by kildred590 » Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:48:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o 4 is talking about how much energy is left over to use once you subtract the energy required to produce whatever is the final product - crude oil lets say. All the energy used to explore, drill, pump, refine, etc.
So if it takes 20 BTUs input to produce 100 BTUs of gasoline, you are getting a better Energy Return on Energy Invested than if you must put in 40 units to get 100 units out - 80 net units vs 60 net units.
The upshot is that as conventional, onshore wells (like the gusher in Giant) become extinct and we expend more and more energy on harder and harder oil, eventually we'll be using more than we're getting.
First of all, you need to consider that conventional oil extraction peaked in 2005, so we have
already past peak oil.
This is basically an economic argument.
Economic growth is based on the increase of
surplus labour value, that is, the difference between the price of a good or service, less the cost of producing a good or service (remembering that value is
only created when labour is applied to a commodity).
"Labour surplus value", then, applies to commodities as well as actual "labour".
Growth since the 19th century has been driven by oil ; it has increased the labour value and
therefore the money supply (which is a transferable expression of labour surplus value).
When the cost of producing oil is increased, the labour surplus value decreases, and the money supply is lower
than is necesssary to fund borrowings (remembering that borrowings are
future labour surplus value brought forward to the present).
This means :
1 - Growth is limited.
2 - Credit supply becomes constrained.
3 - Therefore oil prices (driven by growth and credit) reach a ceiling.