[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
When the well is getting near dry, you are producing at somewhat reduced capacity, that is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd argue it's a bit more than "somewhat". There are really two different problems here
1) Via advance recovery you manage to produce at almost full speed until the field more or less collapses, we have seen this at many fields lately, dropping 10%-20% in production in a single year. This is bad news since it's very quick and leaves little time to act.
2) The field is produced more carefully and will therefor have a long period of relatively slow decline. This is better, but not happening a lot, since a lot of these advance methods are used.
[ QUOTE ]
But this effect is not the important point. What's important is to get a meaningful figure out to guide us.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that there is a point in that too. The problem is that the second part of the guide is often droppen, it's not "we have 40 years of production in theory, in reality we will have longer but will face supply problems. It's "We have 40 years". But you are of course right in that even this should say us a lot more than it does. If we say, we have 40 years, and also say, it will take 20-30 years to find an alternative, best case. Well, that really should tell us something...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's ... somewhat intellectually dishonest to report numbers quoting "today's production" when demand is growing.



[/ QUOTE ]
That's a standard compromise in finance. It's the same way you assess a company's performance at year's end : You take a snapshot which freezes the company's position at the 31st of that year and shows you receivables, payables, 12-month earnings, etc, at that point in time.

It's not perfect but it does the job.


[/ QUOTE ]
In some cases it does, in some it don't. I've seen argument for using liquefying coal that states that we have 200 years worth of coal (at present consumtion). But when looking more into it it turns out that if we increase the usage as much as the coal2oil would mean we only have 50 years, or 40. Just pointing out that one must be aware of the assumptions made.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As for the argument on why not more refineries are built, there are other explanations possible, more or less likely.



[/ QUOTE ]
I would really like to know about them. (I trust you are not talking about regional problems, such as environmentalists stopping the construction of a refinery.)


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not, although that might be an issue as well.
But if oil-companys are having a harder time finding oil, a harder time getting good business opportunites to pump more oil than they are now, well, why build? After all, supply won't increase a lot.

[ QUOTE ]

I would tell you but then I'd have to kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]
watch it, I've got a black-belt in video-violence.