[Maddog78]

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

However,

life-cycle analysis of all inputs

Virtually impossible to calculate with any meaningful accuracy.
and

amortized over the life of the production

So you won't know what the eroei is until the field is dead.

Very useful.

[rangerone314]

I wonder why no one gets (either proponents or opponents of EROEI) the fact that when EROEI is low that will coincide with financial costs being high, and the fact that there are other financial costs (salaries, benefits, etc) not as tightly bound with EROEI that also get added in to the cost of doing business.

EROEI will be a MOOT point for a well, since a well will probably stop being financially profitable long BEFORE EROEI goes 1:1.

When a person has 50 bullet holes shot in their heart they are basically dead. Worrying about EROEI is like waiting for the brain to flatline.

If EROEI was of much more than academic or theoretical interest, then Exxon-Mobil cost accountants would probably be all over that bynow.

[mcgowanjm]

I know the gas is under my land. At $12 per 1000cuft it's
doable. At $4 not so much.

[Maddog78]

Yeah, sure, whatever you say.

However,

life-cycle analysis of all inputs

Virtually impossible to calculate with any meaningful accuracy.
and

amortized over the life of the production

So you won't know what the eroei is until the field is dead.

Very useful.

You keep saying it is impossible because it is time consuming and technical. The method is hierarchical. You start with cement, steel, copper, etc. (already done). So for example once the energy cost of pipe (and laying it) is calculated, the value is saved and made available in database form, and can be extrapolated to all size pipes and all collection and delivery systems. Same with valves, etc. up the chain to towers, refineries etc. And human labor

Then if that is too much trouble there are models that are reasonable. Try Cutler and Cleveland. The claims you make for impossibility result of never considering the need in the past. Have you checked out Pimentel? Industrial Ecology is a new science but necessary as externalities (pollution, energy costs and loss, etc.) have overwhelmed profits.

As for you amortized comment. I don't believe anyone suggested net-energy analysis as a tool to measure individual wells or fields as an specific investment tool. It is for unconventional methods and applied against known processes, historical events to judge future worth.

Are you kidding? Of course you did. When this first started you insisted this must be used in the oil industry and when I said it is not you went on and on with disparaging remarks.

As for your "models", it is so very obvious you may not have even seen a picture of a drilling rig let alone made it very clear you have no clue as to the inner workings of running one or making a plan for developing a field.
I don't have time to waste on this. It would be like trying to explain to someone how an airplane can fly who has never even seen a plane. First you would have to explain what an airplane is.

[Nefarious]

You keep saying it is impossible because it is time consuming and technical. The method is hierarchical. You start with cement, steel, copper, etc. (already done). So for example once the energy cost of pipe (and laying it) is calculated, the value is saved and made available in database form, and can be extrapolated to all size pipes and all collection and delivery systems. Same with valves, etc. up the chain to towers, refineries etc. And human labor

Lets talk about a joint of drill pipe. Yes you can calculate the amount of energy that went into making that one joint of drill pipe.Your energy invested.
Now how many different wells did that one joint of drill pipe help drill? 50 wells? 100 wells? Each successful well that was drilled makes its energy return go up. How many dry holes did that joint of drill pipe help drill? Each dry hole lowers it's energy returned. How many wells did that joint of drill pipe help drill that struck oil but they won't produce the well at this time. This would keep it's energy return in limbo until they either produced the well or didn't. Is this drill pipe still in use today drilling new wells? Which would mean you would be getting a future return because it can still do it's job. Now every day that those wells are producing that were drilled by that one joint of pipe, that pipes energy return grows.
Nothing is static in this buisness no two wells drill or produce the same,its not a factory were X amount of inputs give you X amount of output. The inputs are constantly changing, the outputs are constantly changing. You can't save a value in a data base because the value is changing every time.

[Pops]

Money is only a approximation,

That's what I told the electric company just before the lights went out!


Sorry, p, couldn't help it!

[shortonsense]

amortized over the life of the production

So you won't know what the eroei is until the field is dead.

Very useful.

Its like asking Ronald McDonald how to build a super collider.

If it can't be cut and pasted from Wiki, forget about it.

[shortonsense]

You can't save a value in a data base because the value is changing every time.

Good example. And an even better one why the companies don't waste their time using it as a metric of any sort.

[shortonsense]

So the time is approaching when a super-efficient solar homestead (like mine) will be more "valuable" then a 5,000 sq. ft. energy-sucking mcmansion. Energy analysis will tell you that right now, not current real estate valuations.

A reasonable statement. Lets see how it works.

The McMansion requires $300/month to heat, cool, pump water around, etc etc. Pee's "homestead" costs $0.

$300 X 12 X 30 = Nominal costs over 30 years of $108,000.

So Pee's home could be expected to be priced $108G's more to make up for the incremental utility cost difference.

So...do we buy a $300G McMansion, or a $408G Pee home? It strikes me that the financing/interest cost difference alone might make up the difference. So someone buying the McMansion on a 15 year mortgage would save more than enough of the $108G's to make the McMansion a steal. What about taxes? Some places taxes might be $1000/year, others might be $3000/year. That $2000/year offset, if it goes towards the McMansion, means now we are down to only a $1000 X 30 differential = $30G's.

I don't know Pee, it strikes me that it sure might take more than a base differential of $300/month to make something half the size, hidden in the tree's and parked next to a humanure pile attractive.

And considering that nearly all the cost of the heating and cooling of the house will be natural gas dependent rather than crude dependent, and we have supplies of that for a couple centuries or so, it might not be a smart move to bet the farm on the value of your place just yet.

[mos6507]

And considering that nearly all the cost of the heating and cooling of the house will be natural gas dependent rather than crude dependent, and we have supplies of that for a couple centuries or so, it might not be a smart move to bet the farm on the value of your place just yet.

At least here in New England that will come at the cost of a large amount of new infrastructure. Most homes here are heated with fuel oil and gas service is unusual in most towns. A lot of power plants around here run on gas, though. I remember an oil drum piece predicting doom for New England's electricity supply due to that. That was pre shale gas, of course.

[shortonsense]

And considering that nearly all the cost of the heating and cooling of the house will be natural gas dependent rather than crude dependent, and we have supplies of that for a couple centuries or so, it might not be a smart move to bet the farm on the value of your place just yet.

At least here in New England that will come at the cost of a large amount of new infrastructure. Most homes here are heated with fuel oil and gas service is unusual in most towns. A lot of power plants around here run on gas, though. I remember an oil drum piece predicting doom for New England's electricity supply due to that. That was pre shale gas, of course.

Plus Simmons was talking up some investments this spring about windmills for Maine...he was claiming they would power the entire state, and make more than enough ammonia on the side to power all the transport in the state as well.

Now thats my kind of Corny!

[mos6507]

Plus Simmons was talking up some investments this spring about windmills for Maine...he was claiming they would power the entire state, and make more than enough ammonia on the side to power all the transport in the state as well.

Now thats my kind of Corny!

Simmons is not a Corny. He may not believe in malthusian die-offs, but he's not a corny.

As for off-shore wind, I support all that stuff, but until it gets off the ground I have to base my vision of the future on them not being there, like Cape Wind that kept being blocked by the likes of Ted Kennedy.