So, lets see. 

We can increase supply.  That might be OK short term and would require more refineries. 

We can decrease demand.  Getting people to drive less would be good, of course, but thats sort of like getting people to breath less. 

So, how about we actually *increase* gas mileage standards. That would decrease demand, wouldn't it? Could that work...possibly?  Seems too simple.

It would also reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

Unfortunately, it's not clear our members of Congress get that raising fuel economy standards would slash our national gas usage.  The House version of the energy bill didn't include tighter fuel economy standards, so it remains to be seen if they're included when the House/Senate conference bill emerges.

Or maybe some of them get it, but don't want to cut into ExxonMobil's profits?  Hard to say.

Also, some of them face more pressure from oil companies and the auto industry than others.  It's a mixed bag.

But I don't know why members from MI wouldn't see that Detroit's been hammered by Toyota and Honda on efficiency (among many other things).  Every time there's a new regulation (from seat belts to air bags), Detroit claims they'll be put out of business, but the things that have most hurt American automakers have been self-inflicted wounds.  For more, read Malcolm Gladwell's "What's behind Ireland's economic miracle-and G.M.'s financial crisis?"

I think the market may make higher CAFE a moot point.  As gas prices rise and stay at a relatively high level, people will have great incentive to switch to more fuel efficient cars in the long term.  In the short term, they will drive less and utilize public transit more.  I don't know that low inventories at the end of Summer are a portent of supply constraints to come.  But if they are, that will drive retail prices up further and increase the incentive that much more. 

And a point on prices, real prices currently are approaching the all time of high of the early 1980s.  API and the oil industry as a whole used to tout how much cheaper gas was today in real dollars than in the early 80s.  Starting in 2005, it is getting more difficult to do that as gasoline prices are closing the gap.  And since real wages have been fairly stagnant since 1980, this should be having quite the impact on individuals' income.

Detroit is behind the lack of a CAFE increase, not ExxonMobil.  Democrats and Nancy Pelosi were so insistent in bringing back the old seniority system that Delay did away with.  That lead to the Honorable Representative Dingell's chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee.  And Chairman Dingell's top contributors are Ford and GM, not ExxonMobil. 

ExxonMobil lost its might with the exit of the Texas delegation from power.  So lay blame where it lies.  Not with Republican obstructionists nor ExxonMobil, but with Democrats and Detroit. 

Republicans who vote as a unified, solid block against ANY positive energy proposal aren't to blame for the lack of movement on this?  Are you NUTS???  Are you blaming Democrats for the Republican filibuster as well?

While I agree with you that the Republicans are primarily to blame for the lack of a serious U.S. policy on energy efficiency, the Dems aren't blameless either (sadly).  Still, I believe that with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Congress, there's hope.  With a Republican in the White House -- unless it's Teddy Roosevelt reincarnated -- there's no hope.

I think you can see that I am not blaming the Democrats for the actions of the Republicans.  And when Republicans ruled the roost, they were the cause of CAFE going nowhere.

But you specifically stated: "The House version of the energy bill didn't include tighter fuel economy standards..."  and go on to conclude: "Or maybe some of them get it, but don't want to cut into ExxonMobil's profits?"  I was responding to that.  Democrats govern the House.  And as Tom Delay so skillfully displayed, majority means everything.  You cannot blame Republicans for not including higher CAFE standards in the energy bill.  And you cannot blame ExxonMobil as their influence lies primarily with Republicans (and a few Democrats from oil rich districts in Texas and Louisiana).

If you are mad about the lack of CAFE standards in the current bills before the 110th Congress, you should send your concern to Representative Dingell and the Most Honorable Speaker Pelosi.  But, in the end, is it any surprise that Representative Dingell doesn't want to kick the American Auto Industry when it is down, especially considering the dire straits that the city of Detroit is in. 

And finally, to reiterate my other point, CAFE is increasingly a moot point.  The market will dictate conservation to the American public.  As India and China continue to grow, oil prices will continue to rise as countries compete for a limited resource.  The price of gas will do more for conservation than any increase in fuel economy standards, which will no doubt be rife with loopholes and have dates set far into the future.  If it is anything like NCLB, the auto industry will be able to backend all their improvements to the very last year.

People are done with their vacations and all that, and will start to settle down into their normal lives.  We will see if stocks can be rebuilt in Sept or not.

Starting in Oct or so, the refineries will need to start ramping up production of home heating oil (very similar to diesel), and that may limit the ability to replenish gasoline stocks.

or other disruptions.  From EIA:

...with gasoline demand set to fall significantly after Labor Day, the low level of inventories is not likely to cause a sharp spike in retail prices, but more likely will limit the usual seasonal decline seen after Labor Day, with the possibility remaining of an atypical slight increase over the next few weeks.

The SPR currently holds about 690.5 billion barrels of petroleum, approximately a 57 day supply. I'm a bit concerned about the obvious typo at the bottom of the DOE's current chart, though ("00" insteade of "08"). Is anyone at DOE proofreading this stuff? Can we have confidence that at least the barrel figures are accurate?

What is the significance of the current drawdown of refined gasoline? Does it simply reflect the summer travel season and the reported maintenace problems at U.S. refineries?

