Belly, this is not what I am looking for but it makes the other point
about the effect of oil prices on the economy.
This quote is from the Harvard Business review.

One big problem with these new sources is that they’re costly,
possibly too costly for comfort. “We have ample historical evidence
that when petroleum expenditures reach 5% of GDP, recession typically
follows,” Nelder and Macdonald write. “Annual energy expenditures
rose from 6.2% of U.S. GDP in 2002 to a painful 9.8% in 2008, which
was immediately followed by an economic crash. And now oil is sending
energy expenditures back above 9% of GDP, just as we see fresh
indications that the recession persists. This is not a coincidence.”

the link;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/defining-peak-oil/2011/10/06/gIQABuLgQL_blog.html

Bazz I have long ago thought high oil prices ,for the same reasons, not linked to shortages, tax and market control by OPEC are counter productive.
We pay far too much in tax,s, and now we refine no oil here will, in time pay more.
SOME affect to the economy is assured at peak prices.
This however is not linked to any real shortages-yet, or very soon.
I understand, and we all must, tax is needed and we must pay it, but we need real tax reforms ,not jumping on every passing opportunity to tax.
Greens and fellow travelers see less use of cars as good, we do not all live in City,s.
Internal weekend tourism is dead few can afford the Sunday drive.
I remember petrol at 20c and dezel 11 pence 11 cents today.
not ancient history 48 years ago.
I maintain we will produce new fuels, we are told price stops us.
Not true, in the days I spoke of to even think a tank of petrol would one day cost 6 weeks pay would have us committed.
If we pay $100 a ltr we will earn enough to pay it.
If it is that price near a third, as it is now, will be tax.

Belly said;
I maintain we will produce new fuels, we are told price stops us.

Not quite Belly, it is not so much the price that stops us but the
net gain. Years ago, it took a barrel of oil to produce 100 barrels.
Today we are down to about 15 barrels for one.
Some of the biofuels are as low as 2 or 3 out for one in.
Because of this, Europe has removed its regulation that a percentage
of bio fuels must be used.
The same will happen here when "they" wake up.
73

Belly

You should take a holiday in some of these stagnant places. The notion that things fall apart when pop growth stops is pop zealot dogma, as is the cop out comment "Things just need to be managed properly.".

What is needed in the argument is real examples and figures, not airy fairy waffle. Where are the real examples of low growth stagnation? You could start by showing how Prague has suffered from its lack of growth. Then you might take a stab at guessing the per capita infrastructure cost in Australia.

My lack of interest in this debate stems from the fact that pop growth zealots dont want to face reality, and instead live in a fantasy land where racism is the sole reason for opposing population growth, and infrastructure costs are not significant.

Bazz I found you figure extraordinary, and know we have diverted the thread but still disagree with you.
Their are no schematic diagrams for our future no plans set in cement.
But some things seem clear.
Massive growth in China, India, Indonesia and parts of both south America and south Africa.
But wait there is more!
The middle east and south east Asia are going to confront other truths.
I think ww3 is a near certainty, and not a long way away.
In time of war the things holding back new fuels, self interest of fuel owners, more importantly their ability to PURCHASE wanted out comes/Politicians will be over ruled.
Between us and new fuels stands,stalled by on all sides bent politicians, nothing else.
73,s to you too my club in the bush without me 24 hour horse enduro,

Belly said;
Bazz I found you figure extraordinary,

Well thems the facts Mam ! as Joe Friday used to say.
No way around them.