[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')
Prudhoe Bay had a negative EROEI thoroughout it's entire production history, yet becuase the company elites made fat bonuses and good profits the project was deemed a success.

[nth]

ElijahJones,

Umm... you may want to rethink about your assumptions.
Even without natural gas input, they can still produce quite a bit of oil. There are systems in development and demonstrated in pilot scale that does not use natural gas. Right now, natural gas is cheap, so the majors don't find it necessary to implement these types of techniques.

[RdSnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')
Prudhoe Bay had a negative EROEI thoroughout it's entire production history, yet becuase the company elites made fat bonuses and good profits the project was deemed a success.

[RdSnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'E')lijahJones,

Umm... you may want to rethink about your assumptions.
Even without natural gas input, they can still produce quite a bit of oil. There are systems in development and demonstrated in pilot scale that does not use natural gas. Right now, natural gas is cheap, so the majors don't find it necessary to implement these types of techniques.

[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', '
')So I suppose we need to build a HUGE refinery for heavy & sour crudes, without fussing too much about sulphur extraction or H2S safety, and focus on producing diesel for countries who have weak emissions rules.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')
Prudhoe Bay had a negative EROEI thoroughout it's entire production history, yet becuase the company elites made fat bonuses and good profits the project was deemed a success.

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')

If your Energy Return is less than your Energy Invested, you have a negative return on your investment.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Why don't you enlighten us as to how you can not have a negative EROEI ?

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Battle_Scarred_Galactico', 'W')hy don't you enlighten us as to how you can not have a negative EROEI ?

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Battle_Scarred_Galactico', 'W')hy don't you enlighten us as to how you can not have a negative EROEI ?

[RdSnt]

Huh?

If you expend 2 barrels of oil and get back 1 barrel, you are short one whole barrel of oil.
If you expend 5 barrels of oil and get 1 back you are short 4 whole barrels.
Where's the fraction in that. I don't care what the proper, mathematical, statistical, defininition is. We are still talking about big, fat, heavy, round, whole barrels of oil.
Quibling about proper nomenclature is another waste of barrels of oil. Wonder what the ROCNAD (Return On Clarity from Nitpicking Academic Definitions) is of that?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Battle_Scarred_Galactico', 'W')hy don't you enlighten us as to how you can not have a negative EROEI ?

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'H')uh?

If you expend 2 barrels of oil and get back 1 barrel, you are short one whole barrel of oil.
If you expend 5 barrels of oil and get 1 back you are short 4 whole barrels.
Where's the fraction in that. I don't care what the proper, mathematical, statistical, defininition is. We are still talking about big, fat, heavy, round, whole barrels of oil.
Quibling about proper nomenclature is another waste of barrels of oil. Wonder what the ROCNAD (Return On Clarity from Nitpicking Academic Definitions) is of that?

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

OK, the actual number would be expressed as a decimal, correct.

Talk about your nitpicking.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'H')uh?

If you expend 2 barrels of oil and get back 1 barrel, you are short one whole barrel of oil.
If you expend 5 barrels of oil and get 1 back you are short 4 whole barrels.
Where's the fraction in that. I don't care what the proper, mathematical, statistical, defininition is. We are still talking about big, fat, heavy, round, whole barrels of oil.
Quibling about proper nomenclature is another waste of barrels of oil. Wonder what the ROCNAD (Return On Clarity from Nitpicking Academic Definitions) is of that?

[nth]

Wow, I am at a lost for words.
In my original post, I was asking about Prudoe Bay being an energy sinkhole.
At the end, I threw in this line:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')FYI: EROEI cannot be negative.
You probably want to rephrase that.

[RdSnt]

This is way too funny , but enormously valuable.

I see your problem, you seem to be looking at this as a ratio rather than growth, and thus you are right you can't have negative values.
The missing ingredient is the lack of a definition of zero (0).

1 barrel in to 1 barrel out is zero growth, this then defines zero.
It may seem arbitrary, but you need to set it someplace. Much like zero celsius is arbitrary but valuable none the less.

You then can indeed have a negative return on investment.

The point of this argument is, as you've so eloquently mentioned, for the benefit of us great unwashed mathematically ignoramouses.
We don't feel comfortable with the notion that spending more than we get in return is seen as a positive.

And let's not get into how mathematics is the most damaging thing to civilization next to religion. There is likely a ratio for it though



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', 'H')uh?

If you expend 2 barrels of oil and get back 1 barrel, you are short one whole barrel of oil.
If you expend 5 barrels of oil and get 1 back you are short 4 whole barrels.
Where's the fraction in that. I don't care what the proper, mathematical, statistical, defininition is. We are still talking about big, fat, heavy, round, whole barrels of oil.
Quibling about proper nomenclature is another waste of barrels of oil. Wonder what the ROCNAD (Return On Clarity from Nitpicking Academic Definitions) is of that?

[RdSnt]

Just count me as barking mad (as in midnight sun..., although I'm a Scot)

I did get your point. As in my above post though the big problem is getting the general public to understand just how dangerous our situation is. Most of us just are going to get excited about an EROEI of .1, being the ever so accurate ratio you get for expending 10 barrels and getting 1 back. Ratios, particularly since the don't go negative just don't reflect the severity of the change from say a return of 9.

I'd relate it to money which is much easier, if I invest $100 and get $1 back, I've lost $99 and I'm an obvious idiot.

Yet, I don't want to use $ because that is the primary obstacle to getting oil companies to stop working on places like the Alberta tar sands. While the EROEI is negative, the companies are making pots and pots of money, so why would they stop. It's a deadly problem.
Money is not equivalent to energy yet it is seen as such.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'W')ow, I am at a lost for words.
In my original post, I was asking about Prudoe Bay being an energy sinkhole.
At the end, I threw in this line:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')FYI: EROEI cannot be negative.
You probably want to rephrase that.

[XOVERX]

Oil has unique energy characteristics. Some products can be made only with oil.

Therefore, more energy will be expended to obtain the oil, even if the result is less energy obtained than the energy expended to extract the oil.

So long as the energy expended is not oil.

For example, if the energy expended to extract the oil is solar energy, and double the joules of solar is expended with respect to the joules returned in oil, then the solar energy will be expended to extract the oil.

The EROEI argument breaks down to a certain extent when the product is oil. Because of oil's unique characteristics.

And when the world gets to this point, things are most likely quite bleak indeed.

[nth]

RdSnt,

I don't believe people are confused if you give EROEI as 0.1.
If they think that is a positive energy return, then they simply don't know how EROEI is defined.

Next time, just mention your Energy Return is negative. No one has issues with that terminology. Just don't use EROEI. EROEI is defined with an exact formula that you cannot alter for your own convenience. This makes it less confusing for the people who do know what EROEI is, which I had assumed most people here do. I guess I maybe wrong about that.