The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand

Editor's note: the following post is by Dr. Charles Hall and his Phd student David Murphy (EROI Guy), and is part of our on-going series reviewing the World Energy Outlook 2008, recently published by the IEA. It is also the first post of a new 'channel' on The Oil Drum: TOD:EROI, where we will be posting essays, papers, and analysis on the biophysical aspects of energy. Our intent is to be a real time central clearinghouse for biophysical/net energy research and ideas. We have debated on calling it EROEI - Energy Return on Energy Invested, but have decided to keep it consistent with the acronym from the energy literature. The post below critiques the neoclassical economic assumptions underpinning the IEA report and proposes future 'energy watchdog' reports utilize an alternative approach grounded in biophysical concepts.

Note: This is an updated version of a post from earlier this week. Some more recent quotes have been added at the end of this post.

Despite recent optimistic news on new shale gas reserves, the totality of North American natural gas production remains on a treadmill, as the EROI reaper has relentlessly raised the marginal cost of producing- to currently above the price of natural gas futures. While shutting in production is not easy to do once wells are drilled, low prices with rising cost structures can put the crimp on future expansion. Chesapeake (CHK), the largest US natural gas producer and operator of land rigs, announced last evening they will be curtailing production, cutting their rig count and reducing capital expenditures. (Of course, it is possible that this is the first example of an energy production casualty due to the credit crisis if the reason for this capex drop is lack of easy funds...)

In recent years, each time Chesapeake Chairman Aubrey McClendon announces some production or capex decreases, it has marked a bottom in the commodity (see graphic below fold). As this will surely be followed with similar announcements by other E&Ps in the near future (I expect Sanridge Energy and Petrohawk Energy soon), there will soon be a drop in monthly gas production--perhaps as much as 5%.

This is a guest post by Adam Dadeby (Adam1). Adam is currently studying towards an MSc in Renewable Energy and the Built Environment with the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales, UK.

What is EROEI?

Energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or EROI) is a concept that mirrors the financial metric, return on investment (ROI). In order to make an energy gain or “profit”, energy or work must be consumed or exerted (Cleveland, C.J., 2001, p.1¹). The energy gain or profit often referred to as “net energy”. EROEI is usually expressed as a ratio, or occasionally as a percentage. EROEI can also be represented diagrammatically in simplified form (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: EROEI
(Charles Hall, Pradeep Tharakan, John Hallock, Wei Wu and Jae-Young Ko, Advances in Energy Studies Conference, Porto Venere, Italy, September 2002)²

The energy referred to in EROEI can be energy to run technology, such as liquid fuels for transport or electricity for lighting. It can however refer to energy in a form that can be taken in directly by living organisms: food.

_{Annual rates of total drilling for and production of oil and gas in the US, 1949-2005 (R² of the two = 0.005; source: U.S. EIA and N. D. Gagnon). Since drilling and other exploration activities are energy intensive, other things being equal EROI is lower when drilling rates are high.}

As oil prices increase and the presidential campaigns heat up there is a lot of discussion about increased drilling for oil. In economic theory higher prices will give market signals to increase exploration and exploitation of resources and hence deliver more to society, although at a higher price. Will this in fact occur with oil for the United States? Of course we will not know until we do it, but we can look to the past for hints. The enclosed figure represents the history of drilling and production for oil and gas in the United States. The answer seems inescapable: the rate of drilling for oil in the United States has been unrelated to finding or producing oil and gas, which is determined principally by geology. Mother nature, not market theory, determines resource availability, at least in this case and probably many more. (Source: Hall, Powers and Schoenberg (in press))

This is an updated post on the energy return on energy invested on Canadian natural gas by Jon Freise. Jon's initial draft of this analysis, and related comments, can be found here.

An intermittent but longstanding theme here on theoildrum is that dollars do not sufficiently inform us of the long term details of energy depletion, and that the inexorable race between technology and depletion can be better understood using biophysical methods. Essentially this post suggests that it is requiring more and more energy to procure the same amount of natural gas in Canada, and this trend will likely continue into the future. This update makes the initial analysis too pessimistic on the rate of EROI NG decline but also too conservative on the absolute level of energy return. It is going to be a very interesting few years as Canada declines, Barnett peaks, and Haynesville and other unconventional plays ramp up. The treadmill spins on.

