USA will produce more oil/gas than Saudi Arabia

[RandomGuy]

Kind of surprised this bit of news hasn't made it here yet.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/11/blogs/graphic-detail/20121117_woc449.png

(notice USA's arrow is going the other way)

AMERICA'S shale-gas boom is set to reverse the flow of the international trade in oil and gas. America, until recently the world's biggest energy consumer before being overhauled by China, has relied on imports for decades. But according to the International Energy Agency, that is set to change. America is all-but self-sufficient in gas because of the abundant flows from shale fields. By 2035 it could become a significant gas exporter reckons the IEA. Meanwhile the same technology is unlocking shale oil, which along with fuel efficiency measures, could slash America's dependence on oil imports. With all sources of energy taken together (including nuclear, renewables, etc) the country could hit net self-sufficiency by 2035. The rest of the world is set to rely even more heavily on imports, with the exception of Japan and South Korea, which already import all their oil and gas, and the ASEAN region, which will have less of a surplus to export.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart-7
------------------------------


U.S. to become biggest oil producer by 2017

* To overtake Russia as top gas producer by 2015

* Moving to become self-sufficient in energy (Adds details, para 8-9)

LONDON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017, the West's energy agency said on Monday, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said it saw a continued fall in U.S. oil imports with North America becoming a net oil exporter by around 2030 and the United States becoming almost self-sufficient in energy by 2035.

"The United States, which currently imports around 20 percent of its total energy needs, becomes all but self-sufficient in net terms - a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy importing countries," it said.

The forecasts by the IEA, which advises large industrialised nations on energy policy, were in sharp contrast to its previous reports, which saw Saudi Arabia remaining the top producer until 2035.

"Energy developments in the United States are profound and their effect will be felt well beyond North America - and the energy sector," the IEA said in the annual long-term report, giving one of the most optimistic forecasts for U.S. energy production growth to date.

"The recent rebound in U.S. oil and gas production, driven by upstream technologies that are unlocking light tight oil and shale gas resources, is spurring economic activity - with less expensive gas and electricity prices giving industry a competitive edge," it added.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol told a news conference in London he believed the United States would overtake Russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015. By 2017, it would become the world's largest oil producer, he said.

This could have significant geopolitical implications, if Washington feels its strategic interests are no longer as embedded in the Middle East and other volatile oil producing regions.


[(HAHAHAHA... Let this part of the world be a CHINESE problem, they are welcome to it.... (he says gleefully)]

Analysts ask whether an energy independent United States would still be prepared to safeguard major trade routes around the world, such as the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East.

The United States will rely more on natural gas than either oil or coal by 2035 as cheap domestic supply boosts demand among industry and power generators, the IEA said.

(more at the following link, worth reading: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/iea-oil-report-idUSL5E8MC7GA20121112

------------------------------------


Ultimate bottom line:

US will become a lot more competitive in a lot of ways, especially when the new chemical plants being built start coming online, aimed to use the cheap natgas feedstocks anticipated.

Caveat:

No one knows for sure how much oil/natgas can ultimately be had. It could fade more quickly than is forecast, or it could be far more massive.

Welcome to change #1

Bad news:

It sucks to be a coal miner. Sorry. Bad for them, better for the rest of us. The market is picking winners and losers, and people in those jobs will need to be moved to other jobs.

[Drachen]

would have been by april 2013 if romney was elected, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

"It sucks to be a coal miner"

With China and India Ravenous for Energy, Coal's Future Seems Assured

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/china-leads-the-way-as-demand-for-coal-surges-worldwide.xml?f=23

That's why the coal export terminals on upper West Coast and rail lines to them are so critical to BigCoal

[RandomGuy]

"It sucks to be a coal miner"

With China and India Ravenous for Energy, Coal's Future Seems Assured

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/china-leads-the-way-as-demand-for-coal-surges-worldwide.xml?f=23

True to some extent.

They are exporting it increasingly to Asia, and that trend looks to continue. In this we are competing with Australia to provide it. The Aussies are closer.

[BradLohaus]

World: Stop trying to police us!

US: OK

[RandomGuy]

World: Stop trying to police us!

US: OK

China: We'll do it!!

