😱 California’s Gas Crisis: Is Your Military Ready for $10 Gas? The Shocking Truth Behind the Closures! 😱

California’s refinery closures are not just an economic issue; they have become a pressing national security concern.

A California lawmaker recently referred to the situation as a “national security threat,” which is a phrase few would expect to hear in discussions about gas prices.

The Pentagon is closely monitoring the closures of refineries in the state, as military bases along the West Coast heavily depend on the fuel produced by these facilities.

Experts in the petroleum industry are warning that, in extreme scenarios, gas prices could skyrocket to between $10 and $12 per gallon.

This situation is much more complex than just California drivers facing higher costs at the pump.

The implications extend to military operations, which could be compromised if the military cannot secure a reliable fuel supply from domestic sources.

As such, this issue has escalated from a mere economic concern to a significant defense issue that is not receiving the attention it deserves.

California is poised to lose approximately 17% of its refining capacity in 2026 due to the shutdown of two major refineries.

Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, arguing that this creates a national security vulnerability, particularly as West Coast military operations rely on California-produced fuel.

As of December 2025, California drivers were already paying about $4.34 per gallon on average, which is roughly $1.40 more than the national average of $2.90.

Unfortunately, those numbers are about to worsen significantly.

Phillips 66 has already shut down its Los Angeles refinery, which processed 139,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Valero Energy has announced plans to close its Benicia refinery in Northern California in April 2026, which handles another 145,000 barrels per day.

Together, these closures will eliminate 284,000 barrels per day of gasoline production, representing a considerable portion of California’s total refining capacity.

The geographical isolation of the West Coast exacerbates the situation.

Unlike the East Coast, which can easily transport gasoline from regions like Texas or Louisiana, California lacks pipeline connections to other major refining hubs.

This means that when California loses refining capacity, it cannot simply truck in gasoline from other states.

The West Coast operates as its own fuel island, making it vulnerable to supply shocks.

Military installations across California, Oregon, and Washington depend on fuel from California refineries, and they require massive amounts of jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline to maintain operations.

A reduction in California’s refining capacity directly impacts the military’s ability to source fuel domestically.

Mike Riza, a petroleum expert who co-authored a recent report on California’s energy outlook, has warned that gas prices could reach $10 to $12 per gallon in extreme scenarios.

While he emphasized that this projection is a worst-case scenario rather than a guaranteed outcome, the mere fact that analysts are discussing the possibility of double-digit gas prices indicates the severity of the impending supply crunch.

California lawmakers are now openly discussing this situation as a national security threat, warning that refinery closures could deepen the U.S.’s reliance on foreign oil and jeopardize military fuel security.

The argument is straightforward: if California cannot produce enough fuel domestically, the military will need to import more from overseas sources, creating vulnerabilities during geopolitical crises.

The Newsome administration has disputed these claims, asserting that there are no credible risks to military readiness or fuel supply.

Officials pointed to bipartisan energy bills passed at the end of the last legislative session aimed at stabilizing fuel markets.

However, the gap between what lawmakers are warning about and what the administration is saying publicly reveals a deeper disagreement about the seriousness of this crisis.

Understanding the five forces driving this crisis is essential to determining whether the problem can be fixed or if California is locked into a structural fuel shortage with national security implications.

First, there is a regulatory burden and compliance costs.

Valero specifically cited regulatory burdens when announcing the closure of its Benicia facility.

California maintains some of the strictest environmental standards in the country for gasoline production, requiring unique summer and winter blends that no other state uses.

Refineries must meet emissions standards that exceed federal requirements, and costs associated with cap-and-trade programs and low-carbon fuel standards add significantly to the price of gasoline.

At some point, the math no longer works, and companies may find it more economical to exit California altogether.

Second, infrastructure limitations and geographic isolation pose significant challenges.

California is located on the far edge of the country with limited connections to other fuel markets.

The lack of pipelines makes it difficult to import gasoline easily from other regions.

Fuel must arrive by ship, which is more expensive and takes longer.

Third, there is a declining crude supply from California oil fields.

The state produces roughly 70% of its own crude oil, but production has been declining for years.

This decline forces refineries to import more crude from overseas, increasing costs and making California refineries less competitive compared to Gulf Coast facilities.

Fourth, many California refineries are aging, and deferred investments are causing maintenance costs to skyrocket.

Companies are unwilling to invest in maintaining old refineries when they can allocate capital to more profitable ventures elsewhere.

Finally, the military’s dependency on civilian fuel infrastructure complicates matters.

The military does not operate its own refineries and relies on the civilian market for fuel.

When California’s refining capacity drops, the military competes with civilian buyers for a shrinking supply, which could lead to shortages during crises.

With these forces feeding into each other, the situation is precarious.

Regulatory burdens drive up costs, which trigger closures, further reducing supply and leading to higher prices.

The implications of this crisis are profound, with three potential scenarios unfolding.

In the best-case scenario, California successfully transitions to a higher import fuel model without major disruptions.

In the base case scenario, chronic instability leads to periodic price spikes and spot shortages, with gas prices settling into a new normal of $5 to $7 per gallon.

In the worst-case scenario, cascading failures lead to genuine shortages and military fuel insecurity, with gas prices spiking to $10 or $12 and remaining high for extended periods.

The decisions made now will determine whether California can manage this crisis or if it will spiral into a full-blown national security emergency.

As citizens navigate this challenging landscape, there are steps they can take to mitigate the impact of rising gas prices.

Tracking refinery status, monitoring fuel inventory levels, understanding regional vulnerabilities, identifying alternative fueling options, adjusting fuel consumption, and staying informed about policy responses can help individuals prepare for the changes ahead.

Ultimately, this crisis transcends economics; it raises critical questions about national security and the United States’ ability to secure fuel supplies for its military during peacetime.