Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Nov 07, 2005 Posts: 558 Location: London, UK
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: Have We Been Wrong?
I often quote this post I made, as I am particularly fond of it as it was one of my first posts where I didn’t feel like a retard. Even though what I was trying to convey was the simplicity of Peak Oil. Or at least I attempted to simplify it for people like myself at the time of writing.
A cautionary note to other even more established posters can be relayed here. It can be a cringe worthy experience, and “good for the soul” practice to go and re-read their own very early posts. But I digress.
Admittedly I felt pretty smug with myself after reading some of the positive replies. All except one, which is this one copied here. It also happens to be the first reply.
stryder3700 wrote:
I think you've over simplified it a little too much and forgot about the issue of depletion on existing fields. We aren't just using it really fast. It's also getting harder and more expensive to get out of the ground.
Your analysis says we're screwed in the near future. Add in depletion and we're screwed even quicker.
But I'll definitely give you props for doing the math to figure it out on your own.
It annoyed me, because he/she was right. Not because it was over simplified, as that was the whole point of the practice. I was annoyed by something else. Something I now believe to be far more insidious than the concept of Peak Oil.
“What can be more serious than Peak oil?” I here you cry. “Everyone knows that that will prove the End is Nigh.!”
Wrong!
Now I imagine the smart puppies reading this will have spotted it straight away, and I’ve described it as insidious for a reason, as I feel it best describes, in one word, the danger we face. (No 1 is the more apt definition BTW)
insidious adj 1 developing gradually without being noticed but causing very great harm. 2 attractive but harmful; treacherous. insidiously adverb. insidiousness noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Latin insidiosus cunning.
In 1997 and 2002 respectively, I lost my Grandfathers after struggling with Lung cancer. Not a nice way to go I can tell you. For months they were treated for the cancer, but in the end it beat them. It’s funny listening to people’s opinion of Cancer, many believe if you choose to fight it with a positive attitude you can over come it. I beg to differ. With my first Grandfather, He gave up the ghost as soon as he heard, was given 18 months and lasted 6. My other Grandfather was more positive and he died 18 months after his diagnosis and believed to be going into remission. Either way, they both died. And, in both cases they died early because of secondary tumours in the Brain caused by the Lung cancer. Doctors had been so concerned with the Lung cancer that the secondary cancers weren’t picked up until it was to late. In effect they killed my Grandfathers before the bigger, more serious cancer did.
Now many are asking, “What’s with the Al Gore moment?” Well it’s analogous. Many here do see Peak as the start of the end, and I for one would have agreed. But for stryder3700’s comment.
stryder3700 wrote:
We aren't just using it really fast. It's also getting harder and more expensive to get out of the ground
Peak Oil is a problem granted, but it is the Lung Cancer with which we have busied ourselves into believing is the serious illness. It’s time we started looking at a secondary cancer, which has gone almost unnoticed and threatens to take us before Peak does. It is a simple sentence, for a complex concept, with terrifying consequences.
Energy Returned Over Energy Invested.
For those that are into their Doomeristic Peak Oil futures and sweepstakes as to when Peak will be, what the outcome will be etc. What an Energy Returned Over Energy Invested (or EROEI as it is affectionately abbreviated to) will be, should scare even the doomerist of Doomers. Unlike Peak which more or less when given all the statistics and data, a date for when it all goes wrong can be surmised. EROEI can kill at anytime. Simply because it is the process in which we use energy to retrieve energy. What is even more dangerous is that EROEI rates are not as abundantly available as Production and Consumption rates.
What we do know is this, according to Hall and Cleveland. Oil EROEI rates have looked like this. X:Y where X = energy produced from Y = energy used
1930 - 100:1
1950 – 50:1
1970 – 25:1
1990 – 12:1 (in the ppt it states 11/18:1 for 1990)
2006 – 3:1? (Hall and Cleveland cannot be precise here)
The problem to be understood with EROEI rates is that information seems murky at best, but as you can see there is a consistent halving of the EROEI every 20 years until we reach the beginning of this Century. So why the sudden drop?
