Exxon: America will always rely on foreign oil

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1590207

Exxon: America will always rely on foreign oil

Feb 7, 2006 — HOUSTON (Reuters) - The United States will always rely on foreign imports of oil to feed its energy needs and should stop trying to become energy independent, a top Exxon Mobil Corp. <XOM.N> executive said on Tuesday.

"Realistically, it is simply not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today," Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill said, referring to what he called the "misperception" that the United States can achieve energy independence.

The comments, in a speech at an energy conference in Houston, come a few days after U.S. President George W. Bush declared America was addicted to Middle Eastern oil and promised to help the country kick the habit.

Many in the United States believe America should wean itself off oil imports from the Middle East, fearing it makes the country dangerously dependent on an unstable region.

[Mythsaje]

1. An Exxon says what?

What the hell else are they supposed to say?

Sheesh.

[twaddler01]

43. My thoughts exactly nt

[htuttle]

2. "Always"

They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[pinniped]

3. WTF is this? Good cop bad cop?

* never meant a word of what he spouted in that stupid SOTU speech anyways.

[texanshatingbush]

4. Who do you think has a better grasp on reality?

The Chimp or Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill

[DemInDistress]

5. there is a solution..HEMP FOR VICTORY

Legal Hemp even industrial hemp would create 1,000,000 new jobs. Its environmentally friendly, its renewable
it creates the same products as crude. Its a better more natural product and it can be, AMERICAN.
PLEASE SUPPORT LEGAL HEMP..For over 200 years Hemp has been a vital part of US Commerce then in 1937 the scumbags,Hearst,DuPont and JP MOrgan saw Hemp as the threat, the enemy of their products. During WWII despite being illegal our government urged farmers to grow by the 10's of thousands of acres HEMP. HEMP was an unsung hero of that war Please urge you congress critters to revisit HEMP and Big Oil could go take a bath in their dirty globe destroying product.

[GliderGuider]

28. While I like the idea, the numbers aren't in hemp's favour

Hemp yields 15-20 gallons of oil per acre. The US currently uses 20 million barrels of oil every day. That's 300 billion gallons every year. To replace it all with hemp oil would require on the order of 15 billion acres of hemp. The USA has a total of 290 million acres of arable land, and only 1.5 billion acres of land area in total.

Converting all arable land production to hemp would yield maybe 6 billion gallons per year, or about 2% of your oil requirements. And of course, no food whatsoever.

I agree that we need to increase hemp production, but to regard it as any more than a bit player in the looming energy crisis is unrealistic. I think the best contribution hemp can make to the energy crisis comes in the form of, "Hey, dude - we're really truly hosed. Wanna spark up another joint and take our minds off our troubles?"

[iconoclastNYC]

30. It's part of the solution tho.

Instead of paying farmers NOT to farm, we can pay them to make biofuel feedstock like switchgrass that lessens our dependance on foreign oil and reduces emmissions.

Farmers win, Environment wins, Middle eastern dictators lose.

[GliderGuider]

34. Not a very big one.

How much arable land is currently idle? I'd bet no more than 10%. The highest yielding oil crop is rapeseed at 145 gal/acre. If there are 30 million fallow acres (a generous 10% of the US total of 290 million), that yields a maximum of 4 billion gallons of oil per year. The US consumption is cureently over 300 billion gal/yr. By putting all the idle land into rapeseed production you get 1.3% of your oil needs, at the cost of soil fertility because no space for fallow fields affects crop rotation, right? And this is based on an estimate of 10% idle farmland, which my gut tells me is too high.

We should be promoting biofuels, of course, but don't expect any Middle Eastern dictators to lose as a result.

[iconoclastNYC]

37. There is no magic bullet.

There is no ONE technology that can fix the problem. It's going to take persuing every technology available, in tandem, including conservation, improving fuel efficiency standards, switching to Diesle (30% better efficiency), Hybrid tech (another 30% fuel efficiency), a fuel hog tax, etc.

