This is an abbreviated version of a post at my personal blog. There you will find more detailed text, additional figures and references.
In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted that crude oil production in the U.S. (ex-Alaska) would peak in rate around 1970, to be followed by a long, irreversible decline. Hubbert nailed the timing of the peak, and in doing so, cemented his status as a technological visionary among neo-Malthusians and opponents of the “fossil fuels”. But Hubbert’s paper also contained a similar forecast for gas.
In 1956, Hubbert’s estimate of the amount of natural gas that would ultimately be consumed in the U.S. was 850 trillion cubic feet (TCF).
In the 1978 update, Hubbert increased his estimate to 1,103 TCF, but considered that value to be on the high side.
Lower 48 Gas Production, 1900-2010
By the end of 2010, we had produced and marketed 1,131 TCF from the Lower 48, more gas than Hubbert thought would ever be possible. We find ourselves in the midst of a natural gas boom, with gas production now exceeding the peaks of 1973: rates are over three times higher than the 7 TCF per year Hubbert foresaw for 2010. The Lower 48 resource base is some 3,100 TCF, three to four times Hubbert’s earlier estimates.
Peak Oilers rarely mention Peak Gas. Hubbert expected his method to work for all resources; why did it fail with respect to gas? The answers to that question shed light on the shortcomings of Peak Oil Theory, and reveal the reasons why it should not be used as a policy-making tool.
Shortcoming #1: Hubbert’s technique depends entirely upon the estimate of the ultimate resource base. Any extrapolation of historical trends contains only the information embedded in the history. There is no way to anticipate “game-changing” developments outside the confines of the history upon which it is based. A forecast of a limited future thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if it is used to set policy.
Shortcoming #2: “Hubbert’s Peak” is the ultimate ceteris paribus analysis. Problem is, all other things are never equal, particularly in the realm of economics. Hubbert’s equations worked well in his experience, so well that he accepted them as immutable laws. Hubbert showed little concern for how changing policies or economics might affect his resource estimates (see Shortcoming #1).
Shortcoming #3: We are all limited by our imaginations. Hubbert could not imagine economic production of hydrocarbons from water depths over 600 feet; we now have production in nearly 10,000 feet of water. Shale rocks were never considered to have economic potential. Moore’s Law has enabled accomplishments in drilling and exploration beyond Hubbert’s wildest dreams.
Product Price
Until the mid-1970s, natural gas was dirt cheap, so cheap that drillers rarely targeted it intentionally. Most of the gas that was found and produced was incidental to oil operations, which explains why Hubbert deemed the gas resource to be a ratio of his crude oil estimate.
The following graph shows the history of natural gas prices (which was historically priced per mcf, or 1,000 standard cubic feet). The average wellhead price (i.e., the price received by the producer in the field) from 1925 until 1970 was less than 10¢ per mcf (about 66¢ in 2005 dollars). The energy content of one barrel of oil is roughly the same as 6 mcf of gas, so that the cost of buying one barrel’s worth of energy in natural gas form was only 60¢ (or less than $4.00 in 2005 dollars).
Nominal and Real U.S. Wellhead Gas Prices, 1925-2010
Public Policy
Since 1938, the Natural Gas Act had enforced low gas prices and near monopoly status for the big interstate gas pipelines. It was not unusual for a producer to be locked into a long term gas sales contract at 3¢ per mcf, with no recourse and no alternatives. In an effort to build domestic gas supplies, President Carter signed the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) in 1978. It maintained existing price controls while granting preference to newly-found supplies. Its recognition of a dozen or more “vintages” of gas led to a price structure that became increasingly byzantine over time.
President Reagan began phasing out price controls on oil and gas in 1983. Tax reform ended limited partnerships’ tax shelters for drilling dry holes. The industry floundered as prices tanked and investors vanished. From 1981 until 1985, the count of active drilling rigs declined from 4,500 to under 700. Under severe economic pressure, the energy industry consolidated and contracted, then set about figuring out how to regain profitability.
Technology
Coincidentally, by about 1985, the impact of desktop computing began to be felt in the industry. Directly or indirectly, the PC era would contribute to a number of important technical advances in exploration and well operations, including 3-D seismic, horizontal drilling and logging-while-drilling. Using these and other new technologies, operators began finding ways to produce natural gas from rocks that had been never before been considered to be commercial sources of hydrocarbons. Explorers drilled fewer dry holes, and more efficiently developed smaller accumulations than in earlier days.
