I think that you need to think about why the infrastructure is limited. While there may be political reasons, I reckon if I knew that my oil fields weren't ever going to produce at a rate that meant the refinery process was the limiting step for long enough over the payback time for the refinery, I wouldn't be building it either.
Most of the estimates of peak oil (the maximum rate at which oil is ever going to be produced) suggest that it will be in this decade. It may in fact already have been passed.
It isn't simply a matter of producing a better (cheaper) energy technology either, the new energy source has to compete or be compatible with already established infrastructure and supporting technologies, like the repair, design and manufacture of the machines that use it. That is why I don't believe that we will ever see hydrogen used as a universal energy storage system; the energy and economic costs would be too great given the time and resources left to implement it. (H2 may however be used in aircraft as it suits the way in which they are used and has sufficient energy density by mass, if not volume).
What we see at the pump is only part of the story. There is virtually nothing that we have, do or use atm that does't rely on oil at some stage - from mining, harvesting wood, plastics, food, chemicals, fertilisers, you name it. Everything gets more expensive after oil supply can't match demand.
It was kinda funny to see the American guy complaining that it cost $60 for a day's jet skiing. I'm more concerned that farmer's can put diesel in their agricultural machinery.
(The program is replayed tonight at 11:10pm EST, rather than Tues. Sorry.)