Well, stocks are still in the average range for 2002-2006 in these graphs. And the graphs are not zero-scaled.

Better look at the charts again. OECD Total Oil is well below average. It's touching the very bottom of the range.

Moe, thanks for responding. The bottom of the range is still the range.
I think we can agree it means trouble ahead anyway, as consumption is still higher each year. PO & ELM does not bode well for refilling these stocks. Basically why I come here: to observe and learn.

I feel the exact same way. That's why I wanted Robert's opinion--he is much, much, smarter than me about oil. In fact, I think the litmus test makes tons of sense and I never would have thought of it.

I just wanted to know where he thought the line was. Well under the range? Bottom of range?

It makes a difference to me because it helps me keep track of how much time left to prepare.

"it helps me keep track of how much time left to prepare"

Exactly. But I guess this is different for everybody. When you get laid off for example, it's more difficult to fund preperations.

BTW, yesterday a hilarious article in my newpaper (Dutch nrc.nl), mentioning Hubbert. The actual advise given was (take a seat and hold on) that if you wanted to buy a new flat screen TV you should do it asap, because all these luxury items will get more expensive to produce as resource constraints kick in. IOW, spend your money NOW!

I could see an argument for spending your money now. If you think inflation will make things more expensive, say. Or if your dream is to walk atop the Great Wall of China, and are afraid peak oil will mean no more tourism.

But to buy a power-sucking TV? That's nuts.

I'm going to Japan this year while I still can. Something tells me that in a few years all of these Frequent Flier miles and hotel points I have will be worthless. hehe

They say that spending money on experiences rather than things will make you happier. Things never make you as happier as you think they will. But experiences only get better in your memory.

"I could see an argument for spending your money now"

I' ll be spending my savings for a new roof and a solar water heater.

If you look at US stocks as presented in Tom Whipple's review from EB here: http://www.energybulletin.net/38683.html you can see that each year from '04-'06 moved up. This makes sense, as there are more people using more energy in a growing population/economy time-bomb. Presumably this is also the case for the OECD. But then in '07, esp. after mid-year, US stocks began to be less than the prior year, then years. So being anywhere near the lower end of the five year range seems to be a significant tightening of supply. The five-year average is misleading in the sense that the population and economy has grown during those five years, so stocks, to keep pace, would have to grow as well.