The problem with prices last I had read is that refining capacity isn't large enough to meet demand. It's not the supply, it's the refining. (you'll see that OPEC has/had raised production, and price per barrel dropped, but gas prices at the pump didn't respond in a huge way) Diesel takes more refining than gas, thus the higher diesel prices.
Gas companies use the excuse that environmental regs make building new refineries prohibitive, (and other excuses I know) so if we don't do something to reduce demand for the fuel, and supply doesn't increase, we won't get back to where we were before.
Of course with all the US oil companies being "public" (traded) they have to make the shareholders happy. It certainly wouldn't look good for a company to make record profits, then the next quarter/year/whatever make less. Adding production capabilities cuts into profit, so why spend the money? Greater production would lower the cost at the pump, so they get hit with two losses.
I'm sure looking at the numbers, you'll see that fuel consumption throughout the country hasn't declined with the rising gas prices, which means people are not changing their habits and for the most part accepting the higher prices, so what incentive do the oil companies have to lower prices? The only way I see to change this is for people to stop complaining about who is in who's pocket, and stop using so much gasoline. (That or government regulation of the oil industry, but I doubt that will happen) That'll either serve to get the oil companies to lower prices to entice people to buy more, or raise prices to compensate for the volume lost, which will just encourage people to find other ways to get around.
At least SUV sales have taken it in the shorts.
If the alternatives like bio-diesel etc. can be PROVEN to be more efficient in production on the scale it would be needed, then it's a cinch. But if large scale production is no more cost effective than petroleum, (and this is whats talked about with hydrogen) it's just an alternative, not the solution.
If we'd spent the Iraq war funds instead on say ethanol, bio-diesel, solar and wind power, that would have driven down the costs of production by volume, which would perhaps have made it all viable. On a small scale, all of it is more expensive than petroleum at this point. And at that point, we could have stopped the flow of OUR money into terrorist producing/funding countries via oil.
Call me a tree hugger if you wish, but continuing with oil is just going to prolong our problems and involvement with the middle east, regardless of what we do with the environment because of said oil. Let them eat their only other available resource once we don't need their oil. Sand.
.
