If anyone's got an incentive to show how popular gasoline will be for ever and ever, it's ExxonMobil, right? While the oil giant does see 90 percent of all the world's transportation still running on petroleum-based fuels in 2040, it also sees alternatives to gasoline making pretty serious inroads by that time, at least in the passenger car arena.

According to the recently released annual energy outlook, around half of the new cars made and sold in 2040 will not have a standard gasoline-burning powertrain. Granted, ExxonMobil does believe that gas-electric hybrids will make up the bulk of these alternatives and that, "expanded use of hybrid vehicles will help push average new-car fuel economy to nearly 50 miles per gallon by 2040." ExxonMobil doesn't predict much love for plug-in electric vehicles (see page 8 of this PDF) but seeing hybrid growth like that will be pretty impressive. Imagine half of all the cars on the road today being as efficient as a Toyota Prius. This is the future ExxonMobil sees. Hydrogen? Non-existent, according to the chart, and even clean diesels have their heyday around 2030 and then begin to lose market share. How this all fits in with efforts by groups like CARB is a mystery and ExxonMobil doesn't get into peak oil, but one thing is certain: change is coming. How much? Well, that's up to us. What do you expect will happen?
Show full PR text
ExxonMobil's 2012 Outlook for Energy Sees Efficiency, Developing World Economic Growth and Natural Gas Reshaping Global Demand through 2040

Demand to be about 30 percent higher in 2040 versus 2010 as population grows and global GDP doubles; demand in developing nations rises nearly 60 percent.
Less-carbon-intensive fuels, particularly natural gas, gain market share, while coal peaks and begins a decline for the first time in modern history.
Gas from shale and other unconventional rock formations will account for 30 percent of global gas production by 2040.
Demand growth would be more than four times the projected 30 percent without expected gains in efficiency.

IRVING, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Demand for energy will rise through 2040 as global economic output doubles and prosperity expands across a world where population will grow to nearly 9 billion people, Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) states in its The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040, issued today. Extending its annual long-term energy forecast to 2040 for the first time, ExxonMobil said this year's Outlook reveals several trends that will influence how the world uses energy over the coming decades.

The Outlook projects that global energy demand in 2040 will be about 30 percent higher than it was in 2010, led by growth in developing regions such as China, India, Africa and other emerging economies.

While oil will remain the most widely used fuel, overall energy demand will be reshaped by a continued shift toward less-carbon-intensive energy sources – such as natural gas – as well as steep improvements in energy efficiency in areas like transportation, where the expanded use of hybrid vehicles will help push average new-car fuel economy to nearly 50 miles per gallon by 2040.

"The Outlook for Energy demonstrates that by applying innovation and technology, the world does not need to choose between economic growth and environmental stewardship," said Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corporation. "As people in developed countries look to regain their economic momentum, and as everyone seeks improved living standards for themselves and their families, ExxonMobil will continue to invest in the technologies that enable us to provide the reliable, affordable energy central to economic growth and human progress."

As in previous editions of The Outlook for Energy, rising demand for electricity is identified as the single largest influence on energy trends. ExxonMobil projects that global electricity demand will rise by 80 percent through 2040 as economies and living standards improve, and consumers switch to electricity from other sources such as oil, coal or biomass. By 2040, four out of every 10 units of energy produced in the world will be going toward the production of electricity.

The mix of fuels used to produce electricity will change dramatically, however, as nations shift away from coal in favor of lower-carbon sources such as natural gas, which emit up to 60 percent less CO2 than coal when used for electricity generation. By 2040, 30 percent of the world's electricity will be produced using natural gas, while demand for coal will peak and experience its first long-term decline in modern history.

The Outlook for Energy also reveals the impact of new technologies that are expanding global energy supplies, such as advances in production techniques that have unlocked a century's worth of natural gas across the United States. ExxonMobil estimates that natural gas from shale and similar sources will account for 30 percent of global gas production by 2040.

Developed by a team of experts using a combination of public and proprietary sources, The Outlook for Energy guides ExxonMobil's global investment decisions. Many of its findings are similar to those from other respected organizations, including the International Energy Agency. ExxonMobil publishes The Outlook for Energy to encourage broader understanding of energy issues among policy makers and the public.

