I really can't imagine society having any order left by the time EROEI approaches anywhere near 2:1 let alone 1:1.

Judging this graph again even in the most general manner -



And seeing how we're teetering on peak oil today and its logarithmically related net oil decline, the downward slope for both energy and civilization would be better modeled for a freefall? Honestly I'm happy with 3 more years, if we're around in 2012 I'd consider fate very generous.

The concept is very clear and has been put down in very easy to understand terms. I liked the antalope/grass analogy, although that could fall on deaf ears as anyone who doesn't get it probably doesn't realize why they need to eat at all.

If we were to make the analogy with food, I think a more accurate description would be this:

Imagine a village that lives next to a lake full of fish. At the beginning, they didn't know how to fish. One day, they learned fishing. During the first hundred years, they fished as much as they needed to feed their population, and the population grew accordingly. But one day, they reached the point where they started fishing more than was getting replaced by new fish being born (oil in fact is a finite resource, so it's a bit different). They tried new methods of fishing to compensate for the decline, but that only depleted the fish stock faster. At a certain point, no matter what they did, they couldn't keep up the production of fish. Fishermen spent longer and longer hours on the lake for smaller and smaller returns of fish. Logically, fish became more and more expensive, and people turned to other foods. Things reach a point that the amount of effort it takes to catch a fish uses a significant part of the caloric intake of the fishermen. Theoretically, at some point the calories you spend trying to catch a fish are equal to the calories you get from eating the fish and fishing is a worthless exercise, but in practice, people would stop fishing before that.

What happens at the end depends mostly on whether the village can ramp up production of other foods at the required speed, and the caloric content of the other foods compared with the effort it takes to obtain them. If fish was particularly energy-rich and easy to catch originally, even if they can ramp up production of other foods to keep everybody fed, it also means that everybody will have to work longer hours to get the same amount of nutrition. (In oil terms, this means that even if we make the transition to renewables, if the EROEI of the alternative energies is lower, we will have to devote a bigger fraction of our resources simply to keep everything running).

Let's suppose the village won't have enough foodstuffs to keep everybody fed at the current levels (in oil terms, there isn't enough energy to keep things running at current levels). If the villagers were initially overfed, the average weight will drop and they will work longer hours, and they might become healthier than ever before. This is the happy ecological scenario, where waste is reduced, resources start getting used responsibly, and everybody may be happier all around. If you think this is unrealistic, you haven't looked at your bin lately. We are so incredibly wasteful that I wouldn't be surprised if reducing our energy usage by half does our society more good than harm.

But if things go horribly wrong, there will be hunger in the village. In a moderate case, nobody dies straight away from starvation, but they are weaker and malnourished and get sick more easily from any infection. (In oil terms, there are real shortages of essential stuff, not enough to cause a dieoff, but a significant reduction in quality of life and possibly an increase in mortality, mostly because expensive treatment of diseases becomes something for the rich. A WWII type of life.)

Finally, in the "all the hell breaks loose" scenario, many people die of starvation. (In oil terms, collapse of civilization and likely dieoff).

Pick your favorite scenario. Mine is the third.

This is an excellent thread. I think anyone who has been here (PO) for any length of time can see this is just another way to connect the dots about this gargantuan problem. I think personally I had this concept floating around for a while but didnt think it any different from the concept of a geologic peak. For me this all follows that. It makes a lot of sense and it's very intuitive that as we pass the peak (geologically) we are going to accelerate the amountof oil used to get it out of the ground due to the much larger difficulties (and expense) extracting what is left.

This is the foundation of my doomer attitude. I don't see how this can possibly be managed, even If your a true cornucopian. It reminds me of one of the last scenes in the Movie Return of the King. In the battle for Minas Tirith, the Rohirrim has swept the field of Orcs, faced the giant Elephant army and now comes the Nazgul winging its way towards Theoden as he stands frustrated, amazed, and terrified at the threat. His expression in that scene is a perfect allegory for how I feel about what is coming.

The shock, horror, and despair humanity will endure could be immense. I truly hope for something miraculous, but the reality is that we will likely fade away into another dark age. I fear for the future of my children and thiers. It certainly is not a bright one.

I would like to add a corollary to the Net Oil Theory.

Net Oil 2.0: In a closed sytem the marginal decline rate is equal to one half its EROEI. [b]Net Decline = 1 - EROEI/2[b]

This means that any oil well that has less then 2 EROEI is unsustainable. The production of low EROEI oil is predicated on cheap energy else where in the world. So if an oil Co. owns a well the has 2 EROEI it is only worth it to produce from that well if it can get nearly free energy to power the well. If the well has to use its own self produced oil energy to power it then its production will decline.

Proof:

Given-
Well 'A' has EROEI of 1.9
Initial input 100 units of energy.

