Abstract
Methods
Results
Comments
I apologize for the quick and dirty upload. My schedule at the present doesn’t give me the time to put a web site up for this, but I thought some readers here would appreciate taking a look at this.

Nice presentation on EROEI...

Thanks and let us know if you need a hand with putting a site
together, you might get some volunteers...

Thank you for your efforts.

I don't understand the graph.

If I understand it correctly it is saying that available energy will decline prior to peak and even faster than the overall production decline curve.

The net effect on us is A) starts earlier B) Gets crappy faster

Makes sense when the fact that the highest quality/easiest to extract stuff went first (some time ago now).

I'm not sure what it's saying.

Seems the direction is . . .

Peak of Energy Available will be before production peak.

But, by way of constructive criticism, the graph is not readily interpretable and the descriptions don't do much to clear it up.

I know what you're saying, that's why I posted the summary in the
last link to this thread...

steam_cannon said:



Thanks very much for your encouraging comment.

Your offer to help put up a site is very much appreciated. I haven’t put up a site in about four years, and in the web construction business four years turns one’s skills into a collection of antiques. I’ll drop you a line in a couple of weeks. Thanks again.

wisconsin_cur said:



That is a very good non mathematical description of the situation winconsin. If this analysis holds for fields world wide, what you said is what we will get. Because of the close mathematical relationship between the logistic curve and the ERoEI curve, it seems highly likely that is what will happen.

To get a statistically significant sample of the world’s 14,000 fields, if the present know variance stays constant, will take about 60 samples. Then we will have a fairly precise picture of just “how crappy” and “how fast” it will get.

Cashmere said:

.

Any suggestions are welcome. Could you explain a little more about what you aren’t getting from the graph. Thanks.

Thank you. It is the best that I can hope for when it comes mathematical subjects.

How are you defining useful?

yesplease said:



As defined by the Gibbs free energy equation. That is, energy that is available to do work. There really is no other definition, unless one exist outside the known universe.

What does that mean?

Now I don't understand the graph and I don't understand Cannon's citation to a link.

Look, OP, no offense, but if I spend 10 minutes trying to figure out your graph and I don't get it, then it will be useless for all but a few people. If your target audience is the few people with your background, then you're good. If not, then why spend the time?

Exact thoughts - the 1.089 is floating - why not have it off to the right and connect it with a line to the proper curve?
-What is that number? Area under the curve?
-Why is it useful? It seems to just clutter the graph without adding anything.
-Total AE is measured in what? Barrels, on y-axis?

Definitely consider a legend - the floating text, while presumptively corresponding to the line it breaks, is cluttering.
-If total AE is not measured in barrels, then why is it there?
-If total AE is measured in barrels, then about the year 2000 it would appear that the graph is indicating that the total AE is close to zero.
-What the hell does that mean?
-Why say "per unit of crude". Why not just say what the unit is?
-Why have two superimposed axes? Why not just put one on the right side of the graph, which is the convention?
-What does the 12% represent?

In short, it's a cluttered mess that didn't communicate anything to me. Once again, I suppose somebody with greater math skills than me (maybe .01% of the population) and greater knowledge of the exact thing of which you speak (maybe .01%) would get something out of it - Beyond that, like I said, too cluttered and esoteric to be useful.

The greatest teacher is not usually the greatest intellect, and it stuns me sometimes how otherwise brilliant people lack the rather simple skill of teaching what one knows in a manner that is interpretable by the target audience.

Sure there is, just not in the same context, which is what I was wondering about. According to useful as related to Gibbs energy, the actual use does not matter, all that is of concern is how much energy is available for work. There is no differentiation between me using ten gallons of refined oil to move myself and and another a thousand miles and using ten gallons of gas to fuel a bonfire in my front yard because I want to.

Thanks for taking the time to break this down cashmere, but yes, I was looking for a wider review from a pier group. At the top of the abstract it says “abridged and preliminary” and that is exactly what it is. In the post part, if you notice, it says, “but I thought some readers here would appreciate taking a look at this.” I was looking for a critic from a few readers who understood what I was presenting, and that is what I have gotten. So far, although reserved, they have mainly been supportive.

To try an answer some of your questions, I’ll take them one at a time.

The text is in red, as the Total AE curve is, indicating that it belongs to the Total AE curve. It is only significant in that it shows that an empirical evaluation can be made at any point on the curve. I should have a pointer to the peak value of the curve to indicate its exact reference point. Thanks for pointing that out.

The 12% represents the portion of AE remaing in the field after peak. The total area under the curve is of course 100%. That is, after peak, only 12% of the available energy remained to be extracted. This implies that the majority of the energy was extracted before the field peaked.

It is useful because it tells us that there was very little energy remaining to be extracted in the second half of the fields life span. It was mostly taken during the first half of the fields production period.

Being and engineer trained in the last millennium, I prefer BTU, but any unit of energy is acceptable. Joules, ergs .. etc.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will in the future, but as I said this was quick and dirty.

Barrels are not an energy unit, they are too inexact to be used in that manner. For example; a barrel of WTI has about 12,000 more BTU in it than a barrel of Canadian road tar. The primary reason is the study is about energy from oil, not specifically oil. For the most part we don’t use oil, we mostly utilize the energy that we extract from it.

The graph is asymptotic, it approaches 1, but never quite gets there. As stated above, Total AE is measure in energy units. US fields are rapidly approaching the date when, even if they are still producing oil, it will not be contributing any energy for the production of NEGS. They will just be producing enough energy to pump themselves. This is of course the theoretical projection from the equations. In the real world, other loses in the system are likely to make them energy losers.

I think I answered your question above, if I didn’t let me know.

The unit can be anything, that is, the conclusions are dimensionless. The unit can be cubic feet, cubic meters, tons, barrels ...etc. They can all be converted to the end parameters.

The X axis is common to all the curves, and represents time. As you are aware, we are entering a period of crisis pertaining to energy, and oil depletion appears to be the primary culprit. The approach to energy taken by Cleveland and Kaufman is undoubtedly superior to the current neo-classical economic view. This research is an attempt to expand on their work by explaining the phenomenon from a strictly thermodynamic perspective.

Misconceptions about our energy situation within the public and the government are restricting policy formation that is now needed for a required response. It is hoped that this research can advance an agenda to address this issue. There will be a site constructed in the near future to help people understand this subject a little better. Your attention to this post will be used to help build that site, thank you again for taking the time and effort to explain your view.