The Oil Drum

49 comments on Is it time to start exploring again?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on September 13, 2005 - 1:05pm

Sources of your information? Previous discussions at TOD would indicate what you wrote here is a bunch of nonsense. What do you mean by "marginal extraction"? Of what? From what type of source? And don't say oil shales if you want to maintain any kind of credibility whatsoever.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Eroie Van Tanstaafl on September 13, 2005 - 4:57pm

Heinberg's "The Party's Over", 2003, lists two major studies of EROEI, Cleveland et al 1984, and Odum 1996. Cleveland et al calculated pre-1950 oil EROEI at over 100, and 1950-1970 at 23 for production, 8 for new discoveries. Odum 1996 calculated ME oil at 8.5 (including transport to N.America), and Alaskan oil at 11.1 (benefits of a single pipeline!).

Shales and tar sands are, as you suggest, horribly inefficient, with EROEI near 1. Oil shales are not relevant to the discussion, and I did not mentione them.

As for marginal extraction, I mean "marginal" in basic economic sense of "the last and least profitable barrel extracted and sold on the market for the market price at a given time". If oil demand rises, and supply responds by extracting additional oil, the cost of that marginal barrel sets the market price. Econ 101.

Other sources: Savinar's absurd LATOC site cites convetional oil EROEI at 30:1, with tar sands at 1.5. http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html Wikipedia's EROEI says domestic oil is 3, Saudi oil is 10, but provides no cites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI Wikipedia does link to oilanalytics.com, which provides a detailed examination of the concept. A chart gives EROI of oil c.2000 by thermal measures as 17, by Divisa measures as 11. The chart is cited to Cleveland, 2001. http://www.oilanalytics.org/neten/fgn14.html

But thanks for asking!

As for TOD discussions,