cutting production may not be by design. for example if a field is in decline and the operator has to ration capital, the work to restore production may go undone for now.

i fully believe the saudis will cut simply because they like to have excess capacity.

this may be an opportunity for many to do maintenance work that has been put off during the recent blow and go.

all factors that have nothing to do with storage capacity.

I think you're right. It seems to me that oil will become increasingly difficult to find, reach, extract, and process. That, in turn, would seem to imply that there would be more, albeit possibly different, work in the oil industry, not less. At least not for a long time to come.

Frankly, coal and gas have the same dynamic over time, as do all other finite resources. Until the cost of additional labor or technology or energy makes the recovery economically unfeasible, they will continue to do what they do.

It's a classic example of Prisoner's Dilemma

No - it's an example of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, as whichever countries you're talking about (OPEC/consumers/whoever) can freely react to the actions taken by each other.

This is important, as Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma has very different properties than a single run of the game; from your own link:

"Amongst results shown by Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann in his 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain the cooperative outcome.
...
Axelrod discovered that when these encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest."