Oil execs seen rough path for alternative energy (who knew?)

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10298220&nav=menu509_2

HOUSTON (AP) - A new survey released today finds many oil and gas executives say mass production of renewable energy isn't likely before at least the middle of the next decade.

The survey by KPMG LLP comes amid President Barack Obama's push for clean energy technology and millions in new investments in renewable energy.

Fifty-two percent of 382 petroleum industry executives surveyed said large-scale production of alternative energy sources won't be viable in the short term, at least not by 2015. Of those who believe such production is possible, 17% said the likely source is wind, 10% biodiesel and 7% solar.

Participants included executives for major oil companies, independent exploration and production outfits and other energy companies.

<not much more>

they are in the ENERGY business not just the oil business. Why wouldn't they make money off that too AND extend their revenue stream with oil?

Anheiser-Busch and Miller Brewing bought up all kinds of microbrews back in the early 90's. They didn't shut them down they gave the owners a nice return on investment and let them continue to run them. A-B and Miller took a nice return from there on out (to today) on these operations. The original owners clearly were "into" this product. Why? because A-B and Miller are not just in the Budweiser and Lite business they are in the BEER business.

...as business models. The changeover guarantees loss of value for fossil fuel interests and the overall systems are so different that the present energy companies' expertise gives them very little market advantage over start-ups. In fact, it probably is a disadvantage since the start-ups aren't burdened with the investments in resources that tie down all the present energy companies' assets.

You can move the market for energy up by producing more. More energy more money.

Energy companies have both the assets to do whatever they want and the "access" to get breaks on anything new that they want to do.

But that doesn't mean it is wrong. If we move to electric vehicles, petroleum is devalued. If we move to wind and solar, coal and natural gas are devalued. Status quo has decades worth of value still in the ground. Change to a renewable energy infrastructure and that value is *guaranteed* to be threatened. Change to a renewable infrastructure and your expertise in fossil fuels is mostly irrelevant and the degree of market penetration you might achieve in the new infrastructure is, at best, uncertain. Maintain the status quo and your expertise *guarantees* a more or less permanent market share.

The question (why do energy companies not pursue alternative energy sources?) pretty much answers itself - they obstruct transition because they stand to be losers. They certainly aren't stupid or uninformed.

until they get the "other" up and running they will still sell the same amount of oil...okay it could be speculated down in price

in the end they not only have two revenue streams but they extend the life of both (not that "other" will ever run out mind you)

...that must be why the fossil fuel and minerals mining companies have spent hundreds of millions over the past decade lobbying and advertising against those evil environmentalists. They just aren't as astute as you are.

a golden goose for them.

of all profits.

not a source of energy as such,
but it does cut these assholes out of the deal

while raking in loads and load and loads and loads of money as a "consultant" for oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and BP.

Meanwhile Gazprom owns a 100% share of Gerhard Schroeder.

There is nothing better for oil, gas, and coal companies than people pretending they "could" make their energy from wind and solar.

:rofl: