I'll tell you, and then you'll know.
The cause of the glut is the same as the cause of the 1973 gas crunch, that is, inelasticity of demand. Consumer habits are fixed. If you need gas, you need gas. If you don't, you don't. In 1973, demand rose in response to an increase in the number of consumers, and exceeded supply. In response, the price rose, but this did not discourage consumers, who were willing to pay for what they saw as a necessity. Thus, lines and rationing.
Now, we have a slackening of demand due to the unrecognized depression of the economy. A lot of people are sitting at home, and don't need gas. Thus supply exceeds demand, and prices fall, but people don't run out and buy gas because it's cheap, and the oversupply turns into a glut, all due to the inelasticity of demand, and the price falls further.
I suppose that ultimately demand will recover, as the reduced expense for "fixed" consumption of gas will release money for other purposes, and stimulate the economy, and gas consumption, but this takes time. It's a sort of ballet.
I'm basically with you, but I'd emphasize that the inelasticity of demand is only half of the explanation.
Remember Alfred Marshall's famous question, which was something like, "Which blade of the scissors does the cutting?"
That is, price is always SIMULTANEOUSLY determined by demand-and-supply. Always, always, always.
Moreover, when there's a relatively small shift of the supply curve, either up or down, and whether instigated by the Saudi King or by some other actors, the inelasticity of demand dictates a disproportionate swing in the price. Call it an "iron law" of prices.
No mystery. End of story.
And IMHO, Rush should be ashamed of wasting our time on such lengthy bloviating. Must have been a very slow news day, as far as he was concerned.
While this is true globally, the US gasoline consumption is up slightly.
Shots fired at tankers in the Middle East would cause insurers to raise premiums and costs would escalate. Of course that’s just speculation now.