Glorieux,

I used to believe in "peak oil" theories, and always discounted the economics-based counter-assumptions by denialists that as the price increases, production from marginal properties will increase to meet demand.That's the case for all commodities: as price increases, production increases to meet demand, and you reach a new price equilibrium.

But now we're producing oil from greasy Alberta dirt, they're threatening to make it from Colorado shale next, and the run-up to $150 has been proven to have been caused by speculators. Sure, oil can still go back up to $150 in the next 5 years; but that's because it's useful for something. Gold isn't.

As for gold, if the typical mineable grade has decreased from 1.7g/t to 1.2g/t and someone big is taking 0.3g/t seriously, then I'd suspect this grade degradation has produced a defacto large increase in reserves (as I assume they couldn't include 0.3g/t resources as "reserves" before - correct me if I'm wrong).

The Barrick de-hedging is a point in your argument's favour, sure. But perhaps that only happened because they realized how much damage it caused them when the price ran up? Whoever had that idea got in trouble with his boss; so he had to change his strategy. If gold drops $200 over the next year, this same guy will get in trouble with his boss again, this time for NOT hedging.

Anyway, the smart survivalist knows that gold and silver are worthless; what you want to possess are things like boots (i.e., necessities for survival); tools (i.e. necessities for production); labour; and skills like small engine repair and first aid training (i.e. knowledge capital). To me, gold is as much a fiat currency as paper; the economy isn't dependent on either of them.

Again, this is just a friendly devil's advocate position I'm taking. I appreciate your knowledge of this and many subjects, glorieux; I'm just asserting that "peak x" assumes that all economics data up to now can be thrown out the window.