This is a repost from Cutler Cleveland on the underlying principles of net energy. We previously highlighted Dr. Clevelands work on the Energy Return from Wind. This post is Professor Clevelands latest installment on net energy analysis at the Encyclopedia of Earth, which I have reformatted to theoildrum. The Encyclopedia of Earth, where Prof. Cleveland is an editor/director, is a great academic/content based web clearinghouse for information on earth and our environment. I encourage everyone to follow some of the hyperlinks in the below story and peruse that site.

Outside of taxes and profits, we are a society used to thinking in gross terms. But the net is what we get to use. Net energy analysis, (and its subset EROI) get alot of airtime in peak oil discussions, but not yet in public. If the world is running on a certain total energy surplus, what are the implications for a decline in this surplus? Will the market, via dollars, treat gross production the same and forget to factor in increased costs? There seems to be much disagreement as to how best to use EROI and net energy principles, if at all, in planning for the looming energy crisis.

This is the final piece of a series on Energy Return on Investment from Professor Charles Hall's EROI Workshop at SUNY. Today's papers outline the energy technologies of wave and geothermal power, concluding a 5 part series that has looked at Why EROI Matters, Natural Gas and Imported Oil, Tar Sands and Shale Oil, Nuclear Power, and Passive Solar, Photovoltaic, Wind, and Hydro-electric. Previously, Professor Hall also wrote the thought provoking, At $100 Oil, What Can the Scientist Say to the Investor. Forget not about the simple 'balloon graph' below of EROI x Scale for fossil and renewable energy sources that this project is attempting to update with the help of theoildrum.com readership.

Thanks to TOD reader Tim R. for pointing out this piece on the food v. fuel problem in the Seattle PI yesterday. One takeaway message (but is it a valid one?) is contained in this chart from a group at The University of Washington (click to enlarge):

UNDER THE FOLD, you will find two youtube videos that are worth your time. The first is from Fast Money (CNBC) yesterday entitled "It's Supply, Stupid." After a bit of discussion on the panel, Joe Terranova provides a really nice discussion (about 4 mins) of the reasoning behind why the price oil is rising: supply and demand. Sure, it's a little bit the weak dollar, it's a little bit speculation, but Terranova makes an elegant argument as to why it's mostly the fundamentals--which is kinda what we've been saying for a while around here, eh?

The second video, is Jim Cramer of CNBC's Mad Money (1:30) discussing ethanol and its implications for food; he uses the words "Wall of Ethanol Truth," "that issue is killing Americans," "ending the ethanol mandate," and "Malthusian." Wow. Let's discuss.

Global oil depletion is not immune to the Law of Receding Horizons, the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, nor it seems to the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Grangemouth refinery shutdown has apparently caused work on a new wind farm in Scotland to shut down for lack of diesel fuel. Though at this stage this is a short-term snafu, it's a real time example of how lack of systems analysis of our energy problem will lead to unanticipated problems.

Tomorrow we will highlight another in a series of analysis on Energy Return on (Energy) Investment. Though measuring an energy projects profit and cost in terms of energy is very important, all energy sources are not the same, and the word 'alternative' does not connote 'equality'. In effect, quality matters. Despite some attractive substitutes to oil and gas from an energy return perspective, ALL fuel sources are now heavily subsidized by an infrastructure built and maintained by cheap and constantly available liquid fuels.

This is 4th in a continuing series of articles by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and his students, describing the energy statistic, "EROI" for various fuels.

The concept of an energy theory of value has been around since (at least) the 1930s and net energy actually became part of law after Mark Hatfield petitioned Congress in 1970 regarding the importance of EROI. His efforts resulted in the passing of (now defunct) Public Law 93.577 which stipulated that all prospective energy supply technologies considered for commercial application must be assessed and evaluated in terms of their ‘potential for production of net energy”. However, insurmountable theoretical and practical difficulties arose when using the energy unit to understand, a) the conversion among disparate fuel types (energy quality), b) the contribution of the environment, and c) the boundaries of analysis. Despite these problems, energy analysis is grounded (largely) in physical principles, which gives it an important long term edge over financial analysis which may proximately be related to real things, but ultimately is related to the political will to print money.

Nuclear power is the logical step up in energy density from dung, wood, coal, oil..., but its scaling has been controversial and uncertain. Below is an overview of both the nuclear fuel cycle and its energy return. Please add your comments, links and expertise in a manner that Prof Goose is fond of saying, 'that would improve the silence'...;-)