stryder3700 wrote:
We aren't just using it really fast. It's also getting harder and more expensive to get out of the ground
Is the answer to the question. Yet what is mind numbingly depressing about EROEI is this. Unlike Peak Oil, where we just end up paying through the nose, and handing over and arm and a leg for our fuel, yet still having a flow of oil. EROEI can leave us with the depressing reality that when EROEI hits 1:1 and for instance 500 billion barrels of oil remain in the ground, that’s where it would stay. As economically you can’t sell what you will have to burn in order to get the next barrel out. We would have to burn 500 billion barrels for nothing. And at present consumption rates, that’s around 15 years of consumption. Now EROEI won’t hit every oil field at the same time, but as each field declines, the greater the pressure is put on other fields. Forcing the other fields to decline at a faster rate. In returning to my analogous story. When the secondary cancers took hold of my Grandfathers, the effect was devastating. Both died within two days as a result of the secondary cancer. Such was its ferocity. Likewise with EROEI. The little chart above is the best you illustration of how serious EROEI is, and if you follow the trend, as our consumption increases many will warn of Peak Oil being the killer, but when that 3:1 becomes 1:1 its game over. Using that chart as a source of data it would appear we have less time than Peak Oil alone would have us believe. One thing is certain, at our present growing rates of consumption we will arrive at 1:1 much sooner than anticipated and noone will have seen it coming. Except us that is. And basing an assumption of those EROEI rates, is within a decade a fantasy? I don't think so. Yes Peak Oil is a serious issue but one I think we have been wrong in assuming is the clear threat to our way of life.
As for my first post, I'll still read it and still be proud of it. I just wish I realised how even simpler and deadlier our situation is. _________________ THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
True, EROEI makes the problem worse, more quickly. However, an EROEI of 1 does not necessarily mark the end of production of oil. It depends on the usefulness of the energy source used as input versus the energy source that is being produced. I doubt that oil would last very long at 1:1, but it could go down below 1 before it's usefulness is outweighed by the cost of the energy input.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:46 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
I would really like to see EROEI more widely accepted and talked about, because it is an important concept, but it needs to be refined to be more convincing. Go take a look at the wikipedia entry on EROEI (but make sure you come back here afterwards)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
Back? Good. In case you were too lazy, here are a couple of problems with EROEI:
1. What activities exactly do you include in the energy invested? The energy used to build the refinery in the first place? Taking to the extreme, do you include the fuel in the cars to drive the employees to the refinery? Most of you would say "Well, no..." but some doomers would probably say "hey, maybe we should! That makes it even worse!". The problem is you could keep going back forever, and end up with energy invested including the big bang.
2. You could change a refinery to be more self-sufficient, by powering itself completely from it's own oil, instead of drawing electricity from the grid. So the oil-refinery as a whole would have lower energy invested, maybe even zero. The EROEI for that system could go arbitrarily high, but the refinery is not really any better in the bigger scheme of things.
EROEI is an attempt at capturing the idea that things get worse due to the energy being more difficult to obtain. So it is a key argument that peak oil proponents push, and cornucoppians don't get. But in order to work, it needs to be more rigidly defined so we can actually quantify these things.
Can anyone who really likes the EROEI concept please give a more detailed definition of what energy should be included in the "energy invested" part, with examples and reasons why? And answer the wikipedia criticisms?
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
Gazzatrone, This is an excellent post; move to the head of the class.
One thing I immediately noticed was that the EROEI numbers you presented were halving every 20 years (3.5% decline rate) until the last number which just fell off the chart. This raises a red flag, which has nothing to do with the thrust of your thinking, but which either means bad data or something really significant happening. Had the 20 year halving period held up, then it would not be until after 2050 that we reached 1:1. In the long run, this would be quibbling over pennies, as we are headed to 1:1, but the sudden drop is alarming, and needs some explanation.
I do have some question about what is included in the energy invested. If this is limited to exploration, then once 1:1 is reached, much exploration would cease; production activity would continue. If the energy invested also includes production cost, then when 1:1 is reached, much production would cease. Since these concepts look at averages, there would continue to be segments of exploration and production which would be better than average, so this activity might continue beyond the time that the overall average reaches 1:1.
There will be a reachback effect on the economy as we approach 1:1 for production. We do not need to reach 1:1 for the suffering to begin. We are in the early stages of this reachback effect now. As energy becomes more costly, more and more economic activity will become uneconomical and cease; for example, one does not mine metal if the cost is more than the selling price, and even today some mines with low grades and high costs are shutting down.