From what I've read switchgrass is the highest yielding crop and requires almost no fertilizers. It's basically a weed, and you use the entire plant to produce the fuel, not just the fruit, grain, seed, etc.

As for crop rotation....you'd follow all the normal farming best practices regardless of the crops intended use, so i don't know what you are getting at there.

And don't forget that small reductions in demand can have much larger impacts on the price of the commodity.

[markam]

46. Unfortunately, it does need fertilizer

If you want to get decent yields. Supposedly, switchgrass provides yields of about 1.5 tons/acre with no fertilizer, and 6 tons/acre with fertilizer.

Of course, discussions of biofuels usually ignore the fact that if you continously remove the crop, you are strip mining the soil, and will soon have land which grows nothing. I am sure that Brazils great tranformation to an ethanol fueled nation will end as soon as they run out of Amazon to clear and rape.

[Mithras61]

6. Maybe we should take all the oil subsidies...

and turn them over to people that really want to do research into alternative energy sources? We've been propping up big oil for so long they think it's the only way things can ever be...

[Hope springs eternal]

7. :::best terminator voice::: "You shall be ass-raped"

"...forever"

[lagavulin]

8. The end of the article is the real clincher:

"Instead of trying to achieve energy independence, importing nations like the U.S. should be promoting energy interdependence, McGill said.

"Because we are all contributing to and drawing from the same pool of oil, all nations — exporting and importing — are inextricably bound to one another in the energy marketplace," he said."

What they're saying is absolutely true--the U.S. will never be energy independent. But the alternative which McGill proposes, "Energy Interdependence", appears to mean "All exporting countries should let the oil flow freely...to the highest bidders!" Which would certainly be an ideal situation for Exxon.

My only concern is that this might be a bit of a tough sell to the NeoCons. After all, they've bankrupted the country trying to ensure that oil does NOT flow freely to the highest bidder.

[madmark]

10. note that exxon does not discuss the external costs of oil, particularly

foriegn oil, and how a tax on the commodity to reflect these externalities would go a long way towards reshaping our use of energy sources that do not have the external costs.

[madmark]

9. Its easy to stay dependent on foriegn oil when you don't even try

to do something else.

[oneighty]

11. Maybe those of us alive

right now do not have to be overly concerned. But there is a tomorrow for our descendants. I expect our descendants might curse us very much for effing up their future.

And who could blame them?

180

[daleo]

12. Exxon owns oil properties and leases all over the world

They are hardly neutral parties to the debate.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. He obviously means in nationalised form....!

[merwin]

14. kick

:kick:

[screembloodymurder]

15. Exxon: Bush's energy goal 'not feasible'

"The United States will rely on foreign imports of oil for the foreseeable future to feed its energy needs and should stop trying to become energy independent, a top Exxon Mobil Corp. executive said Tuesday.

"Realistically, it is simply not feasible in any time period relevant to our discussion today," Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Stuart McGill said, referring to what he called the "misperception" that the United States can achieve energy independence."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/08/news/companies/exxon_energy.reut/index.htm

With any effort (conservation) we could reach this goal in 10 years, but then Exxon would be out of business.

[truthisfreedom]

16. "give up! stop trying! you're lost! there's only one way, ours!"

big energy lies through its teeth every friggin' day.

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Most of monkey-man's goal are "not feasible." His whole world-view is

uninformed by REALITY.

[wordpix]

18. "don't forget the energy policy we designed with Darth Cheney!" to keep

America a slave to oil corporations and the Mideast mullahs and emirs

[LaurenG]

19. Geez what a load of garbage

yes, yes we should all stop trying to make positive changes in the world especially those that exxon isn't invested in because we know it's all about bowing down to the oil gods and their puppets. :sarcasm: :wtf:

[GliderGuider]

20. I think he's telling the hard, cold truth.

He says: "No combination of conservation measures, alternative energy sources and technological advances could realistically and economically provide a way to completely replace those imports in the short or medium term."

