[AdamB]

As for asking for specifics. I had thought that you were suggesting particular posts on this site that I could consult. My mistake.

Oh, there are plenty of specific posts, but they are buried in the usual back and forth that goes on around here.

Well, if you've got the $35 to buy the original article, we can start there.
...
PCI delivered a 404 error, and Canning required some form of sign in to gain access to.

I have these publications. Just tell me how to get them to you. Glad to have your feedback.

I'm particularly interested in the first one you mentioned. Can you get it in PDF form, upload it somewhere and PM me a link? However, if you would like another to ponder over that addresses eroei within a empirical global context more similar to how peakers have attempted to use eroei to declare doom (the routine that short tried out around here before tucking tail and running), this one was recently published and is far more inclusive than one interested in just a few Middle Eastern fields.

How about we discuss some more seminal work, and you can point out what is now done correctly, as opposed to what obviously failed? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5999536_Petroleum_Drilling_and_Production_in_the_United_States_Yield_per_Effort_and_Net_Energy_Analysis

From 1981 no less! Seminal indeed.

All scientists start somewhere. This was the beginning of Charlies work.

As I said, I have no expertise whatsoever in that industry. I'd turn to your expertise to point out what's correct and what's not in that publication. Such expertise is why I'm still coming to this site despite its increasing noise.

Seminal work matters. Hubbert's first call for US peak oil in 1950 (which he did in 1938), the beginnings of the symetrical profile in the late 1940's, and then the 1956 origin of the modern church of peak oil. I have spent a little time going through Charlie's evolution as well, after the net energy topic became popular after the rate/time scheme drove most McPeaksters back under their rocks.

[aspera]

I'm particularly interested in the first one you mentioned. Can you get it in PDF form, upload it somewhere and PM me a link?

Done.

[aspera]

A review of EROEI-dynamics energy-transition models.
by Craig D. Rye & Tim Jackson
Energy Policy (2018) 122: 260-272.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.041
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1J4VNv ... QsGorpZE3p

Highlights (from ScienceDirect website)
• Energy-economy interactions can be insightfully simulated in terms of EROEI.
• The EROEI modelling literature highlights a common set of dynamics for energy transitions.
• Principally, energy constraints could drive a reduction in 21st century material prosperity.
• The development of EROEI modelling literature can be studied and divided into sub groups.
• A number of key areas for additional work are identified and discussed.

Abstract (from article) [emphasis added]
The need for an environmentally sustainable economy is indisputable but our understanding of the energy-economy interactions (dynamics) that will occur during the transition is insufficient. This raises fascinating questions on the future of economic growth, energy technology mix and energy availability. The crucial interactions between energy and economy systems can be usefully described in terms of the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) metric (the energy cost of primary energy production). Multiple authors have used this metric to explore the behaviour of the economy over the transition to lower carbon energy sources. The following text is a review of energy-economy models that incorporate the EROEI metric. In particular, the EROEI dynamics literature is found to describe a common set of dynamics associated with the transition to lower EROEI primary energy resources. These include: the rising resource-cost of primary energy production, the short-term misallocation of resources, the short-term overproduction of energy and the potential decline in economic stability. The literature can be divided into groups of related models. Following the review, a number of key areas for additional work are identified and discussed.

[shortonoil]

Some fairly simple calculations tell us when it has to happen "by"; but they don't tell us if it will happen "before". Like a ball game at 20 to 0 in the top of the ninth we are now just running down the clock. In the interlude we get entertained by a Washington, DC rerun of the Young and the Restless starring a cast of Carrot Top, and the wicked witch of the East, Fossil Face Pelosi. Enjoy the show, its free unless one happens to be a tax payer.

Except for the fact that I own oil, and gas mineral rights in 3 states, and have worked for a number of fortune 500 companies, including several minor oil firms.

Adam is a misinformation specialist. His job is ???. But he does it well. However, his knowledge of the subject appears to be fragmented and minimal, and he will often revert to name calling, and misrepresentation of data to enforce his point of view.

The economic consequences of depletion are as old as civilization. They are well documented for ancient Roman mining enterprises. Rome ran into a serious silver shortage about 200 AD when their Iberian silver mines depleted out. But, EROEI is a difficult metric from which to get comprehensive results in economic terms; it is a time, and position dependent variable.

