Gas...Gas...????....

3.90 at Harshaw

4.25 in minocqua

Junkie, I agree there are examples of socialism all around us, some folks want to deny that socialism exists in this country.  I think the govt could have more say on oil produced on federal lands they (oil companies) are paying us around a 15% royalty on the value of the oil.  The govt could use the royalty payment as a bartering chip, lower the royalty payment if the oil stays in the country.  I know if I had oil on my property I would want be paid the fair market value for it and not the market value created by govt tariffs.

Not necessarily, but I do understand your point. Theres's a lot of middle ground between socialism and capitalism, I think you need a little of each to thrive as a country as big as ours. And while America was built on the concept of capitalism, I don't believe our fore-fathers envisioned it getting to the point that has become. I remember learning about checks and balances to avoid monopolies on markets back in high school, do those even exist anymore? 

Junkie, the system that we created that awards profits is Capitalism.  What you're describing, where the government basically takes control of a resource or manufacturing sector for the good of the country, is one of the pillars of Socialism.

Shouldn't really matter what the companies want. Should be about what's best for the country and if they still want to export, they should be taxed 100%+ on it. We've created a system that rewards exports and profit rather than self sufficiency. People (especially companies) hate change, but it's what we need. Wish POTUS' tariff goal went better than it had, he was really onto something there. 

Wisco, LA and TX are hardly hotbeds of environmental regs, and there is a ton of infrastructure already there.  I think it comes down to alternative rate of return.  Doesnt make sense for the oil company to take billions away from something that might be making 10%+ rate of return, to invest it a refinery that will yield less profit.  Certainly, meeting basic environmental standards adds to the cost of the build which factors into the profit margin of a new refinery but they wouldn't be jumping through CA hoops.    As long as light crude prices stay relatively low they'll keep with the current model.  When it becomes more profitable to build a refinery, they will do it.  I'm sure this is an oversimplification but if they would have seen huge profit margins they would have figured out how to get a new refinery built.  T

Working in Milwaukee yesterday,  saw some stations at $3.79

Grace - it's not "subsidize", it's ALLOW.

California has made it so difficult to follow the ever-increasingly strict rules that oil companies find it easier to close refineries. It's probably easier to build a new nuke plant than it is to build a new oil refinery.

California isn't alone in this. It's simply the state that best illustrates it.

There is a very vocal contingent that opposes any and all development in this country - especially by big business. And especially oil companies. We all know how evil they are...It takes years of environmental and other studies (millions of $$s) to get anywhere close to breaking ground on anything like an oil refinery. Then a new administration comes in promising to limit fossil fuel use while subsidizing EVs... Remember somebody being elected saying that "gas prices will necessarily skyrocket"?...After all, every dino-juice powered vehicle we get off the roads means we're one step closer to saving the planet.

So we export the oil that we're pumping in record amounts because the refineries we have are by and large not built for that kind of oil. And we import the oil that we DO have refining capacity for.  It sure would be nice to wipe the slate clean. Put new, state-of-the-art refineries where they're most needed...Transport oil in the safest and cheapest manner possible...and do it without politicians catering to protesters in chipmunk costumes...but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

I'm sure that all could be criticized as overly simplistic but I think it's basically accurate. 

In the meanwhile, a refinery fire in Baton Rouge means it costs me an extra $50 to cut and remove a tree in Wisconsin....A war in the middle east means an extra $100...A job I've usually won by being the cheapest of several bidders...and the customer sometimes thinks my industry is full of greedy SOBs because we get the wood for free.

Added up all my diesel purchases this year (business truck so I have to track it all). Have spent roughly $1400 since February in fuel. Not sure how that compares to previous years as I've never tracked it before, but that was more than I thought I spend. 

$3.99 in Burlington, KwikTrip

Dropped below $4 in Menomonie today for the first time since it started going up. Liking the trend!

I guess the rally cry should be refine baby, refine, instead of drill baby drill.  Only way oil companies are going to build new refineries is if we subsidize them.  And we are already subsidizing them billions every year.

Snake 1 correct on building a refinery. Should of started building them 20 years ago but back then they were as popular as data centers are now. Same as nuclear.  Just still too many won't accept it as a perceived danger yet Europe has them everywhere 

Wisco…I don’t think it is more complicated than that. We drill and frack a very heavy tar oil. We don’t have refineries that can handle it. To build a refinery that could handle that would cost billions. They make more money exporting it. Why build something that will make you less money?

Grace - it's WAY more complicated than that. Refining capacity has something to do with that and energy companies would love to build more refineries - and ones that can handle our "homegrown" crude.

California alone could me a major player in world energy markets. Instead, they've closed more than half their refineries...And drilling? lol. no.

Building new refineries is right up there with building nuke plants. NIMBY!