Cost and revenue for 4 iterations recycling energy:

1st iteration: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 units of energy
2nd iteration: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 -> 'A' -> 361
3rd iteration: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 -> 'A' -> 361 -> 'A' -> 686
4th iteration: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 -> 'A' -> 361 -> 'A' -> 686 -> 'A' -> 1303

Net energy return for each iteration:

1st iteration Net = Revenue(190) - Cost(100) = 90
2nd iteration Net = Revenue(361) - Cost(100 + 190) = 71
3rd iteration Net = Revenue(686) - Cost(100 + 190 + 361) = 35
4th iteration Net = Revenue(1303) - Cost(100 + 190 + 361 + 686) = -34

With each iteration the field gets less marginal return and turns negative after the forth iteration. The costs will in time overun the revenue on any energy source that has less than 2 EROEI. Even if you discounted the initial input as free energy the costs would still over run the revenue on the very next iteration. This is very bad news for the tar sands and America's older oil wells. These marginal sources of energy are only productive because their inputs have very high EROEI and they do not have to recycle their own low yeild energy back into themselves. The result of declining EROEI will be a progressive collapse of oil supplies that feeds on its own vicious cycle of ever greater declines.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but at 1.9 using your self-produced energy you gain 90 units each time.

1: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 = +90

2: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 = +180

3: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 = +270

4: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 = +360

I'm pretty sure the formula to see it over time would be (e = EROEI, x = iteration/time)

y = x(e - 1)

You take 1 from your output each time and the net sum grows. At 1.9 you add .9 to each iteration and because you have more than you started with, the cumulative net increases.

I think you were including your cumulative net in your input each time, which would give you negative results over time. Cumulative net energy is always increasing if EROEI > 1 but does decrease when EROEI <= 1.

But with such low EROEI it is hard to see how it is profitable unless your energy input costs and your labor costs are less than the value of your returned energy. In other words:

(100 energy + ~50 labor) -> 'A' -> 190 = ~+40

But add a few zeros and it doesn't look so bad, I guess.

(sorry for all the edits, just trying to make it coherent...usually I do drafts but I get lazy online.)

I shall correct you. You simply repeated the first iteration four times and did not recycle your net from the first into the second. If you do not recycle the net you are using free energy from else where to pump your well. Here is what the energy recycling formula looks like Net Decline = 1 EROEI/2 using a logorithimic model such as the one you used.

1st: 100 -> 'A' -> 190 = +90
2nd: 90 -> 'A' -> 171 = +81
3rd: 81 -> 'A' -> 154 = +73
4th: 73 -> 'A' -> 139 = +66

Without continious inputs of new energy the low EROEI energy sources will decline. The intial input is like a loan of free energy which must be repaid. If you repay the energy loan then you have only the net to recycle back into the next iteration. If do not repay the loan and carry it forward into the next iteration then your system is still dependent on the free energy from elsewhere. If you remove the free energy input and make it a closed system anything less than 2 EROEI is unsustainable.

I believe this is quite earth shattering because forever it has been thought anything greater 1 to 1 returns would be worth expoiting. The real cutoff point is 2 to 1 returns. As I said even the seasoned doomers will be upset by the net oil concept.

Good job on collecting and presenting info on the so-named Net Oil phenomenon, Novus. It's definitely bad for a society that depends on oil, especially when accompanied by peak oil. You've shown quite effectively that oil will soon become an energy drain, and an energy carrier, rather than an energy source.

And, you've also shown that ANY energy source that has an EROEI of 2 or less will always require outside investments of energy to continue production; however, outside investments will still be profitable and somewhat desireable, unlike with energy sources with an EROEI of around 1 or less. Something tells me that an EROEI of 2 isn't too bad in a society where we're constantly told to invest in this or that. Still, an EROEI of 2 is still kinda bad.

It seems this report has something to do with Net Oil.

Realtime News

Basically, as the price of oil goes up, the cost of extracting that oil is also going up making future development by OPEC uncertain.

I don't think you are correct.

Start with 100 units of energy.
Apply them to pump A and get 190 units of energy.

You now have 90 more units of energy than you started with.

You can take those 90 units of energy and re-invest them into the pump, or you can spend those 90 units of energy doing something else, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that even after spending your 90 extra units of energy, you still have enough energy left (100 units) to do the whole thing again.

Why would one want to spend 100 units of energy to get only 90 units of "spendable" energy? Well, because it's repeatable of course.
If you just spent your 100 initial units of energy you'd be out of energy after that, but by investing those units into the pump, you insure that tommorow you'll have more energy.

(not to say that the pump won't run dry, but all we're dealing with here is an EROEI of less than 2)

in sum:
start with 100e
pump out 190e
spend the 90e on whatever you want but keep 100e to pump with

this is perpetual as long as the oil keeps comming at the same EROEI.