ETP (Total Production Energy) which is a calculated value derived from the Second Law Statement; the entropy rate balance equation for control volumes. It is easily converted to ERoEI from the function 140K - ETP/ 140K, all in BTU (energy content of one gallon of 37.5° API crude). Any gravity of crude could be used by calculating its energy content and changing the 140K figure, and of course any unit of volume can be employed.

Extracting reasonably accurate economic results from EROEI is problematic. The changing nature of currencies effects the outcome, and needs to be constantly adjusted to a time function. But, we have had some success in that area. Etp is a measure of depletion for "petroleum" in "energy" terms. Here is a graph that shows the effect of petroleum depletion on world debt. We also have one with a similar high correlation to the velocity of money. There can be no doubt that EROEI has a significant impact on the world's economic state. The challenge is in isolating that effect; Cutler Cleveland worked a life time on the problem.

[aspera]

But, EROEI is a difficult metric from which to get comprehensive results in economic terms; it is a time, and position dependent variable.

Certainly true from what I've read about EROEI. Morgan's ECoE might prove useful with regard to that problem. He's been very clear (and consistent) on why he presents the ECoE in economic terms, despite pushback.

ETP (Total Production Energy) which is a calculated value derived from the Second Law Statement; the entropy rate balance equation for control volumes.
...
Etp is a measure of depletion for "petroleum" in "energy" terms.

Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article or book on ETP that you can suggest I read?

[AdamB]

I'm particularly interested in the first one you mentioned. Can you get it in PDF form, upload it somewhere and PM me a link?

Done.

Haven't seen a PM yet aspera, did it send okay?

[AdamB]

Except for the fact that I own oil, and gas mineral rights in 3 states, and have worked for a number of fortune 500 companies, including several minor oil firms.

Too bad you didn't learn anything in all that "owning".

Adam is a misinformation specialist.

Yes, that is what scientist types are called nowadays (among Trump voters anyway), "disinformation specialists".

His job is ???. But he does it well.

Of course I do. It took me how many minutes to tell you where your report failed...5? 10 tops?

There can be no doubt that EROEI has a significant impact on the world's economic state.

Prove it. Because the complete removal of your PRIOR claim of attempting it demonstrates that you certainly can't.

[dissident]

Give it a rest, shill. Your "logic" that if some metric or concept is not known in an industry makes it invalid is pure retarded nonsense. It is routine for various human groups engaged in money making to be willfully blind to:

1) the long term viability of their activity/racket
2) the consequences of their activity/racket to the environment and other humans.

EROEI at least tries to tie the oil industry branch analysis to physics. Not voodoo accounting where magical dollars can violate mass-energy conservation, and as long as the Pancho Villa crew at the Fed can print some more fiat everything will be hunky dory.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Give it a rest, shill. Your "logic" that if some metric or concept is not known in an industry makes it invalid is pure retarded nonsense. It is routine for various human groups engaged in money making to be willfully blind to:

1) the long term viability of their activity/racket
2) the consequences of their activity/racket to the environment and other humans.

EROEI at least tries to tie the oil industry branch analysis to physics. Not voodoo accounting where magical dollars can violate mass-energy conservation, and as long as the Pancho Villa crew at the Fed can print some more fiat everything will be hunky dory.

Waving your arms wildly and emoting and calling someone a shill doesb't exactly make a credible case, now does it?

If you think EROEI is some sort of big problem, now or soon, why not demonstrate it in some sort of reasonably credible way? Or at least point to credible articles that do? Bueller?

As rockdoc has pointed out repeatedly, until oil companies are worrying a lot about EROEI, the business of producing oil seems to be going just fine. Also, the electrification of transport will certainly reduce the amount of oil needed for transport in future decades (i.e. most of the demand for oil) -- perhaps almost completely in time. Reducing the scale of any (EROEI problem with oil can only help).

Relax, Francis. A possible long term problem, re EROEI, doesn't mean we have to all hide under the bed, especially until there is meaningful evidence for it.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil ... -products/

[rockdoc123]

As rockdoc has pointed out repeatedly, until oil companies are worrying a lot about EROEI, the business of producing oil seems to be going just fine.

