The Yell,

BOOM! I'm not driving one of those gas tanks around.

Little Paul,

As always, you're dancing around everything I said and responding to none of it.

You ignore that alternatives to oil (combustible liquids) are vastly more costly. This fact completely demolishes any point you think you have to make. It's just awkward. I'm getting bored.

You go on to repeat that ROEI is "part of the equation," which I had already pointed out more succinctly than your broad claims. It's only as important as its implications to ROI. This isn't complicated stuff. I'm still bored.

You're wrong to claim there's some magical EROEI formula for different forms of energy. How would that math look? While it's good to know how much is lost, sometimes such changes in form are still desirable. In these cases the ratio of energy lost is just taken into consideration. There's no calculation which results in clear conclusions like "good" or "bad," "desirable" or "undesirable." There's just the cost of the process and how much the result is worth. If the result is worth the cost (simple ROI), it's done regardless of EROEI. I'm still bored, but thanks for the laugh.

You're wrong to claim that all energy is "consumed" in any economic calculation. There'd be no profit if a company didn't have energy to sell. This is the stuff that makes me wonder if you have literally any idea what you're talking about. It seems you've gone from discussion of economic factors which impact the cost/viability of oil (which you never made a case for to begin with; I contend you've literally said nothing on-topic in this entire thread) to a vague claim about energy being ultimately used by consumers--which has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Yes, ultimately consumers "consume" oil that's sold to them. What in the world does that have to do with companies making decisions regarding drilling for oil? Or the price of oil? Nothing. It's off-topic, incoherent rambling.

You offered absolutely no examples of EROEI impacting decisions regarding oil drilling. You vaguely referenced ROI as if that answered my question. I already know ROI matters. You're the one rambling about EROEI as if it matters independently.

I did not read anything on wikipedia. You're incoherent and rambling. And you were unable to satisfy my simple question to any degree.

"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.

"The Yell, BOOM! I'm not driving one of those gas tanks around."

BOOM?  Your point is nonsensical.  Natural gas does not selfcombust.  It requires some catalyst.  So, already you're lying by omission.  Now even if we posit some mythical hypothetical catalyst that exploded your gas tank, the simple facts of nature and economic life in the USA are this: most of the time, you are not behind the wheel of your car.   So unless you IMAGINE some catalyst that explodes your car and IMAGINE further that it occurred in the infrequent hours that you actually used your car, we are left to recognize that your car will be parked and not exploding.  OF COURSE you're not driving it around then.

IMAGINE me walking away from your exploding car, not-looking-back like James Bond.  Quod erat pwnd.

yeah but it was a good snark post

If I put a picture of a turtle train in here, will this thread end?

"You've been incoherently rambling for pages."
I don't think you'll ever understand anything of substance about the entire subject idd. I'm only puzzled as to whether its a lack of effort, lack of intelligence, emotional involvement, or a mixture. Regarding the endless pointless attempts to insult somebody, I take it you're not a very rational person.

"Thanks for stopping."
If I knew from the start you where unable to get anything, I wouldn't have tried to make a debate by explaining the simple basics -you still don't get - to you. Its called naivety. To my defense the fact you are to emo for politics doesn't show on your avatar.

I like turtles

we should all go back to using horses. no oil needed

I know anyone else and you would think he was talking about utilising horses as a form of transport. With old Famous "If it's at least three hands" Ace, there's no confusion whatsoever.

Mace,

Actually, I don't think Kemp and Flint have anything against alternative energy. They just don't want the government using price controls to manipulate consumption, nor do they want the government investing in companies that won't deliver a return on their investment.

because...er because..er...dunno, maybe it was just a kid?

There was no arguing.