[dinopello]

Nevermind that even if the EROEI was negative it would still not mean anything. We as a species need liquid fuel for transportation.

I don't think we really need liquid transport fuel, or at least the amount of fuel we use now to keep project civilization going.
...

I think it's a survivable loss.

While I don't agree with Lonesnark that it is a requirement for our species, I think he is dead on (pardon the pun) for many in our society who's survival absolutely depends on motoring around everywhere for everything all of the time. Never mind goods transport, but many's basic needs are only able to be obtained by personal motoring. Take away that or make it too expensive, they shrivel up and die. So, for them it is a desperate situation for survival. They will believe any thing, pay any price, etc etc for even an inkling of hope of keeping the cars running affordably another day, because it is tantamount to their survival.

[Dezakin]

Nevermind that even if the EROEI was negative it would still not mean anything. We as a species need liquid fuel for transportation. If we have non-liquid fuel in abundance then even a EROEI negative process turning it into liquid fuel makes both logical and economic sense.

This assumes there is another better, cruder, cheaper, more abundant, or easier-to-get and available energy for the conversion. What would that be? dilithium crystals perhaps? fusion? wind? tesla black light energy? good vibes?

Nuclear and wind. Duh.

[Tyler_JC]

Pstarr also doesn't understand (or is ignoring) the deference between return on investment and energy return on energy invested.

The first is a concrete accounting term.

The second is fuzzy math.

Any petroleum engineer, coal mine executive, or power plant manager who tries to explain a project in terms of EROEI is going to get fired. Nobody cares about EROEI.

The only reason that people ever talk about EROEI is that if you burn 10 barrels of oil to produce 9 barrels of oil, you are wasting you time. Mostly because the cost of the 10 barrels is greater than the value of the 9 barrels.

Input>Output=Unprofitable.

But we aren't anywhere near that point because coal is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. We can convert large amounts of coal into oil without worrying about the EROEI because we care more about liquid transport fuel than electricity.

Moreover, LoneSnark's figure is way off.

Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is MUCH cheaper than $2.66 per million BTU. It has a lower energy content but a much lower sulfur content (less polluting and thus less pollution costs) and it costs about $12/ton, not $74.

Assuming a 1/3 lower efficiency, Wyoming Powder River Basin coal costs about 60 cents per million BTUs...compared to $16/million BTUs for gasoline.

Pstarr, do you not see the opportunity for energy arbitrage?

Even at an EROEI of 1:26 (taking 26 units of coal energy to make 1 unit of oil energy), the company could still make a profit in terms of Input Vs. Output.

Granted, there are other costs than energy involved in the equation.

Let's say that energy is only 20% of the costs of running this project (which is a ludicrously low figure and weakens my argument but does not refute it).

That means that an EROEI of 1:5 is profitable. We can turn 5 units of coal and turn it into only 1 unit of oil energy and STILL make a profit.

And at the end of the day, all we care about is profits, not this EROEI nonsense.

[Tyler_JC]

Nevermind that even if the EROEI was negative it would still not mean anything. We as a species need liquid fuel for transportation.

I don't think we really need liquid transport fuel, or at least the amount of fuel we use now to keep project civilization going.
...

I think it's a survivable loss.

While I don't agree with Lonesnark that it is a requirement for our species, I think he is dead on (pardon the pun) for many in our society who's survival absolutely depends on motoring around everywhere for everything all of the time. Never mind goods transport, but many's basic needs are only able to be obtained by personal motoring. Take away that or make it too expensive, they shrivel up and die. So, for them it is a desperate situation for survival. They will believe any thing, pay any price, etc etc for even an inkling of hope of keeping the cars running affordably another day, because it is tantamount to their survival.

And we can't transport stuff without liquid fuels?

I'm saying that we can't fly stuff around without liquid fuels but I'm pretty sure that trains can run on electricity.

[Tyler_JC]

Anyway this thread is about Shale and my comment in particular was about the negative energy return. How we can replace our primary energy petroleum with an energy that is used up in its own acquisition. This sounds like magic or voodoo.

We just told you how.

We turn cheap coal into expensive oil.

It's energy arbitrage and it works just fine until the coal gets too expensive.

[dinopello]

I'm saying that we can't fly stuff around without liquid fuels but I'm pretty sure that trains can run on electricity.

That's why the rail stock!

How about flying stuff around with blimps ?

[TonyPrep]

Nobody cares about EROEI.

Well, that's patently wrong. I read a lot of discussions about EROEI, so many people do care about it. If the energy inputs cost less that you get for the energy outputs, then a profit can still be made but does it ultimately make sense? That is debatable. In our high consuming, growth worshipping societies, of course, it makes perfect sense, unfortunately, to discard low cost energy sources in order to get at a high cost energy source that's so useful. But to say no one cares is, frankly, absurd.

But we aren't anywhere near that point because coal is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. We can convert large amounts of coal into oil without worrying about the EROEI because we care more about liquid transport fuel than electricity.

So, it could be a toss up, soon, between using the coal for transport fuel or using it for electricity and heat.

And at the end of the day, all we care about is profits, not this EROEI nonsense.

We'll you got that right, if "we" is society in general. Oh boy, we really do have a crude awakening in front of us.

[TonyPrep]

I'm saying that we can't fly stuff around without liquid fuels but I'm pretty sure that trains can run on electricity.

But if more and more coal goes to producing liquid fuels ...

