4 ms·

We use petroleum to fuel our cars not because it's a good source of energy, but because it's a good means to store energy (it has high specific energy, by volum

by jsn 15y ago

We use petroleum to fuel our cars not because it's a good source of energy, but because it's a good means to store energy (it has high specific energy, by volume and by mass), which is very important for cars. It will still be important even when producing a gallon of petroleum takes more energy than the said gallon contains. EROEI of less than 1 doesn't mean that oil extraction is unfeasible, not at all. For example, every accumulator currently produced has EROEI of 0 (it has 0 energy before charging and it takes non-zero energy to produce it), and each charging of it has EROEI of less than 1. And it's still economically feasible.

nate_meurer 15y ago
I think you misunderstand the concept of EROEI. Oil extraction requires large energy inputs. This energy is currently supplied entirely by fossil fuels, and is probably not substitutable in the near future. Given this constraint, aggregate EROEI even approaching 1 means insufficient oil to fuel exploration/extraction activities and power infrastructure, and that's just fundamental economics. Add to that the fact that large-scale integrated projects, such as oil field development, require enormous capital and human resources, which in turn rely on economic and political stability, which in turn rely on stable and plentiful energy inputs... I'm sure you can see the problem here. Accumulators (e.g. batteries) are not primary energy sources like fossil fuels are; EROEI does not apply to them like it does to energy production.
- jsn 15y ago
  > This energy is currently supplied entirely by fossil fuels, and is probably not substitutable in the near future [citation needed], and [citation needed]. There are electric drilling rigs out there, pumping the oil out is often performed by electric pumps, and pumping water / gas in doesn't, AFAICS, require specifically fossil fuel power. I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    So where do you think an oil platform gets its electric power? Solar panels? Or do you think they string a power line from the shore? Where do you think Saudi Arabia gets the gigawatts needed to run its oil fields? How much of their electricity comes from oil and nat gas? I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with "all of it". How do you think Suncor extracts oil from oil sands? Lots of squeezing? Where do you think Pemex gets the electricity for the giant pumps that pressurize their gulf fields (and the nitrogen that they pump)? Observe that natural gas is subject to the same economics as oil. Where the two are substitutable, low project EROEI can be flirted with. However, also observe that extraction of nat gas is largely coincident with that of oil, both geographically and industrially. They usually come from the same fields, often the same wells. >"I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else." There is a difference between possibility and feasibility. Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs.
    - jsn 15y ago
      Your Saudi example is especially unconvincing. Of course they get their electricity from oil now; why wouldn't they, when oil is so cheap and abundant there? Duh. Oil costs them, what, $10 to extract a barrel now? They would be fools to use anything more expensive to produce electricity. That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically unfeasible to use oil for that. More or less the same applies to other examples, actually. > Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs Whoa, where did that come from? Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs. Whatever logic is there in EROEI argument, it doesn't apply here. Ask Transocean what share of their operating costs is fuel, and if they give a damn about fuel costs rising ten-fold.
      - nate_meurer 15y ago
        >"That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically infeasible to use oil for that." Again, possibility vs. feasibility. You talk about capital costs... what do you imagine it will cost to convert a significant share of Saudi Arabia's generating capacity to nuclear, for example. How likely is that to happen politically? And if the day comes that oil is so expensive that an Arab nation is actually considering going nuclear, how financially feasible will a nuclear program be? Remember, big construction projects drink a lot of diesel. >"Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs." It's more accurate to say that platform drilling incurs massive up-front capital investment, as well as intense ongoing maintenance. Remember, we're not just talking about running the platform; we're talking about operating pipelines, refineries, etc. The large capital cost is part of the problem -- see my earlier comment about large integrated projects. But really, for EROEI purposes it doesn't matter when the money is spent; over its lifetime, an oil extraction project will consume a given amount of energy. That energy input comes overwhelmingly from oil and nat gas, and will continue to do so until the day we start seeing solar/nuclear/coal-powered rigs appear.

by jsn 15y ago

nate_meurer 15y ago

I think you misunderstand the concept of EROEI. Oil extraction requires large energy inputs. This energy is currently supplied entirely by fossil fuels, and is probably not substitutable in the near future. Given this constraint, aggregate EROEI even approaching 1 means insufficient oil to fuel exploration/extraction activities and power infrastructure, and that's just fundamental economics. Add to that the fact that large-scale integrated projects, such as oil field development, require enormous capital and human resources, which in turn rely on economic and political stability, which in turn rely on stable and plentiful energy inputs... I'm sure you can see the problem here. Accumulators (e.g. batteries) are not primary energy sources like fossil fuels are; EROEI does not apply to them like it does to energy production.

jsn 15y ago
> This energy is currently supplied entirely by fossil fuels, and is probably not substitutable in the near future [citation needed], and [citation needed]. There are electric drilling rigs out there, pumping the oil out is often performed by electric pumps, and pumping water / gas in doesn't, AFAICS, require specifically fossil fuel power. I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  So where do you think an oil platform gets its electric power? Solar panels? Or do you think they string a power line from the shore? Where do you think Saudi Arabia gets the gigawatts needed to run its oil fields? How much of their electricity comes from oil and nat gas? I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with "all of it". How do you think Suncor extracts oil from oil sands? Lots of squeezing? Where do you think Pemex gets the electricity for the giant pumps that pressurize their gulf fields (and the nitrogen that they pump)? Observe that natural gas is subject to the same economics as oil. Where the two are substitutable, low project EROEI can be flirted with. However, also observe that extraction of nat gas is largely coincident with that of oil, both geographically and industrially. They usually come from the same fields, often the same wells. >"I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else." There is a difference between possibility and feasibility. Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs.
  - jsn 15y ago
    Your Saudi example is especially unconvincing. Of course they get their electricity from oil now; why wouldn't they, when oil is so cheap and abundant there? Duh. Oil costs them, what, $10 to extract a barrel now? They would be fools to use anything more expensive to produce electricity. That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically unfeasible to use oil for that. More or less the same applies to other examples, actually. > Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs Whoa, where did that come from? Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs. Whatever logic is there in EROEI argument, it doesn't apply here. Ask Transocean what share of their operating costs is fuel, and if they give a damn about fuel costs rising ten-fold.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      >"That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically infeasible to use oil for that." Again, possibility vs. feasibility. You talk about capital costs... what do you imagine it will cost to convert a significant share of Saudi Arabia's generating capacity to nuclear, for example. How likely is that to happen politically? And if the day comes that oil is so expensive that an Arab nation is actually considering going nuclear, how financially feasible will a nuclear program be? Remember, big construction projects drink a lot of diesel. >"Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs." It's more accurate to say that platform drilling incurs massive up-front capital investment, as well as intense ongoing maintenance. Remember, we're not just talking about running the platform; we're talking about operating pipelines, refineries, etc. The large capital cost is part of the problem -- see my earlier comment about large integrated projects. But really, for EROEI purposes it doesn't matter when the money is spent; over its lifetime, an oil extraction project will consume a given amount of energy. That energy input comes overwhelmingly from oil and nat gas, and will continue to do so until the day we start seeing solar/nuclear/coal-powered rigs appear.