You do deliver.

Great. Now I can't edit out "from" for grammatical reasons. You've got evidence. Double pwnt.

"Demand is correlated with the price?" You're incoherent. You mean, supply and demand? What exactly did I get wrong? What are you responding to? What point could you possibly think you're making? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Wanna try again?

"I answered to your point of the total balance of energy possibly being negative." You're incoherent again. What point? And what is this "total balance of energy" you're talking about and what does it have to do with anything? I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Wanna try again?

"I offered many many examples. One of them being that investors value the quality of the oil by the energy it brings forth. "

False. They value "quality" of the oil by the profit it offers. "Quality" is a bizarre word to choose. You must not mean the literal quality of the oil, since that's completely off-topic and they'd sell oil with poop in it if it profited them. Again, I have to question if you're completely clueless.

Also false is that you've offered examples. A vague reference to "investors" valuing "quality" of oil is not an example. It doesn't even make any sense. "investors value the quality of the oil by the energy it brings forth" (which is incoherent), therefore rambling about EROEI means anything to a topic about the fact that oil isn't going to run out nor will gasoline be $50/gallon for generations? Wanna explain the supposed connection a little better? This is page 4. Is that the best you can do?

"I ofc presumed you know the link between investors and producers, and the link between buyers and quality of oil."

All you did was make vague references. The only thing we can safely presume is that you have literally no idea what you're talking about.

"ROI will not stay positive till the very last barrel. Unless you make this unearthly claim, it does determine when it will run out."

Apparently this is news to you, but the price of oil adjusts to production costs. ROI will positively remain positive to the last barrel that is drilled. The moment it's not positive, nobody will drill. The point is that "recoverable" oil is all technologically recoverable now, and you can't name a single alternative liquid fuel that's cheaper than oil from the most expensive drilling processes. Nothing else even comes close.

"Your only argument is that people pay the price of a scares product no matter what, but history proves you wrong."

No. People pay more for a scarce product until there's an alternative that's cheaper or it's so expensive they literally cannot afford it and go without. Nice straw man, but I've never stated nor suggested what you claim. I respond to what you actually state and assert. I might enjoy this thread if you extended me the same courtesy.

Unless you're proposing that people aren't willing to pay significantly more for oil, that's not relevant. They already pay significantly more in some parts of the world than others. Oil's convenient. They'll pay even more and keep using if they have to. And alternatives are even more expensive, so no switch is in the near future. This is basic economics and has nothing to do with EROEI beyond its impact on simple ROI. You haven't had a leg to stand on for this entire thread, just repeated vague ramblings.

The only argument I've been making is that EROEI matters nothing to pricing beyond its implications to investor/oil company ROI. That's it. There's nothing complicated or academic about it beyond that. Vague references to energy ultimately being consumed by end-users is so completely off-topic that it's bizarre. While I'm not trolling or posting to upset you, your rambling is so bizarre, vague, and off-topic that I think I'm mostly still posting in this thread because I find your remarks hysterical. I've genuinely felt bad for any readers who don't find the same humor in it I do since your first post or two.

Little Paul,

I merely pointed out that we have work to do at home. How one can justify bombing their mean neighbor while their own house is on fire is beyond me. Their actions have 0 impact on us. Ours do. We should deal with ours first simply as a matter of cost-benefit, regardless of morality.

The "long run" is irrelevant. If Egypt actually threatened the USA or its allies we could obliterate them militarily next year or in the next decade just as surely as we could tomorrow.

I can certainly agree that oppression is evil, but we can't fight it for Egyptians any more than we can for Iranians any more than we could for Afghans or Iraqis. While I could certainly entertain supporting people fighting for freedom, all supposed (I stress this) attempts to force it on people have been colossal failures. And these failures cost lives.

Invading foreign nations just polarizes people against us and gains would-be tyrants power. We're not helping people who want freedom by giving would-be dictators a foreign enemy to rally support against. Have we learned nothing from the history of the past 50 years?

Justinian I,

We can gain all the access we want with money. We've dealt with dictators before, we continue to now, and we will obviously continue to in the future. That doesn't mean we have to finance their murder and oppression. If we offer a better deal, we'll always get what we want.

What are we really getting for all of our support for dictators? Do we get sweet deals on oil below market prices? Because the cost is a significant amount of hatred. And oppression of real people. And real murder. What's the price of your conscience? Because we're paying a lot in money and lives. What do you think we're getting?

It's our elites getting rich off of all of this foreign aggression. It's an excuse for trillions of spending taxed out of us into the pockets of elite industry heads (owners). It's a distraction from the printing of trillions and devaluation of our currency (theft from us). It's a foreign enemy to hold our attention while our own overlords take our freedom.

