[JustaGirl]

MattS - Sorry, it's rather late here & this is probably a duh question, but are you saying there are over 100 years of NG reserves right now? Do any links for that? Thanks.

[Serial_Worrier]

MattS - Sorry, it's rather late here & this is probably a duh question, but are you saying there are over 100 years of NG reserves right now? Do any links for that? Thanks.

I posted a link which showed, at current consumption rates, that estimates of natural gas run about 60 years. That was somewhere else though. My comment to Rock was more related to how unconventionals have been around a long time, and recently have been "rediscovered" because of economics.
The pure quantities involved in the unconventionals and things like hydrates is simply mind boggling, and most of them aren't counted in that 60 year supply number.

I say drain the earth dry of every last precious drop of energy! My high maintenance lifestyle can't suffer an interruption or by fucking god I'll have to kill myself!

[Dreamtwister]

From an industry stand point it doesn't matter if there is a net energy loss as long as there's profit to be made.

That underscores what has been discussed many, many times on this and other fora. People will keep drilling long after it has become energy efficient, simply because someone is printing dollars at a faster rate than their value is dropping.

And when the value of those little pieces of paper inevitably come crashing down, so will follow the drilling.

And then the lights go out...

[davep]

I'm only seen few real reasonable such analysis. See Pimentel and ethanol for a nice simple textbook example

And even his study is full of errors (all of which try to decrease the EROEI of ethanol). It is a difficult thing to get right, this EROEI.

APPENDIX A

ETHANOL AND EROEI: HOW THE DEBATE HAS BEEN DOMINATED BY ONE VIEW

FOR 25 YEARS, DAVID PIMENTEL AND, IN RECENT YEARS, TAD PATZEK HAVE BEEN
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACADEMIC BASIS FOR MOST OF THE ANTI-ETHANOL
SENSIBILITIES IN THE MAINSTREAM PRESS.

-----

Fig. A-1 Dr. Pimentel's tractor. This enormous 7000 series John Deere is a
close match to the seven-ton tractor in Dr. Pimentel's 2005 study. It can
pull a 12-row corn planter that could plant the entire farm in under four
hours (in air-conditioned comfort). Tractors of this size are used on
farms up to 25 times the size of the farm described in Dr. Pimentel's
study.

-----

For 25 years, David Pimentel, Ph.D. at Cornell University, and, in recent
years, Tad Patzek, Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, have
been responsible for the academic basis for most of the anti-ethanol
sensibilities in the mainstream press, managing perceptions that have even
leaked into Hollywood television (a 2005 episode of The West Wing was an
example). Although dismissed by academics in the field, their studies
continue to receive extensive coverage in both business and environmental
circles. Political realities today cannot reverse the damage done.
Pimentel, now approaching 80 years of age, is a darling of the Peak Oil
movement. He and Dr. Patzek have been essentially alone in publishing
studies alleging that production of alcohol fuel, among other things:

- Has a negative energy balance;

- Is an unethical use of food;

- Pollutes the air;

- Costs the consumer money via subsidies;

- Takes 61% more fuel to go the same number of miles;

- Produces 13 gallons of sewage for every gallon of alcohol produced.

Dr. Pimentel is an entomologist, a studier of bugs, and Dr. Patzek is a
physicist and engineer. Neither of them is trained in ecology. So they are
straying far afield. This was amply borne out in their recent study [l]
when both co-authors failed to catch their misuse of net primary
productivity, a very basic concept in describing world photosynthesis. [2]
In doing so, both also understate the photosynthetic efficiency of plants
in general and corn in particular (so it can't be dismissed as a typo) by
ten times, fully undermining their paper's first major conclusion that
plants are 100 times less efficient than solar panels.

Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.

In their most recent study, [4] Drs. Pimentel and Patzek cite a
self-described "independent" DOE study by the Energy Research Advisory
Board (1980) [5] as their "credible" source as to why we should believe
their negative energy balance allegations. Far from being independent, the
study in question was actually led by Pimentel himself, who was employed
by Mobil Oil at that time. This was not disclosed to the DOE. [6] In light
of this, the conclusion of the ERAB study was not surprising: The U.S.
should abandon attempts at producing ethanol and instead rely on the Mobil
process for making synthetic gasoline from coal. Pimentel today still
champions coal, [7] while his co-author Dr. Patzek stumps for nuclear
power. [8]

The scandal that the study caused at the time resulted in South Dakota
Senator George McGovern convening a Senate investigation to probe whether
"scientists with ties to Mobil Oil ... would rob hundreds of thousands of
American farmers of the opportunity to benefit from gasohol development."
[9]

This dust-up should have ended any normal academic's career. Among
statured, publishing peer-reviewed scientists, no other study has come
close to confirming Pimentel's allegations -- and many are
uncharacteristically candid in pointing out his repeated use of
inappropriate or out-of-date data, or data so lacking in documentation as
to be unable to be evaluated. This is the equivalent of coming to blows in
academia. [10]

Pimentel publicly claims to have never taken money from oil companies,
although he grants it's possible that oil companies have donated money to
Cornell, his sponsoring university. Yet be admitted in a 2004 radio
interview [11] that he took thousands of dollars, and that he was exposed
in 1982 by investigative reporter Jack Anderson as being secretly on the
payroll of Mobil Oil. [12] Following the 1982 expose, Mobil Oil even took
out a large ad to defend Pimentel, while admitting that it paid him. [13]

...

Read more here

Pimentel's EROEI study may be simple, but it's dead wrong.

[TonyPrep]

I posted a link which showed, at current consumption rates, that estimates of natural gas run about 60 years.

Such figures aren't very useful. What is more useful is understanding when production can't keep up with demand. That will be well under 60 years away.

[davep]

I don't have time to read blogs. When Blume publishes in a peer-reviewed professional journal gives me a ring. Until then I will not waste one minute of time arguing Pimentel. I have discussed his methods, analysis, and results for years now and still await professional criticism. Blume is not that.

Again, from the article:

Pimentel's lack of expertise also explains his continuing choice to
publish with the International Association for Mathematical Geology's
Nonrenewable Resources, now renamed Natural Resources Research, (which
handles "all aspects of non-renewable [author's emphasis] resources, both
metallic and non-metallic... "), [3] not a journal known for
peer-reviewing biological papers or those on renewable energy. His peer
reviewers all missed the same glaring errors mentioned above.

It's hard to get professional criticism when your "peers" are not related to your research.