Plus the weather is a factor.  The leading headline in Best Week (weekly insurance newsletter) dated May 21, 2007 is "One Stormy Blow Away from $6 Gas."  The article states,

"A well-aimed hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico could couple staggering insured catastrophe losses with servere economic disruptions as the storm tears through the dense, onshore and off-shore infrastructure of the region's all-important petroleum industry. . . . "  The worst caes scenario for that would be a Catergory 5 storm moving on Houston through the northern Gulf.  "In a protracted disruption to supplies, $6 or more a gallon would not be out of the question."

I may be the only person who continues to harp on this in this forum . . . but there is simply no way short of dire economic misery to get a grip on prices in the short term unless we increase domestic supply of (gulp) oil and natural gas.  I would wager that at least 25% of those who frequent this blog began driving a car since the last US refinery was built over 30 years ago, for example.  Demand is increasing because we have more people -- who, coincidentally, are using less oil and gas per capita than a decade or two ago.  The economic laws of supply and demand are simply not breakable.

I agree 100% that we need to get much better about conservation and efficiency, and we need to develop alternative (non-coal, non-oil) energy sources.  But if you look at the lead times and the capital/equipment required to develop, distribute and use those new sources, it's decades away -- without some truly crappy economic upheaval that creates demand destruction (recession or depression or worse). Truly, there are small things we can do now and should, but to make sustainable change, we need time.

That's not good for people.  Politics is a people business.  It's time progressives began to embrace that we need more US oil and gas as a bridge to that new energy future, so people have time to adjust.  That's the piece J. Warner and M. Warner and Kaine get, and get so much crap for. 

to a significant enough degree to make a difference.  Ask any oil expert not employed by ExxonMobil or API and you'll get the same answer.  I love Tim Kaine and Jim Webb, but I disagree with them 100% on this one.

Look we all know politicans like getting elected over anything else.

The fact is to get ahold of this problem one of two things is going to need to happen. 

1.  overall energy use needs to decrease

2.  alternate sources of energy need to be researched/found and used

I have environmentalist tendeacies but I am a realist. 

No poltician in their right mind is going to ask Americans to limit energy usage.

The fact is the United States is not going to decrease energy use anytime soon which takes us to 2 as the only solution.

Additionally with the status quo, the issue is refinery capacity and noone wants a refinery built near them.  Even more important refinery building is not very profitable which huge risks based on the volatile prices of gasoline

can reduce energy consumption with very little, if any, pain to U.S. citizens.  In fact, it could benefit them greatly.  What we need is a government push on technology and also on tax credits to encourage energy efficient decisionmaking.  It's totally doable, especially given that this is a major national security issue at a time of war.

click here.

Yes, true, no refineries have been built and, actually, many have been closed in this time period.

However ...

However, refinery capacity has increased greatly over the same time period as the companies invested in them to make them both more efficient and to have greater capacity.

Fewer refineries, no new refineries -- greater output.

Plus, we import refined products from the Caribbean, Europe, etc., etc.

Building the bridge to a hydrogen economy is the only future and by not getting it, it's one more way clueless Bushco has squandered the last six years. The only real immediate solution is dramatic crash programs for efficiency. Bye bye Dinosaur SUVs. See ya. Think about a nationwide high speed train system--the Chinese are buying one and the French and Japanese will get the business. (Think GM could build high speed rail?)
The oil companies will do everything to maximize prices and profits and squeeze out the last drop of oil at the highest possible price while they conspire to control hydrogen, the next energy resource. The fact is much of our domestic production decline is due to oil industry greed and rapid exploitation of domestic reserves over the last century. Prior to WW II the US was the world's largest oil exporter! Now after pumping the US dry oleaginous BIG OIL seeks new fields and exploration through war, international thievery, and conspiracy at the highest levels of the US government. I believe that's why Cheney has fought so hard to keep his energy task force confidential; the ETF may have been the first planning for the Iraqi invasion! Afterall it is the largest unexplored oil rich area in the world! Think oBO orgy!
To protect American consumers from oBO rip-offs there should be a stiff windfall profits tax on oBO, a ban on oBO company control of hydrogen technology and divestiture of oBO company holdings of renewable resources and technologies. Otherwise the coming energy transition will merely be dominated by oleaginous BIG OIL (get it?) becoming oBH, just like they've controlled much of our foreign and economc policy since the 1930's to their narrow advantage at great environmental, human, and economic cost.
I say all this as a former Senate investigator who helped to uncover the "largest criminal conspiracy in US history" up to that time: in 1979, oBO was fixing prices of price controlled "old" oil. The DOE colluded with oBO to cover-up the billions of dollars in overcharges and failed to prosecute "massive and proliferating fraud" according to the WaPO at the time. Only when a distressed DOE attorney from DOE's Houston office came to the Hill and blew the whistle were we able to blow the scandal wide open. Those were the days. I'd like to see an investigation into oBO now, as prices are very unstable and unaccoutable. Apparently a request to do just this by the Attorneys General has been blocked by the Gonzo gang. So when we get a successor nominated, (s)he should be asked if (s)he will allow this investigation to go forward unemcumbered by interference.

Other than air / sea transport, a pretty good case can be made for electric (especially for rail and less than 200 miles/day road transport).

We need to more our transportation system from extractive (oil, natural gas, shale, tar sands) to transmissive (wind, solar, nuclear, etc) by moving to a smarter vehicle fleet.  Changing fuels is not enough.

We need to move from regular cars, to hybrids, then plug-in hybrids and finally electrics, fuel-cells or nanocapacitors to move our transportation system away from oil.  A push for a lighter, more efficient vehicle fleet will save us money and improve our economy and hopefully revitalize the American automobile industry.

--morris

Morris Meyer
Democratic Candidate
House of Delegates - 40th District

is incredibly optimistic. A 50% increase, in real terms, over the next 23 years.  That is a very mild outcome.

for Saudi production capacity, although far lower than EIA assumed in the past.  If Saudi production doesn't increase sharply, stays flat, or even declines, oil prices will be a great deal higher than in this forecast, ceteris parabis.