[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', '&')quot;For practical purposes EROI is bunk."

Fine, then why even bother improving fuel efficiency?

[asg70]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', 'I')n other words: We are fighting falling EROI by improving fuel efficiency.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', '&')quot;For practical purposes EROI is bunk."

Fine, then why even bother improving fuel efficiency?

[Yoshua]

Yes, there are many good reasons to improve fuel efficiency...even in the production of fuel...so, yes, EROI obviously matters.

[marmico]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ine, then why even bother improving fuel efficiency?

[diemos]

And yet oil is still finite and the oil age is something that children will read about in their history textbooks one day.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', 'A')nd yet oil is still finite and the oil age is something that children will read about in their history textbooks one day.

[ROCKMAN]

Yoshua - "I don't know where I'm going with this...". Not an uncommon predicament for most when they try to view the entire fossil fuel consumption of the entire dynamic. And that's simply because as a whole energy consumption DOES NOT create energy. Yes, some aspects, such as fossil fuel extraction, has a net positive net energy increase. But look at the other extreme: refineries, which are a huge NET ENERGY loss. Yes, US refineries run at an EROEI of less then 1. And have done so from the very first cracking run made. Refineries use a significant amount of Btu's (typically from NG) to separate the various components of crude oil into products we consume. Yes, almost every Btu of oil that enters a refinery also exits that refinery. But every Btu of NG that is used to heat the distillation towers is consumed and disappears from the planet for every.

If it's easier just consider one product: gasoline. Every bbl of crude oil contains some % of gasoline molecules. Some only 10% and some can be as high as 40%. But virtually every molecule/Btu of gasoline that enters a refinery also leaves it. But X Btu's of NG are used to heat that oil in a distillation tower where those gasoline molecules are separated from the others and are drawn off. The production of gasoline in a refinery represents a NET LOSS OF ENERGY: gasoline Btu < gasoline Btu + NG Btu. Or, taken as a whole: crude oil Btu < crude oil products Btu + NG Btu. And why? Simple: the value of the product Btu's are worth more then the value of the oil Btu's + the value of the NG Btu's. So again why the EROEI of crude oil refining is not relevant. The refining process has always used more energy then it has produced. But the business has been PROFITABLE while still being a net energy loss.

And obviously every other use of petroleum (farming, construction, etc) represents a net loss of energy. With one possible exception: construction of alt energy sources: dams, wind turbines, solar panels. But taking the global economy as a whole the dynamic is a huge energy sink hole. Always has been because it has been profitable to do so.

[ROCKMAN]

Yoshua - "Total cost $1,250,000 / $2.5 gallon diesel = 500,000 gallons diesel". Sorry, can't follow your logic there. The vast majority of the cost involves no energy consumption. In fact a big chunk is profit margin and salaries made by the service companies. But let's accept your number: taking into account the typical diesel yield of a bbl of oil your 500,000 gal would only represent about 30,000 bbls of oil. If the EROEI is 6 then that would be 180,000 bbls. Which would not be an easy economic analysis to convince management to drill. That may not compute for you and others. But that's because you don't understand how ROR are calculated by the industry. Depending on the price of oil that EROEI might not yield a ROR better then 5%. Taking into account the risk factor that would not be attractive to most companies.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, there are many good reasons to improve fuel efficiency...even in the production of fuel...so, yes, EROI obviously matters.

[Yoshua]

The American economy has actually been resilient during the last decade despite all difficulties. The secret might be natural gas? At least without natural gas the situation would had been much harder.

Europe has been resilient despite everything as well. Perhaps our secret has been access to Russian natural gas. Even Russia has survived sanctions and falling oil prices perhaps due to its natural gas reserves.

Shell is betting on natural gas for the future.

The EROI of oil might be close to 1:1 today, but as long as we have natural gas petroleum will be the most energy efficient "battery" to fuel our transportation sector.

I understand that investors might get a bit confused if you offer them ERoEI in return for their investment.
"What the f*** is that? I want my money back!"

[Yoshua]

It is perhaps impossible to calculate the EROI of petroleum production. The monetary value might, even as faulty it is, show the most economic way to produce any product, even fuel. The energy mix and the price on each energy source is perhaps the only reasonable indicator to make a business decision on.

I will leave EROI now...at least for a while.

So...how about... Improving Peak Oil Credibility?

[ROCKMAN]

Yoshua - I wouldn't say impossible but very difficult. Especially when it comes to the needed assumptions about the "sunk" energy used to build out the infrastructure, such as drill rigs, and how to amortize that volume with respect to the number of wells drilled. But it stills rolls back to the basic question: if one were to come up with such an estimate what practical purpose could it be applied to? Even looking at EROEI over a long time period doesn't produce much insight: as I pointed out the claims of EROEI on the order of 100 decades ago lacks any documentation and is absurd. But back to the same question: how useful is it knowing that EROEI has increased (or decreased) over some period of time?

No, I have no idea of what the average EROEI is of wells being drilled today. Nor is it of any use or importance to me. The only ones who seem to see some importance are doomers. I see much more important negatives to focus such as the decline in new discoveries and the increased cost to develop what reserves remain.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', 'A')nd yet oil is still finite and the oil age is something that children will read about in their history textbooks one day.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', '
')So...how about... Improving Peak Oil Credibility?

[asg70]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', '
')So...how about... Improving Peak Oil Credibility?

[ROCKMAN]

70 - "The bar has been raised in order to convince people that there is an existential threat posed by peak oil." Easy to see why the bar gets set at different levels. Remember oil at $100+/bbl? A growing PO crowd. The oil dropped below $30/bbls and the rats abandoned the ship.

And thus the basic problem: folks who think PO has anything to do with the price of oil. As long as such ignorance abounds the "bar" will continue to fluctuate.

[asg70]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')And thus the basic problem: folks who think PO has anything to do with the price of oil.

[ROCKMAN]

70 - So true: the opposite side of the same coin. Folks n the US stopped worrying about oil supply when the price dropped below $40/bbl. But that ignores at least a few billion folks on the planet for whom oil was still expensive and out of reach for the most part. Log after the US reached its PO we still had adequate supplies because we could afford to import what we needed. At the same time many times the population of the US suffered for the lack of petroleum. Many countries have long passed their peak oil consumption and will never have anything close to what they once had. Even when that was just a tiny % of the per capita consumption we enjoyed.

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey care about their quality of life.