Real Wellhead Price and Lower 48 Gas Production, 1925-2010
Conclusion
Hubbert may have been correct about the ultimate volume of gas that would have been produced under pre-1970 prices and marketing structures. That price was unrealistically low compared to the energy content of gas. Today’s gas prices are about six times the pre-1970 average (2005 dollars), but gas is still a relative bargain. (Six thousand cubic feet of gas costs about $24, but can do as much work as one $100 barrel of oil.)
So, if all this is true, why does Hubbert’s curve seem to work so well for crude oil?
One key fact distinguishes natural gas and oil. Oil can be readily imported from anywhere in the world. Gas is primarily a North American commodity. Imports (other than Canadian pipeline imports) can impact the market only when domestic prices are high – and even then we have to compete with Japan and other regular customer on the world market. At the current low price of gas (relative to oil), the United States may become a gas exporter.
The transportability of oil caused the oil-oriented major integrated companies to focus their exploration efforts overseas when drilling and production costs rose in the U.S. Finding large deposits of oil overseas was easier, cheaper and more efficient than it was in the States. The U.S. natural gas market became the domain of domestic independents.
Policy decisions have taken much of the domestic oil resource base off the table, namely in the Alaskan North Slope, much of the Mountain West and the 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf which is closed to exploration. We cannot know how big this potential resource base is until we drill it. Many would prefer not to know, whether for political or environmental reasons, so we can expect the fight to continue.
Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
Two questions
OCBill (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 11:43AM EST (link)When the government thinks gas prices are too low, they propose increased taxes on gasoline to raise the price. But why don’t they just institute price supports instead? That question is rhetorical.
The other question is off-topic, but did you know that Romney surrogate Pam Bondi, the Florida AG, just announced Romney’s plan to push for RomneyCare in all 50 states? Yep. that individual mandate sure is a conservative concept, I guess.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/were-screwed-florida-ag-pam-bondi-claims-mitt-wants-romneycare-in-every-state-video/
I think we’re getting an even better feel for the type of Supreme Court justice that Romney would nominate.
You can’t afford the price of free corn.
Why not write a diary instead of trying to hijack one?
bk (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 6:12PM EST (link)You can consider that a rhetorical question — or not.
Abiotic oil
DerKrieger (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 2:11PM EST (link)Steve, what are your thoughts on abiotic oil theory?
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” — John Locke, 1690
Agnostic about abiotic oil.
Steve Maley (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 9:47PM EST (link)For me, the success of both oil and gas in shale confirms the conventional view, that the major source of most commercial hydrocarbons is in the shales.
There may – may – be some sourcing of hydrocarbons from elsewhere, but to me it’s always been sort of a curiosity.
Some have tried to use abiotic oil as an argument that “we can never run out”. Unless it can be shown that there is some deep source of oil and gas that can recharge reservoirs as fast or faster than we use it (currently 85 to 90 million barrels a day), sooner or later we would run short of supply.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
I basically agree
tcgeol (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 10:11PM EST (link)I’ve thought that abiotic oil deserves a bit more credit than most geologists (in my experience, anyway) give it, but it definitely doesn’t seem to be the prevailing source.
As far as the peak gas curve, the Marcellus and the beginning of Utica drilling just in the east will kill about any curve. However, the idea of a peak gas curve is new to me. Thanks for the information, sir.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
If there is anthing Abiotic it would be methane
kyle8 (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 10:30PM EST (link)Methane is one of the simplest hydrocarbons and we know it is found in abundance n the rest of the solar system. So it may make sense that it is found naturally within the Earth.
But more complex hydro carbons are a bit of a stretch to me.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Yea & verily, the end days are at hand, maybe.
johnt Saturday, January 28th at 4:31PM EST (link)We can always hope it seems, in a dark kind of way. No one ever went broke forcasting disaster, famine, over population, polluted waters, the modern Four Horesemen of the Apocalypse. Matter of fact ,they go on making money with reputations both intact and renewable.
How do I get in on this racket?
“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville
Interesting post, but I don't agree with your argument
nod90 (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 4:48PM EST (link)I’ve always wondered if Hubbert had made any predictions for gas, and now I know why the peak oil people never mentioned them. That said, to judge Hubbert fairly I really think that you need to restrict yourself to conventional, on-shore production. I suspect that if you strip out offshore production, coal bed methane and shale gas then Hubbert’s prediction looks a whole lot better.
I don’t think that you should fault Hubbert for not foreseeing new inventions like shale gas. Ten years ago nobody anticipated how big a resource shale gas was going to be.
Another thing to point out is the price. Sure, we have plenty of gas in 2012, but we are paying a lot more for it than we did in the mid-90s. Shale gas is a lot more expensive than old fashioned, conventional production was before those resources ran out.