Something I keep pointing out is that because oil and gas companies look at cost/benefit as their main analysis tool EROEI is effectively taken care of simply because there is no free lunch. Each and every bit of energy that would go into producing a barrel of oil is taken into the equation because it costs something. The cost for manpower, equipment, fuel, transportation etc. etc. is all included given each individual along the supply chain must make some profit to stay in business. I've asked Short and his followers a number of times to identify one bit of energy that is free.....and all I hear is crickets. If there was something that was free then who cares? So the considerations (assuming equivalent BTUs) that are important when comparing energy sources is 1.Cost (the cheapest isn't always best but it is one of the measures 2. Volume (the ability of that source to supply the same or more energy than it's competing source and 3. Availability (it might be cheap and in large volumes but if you can't get at it for one reason or another it loses) 4. Environmental and Social Responsibility issues (this is partly taken up in costs but because of the location of certain energy sources CSR as an example may be much more important and some of the issue may not be cost but reputation risk etc).

Various renewables will be able to offset oil and gas when they can beat them soundly in these areas. Advances are being made in areas such as EV's but there is still a lot that needs to be done.

[aspera]

Energy expenditure, economic growth, and the minimum EROI of society.
by Florian Fizaine & Victor Court
Energy Policy (2016), 95: 172-186

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.039
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VbyLy ... d14X0hl1HL

Abstract: [emphasis added]
We estimate energy expenditure for the US and world economies from 1850 to 2012. Periods of high energy expenditure relative to GDP (from 1850 to 1945), or spikes (1973–74 and 1978–79) are associated with low economic growth rates, and periods of low or falling energy expenditure are associated with high and rising economic growth rates (e.g. 1945–1973). Over the period 1960–2010 for which we have continuous year-to-year data for control variables (capital formation, population, and unemployment rate) we estimate that, statistically, in order to enjoy positive growth, the US economy cannot afford to spend more than 11% of its GDP on energy. Given the current energy intensity of the US economy, this translates in a minimum societal EROEI of approximately 11:1 (or a maximum tolerable average price of energy of twice the current level). Granger tests consistently reveal a one way causality running from the level of energy expenditure (as a fraction of GDP) to economic growth in the US between 1960 and 2010. A coherent economic policy should be founded on improving net energy efficiency. This would yield a “double dividend”: increased societal EROEI (through decreased energy intensity of capital investment), and decreased sensitivity to energy price volatility.

[asg70]

A coherent economic policy should be founded on improving net energy efficiency.

Ya think? Instead we have "let's bring back coal", "let's not raise mileage regulations", and "let's not phase out incandescent bulbs".

[aspera]

aspera wrote:
A coherent economic policy should be founded on improving net energy efficiency.

asg:
I didn't write that. It's in the article's abstract.
I did highlight it. It's highlighted since it's the first explicit call for policy-making based on net energy analysis among recent peer-reviewed articles that I've found. Glad to learn of other such calls among recently published work.

[shortonoil]

As rockdoc has pointed out repeatedly, until oil companies are worrying a lot about EROEI, the business of producing oil seems to be going just fine.

That is another absolutely retarded comment! Just because the "industry" doesn't use
gas chromatography, or the Riazi’s property distribution model, or about 10,000 other methodologies does not mean they are not pertinent to the understanding of petroleum, and its production. By starting with a completely false assumption (that is; if the industry does not use it, it is irrelevant by definition) and then building an argument around it is the epitome of disingenuous deceit. It is a half lie build on a false truth, and then declared absolute apriori. The purpose of ERoEI is to gain a better understanding of the status of petroleum depletion, and how long affordable petroleum will be available to the society. If some Texan wants to pump oil out of the ground, and not use ERoEI that is fine. He is not being paid for his intellectual prowess.

The concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested is used through out many areas of science, and engineering. To claim that it is not applicable to an energy production process; that is petroleum, is an oxymoron; it is a contradiction in terms; and it is one made by morons.

[rockdoc123]

That is another absolutely retarded comment! Just because the "industry" doesn't use
gas chromatography, or the Riazi’s property distribution model, or about 10,000 other methodologies does not mean they are not pertinent to the understanding of petroleum, and its production. By starting with a completely false assumption (that is; if the industry does not use it, it is irrelevant by definition) and then building an argument around it is the epitome of disingenuous deceit. It is a half lie build on a false truth, and then declared absolute apriori. The purpose of ERoEI is to gain a better understanding of the status of petroleum depletion, and how long affordable petroleum will be available to the society. If some Texan wants to pump oil out of the ground, and not use ERoEI that is fine. He is not being paid for his intellectual prowess.

read my comment and quit being a sanctimonious twit. First off the oil and gas industry basically invented modern gas chromotography and use it on each and every well drilled as well as in laboratories etc. so I'm not sure where that idiotic comment came from. Second off, who do you think finds, produces and refines oil into products useable by the general populace? Seems to me the very fact we (the industry) never had, nor never will contemplate the concept of EROEI when it can't possibly be as effective a means of measuring energy return on investment as the concept of ROI should be telling. But sure, stand back with almost zero understanding of how oil and gas is created, sequestered, found, produced, refined etc. and pontificate on how you are in the sole position of determining its energy value.......that will convince someone I'm sure. There must be a least a few people here who are a few slices short of a loaf

[dissident]

As rockdoc has pointed out repeatedly, until oil companies are worrying a lot about EROEI, the business of producing oil seems to be going just fine.

