The consequences are, in large part, a function of the time of the peak and shape of the downside of the curve -- AND whether or not alternative fuels are available to make a non-Malthusian (i.e. non-dieoff) transition. Here I'll focus only on the shape of the downside portion of the world oil-production curve.
Background: For decades we've seen the world oil-production profile illustrated by symmetric or near symmetric curves, such as Gauss distributions, Hubbert curves, parabolas, logistic derivatives, exponential growth followed by exponential decline, etc. In fact, during my own world oil forecasts #1-4 (done 1996 to 1999), I show a rather steep but smooth exponential-like decline from the peak in 2005 to 2040 (i.e. 2040 is the last year of the forecasts).
FYI: The 42 models (including graphs and tables) for forecast #4 and the application program to run them are now available at http://www.halcyon.com/duncanrc. The world oil production curve (profile) from 1960 to 2040, 7 regions, etc. are likewise included.
But in my latest study (NB: forecast #5, nearly finished) the ideal (non-tramatic) exponential decline doesn't seem to be in the cards that Mother Nature dealt us long ago. This realization began to dawn on me while I was doing forecast #4. It now appears that Perry Arnett has got it right:
>>
>> Being both a producer and a consumer, my sense of the situation suggests
to
>> me that the 'peak' may become more like an inverted 'J-curve' at the
>> 'peaking moment', than a nicely rounded, almost symmetrical curve as is
>> typically depicted
>>
This realization of a very steep downside to world oil production came to me (during hundreds of simulation runs) in two ways: (1) theoretical considerations, and (2) use of a Stella (i.e. a modeling and simulation application program) mathematical function called the "Nth Order Smoothing Function". Specifically, the Smoothing Function absolutely refused to produce a long drawn-out downside decline in post-peak oil production curve (for nations, regions, and the world). "The mathematics was trying to tell me something." Forecast #5 (now nearly finished) shows a rather smooth approximately-exponential -UPSIDE_ to world oil production from 1857 to the 2004 peak, _BUT_ an alarmingly sharp _DOWNSIDE_ thereafter (i.e. roughly but aptly described as "an inverted J-curve").
Summary: With due respect to the great contributions of geophysicist M. King Hubbert, the symmetrical 'Hubbert curve' is _IMO_ badly wrong on the (gradually exponential) downside of world oil production profile. Instead, we can expect it to be more like "an inverted J-curve".
I'll present a summary of forecast #5 and the "downside discovery" (i.e. an invited and funded presentation) at the the Petroleum Technology and Transfer Conference (PTTC) on 22 September in Bakersfield CA.
Moreover, forecast #5 will be further elaborated in the leadoff presentation (invited and funded) to the Pardee Keynote Symposia, Geological Society of America, GSA Summit 2000, Reno, 13 November. After mid-November, Jay's e-group members can receive complementary copies of both presentations by each sending me his or her USPS mailing address. Emphasis: Mailing will be after mid-November.
-- Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D. Institute on Energy and Man 5307 Ravenna Place NE, #1 Seattle, WA 98105 www.halcyon.com/duncanrc
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:44:17 -0600
>> From: "perry arnett" <pjarnett at pdqnet.net>
>> Subject: the Peaking Curve : shape, time and consequences
>>
>> Without being the slightest bit critical of anything said or done
heretofore
>> on this list, may I offer a comment or conjecture, please?
>>
>> Being both a producer and a consumer, my sense of the situation suggests
to
>> me that the 'peak' may become more like an inverted 'J-curve' at the
>> 'peaking moment', than a nicely rounded, almost symmetrical curve as is
>> typically depicted
>>
>> - i.e. as the rate-of-demand on depleting resources increases through
>>
>> 1) world-wide exponential population growth and
>>
>> 2) economic inflation in the Western nations, (causing consumers to
>> 'think' they can afford more energy-consuming devices than they really
>> can)
>>
>> - the spike in the curve may rise more sharply in less time; thus the
rate
>> at which the resources are consumed will rise in that same, smaller time
>> frame; - so that the peaking may occur SOONER than usually discussed,
and
>> the peaking curve may be nearly asymptotic at its cusp before dropping
>> nearly straight down on the back side until it reaches some (at this
time)
>> inderminate level and begins to curve and then taper down.
>>
>> my point is, obviously, that if this were to happen, the consequences
would
>> be far more devastating than is being discussed on the lists, generally,
and
>> would occur sooner than is generally being discussed;
>>
>> but my gut sense tells me that there is a greater propensity for it to
>> happen this way than for it not to happen this way; thus, the great
>> interest I retain in trying to project the probable shape of the curve at
>> the peak, it's probable occurrance in time, and the shape on the back
side.
>>
>> [other justifications I could offer regarding politics and religion,
etc,,
>> but I'll defer until needed ]
>>
>> comments solicited
>>
>> Perry
>>
Your message didn't show up on the list? See http://dieoff.com/FAQ.htm