[spike]

Oh, pstarr, if you weren't so sad you'd be funny. Your posts seem to consist of meaningless insults and unsupported accusions, and display more ignorance than anything else. You apparently have no knowledge of my work of track record beyond a few predictions in the past decade. My book has both Chris Nelder's summary of many of my bad (short-term) predictions, but also a list of my major publications and assessment of how perceptive, or not, they were. Do you have either research or track record?

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', 'O')h, pstarr, if you weren't so sad you'd be funny. Your posts seem to consist of meaningless insults and unsupported accusions, and display more ignorance than anything else. You apparently have no knowledge of my work of track record beyond a few predictions in the past decade. My book has both Chris Nelder's summary of many of my bad (short-term) predictions, but also a list of my major publications and assessment of how perceptive, or not, they were. Do you have either research or track record?

[spike]

Yes, subjectivist, I occasionally drop in out of curiosity about what people are saying, also just in case there is any interesting research mentioned.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', 'O')h, pstarr, if you weren't so sad you'd be funny.

[spike]

Chris Nelder, Chris, “Reading Peak Oil Deniers is Is a Waste of Time,” April 28, 2009, http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles ... eniers/486.
Here you go, Pstarr. It's in chapter 9 of my book, along with an appendix listing my major research papers.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', 'C')hris Nelder, Chris, “Reading Peak Oil Deniers is Is a Waste of Time,” April 28, 2009, http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles ... eniers/486.
Here you go, Pstarr. It's in chapter 9 of my book, along with an appendix listing my major research papers.

[spike]

The Hills model doesn't really impress me. In part, early estimates of EREOI (1930) are highly suspect, given data limitations. Also, EREOI tends to rise and fall, but those who embrace the measure usually extrapolate downward trends.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', 'T')he Hills model doesn't really impress me.

[ROCKMAN]

Spke - Your thoughts please on a recent conversation here: with the drastic drop in oil prices the EROEI of wells still being drilled today has significant INCREASED from weeks drtilled several yeasrs ago. IOW drilling costs have declined but not nearly as much as oil production revenue. So for a new well to offer the same return as a well drtdrtilled 3 years ago it has to produce more oil. Since the energy used to drill is the same but more energy is produced the EROEI must increase, right?

And from that shouldn't it be true that changes in EROEI over long periods be dependent upon the drilling economics as much as the number of bbls produced?

[spike]

Wow, Pstart, the internet has my 'meltdown' on Nelder's site (not sure what specifically you mean). I did search Chris Nelder and Michael Lynch and got 30k hits. Of course, when I looked for pstarr and Bigfoot I got 98k hits. Don't mistake quantity for quality.
You say I got two bad reviews? Both are 5 star and they say "Couldn't put the book down; extremely informative; very well researched." "Good review and a lot of statistical data to support conclusion." One also describes me as gentlemanly.

[spike]

Rockman, I would posit that has drillers highgrade (pick the best wells out of their list of targets) with lower drilling levels, the EREOI would actually increase. Some estimates of EREOI use spending by sector, so that higher energy prices lower the EREOI; the reverse raises it. I'm not sure looking at the energy input into energy production is better than looking at total inputs (labor, capital, energy) which can be done by looking at profits.

[ROCKMAN]

Spike - Yes, the "natural selection" we've always had in the oil patch. Also: "...is better than looking at total inputs (labor, capital, energy)" - which is exactly the same point I've been irritating some folks for years. That as far as what gets drilled EROEI is not a factor. Never has been and never will be. The economics do: the "total inputs" ($'s) vs the output ($'s and not bbls).

I've always guestimates that when we had high oil prices EROEI couldn't drop much below 5 or 6 before economic analysis killed a project. With current prices I would guess an EROEI of 10+. Again your thoughts would be appreciated.

As far as those very high EROEI values some post for old heritage fields I suspect some are just making up numbers that match their unsophisticated impressions. Or they are only considering the energy used to drill the discovery well and not all the development wells. I've been evaluating a 1946 field discovery that has produced 7.2 million bbls of oil from 4,600'. The EROEI calculated using the energy using that one well would be huge. But not if one uses the energy to drill the 122 wells that produced those 7.2 million bbls.

[spike]

In a few cases where a breakdown of costs is reported (mostly for shale) fuel and electricity seems to make up about 5-10% of the total. Even if you add in indirect energy (in the steel, etc.) you should still have a pretty strong EREOI. Given the other inputs (labor, water, sand) I find it hard to believe that fracked shale has a low EREOI as some seem to think.
(Note: I refuse to write "fraced" which would rhyme with "raced" not "hacked".)

[ROCKMAN]

Spike - "...seems to make up about 5-10% of the total. Even if you add in indirect energy (in the steel, etc.) you should still have a pretty strong EREOI." Thanks. Same numbers I've tossed out for years. But I'm also the guy that signs the fuel invoices. LOL.

Folks way overestimate how much energy it takes to drill a well. Even taking in the embedded energy content that addition is small when amortized over all the wells drilled with that infrastructure. The shale failures (there were many even when oil was $100+/bbl) were financial failures...not EROEI failures. An operator drilling an Eagle Ford well that produced on 50,000 bbls easily recovered the energy utilized: 50,000 bbls X 42 gal/bbl X 25% diesel yield = 525,000 gallons of diesel. IOW probably twice as much used to drill and frac a typical well. But financially that operator lost his ass: 50,000 X 70% NRI X $100/bbl = $3.5 million. Or about half of what that well cost.

So again the obvious reason EROEI never has and never will be the determining factor in what get drilled.

[spike]

Since the issue has come up, Nelder is a great example of how people have debunked me (in their view). From his 2009 piece, in response to my New York Times op-ed, he makes a number of subjective assertions, but mostly ignored my actual arguments. For example, I argued that peak oil advocates were relying on too-pessimistic estimates of oil resources. His response:
“In 1999, Lynch crowed that when IHS Energy’s estimate of ultimately recoverable reserves increased 10% over a previous estimate to 1800 billion, it “put a nail in the coffin” of the peak oil debate. He continued to thump the reserve growth issue as the number rose to 2100 billion–where it has stayed, at least for reliable petroleum geologists like Campbell and Laherrère. But that hasn’t slowed down Lynch, who apparently now believes that there are another 2500 billion barrels yet to recover, an absurd number based on his belief that the world will somehow achieve a recovery rate of 35%, without venturing to guess how it might be done.”
The first problem with this is he appears to be referring to the IHS estimate of proved plus probable reserves, not ultimately recoverable resources. Kind of a basic mistake. Also, it is true that I didn’t ‘venture to guess’ how recovery factors might be raised to 35% in an op-ed article in a newspaper, but it’s hard to believe anyone with experience in the industry would challenge that.
But the most telling point is his insistence that “the number rose to 2100 billion” and my suggestion that “there are another 500 billion barrels yet to recover” is absurd. Two years earlier, the National Petroleum Council, relying on industry geologists, estimated that URR was roughly 3500 billion barrels, of which perhaps 1200 had been produced. That didn’t include roughly 1500 billion barrels of recoverable heavy oil and oil/tar sands. (They reviewed scores of estimates made over decades to reach this conclusion.) Given that the report was and is available as a free download, it’s hard to see how he could ignore that. (Oh, and it didn’t include light tight oil at all.)

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', ' ')I'm not sure looking at the energy input into energy production is better than looking at total inputs (labor, capital, energy) which can be done by looking at profits.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, it is true that I didn’t ‘venture to guess’ how recovery factors might be raised to 35% in an op-ed article in a newspaper, but it’s hard to believe anyone with experience in the industry would challenge that.