So what does this mean for peak oil? To avoid peak oil we need to invent a new way to produce oil. What happens if nothing new is invented? Even if some new invention happens, maybe it will take $200 / bbl to make the economics work. I suspect that $7 / gal gasoline would break the budgets of a lot of families. Can our economy cope with that? Back in the 90s we paid $20 for a barrel of oil, and the rise in prices to $100 hasn’t done our economy any good.
There is something in the oil industry that looks similar to shale gas and that is the Bakken shale in North Dakota. There is a huge amount of oil in place there, but the rock is non-porous so getting it out is near-impossible. A lot of technological improvements are needed before that can have the same impact that shale gas had, and maybe those will never happen. I’d be interested in your opinion on this.
I believe you missed the point
jlcbtr123 Saturday, January 28th at 6:43PM EST (link)that is, from what I understand it is not that he is harping on the fact that Hubbert was wrong in his prediction, but that policy is being made based on false predictions.
Hubbert did in fact
citizenkh (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 7:02PM EST (link)note oil bearing shale and in particular the kerogen containing shale in the Rockies but did not give credit that technology to extract it would ever come to be.
Even blue collar workers in pre-WWII Era foresaw us being able to go to the moon one day, and we did.
Hubbert included offshore oil in his forecast.
Steve Maley (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 10:19PM EST (link)In fact, his resource estimate for shallow water was not too bad. He confined his estimate to shallow waters off TX & LA. He had no idea that deepwater production would ever be possible.
A major debate these days is whether we should (re)open drilling in the 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf that is currently off limits. Politicians have decided that we should not. Ditto ANWR, and up until very recently the Chukchi Sea. Offshore CA is a known oil province, but no new drilling.
Natural gas is ~$2.60/mcf today. It would be a bargain at double that price.
You are flat wrong about the Bakken. Because of success there, ND is producing 500,000 barrels per day and has the lowest unemployment in the country. How many other similar oil shales are there? Exploration is ongoing in the Niobrara (CO & WY), the Monterrey (CA), and the Brown Dense and the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale of LA.
I’m not critical of Hubbert. He was a brilliant resource geologist. But he had human limitations. As his boss at the USGS observed, he had little interest or appreciation for the impact of economics on his resource estimates, in what is fundamentally an economic realm. Hubbert also spent a lot of effort deriding the more optimistic conclusions of competitors. Those competitors’ estimates tuened out to be closer to reality than Hubbert.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
So Hubbert was right, except about the parts where he was wrong?
Right Reason (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 12:31PM EST (link)n/t
Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
- Winston Churchill
The reason Peak Oil never happens is
kyle8 (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 10:35PM EST (link)that Humans are the ultimate natural resource. That is why we were not destroyed by the end of abundant Whale Oil, rubber, or firewood, which all happened.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
One of the OPEC members once observed...
renl57 Sunday, January 29th at 8:27AM EST (link)that the Stone Age didn’t end due to humans running out of stones.
Agreed many would prefer not to discuss nat gas reserves
Juggernaut (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 3:56AM EST (link)nor would they care to admit how many untapped sources there are. We can produce gas from garbage dumps and from man made fermentation tanks at a higher cost per MMCF. We can outlast Saudi oil with gas plus we barely get to drill for oil under the statist Obama control.
RomneyCare is Right Wing Socialism – please feel free to use is as often as possible…….it will kill his campaign.
Romney “severely conservative”? That’s the opposite of a “compassionate conservative” like George W. Bush? Actually, we know what a severely conservative is. It’s Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney is no Dick Cheney.
The US reserves of oil gas and coal
creinstein (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 4:25AM EST (link)The US reserves of oil, gas, and coal actually boggle the mind.
What we see here is the success of the USGS in finding things for us.
The sad part is that in other nations if oil, titanium, lithium, or another valuable resource is found… they start mining/drilling for it.
But not the United States.
Coal to Oil conversion exists, with a facility in use by the US Navy for decades.
Shale is incredible in of itself. A company found that by burning 1 part shale, they c
OBAMA = One Big Ar**d Mistake America!
Are you man or woman enough? Prove it!
Running for office in North Portland – Oregon! State Representative or Bust!
Veteran, Truck Driver, and Permament Conservative Activist!
sigh, i hate smart phones
creinstein (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 4:33AM EST (link)Continued…
Burn 1 part of shale to recover 2 parts of shales oil.
While not the best technique we could desire it is a start.
I think also we will see more technology by far come into play.
With a 200 year supply the United States should drill for domestic needs and use this bounty to help find real methods and ideas to replace oil.
