How so?shortonsense wrote:TonyPrep wrote:Of course it would make sense to the energy company. It makes no sense to anyone else (except you and the cornies), unless that gas is stranded.shortonsense wrote:What if the company invested 3 barrel equivalents of natural gas energy to get 2 barrels of oil out? They could make money.
From the climate perspective, it makes no sense at all.
I think you missed the point on this one Tony.
I agree that an energy producing company will always consider the bottom line when making energy development decisions. But it still doesn't make good energy sense to put more energy into producing energy than the energy so produced, even if the company is making a profit in so doing. Of course, there will be occasions when the energy input, or a large part of it, is energy that can't be easily used for useful work elsewhere in society but can be usefully employed in producing a more useful form of energy, even if energy is lost. So, in some cases, it makes sense, but for society, generally, to put more energy into producing the energy it consumes, is not wise and not sustainable.
In terms of the climate, using an energy source that produces greenhouse gases when consumed, to produce an energy source that produces greenhouse gases when consumed is a double climate whammy, and bad news whatever the profit to the producing company is.