That is another absolutely retarded comment! Just because the "industry" doesn't use
gas chromatography, or the Riazi’s property distribution model, or about 10,000 other methodologies does not mean they are not pertinent to the understanding of petroleum, and its production. By starting with a completely false assumption (that is; if the industry does not use it, it is irrelevant by definition) and then building an argument around it is the epitome of disingenuous deceit. It is a half lie build on a false truth, and then declared absolute apriori. The purpose of ERoEI is to gain a better understanding of the status of petroleum depletion, and how long affordable petroleum will be available to the society. If some Texan wants to pump oil out of the ground, and not use ERoEI that is fine. He is not being paid for his intellectual prowess.

The concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested is used through out many areas of science, and engineering. To claim that it is not applicable to an energy production process; that is petroleum, is an oxymoron; it is a contradiction in terms; and it is one made by morons.

So many of these threads are polluted with troll-tard drivel that makes any sane discussion pointless. Trolls make ludicrous claims and then "win" the argument because life is too short to pick through their troll turds and re-balance the discussion. We can see why BAU has so much inertia. Who needs to think when make believe "logic" and smelly chutzpah can be used to shut down anybody pointing out the obvious. Being willfully blind and killing the messenger is vastly easier for these small minds than having to face reality.

The pathological anti-physics thinking afflicts many sectors of the human economy. This includes the financial industry, where they truly believe that money creates reality. But then they experience chronic diseases like the one that became apparent in 2008. Any fix they produce is never a fix and cannot be, by definition. They are ignoring reality and that means epic fail. The oil and gas industry operates in similar delusional vapours and currently the non-conventional part of it is a basic Ponzi racket involving real estate speculation and sucker investors who drink the MSM koolaid about boundless tight gas and "shale oil". US foreign policy is actually predicated on this insane BS. The USA is going to flood the EU with 160+ billion cubic meters per year! LOL. It imported 80 bcm from Canada in 2018. I guess it will have to liquify the flatulence of all the BAU lemmings who want to believe in the endless cornucopia....

[aspera]

Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and material requirements in scenarios of global transition to renewable energies.
by Iñigo Capellán-Péreza, Carlos de Castroa & Luis Javier Miguel Gonzáleza
Energy Strategy Reviews (2019) 26: 100399
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TCd_e ... ZoQbcEjq3S

Highlights [from ScienceDirect]:
• Methodology to assess the energy and material investments associated to renewables.
• Their assessment is critical for the correct planning of renewables' deployment.
• EROI in fast transition scenarios incompatible with high levels of development.
• The transition to renewables may drive a re-materialization of the economy.
• These results put into question the consistence of the Green Growth narrative.

Abstract [from article, emphasis added]:
A novel methodology is developed to dynamically assess the energy and material investments required over time to achieve the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources in the electricity sector. The obtained results indicate that a fast transition achieving a 100% renewable electric system globally by 2060 consistent with the Green Growth narrative could decrease the EROI of the energy system from current ~12:1 to ~3:1 by the mid-century, stabilizing thereafter at ~5:1. These EROI levels are well below the thresholds identified in the literature required to sustain industrial complex societies. Moreover, this transition could drive a substantial rematerialization of the economy, exacerbating risk availability in the future for some minerals. Hence, the results obtained put into question the consistence and viability of the Green Growth narrative.

[rockdoc123]

The oil and gas industry operates in similar delusional vapours and currently the non-conventional part of it is a basic Ponzi racket involving real estate speculation and sucker investors who drink the MSM koolaid about boundless tight gas and "shale oil". US foreign policy is actually predicated on this insane BS. The USA is going to flood the EU with 160+ billion cubic meters per year! LOL. It imported 80 bcm from Canada in 2018.