[TheDude]

I'm saying that we can't fly stuff around without liquid fuels but I'm pretty sure that trains can run on electricity.

That's why the rail stock!

How about flying stuff around with blimps ?

American Blimp used to do test runs over my house in the early 90s. Works great until we reach Peak Helium.

The only reason that people ever talk about EROEI is that if you burn 10 barrels of oil to produce 9 barrels of oil, you are wasting you time. Mostly because the cost of the 10 barrels is greater than the value of the 9 barrels.

We're hearing a lot about it in these forums because people are concerned about the choices we're making for energy alternatives. We've ignored it in the past because of oil's excellent returns, but should we continue to do so now? Do you think corn ethanol is sustainable even though its EROEI sucks? It's certainly profitable for its producers, but when the land's worn out and the subsidies dry up and NG peaks what then?

[vampyregirl]

EROEI has to be taken into consideration. Production costs and market potential have to be carefully weighed in.
At current oil prices Shale production can now be profitable and that is not according to me that is according to the board of directors who have undoubtly seen more data than i have and probably know more about this subject than anyone on this forum.
As i have said before energy producers can't afford to be gamblers, they have to be calculated risk takers.
In the past shale was to much risk because of the high production cost. Today that has changed.
Lets just sit back and see how events unfold

[TonyPrep]

Lets just sit back and see how events unfold

Isn't that what the world has been doing for decades? At some point, we have to do something or face the consequences.

[LoneSnark]

Our coal is subsidized by massive amounts of petroleum energy. Very large machines, most of them driven by diesel and natural gas, are necessary to mine coal today. It is not done with a pick and a shovel and a mule. Coal trains and huge diggers cost a lot of energy. You need to prove that there is enough energy in coal to mine coal. I am not sure that is true anymore.

Well, since they are burning oil which costs over 20 times more per BTU to mine coal, then we can guarantee that mining coal consumes less than 1/20th the energy it produces. Otherwise their oil bill would exceed their coal revenue and they would go bankrupt.

But you are making a fundamental mistake: no one is suggesting economics trumps thermodynamics. We are saying economics already takes thermodynamics into account. A mine which burns more coal than it produces is unprofitable and must be closed. The only difference between the two is that economics takes into account the whole of reality, not just energy.

That said, in Europe, to avoid diesel taxes the digging equipment is often powered by electricity through high voltage extension cords and dump trucks are replaced by narrow guage rail or conveyor belts which can be picked up and moved by the digging equipment.

[Tyler_JC]

EROEI is a part of the formula for ROI (return on investment).

Currently Wyoming coal sells for $15/ton.

It has an energy content of 8700BTUs/Pound or 17.4 million BTUs per ton.

The cost per million BTU is 86 cents for Wyoming Powder River Basin Coal.

Coincidentally, the energy content of one ton of coal is the same as exactly 3 barrels of oil. EIA Energy Kids Page (Energy Calculator)

Those 3 barrels of crude oil will cost $270 at $90/barrel.

Thus, coal mining makes sense if and only if the energy return on energy invested is at LEAST 18.

$270/$15=18 EROEI.

And that assumes that there are NO other costs involved in coal mining.

Even pretending that oil is as much as half the cost of coal mining (which it clearly isn't), the EROEI of coal must be at least 36.

Otherwise coal mines would go bankrupt, no?

They couldn't afford to mine the coal because the oil input would cost too much.

[TonyPrep]

EROEI is a part of the formula for ROI (return on investment).

Currently Wyoming coal sells for $15/ton.

It has an energy content of 8700BTUs/Pound or 17.4 million BTUs per ton.

The cost per million BTU is 86 cents for Wyoming Powder River Basin Coal.

Coincidentally, the energy content of one ton of coal is the same as exactly 3 barrels of oil. EIA Energy Kids Page (Energy Calculator)

Those 3 barrels of crude oil will cost $270 at $90/barrel.

Thus, coal mining makes sense if and only if the energy return on energy invested is at LEAST 18.

$270/$15=18 EROEI.

And that assumes that there are NO other costs involved in coal mining.

Even pretending that oil is as much as half the cost of coal mining (which it clearly isn't), the EROEI of coal must be at least 36.

Otherwise coal mines would go bankrupt, no?

They couldn't afford to mine the coal because the oil input would cost too much.

I'm not sure that this is the right way to look at the issue. We're told that Saudi light crude costs only $2 or less to get out of the ground (per barrel). So market prices are not a good guide to EROEI. In order to determine the EROEI of coal, we'd need to look at all of the energy inputs and the energy outputs. Has anyone done that work, for different coal grades, concentrations and mining techniques?

[LoneSnark]

Petroleum is drilled once and flows under it's own pressure to the refinery, until the well runs dry.

In Saudi Arabia, no where else. If you want a barrel of oil then you need to get it from tar sands, which involves mining the sand and burning copious amounts of NG or coal to extract it from the sand.

Coal does not need to be extracted from sand; coal is coal, just haul it to the surface and set it on fire, you get power.

This being the case, oil is far harder to obtain than coal. As such, for the same energy coal is far cheaper, which means we have a solvable system. The price of oil is set by the price of coal multiplied by the EROEI of the tar sands. If it requires five BTUs of coal to extract one BTU of tar-sand oil then the price of tar-sand oil BTUs will tend towards at least five times that of coal BTUs. Either that, or we find a more efficient way to drive our cars on coal and all the tar-sand fascilities shut down.