[Outcast_Searcher]

"For practical purposes EROI is bunk."

Fine, then why even bother improving fuel efficiency?

Minimize AGW.

Having more energy to consume as a species when we need it.

For consumers, saving money. For businesses, profits, as you said.

...

People would find, generally, that a mindset of saving, vs. consuming all people can afford from earnings AND borrowing, would lead to a much calmer life, re financial issues, in the long run. It would also be easier on the planet.

This was perhaps the most valuable broad lesson my parents taught me, without having to learn it the hard way (as they did) via the great depression and WWII constraints.

[asg70]

In other words: We are fighting falling EROI by improving fuel efficiency.

Yes. Is it sustainable? No. Will it mean we go off the net energy cliff tomorrow, though? Also no.

[AdamB]

"For practical purposes EROI is bunk."

Fine, then why even bother improving fuel efficiency?

Competitive advantage in the market.

[Yoshua]

Yes, there are many good reasons to improve fuel efficiency...even in the production of fuel...so, yes, EROI obviously matters.

[marmico]

Fine, then why even bother improving fuel efficiency?

Yes, there are many good reasons to improve fuel efficiency

Too funny. In the US passenger vehicle fuel efficiency has increased 80% in the last 50 years, from 14 mpg to 25 mpg.

At T1, 20% of 100 units of gross energy at the oil well head is consumed in the pathway from the well to the gasoline tank. 80 units of net energy moves a passenger vehicle 800 miles.

At T2, 25% of 100 units of gross energy at the well is consumed in the pathway. 75 units of net energy moves a vehicle 1350 miles.

EROI declined by 5 units (6%) and work increased by 550 miles (69%), each per 100 units of gross energy at the well. For practical purposes EROI is bunk.

[diemos]

And yet oil is still finite and the oil age is something that children will read about in their history textbooks one day.

[vtsnowedin]

And yet oil is still finite and the oil age is something that children will read about in their history textbooks one day.

That is if their are any children or textbooks for them to read.

[ROCKMAN]

Yoshua - "I don't know where I'm going with this...". Not an uncommon predicament for most when they try to view the entire fossil fuel consumption of the entire dynamic. And that's simply because as a whole energy consumption DOES NOT create energy. Yes, some aspects, such as fossil fuel extraction, has a net positive net energy increase. But look at the other extreme: refineries, which are a huge NET ENERGY loss. Yes, US refineries run at an EROEI of less then 1. And have done so from the very first cracking run made. Refineries use a significant amount of Btu's (typically from NG) to separate the various components of crude oil into products we consume. Yes, almost every Btu of oil that enters a refinery also exits that refinery. But every Btu of NG that is used to heat the distillation towers is consumed and disappears from the planet for every.

If it's easier just consider one product: gasoline. Every bbl of crude oil contains some % of gasoline molecules. Some only 10% and some can be as high as 40%. But virtually every molecule/Btu of gasoline that enters a refinery also leaves it. But X Btu's of NG are used to heat that oil in a distillation tower where those gasoline molecules are separated from the others and are drawn off. The production of gasoline in a refinery represents a NET LOSS OF ENERGY: gasoline Btu < gasoline Btu + NG Btu. Or, taken as a whole: crude oil Btu < crude oil products Btu + NG Btu. And why? Simple: the value of the product Btu's are worth more then the value of the oil Btu's + the value of the NG Btu's. So again why the EROEI of crude oil refining is not relevant. The refining process has always used more energy then it has produced. But the business has been PROFITABLE while still being a net energy loss.

And obviously every other use of petroleum (farming, construction, etc) represents a net loss of energy. With one possible exception: construction of alt energy sources: dams, wind turbines, solar panels. But taking the global economy as a whole the dynamic is a huge energy sink hole. Always has been because it has been profitable to do so.

[ROCKMAN]

Yoshua - "Total cost $1,250,000 / $2.5 gallon diesel = 500,000 gallons diesel". Sorry, can't follow your logic there. The vast majority of the cost involves no energy consumption. In fact a big chunk is profit margin and salaries made by the service companies. But let's accept your number: taking into account the typical diesel yield of a bbl of oil your 500,000 gal would only represent about 30,000 bbls of oil. If the EROEI is 6 then that would be 180,000 bbls. Which would not be an easy economic analysis to convince management to drill. That may not compute for you and others. But that's because you don't understand how ROR are calculated by the industry. Depending on the price of oil that EROEI might not yield a ROR better then 5%. Taking into account the risk factor that would not be attractive to most companies.

[rockdoc123]

Yes, there are many good reasons to improve fuel efficiency...even in the production of fuel...so, yes, EROI obviously matters.

Incorrect, what matters is making a profit. You can calculate EROI til the cows come home but it will never, ever alter a decision made in the industry, and rightfully so. It is a moving target subject to viewer bias, poor data and poor assumptions.

