You are absolutely wrong and the original thesis is correct. EROEI is a recursive industrial life-cycle energy accounting that measures the accumulated energy required to produce primary energy. So for instance, early Spindletop petroleum pumped itself out of the ground and into a nearby refinery. Thus the Spindletop petroleum had a high eroei and required very little other energies to extract and process. In contrast today's deep water petroleum must be pumped up from the depths at a cost in additional petroleum. Yes, the fuel is in effect measured twice.

Spindletop preceded refineries closer than Pennsylvania, docks, pipelines ect and spewed out on the ground and was hastily contained by an earth dike. The first 600,000 barrels caught fire and burned up about a week after the Lucas gusher blew in.So the EROEI was negative for quite a while. Reference; "Spindletop" by James Clark & Michael Halbouty, 1953

This is an interesting history book, and could remind people of how difficult it was to start the modern fossil fuel age. The oil business didn't just start by magic, and neither will any alternative that will replace it. It was only when the British and American navies switched from coal to oil around WWI that a steady enough market was assured to make sure oil became the main fuel for the industrialisation of the world. People tend to denigrate the growth of wind and solar as not being fast enough to make a difference in the future, but they are making proportionate progress just like oil did against coal a 100 years ago or so.
Bob Ebersole

You are absolutely wrong and the original thesis is correct.

No. It is you who is absolutely wrong and the original thesis is junk. See down below.

This is no excuse for lower EROEIs, get me. People tend to think that I'm somehow escusing low EROEIS. I'm not. Of course a good EROEI is better. But you're making WRONG MATHS.