From what I've learned in my investigations into Peak Oil over the last year and more, I think he's absolutely correct about that. The numbers simply don't add up. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn't be broadening our energy mix and implementing aggressive conservation plans. If nothing else, that will insulate North America from what is likely to be an increasingly volatile oil market as demand outpaces supply year after year. But to imagine that wind, solar, biomass and conservation is going to support a long-term standard of living equivalent to what exists in North America and Europe today is dreaming in technicolor.

What will help, unfortunately, is the increasing exploitation of coal. And that just plain sucks.

[MaineYooper]

22. well, that depends on one's definitions of short and medium term

Realistically, we can't just shut off oil usage now, and probably not in 5 to 10 years.

It is going to take a long, concerted effort *whenever* we start. Statements like this robber baron's just help to put off the start of the process, so they can keep making their obscene profits (and yes, I think they're obscene despite their protestations to the contrary).

The way to eliminate the oil-economy is to start now. We don't know what advances will come in energy generation/conservation/etc, except for the unwavering truth that if the research isn't funded or encouraged, there will be no advances. Given a government and a president with real imagination and vision (yes, I'm in fantasyland now), maybe the process could start. Go back and read the materials that Kerry/Edwards released on this last election cycle. They proposed an effort on par with the moon shot, as I recall. With the right incentives (positive and negative), it's pretty amazing what our combined basic and applied research engines can produce.

Most pointedly, it doesn't have to mean economic hardship, *except* for those at the top of the current oil empire.

[GliderGuider]

23. An energy Manhattan/Apollo program is what is required

The way I read the lay of the human landscape, though, this will only be undertaken if either the people or their leadership perceive a looming problem. This perception is only now starting to percolate into general consciousness, through the efforts of the (currently marginalized) Peak Oil community. Most people still point back to the energy crises of the 70's and 80's, assume that this one is similar and like those will prove to be a false alarm. With that mindset there is no appetite or pressure for spending large amounts of money on research, and that is the mindset that must be changed if we are to survive. Perhaps five more years of oil price shocks will do the trick, but by then we will have wasted five of the most precious years available to us. The Peak Oilers are putting on a full-court press to educate people in the fact that we may be looking at a civilization-survival (some even say species-survival) sized problem. If that message gets through we may see some willingness to make wholesale changes. I am cynical about the inertia of human nature, however.

On the question of time frames - I believe that if we do not have the infrastructure to replace at least 20% of our oil energy use in place within the next 15 years, we are probably toast. I agree we need to fund massive R&D, because there's nothing in the technology hopper right now that can do that besides coal. Even with that R&D, if we do come up with a solution it still needs to be implemented. So while we need to do the research, we can only count on those technologies that are currently available.

If the supply/demand gap starts to open up at 5% per year within the next five to ten years as "mainstream" Peak Oilers are suggesting, we are going to see a massive re-prioritization of hydrocarbons into their high value applications (IMO those are heating, fertilizer and transportation) and notably away from such things as plastics. In order to avoid this, we will need more electricity and conservation for heating, along with liquids from coal and conservation for transportation. This means that absent a Deus ex Machina, we will see more coal and nuclear plants for electricity, and many more coal gasification/liquifaction plants. They are the only technologies currently available that have the energy mass required.

I'm all in favour of R&D into everything from new solar technology to the ZECA "clean coal" proposals to (dare I say it?) advanced fast reactors, but I have to admit to a major case of pessimism on this whole subject right now. Our global civilization requires 85 million barrels of oil every day to keep functioning. That's an enormous amount of energy, and we have used up the cheap half of it in the last hundred years. There are 5 billion people on this planet who wouldn't be here if it were not for cheap oil, and who can't survive without it. The picture is not a pretty one.

[wordpix]

24. along with a new CCC or ECC: Energy Conservation Corps

[Solon]

51. Not to rain on your parade or anything, but, we don't have 5-10 years...

That is the biggest obstacle for the United States and the rest of the world has in trying to move from a fossil fuel based world to one that is sustainable, time. How long will it take to rebuild the cities and towns of the United States to not be auto-centric? Because the days of 2 car garages and a car for every person over the age of 16 is simply over. There is no way it can be sustainable for a person to use a 2000+lb steel vehicle to go to work or the store. We need a mass construction project in mass transit for cities, high speed, electric rails for long distance travel and frieght(cause no way in hell that jet aircraft are economical in the future), also we need to really work on alternatives creating sustainable argriculture as well.

