95 comments on An Update on the Energy Return on Canadian Natural Gas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
95 comments on An Update on the Energy Return on Canadian Natural Gas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”
—Benjamin Franklin
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
You are very welcome Nate. Thanks for all the advice. The analysis is much stronger now. And also thanks to reviewers Gail the Actuary and Mikael Höök of Uppsala U. for your kind suggestions.
Another great post on a great site. When I was a student at University of Alberta (Edmonton) in the late 1960s a chemistry professor said to a group of people in an elevator "They shouldn't be burning petroleum and gas for heating, they should save it for synthetic chemicals - it is too precious to use simply for keeping houses overheated". From that day on I became aware of the limits to fossil fuel resources and have been following information on the ultimate depletion of these non-renewable resources. TOD is the best site I have found. The regular writers explain things in a manner understandable by most and are providing an invaluable resource for the general public. Thank you all for the many, many hours you are spending to discover the truth as much as possible when much of the needed data is hidden by industry and government or buried in hard to access resources.
My self, I have started to understand much of the complexity of the problem and am trying to share this with friends and acquaintances. Even a few years ago such conversations would be met with blank looks and a polite (not always) change of subject. There has been no greater challenge to civilization since that faced by man during the last ice age. At least during the ice age people had the option (in theory at least) to try to move to milder climates. There is no such escaping the reality of the evolving energy problem.
I am not convinced, however, that people will rise to the occasion soon enough to avert crisis of catastrophic proportions. Few politicians and governments will be willing to put in place major conservation measures and massive investments in new infrastructure and renewable energy programs in a timely manner. Their rational will be that such measure would put them at an economic disadvantage that would allow other nations to plow ahead with growing economies and gain economic and military advantage. Their mantra is that if they don't use the energy others will. It is this kind of fear that prevents needed measures happening until it is maybe too late to head off complete disaster. Never has there been a greater need for international cooperation. This problem can not be solved on a stand alone basis.
However, I am overall an optimist and feel we must keep spreading the word and hope that enough people become informed soon enough to force through the measures needed.
Please continue the great work and thanks again.
thanks for the kind words
Right now it seems our leadership is in the 'put out the fire of the week' mode, not caring about larger fires in the future. Obama today suggesting we open up the SPR to reduce short term gas prices is a kindergarden suggestion compared to likely political issues of the future. Any long term solution is going to have to address population, among other politcally untenable topics. I wonder what it will take and who will be the first (western) politico to bring up penalties for more than one child, curfews, loss of various freedoms, etc.
if you come up with any optimistic answers to the whole enchilada please speak up!
Nate - of course increasing population will negate any progress made on previously discussed needed changes. Unfortunately population control is a taboo subject in too much of the world. I do not know how to approach that problem. Perhaps, TOD can put together a "think tank" with others on how to approach the political-religious issues - Bio1
Woody says it best:
:o)
Nick.
Thanks for another good analysis Jon. I finally understand Charles Hall his point that EROI around 1:5 or so is necessary for society to function.
Thanks and you are welcome.
I think minimum EROI is important and it would make a good article. EROI determines the rate at which a new energy source can grow. (a society can only reinvest energy profits). But EROI of the fuel source is not enough. All the other energy demands must also be met.
Meaning wind power cannot replace oil unless all the other uses for oil energy are paid (cars, roads, etc). This lowers the rate of growth quite a bit.
So there are two more posts that need to be written!
The claim that EROEI in and of itself determines the possible growth rate of an energy supply is incorrect. Of course if the energy balance is zero then you cannot obtain any useful energy whatsoever. Zero does indeed equal zero. However, the possible growth rate does not bear a simple relation ship to the energy balance.
For example, suppose that you are alone on an island, and you have figured out some way to produce fuel. Further suppose that the source of this fuel is so large that the only limitation on how much fuel you can produce is how many hours you dedicate the fuel extraction process. Suppose that in one hour of work you extract a gross output energy G and you consume an amount of energy I. Then your net energy production per hour is
N = G-I = G(G-I)/G = µG.
Where µ=(G-I)/G is the fraction of the gross output energy which is left over after the input energy has been subtracted (I call this number the energy utilization rate). In this case there is no energy growth issue whatsoever. The amount of energy you can harvest in a given year is simply proportional to fraction of your labor that you dedicate to producing energy. There is an issue of optimization of labor effort: How much time should be spent extracting energy and how much time should be spent using that energy to produce useful output?
Growth issues occur only when time delays come into the picture. If the energy payback on investment in natural gas exploration and drilling were instant, so that as soon as a new field had been found and drilled all of the energy from it was instantly available, then the only thing that would limit how much energy you could obtain in a given year would how much of your economic effort was dedicated to exploring and drilling. This would not be a growth issue but a resource allocation issue. Of course the energy balance would effect the optimum resource allocation via the energy utilization rate µ.
On the other hand, if a substantial period of time is required to recoup up front energy investments, then limits to growth issues arise. These limits cannot be analyzed in a simple way as a function of energy balance. What matters then is the time profile of the energy return relative to the time profile of the energy investment.
Yes, time is important. Construction time. Energy payback time. Total plant life time.
Here is a paper that did a nice study of the EROI to growth rates question:
http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/dspace/bitstream/2074/1323/1/mathurdyn2004.pdf