Filed under: Biodiesel, Ethanol
Oil Watchdog says Chevron is killing biofuels while pretending to promote them
Readers will likely remember at least some of the biofuel progress that Chevron has been a part of in the recent past (see links below for refreshers), but a new group called Oil Watchdog says that the oil giant is stopping biofuels where they're needed most: at the pump. The group sent a letter to Chevron CEO David O'Reilly today that claims that even though the press releases promote Chevron's involvement with bifuels, the company "does not sell either E85 high-ethanol gasoline or biodiesel under its brand, and strongly discourages its contract dealers from independently selling such cleaner, lower-petroleum fuels." Oil Watchdog says independent Chevron franchises would have to install entirely separate fuel tanks and credit card systems to be able to sell biofuels. To quote: "provisions inserted [into the fuel contract] by your legal department that make it all but impossible for a Chevron dealer to deploy E85 or biodiesel." You can read the entire letter here (in PDF).
There is no official response yet from Chevron. The company's most recent release is "Chevron Announces Inauguration of the World-Class Bibiyana Gas Field." I've put in an email to see what the company's side of the tale is. I'll let you know if they respond.
Oil Watchdog was launched today by the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights.
Related:
[Source: Oil Watchdog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 5:35PM (3/29/2007)
With staggering amounts of money at stake, I can't say that I'm terribly surprised. Furthermore, my prediction, based on the very first article I read that indicated that Chevron was 'researching' biodiesel, is that Chevron is going to try to work things so that small-scale production of biodiesel is made illegal, and only large-scale production will be allowed. Otherwise, Big Oil will be facing the threat of firms that can get into the biodiesel business for a total investment substantially less than a million dollars, possibly destroying the market for dinodiesel in a matter of a few years.
My guess is that whatever 'research' into biofuels is being done by Chevron and its 'competition' is not geared toward innovation, but prevention of innovation.
Reply
Mike 4:01AM (3/30/2007)
That's why we need a completely different distribution system to provide energy to vehicles – electricity, CNG, hydrogen. Something that is untouchable by the oil companies.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 7:26AM (3/30/2007)
Mike:
CNG is already handled by Big Oil. (In case you missed the memo, CNG is a FOSSIL FUEL). And hydrogen will need this fantastically expensive new infrastructure that can only be built out by some very large companies -- who else? And the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is by reduction of natural gas -- there's the Big Oil connection. Hydrogen is just another FOSSIL FUEL.
If you want something 'untouchable' by Big Oil, neither CNG nor hydrogen will fit the bill.
Electricity, maybe. Especially if photovoltaics continue to improve in efficiency and cost, and battery technology keeps getting better -- both of which I expect. Watch to see if the oil companies start investing heavily in either traditional electricity generation facilities or PV manufacturers, though.
Biodiesel is the biggest short-term threat because of the lost cost of entry into that business. I suspect that Big Oil is working hard on legal and regulatory restrictions to increase the barrier to entry. After all, we are talking about sums of money that are incomprehensibly (to the innumerate majority) large.
Reply
RL 9:12AM (3/30/2007)
The "trick" in the next two decades will be the coopting of Big Oil by society at large that results in the provision of non-fossil fuels and a new sustainable fuel infrastructure. Big Oil is funded well enough to invest capital for the new fuels, and, like it or not, have a proven track record with their investors. Any efforts by society to displace Big Oil companies with alternative companies will naturally be met with a high level of resistance from all involved. The trail of Big Oil money is very long, and no doubt includes most Americans. We as a society must remember that the societal need is for alternative fuels, not alternative companies or alternative cronies. The best solution will be the one that approaches the problem holistically.
What Chevron is doing here is some old-school shucking and jiving - they've abided by the letter of the societal mandate, but not the spirit. Surprise, surprise. We can attack the company, but that only helps open the floor for discussion. (Besides, attacking the company is really an attack on a human collective, hardly an effective target as the "Big Oil collective" is in part comprised of the "Sustainable Fuel collective" - we really are attacking ourselves. Instead, attack the Problem, not the Person.) The next step would be working with them (distasteful as it may be) to find a way they can provide sustainable fuels and still meet their goals. Growth is good, say profiteers, and the point should be made that branching into sustainable fuels is Growth. Their motivation should be money in the form of the demands of their millions of customers, and that is where consumer activism comes in.
Reply
RL 9:43AM (3/30/2007)
"My guess is that whatever 'research' into biofuels is being done by Chevron and its 'competition' is not geared toward innovation, but prevention of innovation."
This is my guess, too: I believe that Chevron is preventing innovation by anybody other than Chevron. They, along with other Big Oil firms, have control of a large part of the infrastructure, and they want to maintain their control. Let 'em. "We" may feel that we lose face when Big Oil "wins," but if Big Oil becomes Big Sustainable Fuel, "we" win, too. Let "us" institute a cooperative approach to the problem, understanding that Big Oil will still operate their competitive model within that cooperative model. In other words, the better our society democratizes the Fuel Infrastructure, the better the products will be - as long as we accept the 85-95% solution, just as we currently do with our legislative processes.
Reply