by dissident » Sat 05 Feb 2011, 20:37:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s we tumble down the post-peak plateau (this year? next?, five years?) we will lose 10 million barrels/year production.
Indeed, the ride down will be much faster than the ramp up. All the Gaussian fits to world production are misleading even if they already highlight a problem. As we progress in time the average age of producing fields of significance is increasing. This reflects the lack of sufficient discovery to replace major developed fields. Old fields decline fast especially in geology such as that of Saudi Arabia. The discovery of small fields here and there will not be sufficient to making the peak oil curve symmetric since they do not last long and do not offset the change in the average age of the bulk of oil production. This also applies to the seabed oil development, the average life is short even for major areas such as the North Sea.
The ramp up stage of the global oil production curve was shaped by the growth of demand through development under conditions of unlimited supply. After peak it will be shaped by attempts to fill insatiable demand (driven by population growth and development) under conditions of diminishing supply. There is simply no reason why the before and after peak curve shapes should be the same. The decline stage also has the characteristic of attempts to extract maximal amounts of oil from fields faster (horizontal branched wells, etc.) that will increase production from existing fields in the short run but decrease the final recoverable figure by some fraction. So the long term decline rate will keep on increasing and not just due increasing average age.
The above is nothing new and has been beaten to death at The Oil Drum and here. With the current discovery rate (1 barrel found per 6 burned when averaged over the last 10 years) the decline will be steep. The current undulating plateau is the quiet before the storm.