With all the fog obstructing a clear view of the future, your foghorn is helpful.
Joined: Nov 07, 2005 Posts: 558 Location: London, UK
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
GreyGhost wrote:
1. What activities exactly do you include in the energy invested? The energy used to build the refinery in the first place? Taking to the extreme, do you include the fuel in the cars to drive the employees to the refinery? Most of you would say "Well, no..." but some doomers would probably say "hey, maybe we should! That makes it even worse!". The problem is you could keep going back forever, and end up with energy invested including the big bang.
Given this some thought, and all I can conceive is that the rate of EROEI is relative to the amount of energy used at any present time, by the populous. For instance the 1970 EROEI according to Hall and Celeveland works out at 25:1 for the simple reason that social conditions, industry, population etc could only produce an EROEI of that ratio. Whereas todays conditions with a greater population and industrial drive demand more, so there is in affect less energy to go around.
GreyGhost wrote:
2. You could change a refinery to be more self-sufficient, by powering itself completely from it's own oil, instead of drawing electricity from the grid. So the oil-refinery as a whole would have lower energy invested, maybe even zero. The EROEI for that system could go arbitrarily high, but the refinery is not really any better in the bigger scheme of things.
In the greater sheme of things, it wouldn't have less energy invested as it is using energy from the oil that would have gone somewhere else. It would still have to create the same amount of energy as it would from taking it from the national grid. Depending on whether or not that energy originally came from a renewable source, such as Hydro or wind. Using oil would decrease the overall EROEI, as the future energy stored in the oil would be used sooner.
And I agree, searching for quantative data on EROEI is harder than it seems. From what I gather it seems to be regarded as an off shoot or by-product of energy/ oil depletion that goes into making the bigger part. But as I have stated I fear that this could be the silent killer.
maybe we could live in a world of a ratio of 1:1 but how painful would that be? And how do we carry on when it drops into negative return? _________________ THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
I did go read the Hall & Cleveland presentation. They are painting with a broad brush. One thing they say is that for the past three years exploration, in dollar terms, has been a net loss; more $energy has been used that $energy found. So according to them, we already are below 1:1 for exploration. This does not mean exploration is over, but it does mean that we are currently taping into existing production in the effort to find more oil, without success, on average. This places us in the same position of a man without an income living off of his savings account.
Does anyone know of a study with more precise data?
Joined: Nov 07, 2005 Posts: 558 Location: London, UK
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:57 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
gego wrote:
I did go read the Hall & Cleveland presentation. They are painting with a broad brush. One thing they say is that for the past three years exploration, in dollar terms, has been a net loss; more $energy has been used that $energy found. So according to them, we already are below 1:1 for exploration. This does not mean exploration is over, but it does mean that we are currently taping into existing production in the effort to find more oil, without success, on average. This places us in the same position of a man without an income living off of his savings account.
Does anyone know of a study with more precise data?
www.eroei.com has been the most informative I have found to date, but more often than not repeat the same stories as you will find on here, yet even they seem to think that Peak Oil is a bigger threat. What ever happened to "to thine ownself be true"?
As for the broad brush sweep from Hall and Clevland, they do point out in their powerpoint that they were making noises about the significance of EROEI since 1981, so maybe their overall knowledge and understanding allows them to report in such a fashion. I imagine that the PPTis part of a seminar or lecture that they give and used as pointers for discussion. _________________ THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
The crux is that peak oil relates to gross production irrespective of the cost of that production. As Gazzatrone has indicated, net production is what really matters. Hell, we could produce 10 times what we do today and it would not help us if the energy cost of production were 20 times what it is today.
I keep hearing the supposed soothing idea that oil is not running out, it is just cheap oil that is running out. I guess this is a way of saying that the net energy profit is declining.
If you took world oil production each year (which has been increasing since 1930) and multiplied by the EROEI numbers Gazzatrone presented (which have been decreasing since 1930) to yield the net production available to humanity, the picture is much different than just looking at total production, alarmingly so.
Take some simple assumptions. World oil production peaks in 2010; the EROEI is 6:1 at this peak time; the rate of decline in gross production is 3.5% per year giving a halving period of 20 years; the rate of decline in EROEI is also 3.5% apparently which it has been historically, also giving it a halving period of 20 years.
