was designed for. It just doesn't have the relationship to energy that some might wish. "Some country with stranded natural gas can make the investment to convert natural gas to liquids for the next century and make money on an EROEI&lt;1 process. " So EROEI doesn't matter assuming: 1)you have an essentially inexhaustable supply of one energy source for an input, 2) as well as no limits to production of that energy input (i.e the supply for the input source is always in excess of the demand), and 3) the price paid for the energy returned is sufficient to "make money"? Is that correct? And if any of those factors change - the input source is not inexhaustable, there are limits to production of the input source, and/or the profit margin disappears (declining demand for example), does the EROEI matter then? So EROEI doesn't matter assuming: 1)you have an essentially inexhaustable supply of one energy source for an input, 2) as well as no limits to production of that energy input (i.e the supply for the input source is always in excess of the demand), and 3) the price paid for the energy returned is sufficient to "make money"? Is that correct? 1) Fossil fuels aren't inexhaustible and I certainly didn't say that, 2) I certainly didn't imply anything about a supply/demand configuration related to 1) 3) I certainly didn't say anything about what a "sufficient" price for energy is, using only current pricing to make the point as to