A thoughtful paper, Cameron, deserving of considered response by the authors of AERA.

Thank you for the reference to Gagnon, Hall and Brinker's paper on EROI/net energy. It's intersting that they rely increasingly on average energy intensity, AEI (MJ/$) because full input-output data on value-chain and life-cycle process energy use are not available. I used this methodology in my OLO paper www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5695, which suggests that following the money trail might be the same as following the energy trail. I discussed this issue with Hall a couple of years ago- he rejected AEI methodology then, but seems to have relented.

Unfortunately a lot of this data has been distorted because of the oil price bubble of the mid '00s (remember those $150/barrel days?) and prices of about $75-$80/barrel seem to represent the present market position.

Nonetheless, EROI needs more serious attention by both researchers and policymakers. Even if the price remains stable because of copious tar sands and oil shale, reduced EROI means that there is more CO2 produced per useable MJ of energy. In other words, our end-use energy consumption might decline with new energy efficient consumer technologies while atmospheric CO2 increases as more energy is used in initial energy production.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, this issue is not confined to oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale- nuclear and solar and wind are also subject to EROI implications.

Who is going to do these analyses?

We have 42 years left at current rates. Pity that China and india are just about to embark on their own love affairs with the motor car - this will bring that 42 years back by quite a few degrees.
Of course there are those who are pinning their hopes on hydrogen cell technology. But there is a catch - current technology relies on platinum and that too is beginning to run out. Perhaps we can go for all electric cars - but battery techonology is still stitting in the stone age and of course renewables are a possibility but for those you still need to have the eneregy to manufactire them and transport then ot wherever they are needed.
Increasingly we are beginning to look like those Easter Islanders who cheerfully continued to chop down what little remained of their forests until it was all gone.

Chapter 6 of the Australian Energy Resource Assessment (AERA) is about uranium mining. Its conclusions include:

"• Australia has the world’s largest Reasonably Assured Resources of uranium and identified recoverable thorium resources.
• Currently Australia has three uranium mines operating, with two additional operations scheduled to begin production in 2010.
• Australia’s uranium production is forecast to more than double by 2030."

THE NEXT IS MOST SIGNIFICANT

"• There are currently no plans for Australia to have a domestic nuclear power industry by 2030."

That last conclusion is not automatic. It stems from a current political ideology that is present in Australia but not shared by most countries in the developed world - including (non nuclear weapon owning) Japan, Canada and Sweden. These three countries have established and safe nuclear power industries.

One wonders why Labor Party policy on nuclear as a part energy solution for Australia can be summarised as "don't touch it, never ever"?

Pete

Australia's growing oil import dependence is a curious omission from the report. Arguably China sees the writing on the wall for global oil supply and has invested in plug-in electric cars. Sinopec and Shell are jointly buying Queensland liquefied coal seam gas assets. China is also building 100 nuclear reactors no doubt to be largely fuelled by Australian uranium. The day must come when we have sold ourselves short. For the premium fuels gas and uranium others will enjoy most of the benefit. In the case of coal it will come back to haunt us in the form of global warming. It may also raise domestic coal prices far more than any ETS.

It would be interesting to see a rewrite of the resource assessment that factors in a nuclear start by 2020. It could also model a scenario whereby natural gas is used heavily in the transport sector, either as compressed gas or gas derived liquids. For gas derived products such as urea it is simply inefficient to export LNG when more of the value added solid fertiliser could be made here. Thus the report should be regarded as a first draft.

Pete,

You might be interested in Beyond Zero Emissions, who are developing a detailed report on a 100% renewable stationary energy grid by 2020- including costs, materials, potential locations etc that does not rely on nuclear energy or the invention of new technologies.

An executive summary of the report can be found here-

http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/

Cameron - the oil debate has moved far beyond any of this stuff. You don't want to believe BP but cite the peak oil people as gospel. In fact a careful examination of the literature reveals a different story. I've put in a few points below.
1) What would have good is a discussion of the recent pre-salt layer oil discoveries, some of which are very substantial. There are quite a few of them.
2) One of the themes of recent years has been OPEC under-investing in oil production. This is the main reason production has levelled off, and prices have generally increased. Nothing really to do with peak oil. Commentators have suggested that the reason OPEC hasn't bothered to invest is that its easier to control the flow of oil that way, rather than try quotas which don't work. So a disproportionate amount of investment has gone into non-OPEC oil, including unconventional and pre-salt layer oil which is far more expensive to get at than OPEC oil.
3) Previous forecasts were that OPEC fields should have stopped pumping a while back, but haven't done so. So how come?
Leave it with you