There's a saying from the days of England's great war-time leader Sir Winston Churchill in which he describes the United States and his own country as being two nations "divided by the same language."
Much has changed in the world since he uttered that phrase (if he did indeed say those exact words) in terms of communications and technology, but repeat it today and you'll still get a general nodding of heads on both sides of the pond. However, these days it is not only England that should really be counted on one side of the water, but the rest of Europe too.
So it was interesting to see an E&P survey by Arthur Anderson recently. I was reassured to note once again the fact that when it comes to viewing the world's upstream opportunities, there are still very different opinions as to exactly where we should be concentrating. And this depends on whether you're sitting precisely east or west of the North Atlantic.
The report itself, covered later in this issue on pages 8 and 9, makes excellent and encouraging reading for all of us. News of increasing plans for more exploration and production activity is always good to hear. But it also plainly highlighted the fact that operators in the United States and Europe have very different opinions as to the areas they like best and least.
The Europeans put the Middle East at the top of their list of most attractive areas, followed by North Africa and Latin America. Where did the United States come? It barely scraped into the top 10 alongside China and Australia, behind the UK, West Africa, the Caspian and Southeast Asia.
If we now move to what the US operators thought, the picture changes entirely.
One hundred US executives ranked parts of the world very differently - in terms of attractiveness for exploration and development they liked the United States best, followed by Canada and West Africa. Least popular in the top 10 were - you've guessed it - the North Sea (and Indonesia)!
It is perhaps disappointing then that despite all the cross-border communication that goes on these days within both large and small companies, many oil folk still appear to believe that it is not worth stepping into someone else's patch because all the best opportunities have gone.
However this is surely not the case. There are too many free-thinking companies - mainly smaller independents - out there. We all know the huge opportunities that still exist in the US Gulf, both in deep and shallow water. Why shouldn't European companies and others from around the world target it with more belief? And in return why are so few US independents prepared to investigate the plentiful opportunities that still exist in the North Sea, especially for smaller, highly expert outfits - many of whom have been outstanding in the Gulf of Mexico.
There is a key point to add here too - the size of potential new field reserves isn't the main driver for entering new business areas. A less well publicized part of the Arthur Andersen report pointed out that when the European group was asked to rank the socio-economic and geographical features that influenced their investment decisions, the most important factor was said to be reliable legal and fiscal systems followed by a secure route to market and known geology. Is there any better way to sum up the US Gulf and the North Sea?
Whether this situation will ever change is open to debate. But wouldn't it be refreshing if two great collective groups of minds suddenly thought alike?