spending  (aka govt. "austerity"), while the economy is churning out billionaires.