Big Oil Warns Biofuels Will Not Meet U.S. Energy Needs

Top executives in the U.S. oil and electricity industries warned U.S. lawmakers this week against relying solely on biofuels for energy security, calling instead for more domestic drilling, streamlined regulation, and access to foreign reserves.

The executives, meeting at a high-profile energy conference in Houston, voiced their concerns in the wake of a White House proposal to slash U.S. imports of foreign oil by quintupling the use of biofuels within 10 years.

.......

They said securing ample energy supplies for the United States, the world's biggest energy consumer, required diverse sources of crude and natural gas as well as incentives for construction of coal and nuclear power plants.

Calls for energy independence or weaning the United States from foreign crude were rejected.

"The path to energy security .... lies in open international trade, competitive markets, diversity of supply and the strengthening of partnerships between producing and consuming nations," Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rex Tillerson said in a Tuesday speech.

Oil company executives said the United States should open up more offshore areas to drilling -- something that has been stalled by widespread environmental concern.


http://www.enn.com/energy.html?id=1441

But a National Rail System and local mass/public transit based on biofuels and electrified transportation systems (using renewable electricity) will...

More resource wars on the way??

the oil companies are correct though.

I wonder when they will get around to telling the sheeple about peak oil??

Just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night. What a bunch of effing criminals they--Bush/Cheney, Big Oil, Detroit General Motors--are. Anyone who has not seen this documentary, be warned, it will make your blood boil.

will serve all our needs.

Jeez, it's not that simple. Our future needs will be met by a multiplicity of sources, not just one.

Add HEMP(!), solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro, fuel cell, thermal depolymerization, and sources we haven't yet developed because big oil manages to buy enough congressmen to defund research, and we may have energy left over that we don't know what to do with.

Stupid people want one size fits all solutions.

will fit our transportation needs.

There is no way in hell that we can convert the 200 MILLION cars in america to any combination of electric, hybrid, bio-diesel or other non-GHG emitting vehicles in the time we have left to make the changes needed to save our kids butts. Remember almost half the energy used by a car is used to build it in the first place. That's too much of an energy transfer to make when the average US fleet turnover rate is 20 years. I just sold a 1981 Mazda truck that was running fine; 26 years old it was older than the kid who bought it from me.

Repeat after me: "I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A CAR." Think about repeating that a whole lot in the years to come.

like the northeast corridor and the Pacific coast, that's for certain.

Here in NM, the distances are huge, the population sparse, and the possibilities for public transit few and far between. It's the Greyhound station or nothing, and that station might be 60 miles from one's home. The highway upon which those buses operate might be 30 miles away. We're not all young and healthy enough to ride a bicycle that far.

There will always be a need for cars or a workable alternative in many parts of this country.

I was very happy without a car for 15 years, only had one the last 5 so that I could get out of the city once a month or so. I never drove within the city, public transit was faster and easier on frayed nerves.

Out west, things are completely different, and I can't see people going back to horses just because someone in a city issues a fiat banning cars.

(Oh, and the Ford Ranger I just sold 6 months ago was old enough to VOTE)

They will have to pay for the fuels and vehicles that are available at a premium or deal with irregular bus service. The people who built their dream houses 25 miles from the resources they need for daily life are going to get screwed. If people living in cities and suburbs are forced to give up cars they are not going to be happy about people in New Mexico who chose to build their dream house 60 miles from the nearest town center driving around. They will insist on some kind of tax penalty for remaining private vehicles. The atmosphere cannot survive the current car culture and support us too.

Nature bats last.

the norm in the west like they are back east, so please don't project that sort of provincialism where it doesn't belong.

Out here, I'm talking about ranchers, farmers, and people in very small towns who run businesses supported by those ranchers and farmers.

A bias in favor of nothing but public transit will work well in congested areas. A silly prejudice against personal transportation in places that require it will ensure that the people in those big cities will have little to eat.

How fast are those cows walking anyway? Back around 1920 and before they were able to move cattle the old fashioned way; they herded them to the railhead on horses. Farms too far from a railhead better have a high value item to market. Having flown over New Mexico I'm also sure that much of the farm output that exists comes from mining aquifers for water that is not being regenerated. It's a dead end occupation; eventually the well taps out.

Small towns did just fine before everybody had cars. I see the evidence all through my county where whistlestop towns had vibrant downtowns built in the 20's that are boarded up today. The majority of New Mexico's rural population is not ranchers and farmers but retirees and service employees just like every other rural area with more view than water. I've been there.

You might also consider exactly which products and economies are viable in an expensive transport environment. Rural New Mexico may not survive the loss of cheap car transportation due to cost competition with more productive regions. My county, Butte County CA., probably produces more calories for humans than half your state. California produces 1/3 of the food produced in the entire nation. Scale matters. Marginal regions will return to having marginal populations. If somebody comes up with a cheap solar power system, say thermal solar, then money can be made upgrading biomass to fuels or shipping power out of state but that isn't viable yet. Soon maybe.

Hell, it's not meeting our energy needs now. Not by itself, anyway. There's also coal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear. Just as in the future, hopefully biofuels will be one aspect of our energy production. Surely they don't think this argument will sway anyone but the most mentally challenged among us. "We won't be able to meet all of our energy needs through biofuels, so we may as well not get any of it from them!!!!". Geez.

relies on oil will be as dead as the critters that it is made of. Simple as that.

biofuel is not the total solution,
but nothing else is either.

big oil hates biofuel.
big oil hates the electric car

big oil hates any other energy source.

don't believe a word they say

Why are we surprised?

...I guess they're afraid we'll turn into another Brazil. Which, in my mind, would be a very good thing.

They don't want anybody switching to something else while there's still oil in the ground.

The Oil Executives won't need a drop of oil to keep themselves warm in hell.