Dear Sir,
On today's front page, you have an article about the announcement of improved prospects for oil production at the Kashagan oil fields in Kazakhstan ("Kazakh oilfield set to smash forecasts"). By featuring this prominently, and focusing on the best sounding news (the 25% increase in expected peak production) as opposed to the lower 10% increase in overall production, or to the increased costs and the new delays in production start up), it would seem that your goal is to reassure your readers that the risk of dwindling oil supplies which you allude to has again receded rather than providing information and perspective.

[For instance, t][T] he announced production increase over the whole life of the field is equal to less than 20 days of world consumption, and the maximum production level of the field will amount to less than 2% of total production at its peak [ - i.e.][. These are] significant volumes for the field's owners, but hardly enough to change the oil balance in any meaningful way -- and this for the only large field discovered in the least 30 years.

[Similarly, t][T] he article ends up with a quote from Mr Stanislaw about how "the field pulls the centre of gravity away from Russia and the Middle East" which is [][a] wildly exaggerated and [quite simply] ludicrous [][claim]. Kashagan's production will represent less than a sixth of the production of either Saudi Arabia or Russia at any time in the future, and will only have a marginal impact on the global oil balance.

It is a pity that [such basic elements of context have not been included in your article.][your article did not place the announcement in its proper context.]

As ever, [x] means delete "x", [x][y] replace "x" with "y" and [][x] means insert [x].