Enhancing the evaluation of Energy Investments by supplementing traditional discounted cash flow with Energy Return on Investment analysis

Abstract

Energy companies, like companies more generally, routinely have to make investment decisions by comparing alternative investment projects. In the face of the uncertainty of the current energy transition, traditional economic tools, such as discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, that depend on long term cash forecasting, offer limited, deterministic and potentially misleading insights. Additionally there are many pressures on companies to expand decision making criteria to “ESG” (Environmental, Social and Governance) considerations. But these are often qualitative with no clear standards, leaving investors often forced to make significant investments based on poorly understood, at times misleading and even self-defeating considerations. We explore the application of Biophysical Economics (BPE), an approach to economics based on the natural sciences, as an alternative to provide an additional lens that cuts through the uncertainty and political pressures to help companies navigate this uncertainty and make more robust long term investment decisions. The most immediately useful tool within BPE is the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI). Specifically we compare an investment case for oil companies, one in oil sands vs. one in microbial-enhanced oil recovery, applying the two methodologies in parallel. Results from a traditional economic perspective weakly favor the oil sands, whereas biophysical economics strongly favors the microbial case due to is significantly lower energy requirement to produce the energy that it yields. A close examination indicates that EROI can be used effectively and practically next to DCF to provide better insights and identify cases that are fundamentally less sustainable for society.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.