And once again please identify any item that has anything whatsoever to do with oil and gas production that is not captured through exchange of money? Everything costs, everyone needs to make a profit or they quit providing the service/goods. Pretty simple.

[Yoshua]

The American economy has actually been resilient during the last decade despite all difficulties. The secret might be natural gas? At least without natural gas the situation would had been much harder.

Europe has been resilient despite everything as well. Perhaps our secret has been access to Russian natural gas. Even Russia has survived sanctions and falling oil prices perhaps due to its natural gas reserves.

Shell is betting on natural gas for the future.

The EROI of oil might be close to 1:1 today, but as long as we have natural gas petroleum will be the most energy efficient "battery" to fuel our transportation sector.

I understand that investors might get a bit confused if you offer them ERoEI in return for their investment.
"What the f*** is that? I want my money back!"

[Yoshua]

It is perhaps impossible to calculate the EROI of petroleum production. The monetary value might, even as faulty it is, show the most economic way to produce any product, even fuel. The energy mix and the price on each energy source is perhaps the only reasonable indicator to make a business decision on.

I will leave EROI now...at least for a while.

So...how about... Improving Peak Oil Credibility?

[ROCKMAN]

Yoshua - I wouldn't say impossible but very difficult. Especially when it comes to the needed assumptions about the "sunk" energy used to build out the infrastructure, such as drill rigs, and how to amortize that volume with respect to the number of wells drilled. But it stills rolls back to the basic question: if one were to come up with such an estimate what practical purpose could it be applied to? Even looking at EROEI over a long time period doesn't produce much insight: as I pointed out the claims of EROEI on the order of 100 decades ago lacks any documentation and is absurd. But back to the same question: how useful is it knowing that EROEI has increased (or decreased) over some period of time?

No, I have no idea of what the average EROEI is of wells being drilled today. Nor is it of any use or importance to me. The only ones who seem to see some importance are doomers. I see much more important negatives to focus such as the decline in new discoveries and the increased cost to develop what reserves remain.

[AdamB]

And yet oil is still finite and the oil age is something that children will read about in their history textbooks one day.

Sure. And they'll learn about the amateurs who predicted it multiple times, playing kick the can for decades, and they'll be taught to never listen to oil ignorant group think zealots but to think for themselves instead first, and leave the uninformed zealotry to church meetings.

[AdamB]

So...how about... Improving Peak Oil Credibility?

Good idea!! Any suggestions on how, considering the well has been poisoned by the oil-ignorant zealots, and branded the topic in such a way that it is just a joke at this point?

[asg70]

So...how about... Improving Peak Oil Credibility?

Good idea!! Any suggestions on how, considering the well has been poisoned by the oil-ignorant zealots, and branded the topic in such a way that it is just a joke at this point?

Again, as the catch-phrase goes "it's the data, stupid!"

To create the sense of clear and present danger about oil-supply, you must mount a compelling argument on the backs of the data.

I have seen attempts to do this, but none of them compelling. ETP was nothing if not an attempt to look scientific, was it not? Gail's articles, long-winded as they are, attempt to look as plausible as the old (discredited) Oil Drum articles before it.

The bar has been raised in order to convince people that there is an existential threat posed by peak oil.

[ROCKMAN]

70 - "The bar has been raised in order to convince people that there is an existential threat posed by peak oil." Easy to see why the bar gets set at different levels. Remember oil at $100+/bbl? A growing PO crowd. The oil dropped below $30/bbls and the rats abandoned the ship.

And thus the basic problem: folks who think PO has anything to do with the price of oil. As long as such ignorance abounds the "bar" will continue to fluctuate.

[asg70]

And thus the basic problem: folks who think PO has anything to do with the price of oil.

People don't care about peak-oil per se. They care about their quality of life. That's where oil price matters.

Peak-oil that results in no perceivable impact on quality of life is a topic of only academic interest.

[ROCKMAN]

70 - So true: the opposite side of the same coin. Folks n the US stopped worrying about oil supply when the price dropped below $40/bbl. But that ignores at least a few billion folks on the planet for whom oil was still expensive and out of reach for the most part. Log after the US reached its PO we still had adequate supplies because we could afford to import what we needed. At the same time many times the population of the US suffered for the lack of petroleum. Many countries have long passed their peak oil consumption and will never have anything close to what they once had. Even when that was just a tiny % of the per capita consumption we enjoyed.

[StarvingLion]

They care about their quality of life.

LOL. The Jobless "Consumer". Want to see the stock chart of General Electric since 2001 (aka dollar turning into worthless shit)? Nah, I didn't think so.

Siemens stock has been in total free fall the last 3 months, dropping from 130 to 106.

Siemens and GE employ about 3/4 of a million people more than all those other worthless shit internet companies combined.

And they are rapidly going out of business. They will be out of business by 2023.

I guess they'll all get "jobs" as internet hypesters