Among this year's findings:

While demand in the United States and other fully developed economies will remain relatively constant, global growth in energy demand will be led by China and other countries which are not part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Non OECD energy demand is projected to rise by nearly 60 percent from 2010 to 2040.
While global energy demand is expected to rise by about 30 percent from 2010 to 2040, demand growth would be approximately four times that amount without projected gains in efficiency. Efficiency is the key reason why energy demand will rise by only about 1 percent a year on average even as global GDP rises by nearly 3 percent a year. It also is the reason why OECD energy demand will remain relatively unchanged through 2040 even as its economic output nearly doubles.
In transportation, the second-fastest growing demand sector behind electricity generation, ExxonMobil sees advanced hybrid vehicles accounting for 50 percent of the cars people will drive in 2040, compared to about 1 percent today. This, plus improved fuel economy in conventional vehicles, will cause demand for energy for personal vehicles to remain essentially flat through 2040 even as the number of personal vehicles in the world doubles.
However, demand for energy for commercial transportation -- trucks, airplanes, ships and trains -- will rise by more than 70 percent, driven by economic growth, particularly in Non OECD nations.
Demand for oil and other liquid fuels will rise by nearly 30 percent, and most of that increase will be linked to transportation. A growing share of the supplies used to meet liquid-fuel demand will come from deepwater, oil sands, tight oil, natural gas liquids and biofuels.
Natural gas will continue to be the fastest-growing major fuel, and demand will increase by about 60 percent from 2010 to 2040. Growth is particularly strong in the Non OECD countries in the Asia Pacific region, where demand for natural gas is expected to triple over the next 30 years.
While growth in nuclear capacity is expected to slow in the near-term, demand for nuclear power is projected to nearly double over The Outlook for Energy period as nations seek to lower emissions and diversify energy sources.
Renewable fuels will see strong growth. By 2040, more than 15 percent of the world's electricity will be generated by renewable fuels -- solar, wind, biofuels, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric power. The fastest-growing of these will be wind, which will increase by about 8 percent per year from 2010 to 2040.

Demand for reliable, affordable energy exists every day in every community. Meeting this demand requires foresight and effective long-term planning followed by huge investments and years of work to build the infrastructure required to produce and deliver energy and chemicals. It also takes an ongoing ability to understand and manage an evolving set of technical, financial, geopolitical and environmental risks in a dynamic world. The Outlook for Energy is an essential tool to help ExxonMobil provide the energy needed for continuing human progress.

For more information about ExxonMobil's Outlook for Energy, visit www.exxonmobil.com/energyoutlook.

Cautionary Statement: The Outlook and this release contain forward-looking statements. Actual future conditions (including economic conditions, energy demand, energy supply sources, and efficiency gains) could differ materially due to changes in law or government regulation and other political events, changes in technology, the development of new supply sources, demographic changes, and other factors discussed in the Outlook and under the heading "Factors Affecting Future Results" on the Investors page of our website at www.exxonmobil.com. See also Item 1A of ExxonMobil's latest Form 10-K.

About ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded international oil and gas company, uses technology and innovation to help meet the world's growing energy needs. ExxonMobil holds an industry-leading inventory of resources, is the largest refiner and marketer of petroleum products, and its chemical company is one of the largest in the world.