OBAMA = One Big Ar**d Mistake America!
Are you man or woman enough? Prove it!
Running for office in North Portland – Oregon! State Representative or Bust!
Veteran, Truck Driver, and Permament Conservative Activist!
We need GASOLINE
renl57 Sunday, January 29th at 8:28AM EST (link)I can’t run my car on natural gas. I can’t run my car on coal.
What’s the situation with converting these fossil fuels to gasoline?
You can run motor vehicles on natural gas
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 8:40AM EST (link)Buses out here in CA do so all the time.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
True
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 9:39AM EST (link)I can vouch for every city bus in San Diego County being natural gas.
Gasoline is now the #1 export of the U.S.
Steve Maley (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 9:33AM EST (link)As Neil notes, nat gas is a growing motor fuel. It has a huge price advantage over gasoline or diesel.
Did you know that nat gas provides a quarter of the nation’s energy consumption? You need it more than you know.
The blogger formerly known as ‘Vladimir’.
Gasoline engines
citizenkh (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 9:53AM EST (link)can be converted to natural gas. Industrial diesel engine manufacturers have LONG made engines which use natural gas, otherwise it would be more expensive to get oil & gas from the field to the pipelines especially in remote locations.
What “oil” people often fail to mention is the need for natural gas as both fuel AND raw material to make fertilizer and all sorts of petrochemicals.
That's a point few people notice
Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 10:13AM EST (link)It’s cheap and easy access to hydrocarbons that makes plastics and other modern chemical marvels so cheap and easy to use.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
My Corvette won't be running on natgas...
mdyou (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 11:20AM EST (link)…but I would be happy to run it in my Suburban.
It should
citizenkh (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 8:20PM EST (link)and put the composite pressure vessel storage in the trunk. Every vehicle loses HP rating though as gasoline has higher BTU value.
You can run your car on natural gas, but...
Dave_A (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 10:53AM EST (link)It is much more expensive to produce liquified-natural-gas vehicles than gasoline or diesel ones, due to the need for a fuel-system capable of handling high-pressure fuel, as natural gas used for motor-vehicle applications is stored as a high-pressure liquid.
Most of the LNG-busses & LNG-govt-vehicles are what they are due to ‘clean-energy’ and ‘alternative fuel’ subsidies & grants, not because it would be affordable to use gas in an undistorted market. It’s not as bad as ethanol, but LNG as a transportation fuel today is largely a creation of govt…. Could this change? Sure, depends on what the price/supply of oil does….
I don’t know the comparative energy-to-volume ratio between LNG & gasoline, so I can’t comment on that….
HOWEVER, there are plenty of things we use oil for now, that natural gas can also be used for – thus freeing up oil to be made into gasoline, rather than various other fuels. Developing infrastructure to use gas as a building-heat fuel in areas that are presently dependent on heating oil, for example (Northeast US)…. Or gas-fired power plants instead of oil-fired…
Also, as mentioned above, hydrocarbons are pretty much essential to modern life, since practically everything not made of metal or wood is made from petrochemicals….
Finally, IIRC there is also a good amount of oil in similar rock formations to where we’re getting gas from now (not the same areas of the country in every case, but there’s supposed to be alot of it)….. I don’t know enough about it to know if the same extraction methods that work for the gas can also be used to economically extract the oil….
Formerly known as dcacklam – they finally fixed my access to the ‘profile’ page
Liquified
citizenkh (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 8:51PM EST (link)natural gas has a low pressure, but very very cold, while compressed natural gas is high pressure.
LNG could be used by large engines such as those in trains or as storage for large distribution centers, truck stops but not so much for vehicles.
CNG can utilize existing natural gas infrastructure to homes but pressurized at fueling stations to required pressures to have an adequate quantity in “the tank.”
Applying standard compressor sizing for industry would mean a three stage reciprocating compressor. Rod loads are too much for less stages for the compressor to last very long.
coal to oil
creinstein (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 12:18PM EST (link)The United States had a coal to oil conversiion facility built due to the OPEC oil crisis.
The facility in the 80′s had a conversion price of about $100 a barrel.
I imagine it is a bit higher, though technological increases could help keep the prices down.
Due to the US having so much coal as to actually be more than the rest of the world combined this would be an easy way go extend the usage of oil around the world.
OBAMA = One Big Ar**d Mistake America!
Are you man or woman enough? Prove it!
Running for office in North Portland – Oregon! State Representative or Bust!
Veteran, Truck Driver, and Permament Conservative Activist!
