desperation - a nice example of declining energy intensity

[emordnilap]

Everybody on this board except certain trolls understands about energy intensity. The more energy polluters want to pump, the more energy is burned getting it, the ultimate being negative EROEI.

Located in the northern part of the Caspian, at 4200 meters below the seabed and mixed with high-pressured metal-eating hydrogen sulphide (H2S), the oil seemed a hard prize to win from the outset. To tap into the reservoir new technologies had to be developed and 10 artificial islets had to be built in freezing temperatures of -40°. Given its high development costs, the field would have been feasible only in a high oil price environment.

This is Kashagan in Kazakhstan. Four kilometres. These pollution lovers are mad bonkers and getting madder and bonkier. Fifty billion dollars and who-knows how much extra greenhouse gases later, it's obvious the Kazakhstani government are as crazy as them (and us) to allow such nonsense.

Source

[Ralph]

Everybody on this board except certain trolls understands about energy intensity.

I'm guessing that if someone knows NOTHING about energy intensity, they already have a better understanding than those who specifically twist it into something it isn't.

The more energy polluters want to pump, the more energy is burned getting it, the ultimate being negative EROEI.

See what I mean. EROEI can't be negative, because the numerator of the equation cannot be negative, it isn't possible to have negative energy, energy returned on a given investment can be zero, but it can never be negative.

And thank you for providing demonstration of my previous statement so quickly.

[kenneal - lagger]

The energy returned on an investment can be zero if it equals the amount of energy invested to produce that energy. It can also be less than the energy used to extract that energy so from the point of view of EROEI it can be said to be a negative investment. That doesn't mean that the EROEI is zero or even a negative figure, it can only be less than ONE.

Charles Hall is of the opinion that any energy produced at less than about 1.5 gives a net loss of energy to the system and that any energy produced at less than about 5 can make that energy an economic loss to the system as well.

[emordnilap]

Charles Hall is of the opinion that any energy produced at less than about 1.5 gives a net loss of energy to the system and that any energy produced at less than about 5 can make that energy an economic loss to the system as well.

Precisely the point. Thanks for staying on topic ken.

Oh, using two units of energy to produce one is a negative.

[vtsnowedin]

Charles Hall is of the opinion that any energy produced at less than about 1.5 gives a net loss of energy to the system and that any energy produced at less than about 5 can make that energy an economic loss to the system as well.

Precisely the point. Thanks for staying on topic ken.

Oh, using two units of energy to produce one is a negative.

using two to make one would be an EROEI of 0.5. Less then one but not negative in a math sense. All the bad investments in terms of EROEI fall between 0 and 1. That we feel negative about them does not give them a minus sign prefix.

[emordnilap]

Yes but two in, one out? I'm minus one.

Anyway, the issue is clear and semantic straw men are as pointless as trolling.

[Ralph]

The energy returned on an investment can be zero if it equals the amount of energy invested to produce that energy.

Zero doesn't equal the amount invested unless the amount invested is zero. Any energy invested, returning a zero result, creates an EROEI of 0. Not negative.

Somebody get the other Ralph guy involved here, I hear he is well educated and can explain how numerators and denominators work.

Charles Hall is of the opinion that any energy produced at less than about 1.5 gives a net loss of energy to the system and that any energy produced at less than about 5 can make that energy an economic loss to the system as well.

Charles Hall was of the opinion that net energy would stop all oil and gas drilling in the US by the year 2000. Not only was he wrong, he was SPECTACULARLY wrong, in part because of his ignorance of industry particulars, including, but not limited to, the basics of resource economics.

Do you have a reference who has experience in, or knows anything about, the industry we are discussing? Because Charlie, he has already been busted on trying to use a dumb idea to stake a claim. And that claim…it was BAD.

[Ralph]

Charles Hall is of the opinion that any energy produced at less than about 1.5 gives a net loss of energy to the system and that any energy produced at less than about 5 can make that energy an economic loss to the system as well.

Precisely the point. Thanks for staying on topic ken.

Oh, using two units of energy to produce one is a negative.

using two to make one would be an EROEI of 0.5. Less then one but not negative in a math sense. All the bad investments in terms of EROEI fall between 0 and 1. That we feel negative about them does not give them a minus sign prefix.

Obviously. The idea that people still understand EROEI so poorly that they make this mistake is astounding. Isn't it a requirement of LEARNING something about these kinds of things that we actually LEARN, rather than spouting random nonsense and hoping that herd think just nods vigorously in our direction to encourage us…or does herd think do that because once you are taught to only speak the dogma, you stick with it no matter how wrong it is?

[Ralph]

Charles Hall is of the opinion that any energy produced at less than about 1.5 gives a net loss of energy to the system and that any energy produced at less than about 5 can make that energy an economic loss to the system as well.

Precisely the point. Thanks for staying on topic ken.

Oh, using two units of energy to produce one is a negative.

There is no subtraction involved in calculating EROEI.

It is ENERGY RETURNED / ENERGY INVESTED, delivering an answer expressed as a ratio.

Duh.

There is a difference between division and subtraction. Ask the highly educated Ralph to explain it to you, there is at least a chance that what passes for a world class university in England has covered this subject at the post graduate level.

[kenneal - lagger]

The energy returned on an investment can be zero if it equals the amount of energy invested to produce that energy.

Zero doesn't equal the amount invested unless the amount invested is zero.

10 out of 10 for reading but 0 out of 10 for comprehension. Can someone get the original RGR back? At least he could understand what was written!!

[Ralph]

The energy returned on an investment can be zero if it equals the amount of energy invested to produce that energy.

Zero doesn't equal the amount invested unless the amount invested is zero.

10 out of 10 for reading but 0 out of 10 for comprehension. Can someone get the original RGR back? At least he could understand what was written!!

Tell it to the guy who is busy thinking that EROEI has something to do with subtraction. Me, I can at least write down the equation and fill in the blanks. Hell, I can do better than that, I can use it to NOT predict the end of drilling in the US a decade down the road, which puts me one up on good ol' Charlie.

[kenneal - lagger]

I comprehend what he is talking about and he is correct in his inference although, strictly mathematically, he is wrong. I suspect that most people would sympathise with his thinking but that's not what Ralph and his backers want.

[vtsnowedin]

Hell, I can do better than that, I can use it to NOT predict the end of drilling in the US a decade down the road, which puts me one up on good ol' Charlie.

Oh really? Perhaps not an even decade down the road but there will come a time when the EROEI will drop below somewhere between 2.0 and 1.0 and the drillers having lost all their investment in both dollars and BTUs will not have enough dollars to start the next well. They will look elsewhere for a profitable way to supply energy to customers but the age of oil will be over.

[RenewableCandy]

They might make money drilling by conning investors into backing them, looking as if some work's being done, collecting the cash and then...surprise! finding nowt and declaring bankrutcy. While somehow or other managing to keep the loot. If you assume that human ignorance (I mean of the genuine sort, as in "not knowing") is a renewable resource, this kind of activity could go on for as long as there is money. It's perfectly possible that the people behind "Ralph" are part of this process.

[vtsnowedin]

If you assume that human ignorance (I mean of the genuine sort, as in "not knowing") is a renewable resource, this kind of activity could go on for as long as there is money.

The old saying is "There's a sucker born every minute." Certainly oil field cons along with salted gold mines will last long after the oil and gold are all out of the ground.