You voiced my fear.

We need Khebab and WebHubble's help here, but it is my understanding that the peak hight and width are controlled by how fast you can drain the reservoirs. If you can drain them very fast, you get a tall narrow peak. And if you are restricted to draining them slowly you get a low wide peak. (basically what we saw with Prudhoe bay where the oil pipeline kept the flow rates low, vs Cantarell where nitrogen injection kept flow rates high). A popping balloon curve shape would be lethal.

I just hope costs creep slowly upwards. Slow enough they don't destroy the economy. Fast enough that people can be convinced to take some action.

The other issue that worries me is that the nat gas sector is consuming ever larger quantities of steel. And that is going to compete directly with building wind turbines.

But on a whole, if any fossil fuel is going to be found in greater abundance, I would much rather it be natural gas than oil or coal. Natural gas has the lowest carbon footprint, and it does not discourage peak oil preparation. Keep up the good work Texans!

[...]and the move to diversify away from nat gas (e.g. wind) won't have happened.

Wind power is currently built under the assumption of natural gas providing most of the power and the wind turbines providing a bit of power when they can. Wind power in its current form should be seen as a slightly more efficient way to burn natural gas, not as a way to reduce gas dependency.

If you actually want to divest from natural gas build grid energy storage and wring out a little extra hydropower from less than ideal locations.