Right now it takes about 10 Calories of oil, in forms from the diesel in the Harvesters to the fertilizers and pesticides used, to produce 1 Calorie of food. Combine that with the fact that crop rotation, in this country at least, hasn't been practiced in the past 50 years(severe topsoil degradation), along with developing strains of crops that damn near RELY on oil based fertilizers and pesticides to survive, and you have the formula for mass starvation of an epic scale.

This is more than just being a inconvienence to the people, or a hole in the pocketbook for the rich, this means our very survival is at stake, as either a civilization or as individuals. There is a very real possiblity that what we see on those commercials of children dying of starvation will happen on a massive scale in Tennessee or Kansas, Chicago or New York. There is nothing that can prevent that unless we act now to try to kick the oil habit in food production as well.

[sarcasmo]

21. If you find an alternative fuel source we would loose our 4 billion in

Profits. These greedy BASTARDS make me sick.

[iconoclastNYC]

31. Nationalize the oil industry.

The far-left needs to wake up and see the threat that these oil companies pose to Democracy. The far left needs to put nationalization on the table. Put the fear into them.

They can either work towards safe alternatives or we'll nationalize them and do it ourselves.

[markam]

35. We will reach the goal

But not because we want to. As oil, coal and natural gas supplies dwindle, global distribution will cease. What country will sell excess energy if they know that they will shortly run out.

There will be no conservation, but simply supply and demand. When our supply of liquid fuels is 10% of current levels, that is what we will use. There is no substitute which can replace our current usage of oil. The american way of life will change to match the supplies that are available. Unfortunately, that change will be fatal for many people.

[GliderGuider]

36. Sounds to me like you understand the scale of the problem

Our problem is so much worse than just "nasty robber baron oil executives" that it's not surprising we're still seeing so much of that mindset. It's really hard to get your mind around the notion that civilization is at risk of collapse. The excess profits or parochial interests of oil companies are little more than a distraction, but that's the way we got used to thinking when the the supply seemed essentially infinite.

"Fatal for many people" indeed. Few understand that there is no set of substances or processes either in existence or on the horizon that can substitute for oil. We are looking at best at a hodgepodge of replacements which in itself not a bad thing. However, each of those replacements has its own set of problems, most notably in transportability and net energy density. As I tell my friends, it's time to start freaking out, but please try to do it politely.

[lagavulin]

41. The "elephant in the room" is that Peak Oil is already here

It always amazes me how many people refuse to accept the obvious reality of our oil supply/demand situation, because it's actually very clear when you look at everything that is happening in the world right now. The great hoarding of oil has already begun. The "Oil Wars" have begun. They're happening because the people who are closest to the truth of the oil supply situation know that the window of opportunity for making a grab at the remaining reserves is closing fast.

I always say again and again: peak oil has nothing to do with actual reserve numbers--it has to do with prices and armies. The "peak" will come when the price rises too high or the armies invade to take control of the remaining reserves. If you can afford to pay enough (China) or steal enough (the NeoCons) you won't have to worry about any "peak" (not yet anyway). But if you can't, the peak will come remarkably quickly.

In the U.S.'s case, I suspect the NeoCons will fail in the Middle East, and in doing so will incite oil-producing nations to impose "sanctions" on America. So our peak may be coming sooner than anything we're reading in the popular media.

And it's absolutely true that we will ween ourselves from oil only when we have to. Just look around you. For all the increases in energy "consciousness" (and they happening), still, the fossil-furel imports and consumption numbers grow each year. We are NOT conserving, we are NOT deconsuming our lives...even in the face of wars and "global warming" and blackouts and higher prices and a clearly discernable imminent collapse of our entire way of life.