If you just looked at oil production declining at 3.5% per year after 2010, you would expect oil production to be 50% of the 2010 number by 2030. However with the EROEI rate also declining, the net oil available in 2030 would be only 25% of what it was in 2010. Think of this in personal terms as you would lose 75% of your salary between 2010 and 2030. Think of a business with sales falling and costs increasing; a double whammy.
And all of this does not consider that the population is still expanding, and that a 3.5% dropoff in post peak gross oil production may well be a low number.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
Great post. EROEI is a very important point to remember. I think Heinberg listed current EROEI for oil at 6:1 in his book The Party's Over. That was a couple years ago.
On top of net production, don't forget net exports. Many oil producing countries are retaining more and more of their own production for domestic use. WestTexas over at The Oil Drum maintains that globally net exports are in decline.
Yikes. _________________ Civilization is a personal choice.
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
The fact that EROEI apparently has been falling at at 3.5% rate since 1930 also takes some of the steam out of the debate over the peak oil date. This falling return is a trend in motion, and is likely to remain so. Even if the peak oil date turns out to be later than 2010, or if we manage to plateau for a while, there still will be this constantly increasing energy cost factor eroding the net amount of oil available to humanity.
Considering the effect of both declining production and declining EROEI, I can well see Richard Duncan's "falling off a cliff" and "end of the electric age by 2030" as very realistic assessments.
If you really want to scare yourself, take the known rate of decrease in EROEI (3.5%) and add to it different possible rates of gross production decrease after peak. Some people have thrown around the possible rate of post peak gross production fall of as much as 8%. The combination of these two would result in a halving of net production just 6 years after peak; now that is one hell of a fall off of a cliff. The implications of that are ominous.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
ElijahJones wrote:
If gasoline at my local filling station ever falls below 1:1 someone in the supply chain is losing money in the most real terms available
I don't think that follows. It all depends on the cost of the invested energy and the price of gasoline. The invested energy cost may be lower than the price obtained for the finished product. If the money invested is less than the money obtained, then you're right.
Joined: Sep 06, 2004 Posts: 5315 Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
Gazzatrone wrote:
The one that died in 1997 was 74 and the one in 2002 was 76
Three score and ten.
Remember we have cures for most illnesses that historically were fatal. So we now have just a few nasties left.
A caveman, who biologically we are not really different from, would have been lucky to get to 40. _________________ "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Have We Been Wrong?
I thought this thread would be more lively.
I guess the main point got lost in the distraction, the verbose quibbling over whether or not 1:1 EROEI would cause production to cease. This is missing the forest for the trees.
What matters to your life or death is not just peak oil, its timing and the subsequent rate of production decline, but equally importantly, the rate of decline in EROEI. Think of the profitability of a business being influenced by both its revenue and its expenses. Focusing on peak oil is a focus on revenue only because the Hubbert curve is a production curve. It does not take into account how much energy must be used to get that production, EROEI.
The EROEI ratios presented in Gazzatrone's initial post indicate that that it is consistently taking more and more energy to produce oil. The energy cost to get oil has been doubling every 20 years if these historic EROEI numbers are close to accurate. This is a 3.5% growth rate in cost of production. As Gazzatrone's beautiful analogy points out, this may well be what kills us while we focus only on gross production in the peak oil discussion. To know how much oil humanity will have available post peak we need to plug into the equation the peak oil production date and output, the rate of production decline, AND the rate of decline in EROEI.
If you are thinking that production will decline post peak at a 5% rate making production fall by half every 14 years, think again. You must add to the 5% rate of production drop, the rate of change in EROEI which at a minimum look to be 3.5% giving a combined rate of 8.5% or a halving period of 8.235 years. This is HUGE because it shows just how quickly the amount of oil we have available to use could fall by half. We are not talking 20 years, but may be talking as little as 5 years for net oil available to half if costs escalate suddenly and gross production falls at the higher range of expectations, post peak.
Production may not have peaked yet, but EROEI peaked a long time ago and the effect of EROEI has been disguised from public view by the strong surge in gross production in the past 75 years. The effect of EROEI will continue to be disguised because everyone will be focused on production declines post peak.
Looks to me that peak oil will be much more of a bitch slapping to humanity than most want to imagine.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17Next
Page 1 of 17
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
