It would be helpful to see those comments in context. Certainly defining what "short- and medium-term" would be nice. I have a sense that his comments are much less bombastic than that quote may indicate, with the obvious caveat that he's still conferring the viewpoint of his company more than his personal views. It's also apparent that this line of commentary has been ongoing from ExxonMobil for some time.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22energy+independence%22+exxon

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there's any full text or video resources available to the general public on either the CERA or the XOM website - yet.

http://www.cera.com/ceraweek2006/tue/1,3146,,00.html
http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/News_Room.asp

Not trying to defend the likes of XOM, but I don't see much point in taking comments out of context, when it might be more useful to look at the content of the comments - in context - and then perhaps use that as the basis for analysis, discussion, etc.

For example, the notion of energy "independence" is purely theory. It's not like the United States is an island which is distantly isolated from the rest of the world. If one takes the notion literally, should there be no energy trade between the US and Canada or Mexico? Simple proximity to resources/production make that sort of an arbitrary and unnecessary distinction, unless of course you're proposing some sort of radically decentralized system of production and consumption from highly localized resources. And if one considers the "medium term" to mean something with an upper limit of perhaps 15 years at most, then it is "impossible", in practical terms, to imagine such a transition (if it's even a desirable goal) within that time period.

You can know as much as I know by reading the linked Reuters article. If what he said is out of context here, it is out of conext in the Reuters article too.

It seems that this was said in the context of Bush's speech about independence from middle-eastern oil, so that might be what he meant by independence. Could also mean "independence" FROM oil, and not necessarily independence from any energy from outside the USA.

But whatever he meant, what bugged me was the "lets not even try" attitude. I know it is to be expected from them - like their global warming denial - but it is still worth noting if only to remind people of their positions, IMHO.

I'm with Joseph this is the kind of flame that makes those who want change look bad. Define short to medium term. 5 to 15 years? I doubt it is possible in that amount of time unless fusion works out and there are several fusion plants built. Then we find a way to make an alternative fuel without fossil fuel.. then maybe we'll have a chance. That happening in 15 years? doubt it! Please stop shooting your mouth off and use the plethera of reasonable arguements available. I love this place but some of the views on economics and politics are just out of touch with reality.

Short to medium term is not defined. Did he mean 5-15? 20-50 years?

Anybody who looks at the current oil demand and supply curves, at peak oil data and at the exponential growth in third world demand can only conclude that big changes will have to be made sooner than later. The more these changes are put off, the harder they will be.

With an attitude like Exxon's, we're doomed to the worse case scenario. I'm not saying we can get rid of oil in the short term, but we should certainly be working on that as hard as possible, not trying to discourage those that do.

Trashing ExxonMobil is easy. But for the few unconverted in your audience, an examination of exactly why Exxon is wrong would be a lot more helpful.

Or are you just trashing the attitude, not the facts? Perhaps with that kind of an attitude, we don't have any future - that what you mean?

I guess that what bugs me most is that their attitude is: "It's hard and it will take time, forget it" instead of "It's hard and it will take time, so we better start now and increase our effort."

They are one of the companies that has the most resources and expertise in the world, yet they are using those to make sure that we make as little progress as possible (by lobbying policymakers, creating think tanks and "research" centers, keeping third world countries from passing environmental regulations, etc).

I haven't had much time to write lately, so I've tried to keep things short and simple. I now realize that this post could have used a bit more context and nuance even if I stand by my interpretation of the attitude of McGill's speech and the "frame" that he was trying to make the general public buy into (especially in the context of Exxon's oeuvre as a whole).

I also think that my choice of picture might have made the tone of the post seem more snarky than it really is. I found the cartoon by accident and figured it was a good occasion to use it. Maybe a picture of McGill would have been more appropriate.

Thank you all for your insightful input.

People always seem to forget that "energy independance" is a visionary goal, not a metric. More like a New Year's resolution about how much weight to loose. Getting half way is good too. The world is projected to double it's oil consumption by 2025, so a more realistic vision might be to hold flat!

I'd also point out that these are the same kinds of statements that OPEC angrily made about the Kyoto Convention when signatories were wondering what to do. When oil is the staple product, and effort to reduce consumption in any way is intuitively treated as a threat and will be criticised.

Finally, Exxon is expert in three main areas: oil production; oil trading/distribution; and refining/petrochemical production. As far as I'm concerned they have only secondary knowledge about the technology of product end use. Otherwise they would make furnaces and vehicles; in which case I would listen more closely to their pronouncements. So why give them any credibitliy at all? We did not, as they say, leave the Stone Age for lack of stones.

This might be of interest. Compare and contrast.

"I haven’t mentioned wind and solar because they represent about one tenth of one percent of today's global energy supply.

In fact, wind and solar help illustrate the size of the energy industry.

Because of their popular appeal, we expect to see ongoing mandates and subsidies for wind and solar, resulting in double-digit annual growth rates. Yet even with that growth, they are still forecast to provide only about one half of one percent of the world's energy 15 years from now.

Does that mean we should ignore their contribution? Or the contribution of any small increment of energy supply? Not at all.

But my point is that in an industry of this size and scope, what many talk about as promising renewable technologies can barely move the needle on a global scale, even over an extended period of time."
- Stuart McGill, ExxonMobil, 11/9/05

http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/SpchsIntvws/Corp_NR_SpchIntrvw_EGG_091105.asp

cf.

"There is a somewhat related flipside to the notion we aren't running out of oil, which is that there isn't much in the way of practical alternatives to fossil fuels on the horizon.

Renewable energies like wind and solar power generate a fraction of one percent of total U.S. energy, and this despite decades of massive government subsidies. Proponents of these technologies vow they will make tremendous strides in coming years. This is certainly possible, but they start from such a low baseline that if use doubles or even triples in the next two decades, they still will not crack the one percent barrier.

All of this points to the massive size and scope of the energy industry and of global energy challenges. The world consumes 80 million barrels of oil a day, with the U.S. using a quarter of that. In the future we'll need a lot more. Policymakers and politicians who want to displace a substantial amount of that oil use are going to have to come up with something better than switchgrass, corn, or wood chips."

- Max Schulz, Manhattan Institute, 2/8/06

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020806E

Pretty much the same exact script.

Personally, I'd be a bit more concerned with "think tanks" and their more hidden agendas and relationships, since the opinions they put out there tend to be taken as independent and less about money.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=51

XOM finally put the speech up on its website:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/SpchsIntvws/Corp_NR_SpchIntrvw_SRM_020706.asp

Again, in context, the comment McGill made is defensible, but the overall tone of his speech is repugnant, and the specific details (eg, comparing the price of gas to bottled water) is both childish and misleading.

Thank you, Joseph! On every blog I see your comments, they are always well-researched and insightful.

There is no single technology that is going to make us energy independent (a real, not a theorthetical goal by the way)

It will be the combination of wind, solar, biofuels, hydrogen, and things as yet uninvented that will get us off oil much sooner than Mr. McGill would like.

What Mr. McGill is spreading is pure corporate propoganda, designed with one audience in mind -- your Senators and Representatives in Congress. If they can be convinced that oil, coal, and nuclear are the only viable options, then that is where the government research money and development subsidies and tax breaks will go.

Exxon has no investment in alternative energies, they sold off what they did have decades ago. There is no profit-driven reason for them to do anything but trash the idea of alternatives. And Exxon has made it clear that their one and only goal is profit.

So you certainly want to take what Mr. McGill says about alternative energy with a huge grain of salt.