As GliderGuider pointed out quite perceptively--the problem is not corporate CEO's or the Government. The problem is our whole Culture of Consumption, which naively extorts the enitre globe in the service of the American Dream (which isn't confined to the shores of America). Our entire socio-economic structure is built around the automobile. Our technology demands "pure", uninteruptible, "always on" energy distribution. Our two-income, meal-on-the-go lifestyles depend on intensive factory-farming and goods flying in daily from New Zealand or the Philippines....

One last comment: looking at what people are willing to believe and do in the name of our "non-negotiable" way of life, I certainly wouldn't be the first to point out that the BEST case scenario is that the collapse comes sooner rather than later. Because our way of life is inherently suicidal to everyone and everything around us.

[GliderGuider]

42. Demand, meet Supply

Not to get too pedantic or anything, but to get a thoroughly world-class supply/demand crisis you have to have have inelasticity on both sides of the equation. Not economic inelasticity, though that factors in as well, but a more generic kind. The "Non-negotiable Way of Life" is the inelasticity on the demand side. The inability to increase production is the inelasticity on the supply side.

Actually it's worse than that, because population growth adds to the inelasticity of the demand side. So does the world's fractional reserve financial system which depends on continual economic growth for its very existence, since that's where the ability to pay interest comes from. So - growing population, the fundamental need to keep expanding the world's economy, and the inertia/intransigence of consumers all team up to make the demand side an "irresistable force".

On the supply side we are already seeing the oscillating production plateau that the PO experts warn us will accompany the actual peak. Despite its bland reassurances, Saudi Ariabia has not expanded its production in the last year. Many of the world's big oil fields are known to be past their peaks, and the status of others (e.g. Nigeria and Russia) are problematic due to political troubles. Iraq's production is declining, and God only knows what will happen to Iran in the next few months. The Gulf of Mexico is going into the next hurricane season with 250,000 barrels/day of production still shut in from last year's damage. So we are left with the industry Pollyannas pointing to Colorado oil shale, Canadian oil sands, ultra-deep water oil and Orinoco heavy crude as our saviours. Expensive, heavy, sulphurous, polluting, low-production-rate sources that aren't going to come close to satisfying demand increases (or even backstopping production declines) any time in the near future. That all makes supply the "immovable object".

So out of this collision of irresistable force and immovable object we get oil wars both major and minor, hoarding, the Russian gas supply problem, massively volatile oil prices and the potential for a cataclysmic clash of cultures precipitated by Iran's enrichment program and some damn cartoons.

My best scenario is that we get a "small" collapse first - not a global one, but something big enough to wake people up to the size of the elephant in the room. Did I mention that this whole thing sucks?

[Geo55]

49. Did I mention that this whole thing sucks?

yep....it certainly do....now , if we could only figure a way to get oil from dat elephant ,
or at least get 'im of the sofa.

[Atmashine]

25. Exxon: Mwa ha ha, puny mortals.

You are like insects to me!

[Nihil]

26. Behold America, your rulers have spoken.

I bet they hate it when their puppet f*cks up with a speech that is
so far outside their US policy as to cause embarrassment even to them.

[maxsolomon]

27. at this level of consumption, he's right

we need not only to use our resources more wisely, we need to USE LESS, period.

we will not be able to keep driving a half mile to get a can of chicken broth.

don't you want to save the petroleum to run jet planes on?

[SOS]

29. Simply stated - Mr. McGill is LYING

Energy independence is easily achieved.
In 1979 Carter raised fuel efficiency standards.
By 1985 average mpg was up by seven and oil prices plummeted.
Remember the "oil bust" in Texas?
Big Oil ordered Reagan to remove the efficiency standards, which he promptly did.
If Big Oil and Reagan had not done this, the US would have been completely energy independent by 1991.
It could be done again, but it won't, thanks to people like Mr. McGill.

[GliderGuider]

32. The myth of "energy independence"

If you're talking about total oil independence, look at the numbers. The USA consumes 20 million barrels per day, and produces less than 5 million. Even this production is down from 9 mbpd in 1986 and 6 mbpd in 2002. So for total energy independence you need to find the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil per day - three quarters of your total oil use.