World: Um... wait, what?

US: Don't look at us. You got your wish. Down with the American imperialists, and all that, right?

China: BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[BradLohaus]

RG this might be the best news I've ever read on this board. :toast Here's hoping it comes to pass.

[Halberto]

People really don't understand how huge of an impact horizontal drilling has had on our oil supply. Not only is it opening up new plays in almost every part of the country, but it's allowing old fields long considered depleted to be reviewed for further drilling.

[boutons_deux]

Get back to us when gasoline and diesel prices go down.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...I paid $2.98/gal today.

[TeyshaBlue]

DFW AVERAGE TODAY: $3.11

DFW AVERAGE ONE WEEK AGO TODAY: $3.18

DFW AVERAGE ONE MONTH AGO: $3.52



NATIONAL AVERAGE TODAY: $3.46

NATIONAL AVERAGE ONE MONTH AGO TODAY: $3.78

DFW AVERAGE PRICE ONE YEAR AGO TODAY: $3.22

NATIONAL AVERAGE ONE YEAR AGO TODAY: $3.43

[boutons_deux]

lol...I paid $2.98/gal today.

and that is caused by domestic oil source?

[scott]

DFW AVERAGE TODAY: $3.11

DFW AVERAGE ONE WEEK AGO TODAY: $3.18

DFW AVERAGE ONE MONTH AGO: $3.52



NATIONAL AVERAGE TODAY: $3.46

NATIONAL AVERAGE ONE MONTH AGO TODAY: $3.78

DFW AVERAGE PRICE ONE YEAR AGO TODAY: $3.22

NATIONAL AVERAGE ONE YEAR AGO TODAY: $3.43

So that Moslem in the White House was just waiting until after the election to hit his magic gas price button?

[Halberto]

Everyone bitches about gas prices, yet how many of you whiners are willing to go around the cost (carpooling, biking etc). Quit the bitching.

[TeyshaBlue]

and that is caused by domestic oil source?


Get back to us when gasoline and diesel prices go down.

[TeyshaBlue]

So that Moslem in the White House was just waiting until after the election to hit his magic gas price button?

Too busy grilling dogs most likely.

[MannyIsGod]

Everyone bitches about gas prices, yet how many of you whiners are willing to go around the cost (carpooling, biking etc). Quit the bitching.

I bike and ride a commuter train and public transport nearly every day. Then again, I don't spend much on gas and therefor don't bitch about it.

[symple19]

Frack it up, playaz

[RandomGuy]

People really don't understand how huge of an impact horizontal drilling has had on our oil supply. Not only is it opening up new plays in almost every part of the country, but it's allowing old fields long considered depleted to be reviewed for further drilling.

There is, from what I read recently, a great deal of uncertainty how much oil can be had from the older fields.

I wouldn't hang my hat on it yet, but it offers some interesting possibilities.

[RandomGuy]

RG this might be the best news I've ever read on this board. :toast Here's hoping it comes to pass.

We would actually benefit from political instability in the middle east, as all the oil we drill will be more valuable. Hike the prices through the roof as we have the supply and the Chinese have the demand.


Oooooh wouldn't that be deliciously tasty. Let the middle east fucking solve their own goddamn problems, or let the chinese solve that shit.

We would have to put up with higher pump prices, but our oil companies would be making money hand over fist, and those companies would be paying out dividends to our retirees pension funds.

oh yeah.

[Halberto]

There is, from what I read recently, a great deal of uncertainty how much oil can be had from the older fields.

Well yeah, it all depends on the geology of the field. There are fields out there PACKED with oil, but the natural driving mechanism just doesn't allow the well to flow (http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/cheubeck/classes/Petroleumgeologie/class_content/07_resvr_eng_bw.pdf if you're interested). In essence, some wells have produced only 5-20% of their ultimate recovery. New technology can change that, which is pretty awesome.

[boutons_deux]

Everyone bitches about gas prices, yet how many of you whiners are willing to go around the cost (carpooling, biking etc). Quit the bitching.

Kai Risdahl last night on Marketplace had a Freakonomics guy who said the average municipal bus carries 10 people (hmm, in dense urban cities), and is less energy efficient than a car with 1 person, which of course excludes auto deaths/injuries, parking fees, maintenance, insurance, lost productivity from drivng (instead of reading), etc.

[Halberto]

Kai Risdahl last night on Marketplace had a Freakonomics guy who said the average municipal bus carries 10 people (hmm, in dense urban cities), and is less energy efficient than a car with 1 person, which of course excludes auto deaths/injuries, parking fees, maintenance, insurance, lost productivity from drivng (instead of reading), etc.


the point I'm trying to make is that people who ride the bus will save money for gas.... not save the earth

[boutons_deux]

the point I'm trying to make is that people who ride the bus will save money for gas.... not save the earth

they'll save a lot more than just gas. But the time on the bus (prone to surface congestion like cars) is too long. A subway or light railway immune to surface congestion is a lot better.

[boutons_deux]

TB, :lol when US is biggest producer, not lower prices today, which are now and always tied to world price. NG is going the same way

[SnakeBoy]

lost productivity from drivng (instead of reading)

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

TB, :lol when US is biggest producer, not lower prices today, which are now and always tied to world price. NG is going the same way

US doesn't have to be the largest producer.


Get back to us when gasoline and diesel prices go down.

lol simpleton.

[TeyshaBlue]

You get bitch-slapped everytime you try to talk petroleum. You probably best stop, now.

Mebbe thinkprogress can tell you what to think on this issue, cause you've clearly no clue.

[boutons_deux]

You get bitch-slapped everytime you try to talk petroleum. You probably best stop, now.

Mebbe thinkprogress can tell you what to think on this issue, cause you've clearly no clue.

the next time you bitch slap me will be the first, dickless

I said get back to us when the US price of gasoline/diesel drops IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD as USA to be biggest producer.

[TeyshaBlue]

the next time you bitch slap me will be the first, dickless

I said get back to us when the US price of gasoline/diesel drops IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD as USA to be biggest producer.

Not my problem you can't construct a cogent sentence.

BTW, you were bitch-slapped into oblivion in this thread. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200096&page=5&p=6146697&viewfull=1#post6146697
lol simpleton.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol bitch-slapper in his own mind

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol bitch-slapper in his own mind

No, just in threads.

lol simpleton

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm sure you were too cowardly to open the thread. I'll post it again, just in case you grow a spine.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200096&page=5&p=6146697&viewfull=1#post6146697

[TeyshaBlue]

mother fucking hat trick.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/ronalds-pimp-hand.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Kai Risdahl last night on Marketplace had a Freakonomics guy who said the average municipal bus carries 10 people (hmm, in dense urban cities), and is less energy efficient than a car with 1 person, which of course excludes auto deaths/injuries, parking fees, maintenance, insurance, lost productivity from drivng (instead of reading), etc.

We have actually sort of run through some of this before in discussions about mass transit.

The bottom line is that it is not a slam dunk in terms of being more efficient than cars, but needs a certain level of ridership.

A mildly full train is way more efficient than the same number of people in cars, but it takes a certain composition of factors, such as population density and so forth to get usage to the levels needed.

Sort of a chicken/egg conundrum.

Cities could certainly be smaller and have more buildings if one didn't have to use so much surface area for roads and parking.

Oddly enough, there was an economic study of cities that said, across countries of all sorts, the bigger a city, the higher the income of the people in that city. This goes for the US, as well as India, China, and all the developing world as well. I think that there is a very strong synergy going on there.

[boutons_deux]

"in terms of being more efficient than cars"

there's more than just ENERGY efficiency.

The sunbelt is pretty much screwed due to suburban/exurban sprawl. The oilcos love it, America is Under Their Thumb.

[Halberto]

The sunbelt is pretty much screwed due to suburban/exurban sprawl. The oilcos love it, America is Under Their Thumb.

Youre a ridiculous human being.

[RandomGuy]

"in terms of being more efficient than cars"

there's more than just ENERGY efficiency.

The sunbelt is pretty much screwed due to suburban/exurban sprawl. The oilcos love it, America is Under Their Thumb.



Well, our sprawl will get more expensive as the 3-4bn Asians and Africans start competing for each new barrel of oil, especially with their economic growth outpacing ours for the rest of our lives, they will be more and more able to outbid us for it.

Simple economics will drive us either to alternatives, or to denser layouts of cities.

[Homeland Security]

This shift is a potential game-changer for the fiscal course of the United States. This kind of resource wealth can serve as a backstop against the slide of the dollar due to loose fiscal policy. The collapse I figured was inevitable may yet be avoided, and the concomitant splitting up of the country and protracted calamitous internecine conflict may be forestalled.

With widespread suffering no longer serving as the catalyst for major social change, you're probably looking at an extension of present trends. That means uneven growth between regions and conflict driven primarily by demographic changes.

New prediction: by mid-century the Republican Party will cease to exist in its current form. It may continue on as a hybrid between the Constitution Party and an American version of the BNP, but it will not have a significant role in American national politics. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party will split off to form a new left party, and the rump of the GOP establishment will be absorbed into the Democratic Party.

[RandomGuy]

This shift is a potential game-changer for the fiscal course of the United States. This kind of resource wealth can serve as a backstop against the slide of the dollar due to loose fiscal policy. The collapse I figured was inevitable may yet be avoided, and the concomitant splitting up of the country and protracted calamitous internecine conflict may be forestalled.

With widespread suffering no longer serving as the catalyst for major social change, you're probably looking at an extension of present trends. That means uneven growth between regions and conflict driven primarily by demographic changes.

New prediction: by mid-century the Republican Party will cease to exist in its current form. It may continue on as a hybrid between the Constitution Party and an American version of the BNP, but it will not have a significant role in American national politics. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party will split off to form a new left party, and the rump of the GOP establishment will be absorbed into the Democratic Party.

FWIW, I seem to remember telling you that technological change would make your prediction of implosion highly unlikely, as it was predicated on such a decline.

Past historical patterns of large empires violently declining were only possible because of fairly static technological change, and, to a great extent, a lack of stabilizing forces such as integrated global trade markets, and difficult information exchange.

Change happens, and history, although a useful guide for some things, should be taken with a grain of salt.

A Singularity event though, seems far more probable to me. That may be my own faulty thinking, but such is the fun of prognostication.

[RandomGuy]

New prediction: by mid-century the Republican Party will cease to exist in its current form. It may continue on as a hybrid between the Constitution Party and an American version of the BNP, but it will not have a significant role in American national politics. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party will split off to form a new left party, and the rump of the GOP establishment will be absorbed into the Democratic Party.

I would agree. The GOP is pardon the pun, constitutionally unable to fathom its own pending demise. It will sink in eventually when they lose Texas.

That will shock a lot of people.

[boutons_deux]

"when they lose Texas."

they would lose it now if Hispanics would vote.

But RickyBobby has replaced govt career professionals with Repug political hacks (just like the dubya/dickhead Repugs did at Fed level, eg, FEMA. It's part of the Repug philosophy to fuck up govt) that is will take a long time for a TX one-party Dem state to repair the damage.

[Homeland Security]

FWIW, I seem to remember telling you that technological change would make your prediction of implosion highly unlikely, as it was predicated on such a decline.

Past historical patterns of large empires violently declining were only possible because of fairly static technological change, and, to a great extent, a lack of stabilizing forces such as integrated global trade markets, and difficult information exchange.

Change happens, and history, although a useful guide for some things, should be taken with a grain of salt.

A Singularity event though, seems far more probable to me. That may be my own faulty thinking, but such is the fun of prognostication.
Well, with no likely impending collapse for me to stay ahead of, the GOP resolved to descend into oblivion, and a couple of decades to go before the Democrats sluff off the portion of their party I despise, politics becomes a very peripheral subject for me.

[BradLohaus]

"When they lose Texas"

According to the head of Texas republican party, TX in 2040: 60% Hispanic, 25% white, the remaining 15% black with some Asian. Anybody want to speculate on the year that a court says that hard racial quotas in university admissions are constitutional? 2025?

But, an extremely positive tech shock such as this could stave off the obvious American (esp. Texan) descent into very explicit racial politics for some time.

[DMC]

Get back to us when gasoline and diesel prices go down.

