> And you don't take into account changes in technology.
What changes?
> Yes, in 2040,
> if we haven't found a more cost-effective way to get coal out of
> the ground (how are we doing today vs. 50 years ago?), it'll cost
> more to get it than it's worth.
Compared to 1960, the cost of mining coal has risen.Any fuel's Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is the ratio of the gross fuel extracted to the economic energy required directly and indirectly to deliver the fuel in a useful form.
The EROIs for natural gas, petroleum and coal have fallen dramatically over time in the continental United States. In Louisiana, the EROI for natural gas declined from 100:1 in 1970 to 12:1 in 1981, and a similar decline was observed in the petroleum industry. Nationally, the EROI for coal has fallen from 80:1 in the 1960s to 30:1 in 1977. Another indicator of the increasing cost of fuel extraction is the rise in the real dollar value of the mining sector share of real GNP, from 3-4% over most of this century to about 10% by 1982. Continued economic growth depends on the ability to develop sources of energy with more favorable EROIs. Despite technologica advance, the trendline has been set this way for a long time now.
> But everything has this effect: 50 years ago, we could just have
> easily said:
>
> ] If present trends continue, the floorspace required for all the
> ] computers we'll need will exceed the surface area of the Pacific
> ] Ocean! There will be no place to put them all; we'll be up to
> ] our elbows in computers!
>
> Of course the 'present trends' didn't continue; they increased
> geometrically! And yet ... we didn't have that problem.
Unfortunately you can't eat computers, and they don't burn very well.
> > OIL SANDS
> > According to Youngquist (1997), it currently takes more
> > energy to mine oil sands than the amount of energy recovered. In
> > other words, oil sands are already "depleted".
>
> And what if this changes?
How?
> That is, what if we find a way to get
> oil from oil sands that *doesn't* take more energy to mine than
> it recovers? Is it still depleted? This notation is barmy!
Really? If you know how to do this, you are already a billionaire. Trycalling Chevron first; they seem to have lost more money than anyone else
trying to make buck from oil sands and shales.
> My understanding is that oil from shale costs about $35/bbl
> right now; with $18 spot prices, why bother? What, are they
> expected to make it up in volume?
When cheap conventional oil costs $35/bbl the cost of extracting oilfrom shales etc will rise accordingly. They'll remain uneconomic in both energy and capital terms.
> The point is: the resource is there, and when it becomes economical,
> it will be tapped. During the Gulf War, some of these resources
> were considered (until they realized the price hike to $40/bbl was
> to be short-lived ...).
>
People have been going bust in Alberta for almost a century. The prospectuses of speculators trying to part fools from their money investing in such schemes say things like:
'There is enough heavy oil in the deposits of Northern Alberta to pave a
four lane super highway the entire 250,000 miles (400,000 km) to the
moon, with ample to spare for approaches and exit ramps.'
(from an Alberta promotional piece by Douglas Barnett).
Unfortunately it still takes two tons of oil sand to produce one barrel of oil.
But even if you're right, and non-conventionals will become 'economic', what use is this to the 75% of humankind which cannot afford to buy oil at $16/bbl?
Mark