[pup55]

Per the interesting suggestion by Missinglink the other day, here is a model decline scenario based on the following methodology:

a. Use BP production data in the 2004 statistical review.
b. Throw out all nations which have not peaked yet, also those who have recently “peakedâ€

[skyemoor]

[quote="pup55"]Per the interesting suggestion by Missinglink the other day, here is a model decline scenario based on the following methodology:

a. Use BP production data in the 2004 statistical review.
b. Throw out all nations which have not peaked yet, also those who have recently peaked to eliminate any nations with a faux

[pup55]

The intent was to develop a "typical decline scenario" therefore reasonable to include the nations that were "in decline".

A secondary idea was to look at various decline curves and see how they do or do not conform to the Hubbertian "bell shaped" decline model.

What was found out of course was that there is no "typical decline" because the shape of the decline curve varied by location. Some curves were more like a "cliff" while others showed more gentle downslope.

[backstop]

Pup -

This seems a very useful estimation of the general format of decling supply that we'll face.

Two things I'd ask, one that you switch the data table result into a graph,

(so much easier to consider)

and the other would be to graph the boe eqivalent that is missing, from, say, a 2.5% global growth rate starting at year 1/.

The latter would give some idea of the scale of development of replacement liquid fuels required to maintain the global economic growth required for that development.

Could you have a bash at this ?

regards,

Backstop

[pup55]

Actually, this was graphed out for us once before by johnmarkos:



I am too thrifty (frugal, cheap, etc.. ) to have my own website so as to be able to display graphs (sorry).

The 2.5% growth scenario can easily be added by someone friendly who will graph it for us.

[EnergySpin]

pup55 may I have the Verhulst ?
The other ones scare me to death

[pup55]

http://peakoil.com/fortopic5222-0.html

We had some previous discussion on this model in the above thread.

You are right. We had better root for the verhulst.

[backstop]

Pup -

Many thanks.

Its a very sobering view, for all its nothing approaching a detailed forecast.

Its inverse, that is a graph of the BOE growth required to maintain economic growth, should maybe be on the front page of the site, as it has to be a telling curve.

A lot of people seem inclined to clutch at techno-straws (with full media backing) rather than face structural change with its admission that the ideology of market-driven growth is a cock-up on a global scale. Maybe that curve would be of assistance to them ?

regards,

Backstop

[EnergySpin]

http://peakoil.com/fortopic5222-0.html

We had some previous discussion on this model in the above thread.

You are right. We had better root for the verhulst.

I was expressing a preference for the Verhulst model
Yeap I know about the discussion. Since running those numbers I consider Mathematica a wicked evil piece of software.
Backstop:
It is time for the structural change, but what we know?
We are a bunch of stupid POilers, environmentalists, most anti-capitalists who carry a message that the majority of the world does not want to hear: It is time to cut back.
Doomerosity Level 7: Roaches will inherit the earth. Meet the most intelligent species on earth in 50 years from now. One click away