I haven't paid for fuel in 4 years.

[DMC]

I would agree. The GOP is pardon the pun, constitutionally unable to fathom its own pending demise. It will sink in eventually when they lose Texas.

That will shock a lot of people.
It won't happen. When they get close they will recruit some libertarian or Dem to cross over, and they will do so gladly as power is the goal of these fucking church mice, their political ideals are just conduits to get them there.

[Winehole23]

Among the unchallenged verities of U.S. politics, the most universally accepted is that of the crucial strategic and economic significance of oil, and particularly Middle Eastern oil. On the right, the need for oil is seen as justifying an expanded and assertive military posture, as well as the removal of restrictions on domestic drilling. On the left, U.S. foreign-policy is seen through the prism of “War for Oil,” while the specter of Peak Oil threatens to bring the whole system down in ruins.

The prosaic reality is that oil is a commodity much like any other. As with every major commodity, oil markets have some special features that affect supply, demand and prices. But oil is no more special or critical than coal, gas or metals—let alone food.
Let’s start with some numbers. The United States currently uses about nineteen million barrels a day, of which about eleven are imported, mostly from within the Western Hemisphere. Imports from the Persian Gulf supply about 15 percent of total U.S. oil demand, a share that has declined over time.


At a price of $100 a barrel, expenditure on oil is around $700 billion a year, or 4 percent of GDP. That’s comparable to the amount spent on accommodation and restaurant services, and far smaller than, say, the health care or financial services sectors.
Imports from the Persian Gulf cost $73 billion in 2011, of which Iraq received around $20 billion. So, if the multi-trillion dollar Iraq war really was a “war for oil,” it was exceptionally ill-advised.


Oil has become steadily less important as an energy source in recent years. U.S. consumption of petroleum for gasoline peaked in 2005, well before the recession, and economic recovery has not produced a rebound. Consumption of oil per person has been declining since about 1980. At least as far as the United States is concerned, Peak Oil is an event in the past, not the future.


Moreover, while oil is a very convenient fuel for many purposes, there are few for which it is essential. Cars can run on liquefied natural gas, ethanol or biodiesel, not to mention electricity. High prices have already led to the abandonment of oil in many uses for which it was once the preferred fuel, such as electricity generation.


If oil is a commodity of modest importance, why does it loom so large in the thinking of U.S. policymakers and the general public? The answer, undoubtedly is the memory of the OPEC oil embargo imposed in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war of 1973. This shock was followed by months of queues and rationing, and by the double-digit inflation and high unemployment of the late 1970s.


Given this sequence of events, it was easy to conclude that control over oil exports is a powerful weapon in the hands of the OPEC states, and that shocks to the supply and price of oil represent a major cause of economic crises. Neither of these conclusions was correct at the time, and any validity they once had is long gone.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-great-oil-fallacy-7748

[boutons_deux]

"Cars can run on liquefied natural gas, ethanol or biodiesel"

there's not enough corn ethanol nor soy biodiesel to replace petroleum fuel, quite apart from the insanity of destroying/wasting farmland and water to grow corn + soy for fuel.

"why does it loom so large in the thinking of U.S. policymakers and the general public"

Because BigOil has the market/propaganda/financial power to protect itself while attempting, mostly successfully, to kill any and alternatives.

[Winehole23]

Well yeah, it all depends on the geology of the field. There are fields out there PACKED with oil, but the natural driving mechanism just doesn't allow the well to flow (http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/cheubeck/classes/Petroleumgeologie/class_content/07_resvr_eng_bw.pdf if you're interested). In essence, some wells have produced only 5-20% of their ultimate recovery. New technology can change that, which is pretty awesome.what new technologies? do they materially affect the flow rate (and hence, the net energy produced)?

[boutons_deux]

Don’t Fall for the Shale Boom Hype – Chris Martenson Interview (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/dont-fall-for-the-shale-boom-hype-chris-martenson-interview.html)


We are in the midst of an amazing energy boom, but by sweeping the idea of peak oil under the rug we are ignoring a significant fact: the relationship between hydrocarbon reserves and flow rates are not the same as they used to be—reserves have increased but flow rates are not as high or sustainable.