It might make sense to educate yourself on the topic prior to beaking off, it is clear you haven't a clue about the subject matter. There are literally hundreds of oil and gas companies who have been actively pursuing unconventional plays in the US for the past decade. Over the years a few have been caught out by a swing to low prices whilst they were heavily leveraged but for the vast majority they behave exactly as they are expected to....they reinvest all of their cashflow (with the exception of those few that have dividends) in new drilling, new acreage, A&D etc in order to increase production. As I have shown countless times from company SEC filings most of these companies can easily finance their activities from cash flow and most haven't added much in the way of debt over the past number of years. And production has increased with natural gas increasing from around 3 BCF/d to over 100 BCF/d over the past decade and oil production more than doubling, pretty hard to accomplish that in a decade of "ponzi" scheme. The US exports light oil to Europe and other countries where refineries are in desperate need of that gravity of crude meanwhile importing heavy crude from Canada which is blended with the light crude produced from the shale basins in order to reach Gulf Coast refinery specs, exporting the light crude they can't use for blending (capacity issues) makes absolute perfect sense.

And I will extend the challenge to you. Please identify the energy in the EROEI equation for oil and gas F&D that is completely free. I've been involved in the industry since the seventies and can say with certainty there isn't any....you pay for everything hence the cost of production is fully assummed and given full cycle break even costs are on average around $35-$40/bbl in the US and average price is now $60 (meaning a positive net back to the producer) EROEI is basically meaningless as an industry metric.

[aspera]

Long-Term Estimates of the Energy-Return-on-Investment (EROI) of Coal, Oil, and Gas Global Productions.
by Victor Court & Florian Fizaine
Ecological Economics (2017) 138: 145–159.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.015
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1C17n9 ... iHZ3fmHqAe

Highlights [from ScienceDirect]
• Through a price-based approach we assess the global energy-return-on-investment (EROI) of coal, oil, and gas.
• This is done from their respective beginning of reported production (respectively 1800, 1860, and 1890) to 2012.
• We also present a new theoretical EROI dynamic model based on Dale et al. (2011).
• We find that maximum EROI of global oil and gas productions have both already been reached in the 1930s–40s, respectively around 50(± 15):1 and 150(± 20):1.
• We estimate that the maximum EROI of global coal production will most likely be around 95(± 15):1 around the 2030s.

Abstract [from article]
We use a price-based methodology to assess the global energy-return-on-investment (EROI) of coal, oil, and gas, from the beginning of their reported production (respectively 1800, 1860, and 1890) to 2012. It appears that the EROI of global oil and gas productions reached their maximum values in the 1930s–40s, respectively around 50:1 and 150:1, and have declined subsequently. Furthermore, we suggest that the EROI of global coal production has not yet reached its maximum value. Based on the original work of Dale et al. (2011), we then present a new theoretical dynamic expression of the EROI. Modifications of the original model were needed in order to perform calibrations on each of our price-based historical estimates of coal, oil, and gas global EROI. Theoretical models replicate the fact that maximum EROIs of global oil and gas productions have both already been reached while this is not the case for coal. In a prospective exercise, the models show the pace of the expected EROIs decrease for oil and gas in the coming century. Regarding coal, models are helpful to estimate the value and date of the EROI peak, which will most likely occur between 2025 and 2045, around a value of 95(± 15):1.

[aspera]

A New Approach to Calculating the “Corporate” EROI.
by Celi, Volpe, Pardi & Siboni
BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality (2018) 3:15
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-018-0048-1
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZL5tj ... f3wQZwc60-

Abstract [from article]:
The EROI is one of the most important indices to evaluate the net energy output of a source of primary energy (there is a lively debate on the usability of this kind of parameter, but here we will use it under the hypothesis that it is a good way to establish if an oil company has a level of efficiency close to other energetic sources). It is generally defined as the ratio between the energy extracted by a given resource and the energy costs sustained to extract that energy. We tried to set up an alternative method for the calculation of the EROI, taking (1) as a proxy of the energy costs the available data about the CO2 emissions of the oil companies, as reported in the sustainability reports (SRs), recommended by the international organisms such as IPCC and WBCSD, although not mandatory, and (2) as a proxy of the energy extracted the CO2 emissions estimate obtained by a stoichiometric conversion of the oil/gas production declared by the oil companies. Both proxies have been also corrected to take into account the different CO2 emission rate per unit energy of oil and gas. The resulting estimates of EROI are rather homogeneous and not too different from the values reported in the literature. The method could be suitable for year-by-year comparison of the time evolution of this important energy quality parameter for the individual energy producing and energy-delivering companies.