Again, I ask, because I don't think it's a very complicated question and nobody has even attempted to answer it: Why Egypt? Why's it our business? It's not us or our land. It's not our government. It's not even our part of the world. Why is it worth American lives? Are you willing to risk your life to drop those bombs?

Justinian I mentioned "our access to resources." What access? What resources? Is that the best everyone's got to satisfy this simple question? You're advocating real men murder other real men (and sometimes women and children). You seriously can't do better than vague references to access to resources which you can't even define?

[TI] Primo,

Now you're just using new examples with new differences. The same types of religious radicals which rule Iran are present in Egypt in significant numbers. This is not true of the USA and any other nations, so your repeated attempts at parallels are all failures.

The fact that Iran and Egypt have different numbers of different sects of Islam is irrelevant to the Russians and Chinese who seek economic gain from involvement in these nations. Russia and China have technology these nations want but don't have quite the bad reputation of the USA in that part of the world. Or parts, as you would say.

If I was to offer you a wager over whether Muslim Brotherhood dominated governments sought economic development with Russia/China vs the USA, would you take it? "ooo ooo look at me I know they're not identical!" does not equate with them being so different that China and Russia don't want to make money off of them and gain influence over their territories.

The Yell,

Our colonies and Jim Crow didn't help us in WW2. While oppression might be judged less horrible than genocide, that doesn't excuse oppression.

Hitler waged foreign wars. The Muslim brotherhood just oppresses its own people.

Why Egypt? Why's it our business? It's not us or our land. It's not our government. It's not even our part of the world. Why is it worth American lives? Are you willing to risk your life to drop those bombs?

"No, it isn't. Its EROEI will tell you whenever it is more profitable to use coal, gas, etc.... or just letting it be when you cannot afford to pump it up."

Examples, please. And bear in mind that coal and gas cannot power our vehicles. Which oil drilling methods are more expensive to fill gas tanks than alternatives?

You are factually incorrect. I won't bother with the rest of what you got wrong until you answer this simple question and provide at least a single example.

"why on earth would every gas, coal and oil producing company on earth use EROEI as an instrument?"

There is no standardized EROEI measurement used for any economic calculations. You seem to be rather unaware of this for someone flashing the abbreviation 50 times without purpose. EROEI ignores that energy has different forms and sometimes it's practical to lose energy and still gain profit. ROI is used in deciding between alternatives in the name of maximizing profits. EROEI is obviously part of this.

But just as EROEI can result in decisions to use coal over oil, coal and other forms of energy just aren't practical for many purposes. Unless you think any price of oil will result in people shoveling coal into their cars and generators, no EROEI calculations are going to make drilling for oil unprofitable any time soon. The price can go up very significantly and people are still going to pay that price to drive their cars and power many other tools. ROI results in price changes. EROEI is pretty irrelevant to this discussion beyond how it impacts economic ROI, because the demand for oil cannot be met with coal or solar or wind. And won't be any time soon.

So which companies have left the oil business because it wasn't profitable and went to other sources of energy? Who's driving coal/solar/wind powered cars because it's cheaper than gas? If your rambling about EROEI has a point, surely it's impacted at least one single decision!

I pointed out that you failed to make any argument whatsoever to that point. What a boring and offensive exchange.

I think he's saying "Hi I'm Egypt's new dictator, and if you disagree I'll lock you up and execute you as a treasonous enemy of the revolution. Also, [blah blah blah the same BS all dictators spout as if they have a legitimate, justifiable reason to oppress the hell out of their people].

They all spout nonsense about freedom and justice while they enslave their peoples. His desired caliphate places no value on freedom or democratic processes, and only a fool would buy that nonsense. He didn't reject the Muslim Brotherhood, he made a political move based on the assumption that we're all dolts. And he's mostly right.

We aid billions to dictators to this day. Their people know we're paying for the batons that beat them for traffic violations. Their people know that the tear gas used against political speech is produced in Pennsylvania (US state).

While I'm not a big American apologist, the fact is that people of many nations DO have very legitimate reasons to despise and hate us. It's 90%+ of the Amerikan sheeple who vote in the Republicrat assholes who hypocritically and systematically fund oppression and murder in many nations of the globe. The stuff our government funds is far, far worse than anything the English forced upon the American colonies which led to revolution.

Hurray we've escaped British oppression! Let's oppress others far, far worse!

The US needs to GTFO of the region. THEN we'd have a right to bomb them when they blow us up.

Sure they'll be oppressed by dictators and the Russians and Chinese. They don't deserve freedom until their cultures advance enough to fight for it, nor can anyone push it upon them before then.

Thanks for informing us that increased costs of production result in higher oil prices. We had no idea.