Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (4750)	3/10/2006 1:04:04 PM
From: Crabbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219195

The EROEI for crude oil in Saudi Arabia is highly different from the EROEI for a gallon of gas at the pump in the US. I will retract the .73 to 1 statement as I can not find a reliable (Government or University) study to support it yet. Just old links that are no longer valid. However two things if Mid East Oil produces a 30:1 or even 100:1 EROEI at the well head. That is not the EROEI at the port of shipment, nor is it the EROEI of oil at the receiving port in the US, nor is it the EROEI at the receiving refinery, nor again is it the EROEI of the refined gasoline at the refinery, nor again is it the EROEI of the gasoline at the pump where you fill your tank. Second the EROEI of oil anywhere else in the world is less than that of Mid East Oil, drilling depths, Difficulties (deep water (gulf)), remote distance (north slope), weather conditions (north sea, north slope, etc.) all make well head EROEI lower than Mid East oil. In any case EROEI can be totally useless when figuring practicality of a fuel medium, for example Hydrogen. $RO$I will make hydrogen a viable fuel even though it will always have a negative EROEI. Energy such as tidal flow in Cook Inlet Alaska, even though it could have an extremely good EROEI would be worthless because of transmission cost, however as a medium to convert water to hydrogen and shipping hydrogen could be lucrative. Another point, any study that is older than a year or two has been obsoleted by new technologies. Studies that show an EROEI for ethanol ignore new processes that extract the oil for biodiesel as an example. Studies of Biomass that are even 6 months old are unreliable because of constant advances in bioengineering of the microbes needed to convert the cellulose to ethanol. Further every one is quoting the 30% difference in ethanol and gasoline in BTU per gallon, yet ignoring the fact that the mileage difference is only 7-10%. (Ethanol burns cleaner and more efficiently). r