Perhaps the most important thing we need to pay attention to is net energy returns, on which we run society. Massive new discoveries are only netting a fraction of the returns compared to earlier decades.

Now, between the 1960s and the 1980s, the world saw roughly a 6% per year growth in oil output. From 1980 to 2000, roughly 1.5%. And since then, almost flat, maybe a .1% growth in oil output.

So shale oil discoveries may be massive in terms of the total number of barrels of oil–but what they lack are high and sustained flow rates. And there’s a lot of confusion out there in the press right now, with several analysts that should know better, waving their hands at increasing reserves and then making the utterly wrong conclusion that peak oil is a defunct theory.

Now, to illustrate this, imagine we just found a trillion barrels 40,000 feet down. Yeah, that would awesome, right? No more peak oil, at least for a long time, right? Well, what if due to technological considerations, we could only get a few wells installed, and the max flow rate we could get from that reservoir was 100,000 barrels per day. Oh, that’s it? Well, that’s nice, but it doesn’t really help the overall situation, where we’re experiencing roughly 4,000,000 barrels per day,per year declines in existing conventional crude oil fields. That is, reservoir size and flow rates were well-correlated several decades ago, because the stuff just flowed out of the ground so easily, but now that we have to drill tens of thousands of feet to achieve a single well flow rate on the order of 100 barrels per day/per well in the shale plays, or we even have to scoop up tarry sand in giant machines and then power wash the bitumen off of it, oil just don’t quite flow quite like it used to.

There’s a new relationship between reserves and flow rates, and it’s a fraction of the old rate. And it’s an entirely new world, and this has been missed by the less insightful analysts and commentators out there. I am optimistic about the new reserves and flows but not because I happen to think they allow us to forget about the challenges and snap back to ‘how things used to be.’ We’re in a new regime of higher oil prices and that alone sets today well apart from the past.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/dont-fall-for-the-shale-boom-hype-chris-martenson-interview.html#rT8B6BHRP7teRtT4.99

[TeyshaBlue]

Interesting read. Martenson doesn't appear to factor in the usage reduction that the US has achieved over the last couple of decades tho.

[TeyshaBlue]

The EIA seems to peg tight oil a little more generously.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/images/figure_1es.png


http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/executive_summary.cfm

[boutons_deux]

Energy usage

A measure of the viability of oil shale as a fuel source is the ratio of the energy produced to the energy used converting it (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI)). The value of the EROEI for oil shale is difficult to calculate for a number of reasons. Lack of reliable studies of modern oil shale processes, poor or undocumented methodology and a limited number of operational facilities are the main reasons.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-circleofblue-20) Due to technically more complex processes, the EROEI for oil shale is below the EROEI of about 20:1 for conventional oil extraction at the wellhead.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-circleofblue-20)

A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the different oil shale deposits to vary between 0.7–13.3:1.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-science2-21) More recent studies estimates the EROEI of oil shales to be 1–2:1 or 2–16:1 – depending on if self-energy is counted as a cost or internal energy is excluded and only purchased energy is counted as input.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-circleofblue-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-brandt-22) According to the World Energy Outlook 2010, the EROEI of ex-situ processing is typically 4–5:1 while of in-situ processing it may be even as low as 2:1.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-weo2010-4) Royal Dutch Shell has reported an expected EROEI about 3–4:1 on its in-situ test project.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-rockymountainnews-8)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-shell-23)[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-wired-24)

Internal energy (or self-energy) is energy released by the oil shale conversion process that is used to power that operation (e.g. obtained by combustion of conversion by-products such as oil shale gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_gas)), and therefore reducing the use of other fuels (external energy).[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-circleofblue-20) There are different views as to if the internal energy should be added to the calculation as cost or not. One opinion is that internal energy should not be counted as an energy cost because is does not have an opportunity cost, unlike external energy used in the process. Another opinion is that internal energy is used for performing useful work and therefore should be added to the calculation.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-circleofblue-20) It might also be argued that internal energy should be included as energy invested because it contributes to CO2 emissions.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-circleofblue-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#cite_note-brandt-22) However, EROEI then becomes a measure of environmental acceptability rather than economic viability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#Energy_usage