These are very interesting statements. What we're talking about here, in layman's language, is a physical restriction on our ability to extract oil in sufficient qualitities to meet projected demand, in other words a bottle-neck.

Having read and listened to Matt Simmons it would appear that way before we really begin to see oil running out, many other factors connected with Peak Oil are going to make themselves known. For example, shortages of qualified oil workers, lack of rigs, shortages of steel pipes and drill-heads, not enough engineers...

This is all connected to demand racing ahead of our ability to ramp-up production at the same rate.

There was another part of the interview that I also found interesting. Mention of the 'geo-political' difficulties relating to OPEC and the cartels inability/reluctance to dramatically increase production. Increasingly these countries are going to realize that their oil reserves are going to be worth more and more the longer they remain in the ground. What is their incentive to rapidly increase production to satisfy our needs in the short and medium term? Aren't we rapidly moving towards a fundamental clash of interests here? Maybe their 'incentive' will increasingly be our promise not to invade them!

Increasingly we are going to find ourselves getting more and more frustrated with the oil producers, they have the oil, yet for a variety of reasons they will not be willing/able to procuce it in the quantities we need. How will we react to this situation? Will we just sit back and watch them sleeping on the job? Surely the gap between demand and supply will grow wider and wider, and prices will go up and up. It's going to feel like we are being slowly strangled. I have an unpleasant feeling that we just go in and take the oil or gas, of course we'll find some acceptable excuse for our actions, but the important things is we'll have the oil/gas, one way or another, after all we're talking about the stuff that keeps our civilization going aren't we?

Mention of the 'geo-political' difficulties relating to OPEC and the cartels inability/reluctance to dramatically increase production. Increasingly these countries are going to realize that their oil reserves are going to be worth more and more the longer they remain in the ground. What is their incentive to rapidly increase production to satisfy our needs in the short and medium term?
I'm not sure how serious a risk this is - I mean yes maybe they will see that their oil will be worth more in the future than today but they have bills to pay today. Many OPEC countries have rapidly growing populations and really very low per capita incomes, they aren't all that wealthy. Additionally it's certainly not in their interest to restrict oil supply such that high prices caused recession and significant demand destruction. Governments don't tend to give up short term gain for long term gain so I expect all produces are cashing in.

Investments might be lacking due to a perceived risk of future oversupply and price collapse though.

Yes, you're right of course. I didn't want to get too technical and detailed. I fear this question may have a lot to do with different 'perceptions.' It's clear that they want to sell and we want to buy. However, we may perceive that they are 'dragging their feet' and they could do much more to increase production. It appears that we have already 'interpreted' the recent problems with the supply of Russian gas, in a very negative and anti-Russian way. Maybe the 'message' from Russia was, we don't have as much gas as you think we have. In last few months I've both read and heard both politicians, oilmen and analysts discussing Russia and OPEC and how they both need to 'liberalize' and open their countries to outside investment and expertise, so that oil production can be increased to satisfy our needs. I was just speculating about how, in an increasingly energy hungry world, our 'patience' with them might begin to run out. It was meant to be a prophecy, at least I hope not!
Sorry, I meant to say, 'It was not meant to be a prophecy.' Perhaps fate is trying to tell me something.
>... their oil reserves are going to be worth more and more the longer they remain in the ground. What is their incentive to rapidly increase production to satisfy our needs in the short and medium term?
The incentive to exploit now rather than conserve in the expectation of higher prices later is that it is politically expedient to take the cash now rather than leave it for the next generation.  Perhaps a heredetory monarchy might take the enlightened long term view (cf Bhutan)
Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to drop quite so much 'nuance', but I was writing quickly. As I wrote above, we may be entering an area were different 'perceptions' take-on an increasingly important role. Aren't we talking about a 'balance' here? Balancing the short-term over the long-term? I'm just not sure that in the future we will agree with the oil producing countries about where exactly this 'balance' lies. In my opinion our mutual interests will increasingly diverge as oil/gas supplies fail to keep up with rapidly increasing demand.
"These are very interesting statements. What we're talking about here, in layman's language, is a physical restriction on our ability to extract oil in sufficient qualitities to meet projected demand, in other words a bottle-neck."

production maximum theory is often called Peak oil theory