Just An Observation Regarding US Gasoline Demand And How The Obama Administration Sees It -- Basically Flat -- August 26, 2015

Updates

Later, 3:16 p.m. Central Time: this is why I love to blog. Not less than two minutes ago I was still correcting the typographical errors on the original post below. I leave this page to check my mail, and Don has already sent me a link validating my thoughts with regard to bigger SUVs, cross-overs, and pick-ups going forward. Business Insider is reporting that Ford may bring the Bronco back, bigger and better than ever. The article was just posted 52 minutes ago, about the time I started working on the graphic below.

A source familiar with Ford's product planning said that the company is considering the revival of the Bronco SUV. According to the source, the new Bronco will likely be a midsize affair comparable in size to Ford's popular Explorer.

However, unlike the Explorer — which is now a crossover — the Bronco will be based on a midsize pickup truck.

There's just one problem. Ford currently does not offer a midsize pickup in the US.

That's where the Ranger comes into play. Sources within Ford say that the Ranger pickup could return to the US market as early as 2018.

Although the Ranger name may be defunct in the US market, Ford has been selling a midsize truck overseas using the name for nearly 20 years.

Ford, like many others, abandoned the compact pickup truck market during the late 2000s when growth in the segment slowed and instead focused on the development of more profitable larger trucks, SUVs, and crossovers.

However, with the recent return of the GM duo and a revamped Toyota Tacoma, there is new life in the once dormant segment — albeit with slightly larger vehicles.

My hunch is automobile manufacturers are rushing to get out bigger vehicles a) before new CAFE standards are instituted; and, b) while consumers "believe" cheap oil is here to stay.

See also "Muscle Cars" are back. 

Original Post

 

It's a bit "busy," but interesting. Hope you can understand it.

Everything in blue (the x-axis and the line in atrial fibrillation) is from the EIA. Using an x-axis from 0 bopd to 12 million bopd (neither of which is close to reality between 1992 and today), it appears at first glance that US gasoline demand since 1992 has been relatively flat.

However, if one uses an x-axis from 5.5 million bopd to 10 million bopd (much closer to reality), the red line is actually quite remarkable.

It would be interesting to go back to 1992 and see what the projections for gasoline demand in the US were at that time.

The graph is even more striking when one remembers that the 1990's were known for stricter and stricter CAFE standards (mileage standards) and that over the years, the technology for more and more efficient engines has improved. In addition, Americans have demanded more fuel-efficient cars and there was an overall movement toward compact and sub-compact cars with the history of OPEC embargoes. And, of course, we can't forget all the EVs that Americans are now driving. And, of course, all the bicycle riding due to the fitness craze. And yet the gasoline demand from 1992 to today -- about 25 years -- is quite striking.

To add a bit of fuel to this fire, remember that auto manufacturers are setting new records with sales of gas guzzling SUVs, cross-overs, and pick-ups. EV sales are essentially flat. New, potentially stricter CAFE standards are not up for review until 2018, and won't take effect until 2020, IIRC.

It appears gasoline demand records were set:

• August, 2007, third week: 9.762 million bopd
• July, 2005, first week: 9.721 million bopd
• August, 2003, fourth week: 9.668 million bopd

We are currently about 9.6 million bopd per John Kemp's most recent tweet on the subject.

Source here.  Technically, I guess this is "gasoline supplied," not necessarily "consumed" or demanded." But I assume all three terms, when it comes to gasoline, are nearly synonymous.

Note: I often make simple errors. For example, I probably should have raised the left end of the red line slightly more. In addition, the red line would have some steeper slopes in places, and it might have even been a bit flatter in places. There could be other mistakes in the graph above. If this information is important to you, go to the source.