The suggestions for doing this are conservation and aggressive moves into alternative energy. But to do that you will need to quadruple the fuel efficiency of all vehicles (not even counting the energy costs of fleet replacement), and ramp up the contribution of renewables from less than one percent of the total energy mix to 30% or better. And do it in the face of continually declining oil supplies. Thus the spectres of coal and nuclear rear their ugly heads.

Now if you just mean "independence from Middle East oil", but are willing to keep buying from other nations, you have to keep in mind that oil markets are global. Excluding a portion of the supply is going to automatically put a premium onto the price of the oil you do buy. Customers won't give a damn about independence if they know there's cheaper oil out there that they can't get.

Sorry to sound so negative and pessimistic, but there just aren't any easy answers. I don't think most people have grasped the scale of the problem we're facing.

[markam]

45. And they won't

They either think that peak oil is a hoax because we have been tricked before, or they think that green energy is the easy solution. In both cases, they think that it is big bad oil that is the problem.

Unfortunately, nature is not going to be influenced by the conviction that there is huge reservoirs of oil available. Oil production will drop no matter what people believe or do (just like it did in the United States after 1970). Furthermore, people will quickly learn that without cheap oil, producing any kind of liquid fuel is exceedingly difficult, and under no circumstances, can it produce anywhere near the amount of energy that oil does.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. McDonald's: "You'll always be fat, so you should eat here every day."

"And make sure to supersize!"

[Yavin4]

38. This Is The Abusive Husband Speech

You ain't never gonna do better than me Bitch! So, shut up and take yer beatings.

[DrunkenMaster]

39. Sweden Says "F**K You, Buddy!"

If the Swedes can do it, so can we.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1704937,00.html

Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy

· 15-year limit set for switch to renewable energy
· Biofuels favoured over further nuclear power

Sweden is to take the biggest energy step of any advanced western economy by trying to wean itself off oil completely within 15 years - without building a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months.

[GliderGuider]

40. That's the spirit!

Unfortunately, there's also news like this:

Sometimes it's possible to be a little too successful. The solar power industry has been on a tear, growing at more than 30% per year for the last six years. It's poised to reach a surprising milestone within two years, when it will gobble up more silicon for its electricity-generating panels than semiconductor makers use in all their chips and devices. The onetime "'tree-hugger' industry is not a niche business anymore," says Lisa Frantzis, director of renewable energy at Navigant Consulting Inc. (NCI ).

So what's the problem? "Global demand is stronger than the existing supply," says Lee Edwards, president and CEO of BP Solar (BP ). His company and others can't buy enough of the ultrapure polysilicon now used in 91% of solar panels. The raw material shortage has slashed growth for the industry from more than 50% in 2004 to a projected 5% in 2006.

If supply can't keep up with the current picayune demand, we're going to need to do a whole lot better to offset any realistic amount of oil.

What's Raining On Solar's Parade?

[markam]

47. Of course Sweden

Is a small, homogeneous country, with a real public transit system, and an electrical system which uses predominately hydro and nuclear. They, and Iceland are probably in best shape for the future.

The United States is a totally different beast, with no hope of duplicating anything that Sweden might succeed in doing.

[twaddler01]

44. I feel like abondoning this country

if things don't change soon. This stuff is making me sick! This is far worse than the Microsoft monopoly! :mad:

[TroubleMan]

48. The crack dealer just told us that we'll never go to rehab.

The sad thing is that they can say this shit with impunity, and nothing will happen.

[leesa]

50. Exxon: the REAL Cadillac welfare whore

[appolonios of tyana]

52. Errrr...I have but one thing to say...AIR CAR!

Yea, That's right....I said it. A car that runs on compressed air ONLY! Same principle as the internal combustion engine...except, there is no combustion...just a huge burst of air pushing the cylinder. Although I do believe this would have a MAJOR impact on the economy if it were to take off...

Don't believe it? Check it out!
http://www.beyondtomorrow.com.au/stories/ep17/frenchaircar.html