You go wrong when you don't add in other revenue generated and then re invested.

Starting with 100 units of energy, and re-investing all output back into pump A, you have 1303 units of energy after 4 iterations, but you have PRODUCED 1303 + 190 + 361 + 686, it's just that you spent (100+190+361+686)

your net energy after 4 iterations is actually 1303 (current available energy) - 100 (starting energy) = 1203.

I just checked. bdmarti is right. Novus subtracts the investment from the energy returned, where he shouldn't. And EROEI of 1.9 doesn't mean that you invest (lose) 100, get 190 in return, but then lose 100 again, leading to only having 90. Rather, it means you invest (lose) 100 once, and get 190 back, plain and simple.

So, a new example to explain what I mean:

Start with 100 total, our starting energy.
Invest 100, we now have 0 total.
We get back 190. We have 190 total.

We don't subtract 100 again, since we've already lost that before, by investing it before.. Unless, of course, we wish to invest 100 more, in which case:

Start with 190, our current total.
Invest 100, we now have 90 total.
We get back another 190. We now have 280 total.

And thus, there is no need of outside investment, necessarily. Still, good job on the other stuff, Novus!

Good post Novus. It got a number of folks thinking, and the slide rules sliding. The concept is far from new here as it is usually cloaked as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) which is actually a more accurate term, because, as several folks have mentioned; the “energy returned” is often in a different form than the “energy invested”.

One of the most glaring examples of this came to my attention a couple months ago in a paper presented in Science (abstract) which analyzed the efficiency of several corn>ethanol refineries in the Midwest. Although they were more or less a wash EROEI wise, since most of the energy was used in the refining process, and it came from coal/nuclear generated electricity., basically it is a scheme to turn coal/nuclear energy into ethanol/petroleum energy (with a little pork thrown in for the farm belt). Surprising little energy was used in the form of diesel in the harvesting/transport processes.

Novus once again thanks for the orginal post. It is a very useful method. However your corollary is wrong. Try this

Iteration 1
1. you have 100 units of energy
2. you spend all 100 units to pump oil
3. you now have 190 units of energy

Iteration 2
1. you have 190 units of energy
2. you spend all 190 units to pump oil
3. you now have 361 units of energy

Iteration 3
lets stop why? notice no energy leaves the system. No energy for Mom and the Soccer Car and the Soccer Kids. Lets start again and leave some for the Soccer Family

Iteration 1
a. you have 100 units of energy
b. you spend (all-100 units) to pump oil
c. you now have 190 units of energy

Iteration 2
a. you have 190 units of energy
b. you spend (part-only 100 units) to pump oil
c1. you still have 90 units left over to sell to the Soccer Family. You make money.
d You have 190 units of energy

Iteration 3
a. you have 190 units of energy
b. you spend (part-only 100 units) to pump oil
c1. you still have 90 units left over to sell to the Soccer Family. You make money.
d You have 190 units of energy

Iteration 4
a. you have 190 units of energy
b. you spend (part-only 100 units) to pump oil
c1. you still have 90 units left over to sell to the Soccer Family. You make money.
d You have 190 units of energy

and so on

bdmarti, you don't understand the difference between an open and closed systems but I can show you the light.

Lets use a different anology here. I have a business that just took in $190 but I spent a $100 in running my business. How much money did I make today? How much money do I have to reinvest for tommow?

According your you logic I made $190 but in reality I only have $90 after I pay for all my other costs. I only have $90 left over for tomorow. I can't use the $100 tomorrow because I spent it today. That is how EROEI works in a closed system. In an open system I can go to the bank to get outside money and the EROEI would give me positive gains as your logic suggests and my business would do quite well.

My logic is not immediately intuitive because we don't live in a closed system or interact with closed systems. After we understand the difference between open and closed sytems it can become quite logical. The only difference that separates your model from mine is the source of the input. I have internalized the input and you have externalized it. This concept is an abstact thought process that is usefull in determining if oil looked at alone is sustainable as energy source when EROEI drops below 2. This closed system analysis prooves oil will cease to be an energy source if its EROEI drops below 2. After that happens we would need an external energy source with an EROEI greater than 2 to world turning.

Just one other analogy so you can really get the gravity of what I am saying. Look at you body. Do you know how much energy is stored in your various tissues? I tell you it is enough to keep you alive for weeks but only in an open system. If you were to seal yourself in a closed system such as vacuum sealed bag you would die in a matter of minutes. It is not that the EROEI of you body tissues suddenly dropped below 1. Is what changed is that now your tissues were in a closed system where an EROEI greater than 2 is required for survival. The difference between the two types of systems is literally life and death.