Or we could just nationalize them.
Yeah, right. Surely you're not serious, but on the other hand, you didn't put a ;-) there.

If it ever looks like Congress is really going to nationalize them, I'd advise you to get a bicycle and make sure you're fit enough to use it. 'Cause Congress would be doing it in order to loot them.

In short order they'd work in the same dilatory and/or dysfunctional manner as public toilets, public freeways, public busses, Amtrak, the Postal Service, air traffic control, and almost everything else that's ultimately run by government. Heck, somehow government has even made our numerically trivial commitment in Iraq - a whole 140,000 troops, a massive, overwhelming 0.05% of our population - into an insupportable burden.

Of course, if it's wartime, we could impose wartime income taxes, and make the Lee Raymonds of the world pay 98% at the margin. But then again, that might disincentify football players and Hollywood "stars". If that happened, what would the Great Shiftless Moron Mass do for entertainment, except maybe to shoot even more holes in highway signs?

Here in Quebec, electricity production was nationalized a few decades ago. Our electricity prices are 2-4x lower than the rest of North-America.

The reason why public transportation and such are in bad shape is because not enough is invested in them (in some countries, particularly European and Asian, public transportation is quite decent). I'm sure that mistake wouldn't be make with oil since it's such a big cash cow (and public transportation isn't).

Here in Costa Rica, we have excellent state subsidized bus service and a state owned utility monopoly, ICE. (National Healthcare, too.) Our electricity is predominantly hydro powered, though there is at least one large wind farm and three small diesel generation stations scattered about the country. ICE also protects a lot of land from development, especially land near the headwaters of the several rivers that provide drinking water to San Jose, the capital.

Breaking up ICE is a major goal of CAFTA, called TLC down here, and is one of the reasons the treaty is still opposed. It faces a tough fight in the coming legislature, but it will probably pass.

At least for now, any frustrations incurred dealing with the ICE bureaucracy is more than made up by the quality and efficiency of the service. My bill for electric, water, sewer, garbage, phone, and internet run less than $100/mo.

The suggestion was partly in jest, though I think it's a valid option.  If you're talking corporate efficiency vs governmental, I see little to differentiate them. (Halliburton, anyone?)
I get my electricity from a customer-owned co-op, a left-ever REA utility. This winter they raised rates 2.5 percent.

Arizona Public Service, which was "privitized," raised theirs something like 35 percent.

We have a good co-op with lots of citizen participation. It really pushes conservation programs.

It's a great thing, in my opinion.

Clean up the government.  Then nationalize them.
Although your comment might have an ironic flavour to it, let me tell you that many already regret the privatization of the energy sector.
I think that the key point that is lost in the discussion of industry profits and the price of gasoline is that the US is importing 60% of its petroleum consumption.  The only thing that is (temporarily) keeping the US market supplied is higher prices.  

There are only two ways to allocate a scarce resource--through market forces (price) or through force.   We either pay the higher price, or we do without, or we seize foreign oil fields, which I suppose is what we may be doing in the Middle East.

We have an economy where the majority of Americans live off the discretionary income of other Americans.  This is not in any way sustainable.  Whether we like large homes and large SUV's or not, we are going to be forced to become a country focused on providing essential goods and services.  

My opinion for quite some time is that oil exporters are going to seriously begin to question whether they should continue to give us oil in exchange for dollars, and to question their rate of production.  

"We have an economy where the majority of Americans live off the discretionary income of other Americans. "

You, and perhaps others, have made this point before. I think it's a very important one, in that it makes clear the lack of sustainability in a world where it is likely to become impossible to provide necessities for most. So why are we providing frills, when we can't provide necessities? The market will change this, though perhaps tortuously.

I may know of an exception to this, however. Last year I had a client briefly (paid speech on calculating ROI of intangibles-speaking of non-essentials!) whose business is to provide sophisticated computer systems (software plus hardware) to 4* resorts, hotels and casinos to enable them to provide extraordinary levels of pampering to their extraordinarily rich customers. Since there will (probably) continue to be a very rich class for some time (a few decades? until control breaks down), this niche may survive for quite a while.

It's the $3 latte that is vulnerable to $4 gas. BTW, gasoline here in my California suburb is now $3.599 for a gallon of regular.

The market will change this, though perhaps tortuously.

At some point, it will, but by that time there won't be anything left.  One of the points that has stuck with me from reading Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier is that people routinely cut solid necessities to the bone in order to afford cheap luxuries.  It happens over and over, in every economic circumstance.  And he wrote that book in 1934, before the advent of modern marketing.  

Human beings aren't rational; we see this demonstrated over and over every single day.  Basing the future survival of our civilization on an economic theory which presupposes that we are is a recipe for disaster.