It's just a metaphor. If it is being applied to the ability to increase production, and the meter is measuring "ability to increase", well, then at that point your rate is zero and then, eh, negative. aka depletion

So in that case your little meter that you have there is not measuring ability-to-increase, rather, it represents reserves. Two different considerations.

Just depends on how you market the metaphor, so to speak. For instance, Richard Heinberg's new book, based on the Rimini Protocol, has a meter showing "less than zero"--which is clearly indicating an ability to increase not an absolute zero. The world is presently around 85mbpd or something like that. I'm pretty sure Heinberg is aware of this given that his job is essentially knowing such mudane yet lurid details. Even at a global 2% conventional oil depletion rate there is obviously oil left, and will be for a very long time... The debate consists of: is there capacity left, and at what price increases, and at what rate of price increases to offset conventional depletion? The biggest question of all is that geological and mathematical point where we've hit highest production crest and begin a dismal decent into the trough of our future. 1970 in the US can be cited as just one example.

This inveigh in the form of "we're not outta gas yet" is appropriate if you're being literalist. But you become an apologist with a snipe at the idea that cheap oil is still around after putting up a straw man with the doubly disengenious tank half empty lament--which, btw, is the same illogical and fatuous argument that people like Greg Pallast and various others make to decry the idea that more is wrong in the US than simply the neocons securing "our interests", a translation for "invading countries".

Everyone should know that something has gone awry. All you have to do is turn on a TV, good thing I don't own one. Alas, there is enough BS in the newspaper--why in the world would I need a TV?

I think I'll make that previous paragraph my signiture on here...