You are correct in one sense that eroei only becomes an issue as the net energy (see clifman's analysis) approaches 1 or zero. Then the externalities of the effort (labor devoted to energy acquisition 'stolen' from other social goods, negative environmental damage,et) become very important issues.

... which is an assumption without real study. If the energy used would be more mechanized and without human input (a perfect machine that would function without human intervention for centuries, for example - and yes, I know it sounds like sci-fi, but we are getting into that), it wouldn't really mean a thing if the EROEI was 1.3. It would only be of importance if the energy output was not enough for our needs. Machines would be restless.

Of course, I'm not endorsing it. The problem with EROEI = 1.3 or smth like it is that it is more risky. If the production line explodes, or major malfunctions, or whatever, you may easily get EROEI < 1. And that's very bad.