With no big blackout or gasoline shortage to grab the electorate's attention, energy policy has languished on the sidelines of the US presidential election so far this year.
Now some industry lobbyists say it's possible the US Congress may lose interest in comprehensive energy legislation, barring some prolonged supply shock that propels oil prices past the psychologically jarring $50/bbl mark.
It's not surprising to hear rumors alleging that lawmakers might abandon the catch-all legislation; Congress has been arguing over the same subjects for more than 3 years and is suffering a kind of "btu fatigue."
Nevertheless some trade groups say it is foolish to assume lawmakers are incapable of reaching consensus, despite it being an election year with a closely divided Senate.
Even when faced with so much to do in so little time, past Congresses have proven to be quite accommodating if the legislation in question made everyone look good to voters back home.
But the real question now is whether anyone in this particular Congress cares enough, or trusts anyone enough, to broker a deal.
Time will tell
Lawmakers might miss the current adjournment date of Oct. 1 by a week or two to pass an intelligence reform bill.
There also is a decent chance they will have to come back after the November elections for a "lame duck" session to finish other things.
The new fiscal year technically begins Oct. 1; before the Nov. 2 election Congress might just pass a series of temporary spending measures until it can sort out the 2005 budget later.
Right now the prognosis is poor for anything to be figured out on time; the past two budget cycles were so contentious that legislators wound up having to lump together many of the bills into one giant "omnibus" package that passed months after the fiscal year was slated to start.
Road less traveled
All that Oil & Gas Journal readers have to do to keep track of the energy bill's twists and turns is to keep reading the magazine or web site.
But this week is the last time I'll be writing for either entity.
After covering the oil industry for nearly 2 decades, I've decided it's time for a change.
It has been an honor and a pleasure to work for OGJ the past 31/2 years, and many of my colleagues at the magazine have forgotten more about this industry than I could ever hope to learn.
Call it a midlife crisis, or call it plain old restlessness, but I've decided to leave OGJ and move in a direction that will allow me to follow the glorious dysfunctional family that is Congress from several fronts, including, but not limited to, energy.
In this next phase of my career, I'll be an editor instead of a columnist.
But, God willing, I'll take with me some of the clarity and insight OGJ is known for.
Wish me luck.