Or is Big Oil setting the stage for one last round of looting in coming months until political considerations compel price rollbacks in the late summer and fall of 2008--in the nick of time before the elections?

Stay tuned. Oh, and let's keep an eye on what happens in the Straits of Hormuz, as well.

They're very competent, that just looks like a typo.

My bleary eyes miss their own share of typos on this shiny white screen. Or is it the clumsy, aging fingers that I should blame?

"insteade"--indeed

"Or is Big Oil setting the stage for one last round of looting in coming months until political considerations compel price rollbacks in the late summer and fall of 2008--in the nick of time before the elections?"

Just like the Bush Administration allowing the planes to fly into the Pentagon, right?  Or was it the Israeli MOSAD?  I get my crazy conspiracies mixed up.  Yes, the executives at all the oil companies along with their friends at OPEC sit in a big room and think up ways yo screw the U.S. Consumer.  And the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission just sit back and let it happen.  And all the employees at those organizations (not to mention their auditors and lawyers) are so in lock-step with management's directives that they don't speak out.  Perfectly plausible, how silly of me to question it.

But people love to toss 'em around instead of looking at the 800-pound-gorilla in the room - supply and demand.  On the demand side, people really need to look in the mirror and ask themselves why the United States consumes 21 MILLION barrels per day of oil, approximately 25% of the world's total oil consumption with under 5% of the worlds' population.  Why haven't we taken drastic measures to slash oil consumption, starting after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, continuing through the 1979 Iranian revolution, and certainly after 9/11 when it became clear that our "oil addiction" (Bush's own words) was severely harming our national security.  Not to even mention the issue of global warming...

But no, it's so much easier to blame the oil companies -- who I have ZERO sympathy for, btw -- for our problems.  Every time prices go down before an election, it just HAS to be manipulation to affect the results.  Of course, the fact that there's never been ANY evidence to prove this is ignored.  And the fact that oil prices go up and down through the years, including off-off-years politically, is never explained.  Must be part of the conspiracy theory somehow, just have to readjust the tinfoil hat and think about it a bit more.

Look, all joking aside, until we get serious about slashing our oil consumption -- which we CAN do, by the way -- OPEC and the oil companies will have us over a barrel, and we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves. 

Exactly who is going to take the lead on this very issue for 2008. Will it be the Reps who seem to be moving in the direction of drilling more within North America or will it be the Dems who reevaluate and assess exactly how it is we will reduce our dependence on foriegn oil? I am also interested if anyone knows exactly how much the inventory is in China or Russia for that matter. I have been reading  some interesting war gaming things regarding our nations ability to fight long-term conventionally should we ever have to where access to the Middle East has been cut off or at least access to its oil. Fact is I fear we may not be able to sustain a fight should we only be able to rely on our own reserves and that is very alarming. I know we want to concentrate on the domestic issues around oil, but the issue of finding alternative sources and drilling in North Amercia needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Russia? or China?  And why should we be worried?  We still have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world and then some.  And we have enough fuel to launch them.

As far as domestic production, even with the great leaps the oil industry has made in extraction, there is not enough oil from domestic sources to supply the ravenous appetite Americans have for it.  You could open all of Alaska and all the coasts to drilling and that would not be enough.  Send your thank you letters for American supply to Canada, Pemex, and PDVSA.

And why does it need to be addressed by government at all?  Free market economics will ensure that the problem is resolved.  It may be painful, but it will work.  What should government do?

So your endorsing the use of nukes not as a deterent but as a means of fighting should we have to fight a regional conflict in the next 50 years? Wow. That surprises me. Tactical or not if nukes is the answer we can simply just nip that massive defense budget right away can't we. I mean why bother, right? It is becoming readily apparent that the goal of reducing our dependence on foriegn oil is simply politcal BS and no one really has any desire to do so but it really does sound good on the campaign trail. Government has to get involved because of the very nature you are dealing with government formed and signed agreements that impact your free market premise. What if we lose the end game in the Middle East and in the future countries like Iraq,Saudi Arabiaor others give way to extremists and in an attempt to hurt US interests reduce exports or even cut them off all together to US? Sounds ridiculous I know but should that happen would we be inclined to secure reserves militarily? In the end the only issue any politcian cares about in terms of the Middel East is oil and oil alone regardless of what talking points they use. I guess what they are saying is why bother challenging ourselves when we can simply buy it in the free markets at whatever price the market bears.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was referring to the notion above that because we have nukes available that somehow having enough oil reserves to sustain a major military conflict is unneccessary. I disgree. The US is not a stockpiler of oil, we are a consumer nation of oil, whereas China and Russia are amassing much larger inventories at a greater rate than the US. This is a major issue. Of course the economies are drastically different, but the issue is China is undergoing a massive buildout like we did during the COld War of a military machine and now we have Russia resuming its training operations. Our country cannot simply just stockpile oil because of the impacts on the economy overall (supply/demand) and regulation of the economy and yet China and Russia do not have to worry about such things. They can refine, purchase, and stockpile oil without the same impacts upon its society. Lowell at times I just do not get where the leadership is taking us. We have potential nominees saying that we do not really need anymore nucluer power plants b/c we just do not know what to do with the by-products and yet we have all our nucluer aircraft carriers in the world doing just fine burning those reactors 24/7. I just wonder how it is we are gonna get there.