Quote from: K-Dog on Feb 20, 2026, 08:53 PMPaying attention to where a consultant lived in 2011 is an interesting pastime, but it doesn't change the 2026 balance sheet.

Quite true. It just goes to credibility. Art has his own company, I believe the name is the same today, and after the fact (as I look back on the good ol' days) I have always wondered if he did anything OtHER than pontificate from a position of a geologist who doesn't apparently know that there was oil in North Dakota. Let alone the 3X larger amounts available in the Permian Basin right off to his west.

Quote from: K-DogThe UN report isn't 'recycling' an old Oil Drum blog post. 

I imagine they aren't. I can also imagine they know as little about the topic as the folks who wrote the TOD post. The instant someone pulls out the EROEI angle, I've got 90:1 odds in my favor that they are as uninformed as "Global Expert" Art.

Quote from: K-DogThe report is looking at current EROEI (Energy Return on Investment) and the massive capital required just to maintain flat production in aging basins.

Too bad the O&G industry has never, doesn't now, and never will measure success by that metric. It is a dead giveaway for folks not taking the subject seriously, or for someone who is purely academic. Charlie Hall for example. And Art. Art once asked the AAPG CORE committee to take up this angle and begin investigating it as part of their normal reserve based activities and analysis. The Chairman of the Committee stopped by my office one day, and asked me about it. I gave him my standard eye-roll, and short 5 minute speech that by this time was at least 5-10 years old (after all Charlie had been getting screwing this pooch since 1980....it wasn't like it was a new idea).

Academically oriented...and oftentimes economists....seemed to like the idea and lack the ability in the practical application side, or industry experience side, to know when to let a bad idea go.

Industry runs on IRR. The use of energy is in their of course....but not an assumed equivalence in value between different forms of it. That tends to screw this particular pooch.

Quote from: K-DogYou can mock the messenger, but can you address the 'Red Queen' math?

I mock the idea...the messengers are just suckers who fell for it.

And there is NO addressing the Red Queen issue. It has been a part of oil and gas development since shale gas was first produced in 1821 in NY...and after a few years the town using it to run their street lamps were like.....WHERE'D IT GO!".

The Red Queen issue is an absolutel given, as is peak oil. I have said this before, but people rarely listen once they dismiss a nay-sayer. The internet taught me that. In personal meetings, at conferences and in groups, it is far easier to demonstrate how the overall peaker game is flawed, but online people just dismiss you out of hand because they BELEIEVE.....a completely different personality type than those who can think and attempt to manuveur when their ideas are tested.

Peakers always hated their beliefs being tested, and dispatched so easily with history, indsutry specifics, facts, logic, critical thinking, etc etc.

Peak oil is a given. I say it all the time. Hubbert provided the math in 1956. It is how people calculate it that is a crock. EROEI is even one step farther away from predicting a reality, and all because of the economic value difference in BTUs in the real world.

Can't solve peak oil without a trifecta of sciences, and peak oilers rarely make it past the first.

Quote from: K-DogIf we are spending more to get less, how does that support growth, and dreams of happy bunnies hopping in green meadows on a sunny day.

We can spend more energy to get less. Particularly if the cost of the energy we spend (say 1 million BTUS at $0.02/btu) is less than the energy we get out 500,000 BTUS worth $0.05/btu. Peakers hate economics, because it is quite a froo-froo social science.

As the college professor used to say.....there is only physics, and the will of man. Without economics, you can't figure out peak oil. And you can't figure it out from the EROEI side without those economics either, otherwise you ar just starting out your excercise with "if we first suppose that 2+2 = oranges, then all that follows must be true".

The EROEI folks never tell you that last part is where their arguement disintegrates.