[Wonder Warthog]

"For example, some analyses start with the energy content of oil, computer the energy of gas and the inputs to get that gas from the oil, and then say “voila, negative energy balance” - all while ignoring the energy content of coproducts such as diesek, kerosene, fuel oil, etc. They then play the same parsing game for each of those, showing negative energy balances for each component while ignoring the total aggregate."

Totally, completely wrong.

"Simple question, though: If it really took more energy to produce usable oil based fuels than the resulting energy content of those fuels, then where has that extra needed energy come from to keep the system running for the last several decades?"

Look, I'll explain it simply. Suppose you extract 1000 BTU of stored energy from the ground. You burn some of that 1000 BTU to make a usable product, so at the end of the process you have less than 1000 BTU available. That is a negative net energy balance. A positive energy balance would be where you end up with MORE than 1000 BTU of usable product. And it might even be the case that the energy used for production is greater than that contained in the product.

[piytar]

I has it explained to me differently by a friend in the oil & gas biz. Your explanation makes sense, though. Maybe I misunderstood or he was snowing me.

So, which has the better energy balance, gas or H2 (leaving nuke to the side)? Isn’t that the question that matters?