There were a number of them
citizenkh (Diary) Sunday, January 29th at 8:27PM EST (link)paid for by DOE grants. I took one down at was was then Shell Deer Park (Houston) Manufacturing Complex in the Summer/Fall of 1991 but was unable to oversee completion as I was transferred out to Carson, CA to take down a Shell refinery. Shell even had plans to build a full scale unit with a coal slurry pipeline from WV. It was said to be economically feasible at $35 per bbl crude oil.
Never underestimate the power of government regulations to kill innovation and technology.
ConocoPhillips tried to auction off a gas to liquids plant located at Ponca City, OK in 2009 including all licenses, technology and research data. Starting price was $1 Million. No one bid on it.
Don’t ever believe the wrong headed b.s. on the internet about oil companies trying to stifle development.
If the government gets out of the way
unclefred (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 12:04PM EST (link)Currently harvestable oil shale alone is between 1Tb and 2Tb equivalents. With more exploration and better technologies that number can only get larger. We have all the oil resources we need to be 100% energy independent for at least a century, including virtually any foreseeable growth.
I realize that oil shale today is not a panacea and that there are still technical issues to solve. Others here are far more knowledgeable about those things than I. However, does anyone really doubt that if we allowed those resources to be developed, those issues would not be solved?
Our domestic energy shortage is a political creation, nothing more.
What's wrong, is that Peak Oil is upon us
scottdf Wednesday, February 1st at 10:03AM EST (link)United States Joint Forces Command:
U.S. JOINT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2010 (JOE Report 2010) http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
“A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. To what extent conservation measures, investments in alternative energy production, and efforts to expand petroleum production from tar sands and shale would mitigate such a period of adjustment is difficult to predict. One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest…By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day…The implications for future conflict are ominous, if energy supplies cannot keep up with demand and should states see the need to militarily secure dwindling energy resources.”
Dept of Energy EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproductsconsumption.html
US Daily Consumption of oil is 19.180 million barrels per day. 8.993 million barrels of that is consumed as finished motor fuel gasoline. To put that into perspective the U.S. JOINT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT REPORT estimate of 10 million barrel per day global shortfall by 2015 would the equivalent of having every gasoline pump across all 50 states gone dry. Picture all US roads vacant of gasoline autos. That’s what a 10 million barrels shortfall represents.
Charles Maxwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-zySQBrum7o
Editor for Petroleum Review Mag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NAdnuGUYXp8
Chairman IEA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkISqOCnVA&feature=related
Former chief engineer for BP, CEO of BP Canada, and retired VP of Saudi ARAMCO
http://www.youtube.com/user/OilEducationTV#p/u/2/oZp-OxZuflE
http://www.youtube.com/user/OilEducationTV#p/u/3/4d3kK4kgz5g
How much oil does the world consume each day?
scottdf Wednesday, February 1st at 10:15AM EST (link)Visualize this many 55-gallon steel drums:
World daily oil consumption: 88 million 42-gallon barrels
A 55 gallon steel drum is 3 feet tall
A mile is 5,280 feet
The circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles
The speed of sound (Mach 1) is 768mph
If you convert barrels to steel drums.
(88,000,000 x 42gal) / 55gal = 67,200,000 steel drums
And if you laid those drum end to en on their side (as though you were making a pipeline of steel drums), how long would this pipeline be?
(67,200,000 x 3ft) / 5,280 = 38,182 miles long
At 38,182 miles you would encircle the earth 1 1/2 times each day
38,182 / 24,901 = 1.53 or 1 1/2 times
or you could encircle the earth with steel drums 560 times each year.
(38,182 miles x 365days) / 24,901 = 560 times around the earth each year.
And the speed at which you’d have to lay those drums down?
The speed at which you’d have to lay those drums end to end to cover the 38,182 mile distance?
(38,182 miles per day / 24 hours) = 1,591mph
1,591mph / 768mph = 2.07 or Mach 2
Environmentalists believe we will replace those petroleum volumes with veggie oils and white-lighting whiskey?
Obama campaigned on the rhetoric of getting off imported oil within 10 years by going to advanced biofuels? Consider: 10 million barrels of the oil the US imports burned each day has the energy equivalent to the output of 750 nuclear power plants . There are only 436 nuclear power plants worldwide, 104 of which are in the US (we produce 1/3 of the world’s nuclear power). If we couldn’t build, train, and staff 750 nuclear plants within 10 years could we really go to advanced biofuels capable of replacing 10 million barrels per day within 10 years?
You guys bashing Peak Oil need to get off the thinking it’s some hippy dippy bs. It’s simply how oilfields age. Like the author I’m in the oil business too.