[John_A]

So you are saying that you believe there is more energy put into manufacturing a gallon of diesel than you get out of it!

Please confirm this is what you believe?

But of course. It can be no other way. 42 gallons of crude + energy (approx 210 kwH, a guesstimate) = 10 gallons of diesel + other stuff.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=327&t=9

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Excl ... 318454.php

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energ ... d_868.html

[John_A]

EROI is but one of many parameters to consider when analyzing the viability of any of alternative plays.

[/quote]

As has already been pointed out, EROEI has never been used to analyze viability of any geologic play. Ever. Or well. Or project. Or field.

Repeating a falsehood will not make it the truth.

There are no silver bullets. Just painful bullets to bite on and loads of BS being dumped on us in shovel-ready form.

Agreed. Peak oil in 2005 being one of the more amusing ones. And those experts not even telling us about the other trillions of barrels of liquid fuels we can have from all the stuff they studiously avoided talking about.

[Keith_McClary]

Quinny - Have you ever read why I don't try to teach pigs to roller skate? Simple actually: because it would only frustrate me and irritate the pigs. Essentially doesn't do anyone any good. But I do admit an occasion urge to slap some inlines onto one of those porkers. LOL

You could try a skateboard

but it still wouldn't do anyone any good.

[Quinny]

Are you going to clarify or not?

EROI is but one of many parameters to consider when analyzing the viability of any of alternative plays.

As has already been pointed out, EROEI has never been used to analyze viability of any geologic play. Ever. Or well. Or project. Or field.

Repeating a falsehood will not make it the truth.

There are no silver bullets. Just painful bullets to bite on and loads of BS being dumped on us in shovel-ready form.

Agreed. Peak oil in 2005 being one of the more amusing ones. And those experts not even telling us about the other trillions of barrels of liquid fuels we can have from all the stuff they studiously avoided talking about.[/quote]

[Quinny]

I am not trying to muddy up the waters, to the contrary I am trying to clarify!

I apparently posted too soon for you to read my explanation

John wants to muddy the water by expanding the scope of fossil-fuel net-energy analysis to include the entire universe.

Pstarr,

Yes it looks like we posted just a few minutes apart.

I think it is both John_A AND Quinny who are having fun here by muddying up the discussion waters.

EROI is but one of many parameters to consider when analyzing the viability of any of alternative plays.
As the truth slowly "leaks" out, we start learning that the Alberta Tar sands are consuming in a nonrenewable way, huge amounts of water (that cannot safely be returned to the eco-sphere),
that corn ethanol uses large amounts of FF-produced fertilizers and reduces the food supply,
and so on.

There are no silver bullets. Just painful bullets to bite on and loads of BS being dumped on us in shovel-ready form.

[Quinny]

Looks like we'll never know.

[John_A]

Looks like we'll never know.

I agree. By the time we know what peak oil is real, it will probably be so far over we'll be worried about peak hydrogen on the sun or something.

[Quinny]

You know what I mean. You made 2 statements one saying that NOBODY takes into account historical inputs and then one where you said there's much more energy goes into manufacturing diesel than you can get out of it.

Do you really believe them both - or any of them?

Looks like we'll never know.

I agree. By the time we know what peak oil is real, it will probably be so far over we'll be worried about peak hydrogen on the sun or something.

[John_A]

You know what I mean. You made 2 statements one saying that NOBODY takes into account historical inputs and then one where you said there's much more energy goes into manufacturing diesel than you can get out of it.

Do you really believe them both - or any of them?

Believe in the 2nd Law? Sure. Believe that no one that I have ever seen or heard of has accounted for the energy involved in the geologic processes to create oil? Sure.

[Strummer]

The 2nd law has absolutely nothing to to with this discussion. Peak Oil / EROEI is about extraction and utilization of energy by living organisms, within the context of the Earth, which is an open system, not a closed one. Your 2nd law ramblings are totally off topic.

[Quinny]

John A - I didn't ask whether you believed in the 2nd Law. It seems you are reluctant to answer the questions about the two contradictory statements that you have previously made. I can only assume you know they are contradictory and are just avoiding the issue. Anyone with a bone of honesty would simply say OK I made a mistake and clarify what they really believe.

I along with the majority of posters on this site fully understand the 2nd law, but as pointed out by others the inputs that matter are the ones expended during extraction and manufacture; not those during the creation of crude oil.

Either be honest or stop posting !

You know what I mean. You made 2 statements one saying that NOBODY takes into account historical inputs and then one where you said there's much more energy goes into manufacturing diesel than you can get out of it.

Do you really believe them both - or any of them?

Believe in the 2nd Law? Sure. Believe that no one that I have ever seen or heard of has accounted for the energy involved in the geologic processes to create oil? Sure.

[John_A]

The 2nd law has absolutely nothing to to with this discussion.

Yes. It doesn't. Just like EROEI doesn't.

But that doesn't stop Charlie Hall from getting it wrong and trying to relate it to peak oil now does it?

[John_A]

John, you apparently you made two contradictory statements;
--no one measures EROEI,
--the net-energy returned on the manufacture of of diesel fuel is not positive.

Do try and keep up.

Of course folks measure EROEI, and as long as they don't pretend it has anything to do with oil and gas production, let alone proving while they try that they understand nothing about said business, I have no objection.

And there is no net energy returned on the manufacture of diesel because more energy goes into the manufacture than the diesel contains when it comes out of the refinery. This is the 2nd Law in action that appears to now be objected to, when in fact it cannot be contradicted to date, let alone objected to by those who apparently aren't familiar with it.

[John_A]

John A - I didn't ask whether you believed in the 2nd Law.

It seems you are reluctant to answer the questions about the two contradictory statements that you have previously made.

Perhaps you can cite the exact statement, because certainly I do not plan on being held accountable for your INTERPRETATION of anything I've said.

The word "historical", for example, versus I would normally say "geologic". Don't like it? Unfortunate, but the difference matters depending on context.

I have no objection to semantic games, but if you think I made contradictory statements, and when I clarify you cannot find in those words the ability to reconcile your interpretation with how you think I have been trapped, then I suggest that it is because I am consistent and not falling into the semantic game you are trying to play.

This isn't hard. Use the exact quote you think I said, and the other exact quote that you think contradicts it. Don't plug in words you THINK I said, like "historic" instead of geologic, or confuse my defense of past words across multiple posts.

Just provide the two quotes and I would be happy to explain, as I thought I already had.

I have already answered the questions I THOUGHT you were asking, you are apparently avoiding providing exactly the quotes because it does not allow the semantic game you have in mind. Sorry to be consistent enough that it isn't working well.

I can only assume you know they are contradictory and are just avoiding the issue. Anyone with a bone of honesty would simply say OK I made a mistake and clarify what they really believe.

You can't even provide the quote where the mistake was supposedly made, instead simply saying "I asked and you didn't answer...I asked and you didn't answer..." Obviously I then did answer what I thought was the question, and you are still disappointed that I have fallen into the trap you would like to set.

Provide the contradictory quotes, not your interpretation, and I will either explain why they are not contradictory, or admit that I was wrong. No problem. But I am NOT explaining someones interpretation of my words, I do my best to write what I mean exactly to avoid such tap dancing nonsense.

[John_A]

Dr. Hall is wrong? In what way? Which of 200 published articles do you refer?

The one I provided in footnote form to show Strummer that net energy has already been used to show that the oil and gas industry is affected by it.

Feel free to review the relevant posts prior to jumping into the middle of a conversation where these questions have already been answered.