[shortonoil]

Abstract
Methods
Results
Comments
I apologize for the quick and dirty upload. My schedule at the present doesn’t give me the time to put a web site up for this, but I thought some readers here would appreciate taking a look at this.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Summary

If the analysis presented here is applicable to the world's oil fields in
general, it can be expected that economic activity based on energy
produced from oil, will start to decline prior to Peak, and that it will
deteriorate after Peak at an accelerating rate!

[Cashmere]

Thank you for your efforts.

I don't understand the graph.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', 'T')hank you for your efforts.

I don't understand the graph.

[Homesteader]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', 'T')hank you for your efforts. I don't understand the graph.

[Cashmere]

I'm not sure what it's saying.

Seems the direction is . . .

Peak of Energy Available will be before production peak.

But, by way of constructive criticism, the graph is not readily interpretable and the descriptions don't do much to clear it up.

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', 'B')ut, by way of constructive criticism, the graph is not readily
interpretable and the descriptions don't do much to clear it up.

[shortonoil]

steam_cannon said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ice presentation on EROEI...

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', ' ')If I understand it correctly it is saying that available energy will decline prior to peak and even faster than the overall production decline curve. The net effect on us is A) starts earlier B) Gets crappy faster

[yesplease]

How are you defining useful?

[shortonoil]

yesplease said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow are you defining useful?

[Cashmere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', 'B')ut, by way of constructive criticism, the graph is not readily
interpretable and the descriptions don't do much to clear it up.

[Cashmere]

Look, OP, no offense, but if I spend 10 minutes trying to figure out your graph and I don't get it, then it will be useless for all but a few people. If your target audience is the few people with your background, then you're good. If not, then why spend the time?

Exact thoughts - the 1.089 is floating - why not have it off to the right and connect it with a line to the proper curve?
-What is that number? Area under the curve?
-Why is it useful? It seems to just clutter the graph without adding anything.
-Total AE is measured in what? Barrels, on y-axis?

Definitely consider a legend - the floating text, while presumptively corresponding to the line it breaks, is cluttering.
-If total AE is not measured in barrels, then why is it there?
-If total AE is measured in barrels, then about the year 2000 it would appear that the graph is indicating that the total AE is close to zero.
-What the hell does that mean?
-Why say "per unit of crude". Why not just say what the unit is?
-Why have two superimposed axes? Why not just put one on the right side of the graph, which is the convention?
-What does the 12% represent?

In short, it's a cluttered mess that didn't communicate anything to me. Once again, I suppose somebody with greater math skills than me (maybe .01% of the population) and greater knowledge of the exact thing of which you speak (maybe .01%) would get something out of it - Beyond that, like I said, too cluttered and esoteric to be useful.

The greatest teacher is not usually the greatest intellect, and it stuns me sometimes how otherwise brilliant people lack the rather simple skill of teaching what one knows in a manner that is interpretable by the target audience.

[yesplease]

Sure there is, just not in the same context, which is what I was wondering about. According to useful as related to Gibbs energy, the actual use does not matter, all that is of concern is how much energy is available for work. There is no differentiation between me using ten gallons of refined oil to move myself and and another a thousand miles and using ten gallons of gas to fuel a bonfire in my front yard because I want to.

[shortonoil]

Thanks for taking the time to break this down cashmere, but yes, I was looking for a wider review from a pier group. At the top of the abstract it says “abridged and preliminary” and that is exactly what it is. In the post part, if you notice, it says, “but I thought some readers here would appreciate taking a look at this.” I was looking for a critic from a few readers who understood what I was presenting, and that is what I have gotten. So far, although reserved, they have mainly been supportive.

To try an answer some of your questions, I’ll take them one at a time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��Exact thoughts - the 1.089 is floating - why not have it off to the right and connect it with a line to the proper curve? “

[shortonoil]

yesplease said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no differentiation between me using ten gallons of refined oil to move myself and and another a thousand miles and using ten gallons of gas to fuel a bonfire in my front yard because I want to.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')b]yesplease said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is no differentiation between me using ten gallons of refined oil to move myself and and another a thousand miles and using ten gallons of gas to fuel a bonfire in my front yard because I want to.

[Temperedoil]

That is a scary graph - as if Peak Oil was not serious enough. It looks to me to be clear enough as to what it suggests. However, given that current figures would seem to show that global crude oil production peaked in 2005, putting that together with shortonoil's graph would say to me that we really are getting awfully close to global economic growth turning into a serious recession, even without considering the impact of the current credit crisis.

If it is the case that we can expect declining net energy from each future barrel of oil, then that may also impact negatively upon our ability to replace oil as a source of energy. How many of the people planning such transformations as electric cars replacing oil-fuelled cars have included net declining energy from oil in their calculations of the resources that would be required to achieve such things? The longer we put off the transformation, the greater the quantity of oil we will need to complete that transformation, as it looks to me. Therefore, are we likely to reach a point where we simply will not have the energy available to complete such a transformation without taking energy (or oil in particular) from other sectors of the economy to such an extent as to make the transformation idea somewhat moot?

[dorlomin]

Very educational stuff there shortonoil. Can I ask if the dynamics for a gas field are the same, or does this only cover oil?

[shortonoil]

Temperedoil said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f it is the case that we can expect declining net energy from each future barrel of oil, then that may also impact negatively upon our ability to replace oil as a source of energy.