Follow ExxonMobil on Twitter at www.twitter.com/exxonmobil.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 131 Comments
      EVnerdGene
      • 9 Hours Ago
      I really don't get the hatred for a corporation that provides a decent living to over 100,000 employees, and pays more in taxes to the US Government than it makes in profits. It also provides a very vital product to our nation, whether you chose to use it or not. If you don't like the amount of money it spends on R&D, or don't like the predictions it makes for its own internal use, you should simply not buy their products or stock.
        EZEE
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        I swear to God - EVnerd, 2Wheel, and Spec must be the most consistant people in the room in their beliefs. One can certainly disagree with them, but wow. I have gently tried to trip up 2Wheel and Spec a couple of times, but no dice.
        PR
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        Nerd -- "pays more in taxes to the US Government than it makes in profits." You are confusing ROYALTIES with taxes again. You keep making this same mistake. Taxes is when a percent of a business's profits are paid, so of course it is impossible for any company to pay more in taxes than their profits. That would be a 100+% tax rate. A Royalty is what it costs to purchase something of value from the government as opposed to buying it from a person or another business. That is not a tax. That is paying for goods received. In this case, it happens to be the People of the United States who owns the crude oil that the oil companies are buying. It is no different than going to a Military Surplus auction and purchasing a used truck or a used tank from the gov't. The payment for that tank or truck would NOT be a tax. In the same way, buying oil from the gov't and paying for it via royalties is NOT a tax. But heck, don't let anything like reality get in the way of a good rant, "EV" nerd.
          EVnerdGene
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @PR
          You are forgeting a sh*tload of taxes Exxon, other oil companies, and businesses in general pay to the government. (I wasn't considering royalties, whatsoever, but OK, i'll consider those taxes since they go to uncle sugarbugger also.) How about the duties and taxes they pay on each barrel of oil imported, each gallon of gas and oil (diesel) sold at the pump ? taxes they pay on everything they buy for their own use, or their employees use. All the taxes their employees pay from their paychecks. unemployment insurance employers contribution to SS and medicare disability insurance gotta go - I could go on and on with all the $$$$$$$$ EXXON sends to the Feds. Think about it. Does our government really want to do anything to limit or discourage oil companies ? They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. ONe of the biggest contributors to our Federal revenues. and subsidies ? Tired of hearing about it. Exxon doesn't get any subsidies. Sure they get tons of tax credits, just like every American corporation for things like depreciation, job credits, etc. etc. If we took these tax credits from EXXON that would be discriminating, unless of course we took them from all American business. That would be raising taxes. Yeah. Let's tax the dastardly oil companies and all the bastard corporations. What happens then. They raise their f'ing prices and guess who pays for it ? Brilliant. Yes, they pay much more in taxes to the government that it makes in profits. Much more. A real revenue generator for the US. One of the few, thank you EXXON for keeping us from borrowing even more from the chinese.
          Marco Polo
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @PR
          @PR EVnerdGene is quite right when he says an oil company can pay more in taxes that it makes in profits. You have redefined what EVnerdGene is saying, and then argued that it has no merit. Oil companies (in fact many companies) pay far more taxes than simply corporate tax on final profits. The revenue stream to governments created by a myriad of taxes levied on oil company activities is an important factor in government finance. On the subject of royalties. Your analogy is a little disingenuous. Your assumption that the government 'owns' the oil as it would an item that the government purchased, is not an accurate description. The government had no knowledge of the existence pf offshore oil until the Oil company took the huge risk of exploration, inventing the technology, raising the capital, drilling the well, refining and transporting the oil. The governments sole contribution was to levee a royalty! In some cases, sovereign rights were only claimed once oil was discovered! Whether you agree or not, EvnerdGene's view certainly doesn't deserve being described as ranting.
        garylai
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        ExxonMobil is not a responsible corporate citizen. There are plenty of companies that are responsible, even oil companies. ExxonMobil is not one of them.
          garylai
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @garylai
          EVnerd: You wrote, "How about showing us the list and source, and telling us how XOM is not a "responsible corporate citizen" in your opinion. In fact, tell us what it would take to be a "responsible corporate citizen." Oh my god, are you kidding me? I didn't provide a source before because it should be obvious to anyone who has read the news since the 1990s. Entire books have been written about Exxon Mobil's misdeeds, but all I need to do is talk about the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 2011, 22 years later they are still litigating it. Here's an excerpt from an article on the story: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/06/15/206151/the-exxon-valdez-spill-bp-escrow/ "The Exxon Valdez tanker spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, which eventually contaminated approximately 1,300 miles of shoreline. The total costs of Exxon Valdez, including both cleanup and also “fines, penalties and claims settlements,” ran as much as $7 billion. Cleanup of the affected region alone cost at least $2.5 billion, and much oil remains. "Yet Exxon made high profits even in the aftermath of the most expensive oil spill in history. They made $3.8 billion profit in 1989 and $5 billion in 1990. And this occurred while Exxon disputed cleanup costs nearly every step of the way. "Exxon fought paying damages and appealed court decisions multiple times, and they have still not paid in full. Years of fighting and court appeals on Exxon’s part finally concluded with a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 that found that Exxon only had to pay $507.5 million of the original 1994 court decree for $5 billion in punitive damages. And as of 2009, Exxon had paid only $383 million of this $507.5 million to those who sued, stalling on the rest and fighting the $500 million in interest owed to fishermen and other small businesses from more than 12 years of litigation. "Twenty years later, some of the original plaintiffs are no longer alive to receive, or continue fighting for, their damages. An estimated 8,000 of the original Exxon Valdez plaintiffs have died since the spill while waiting for their compensation as Exxon fought them in court. It is no wonder why a study by IW Financial and Slate.com in 2009 ranking 498 large publicly traded companies on socially responsible investing criteria listed Exxon Mobil as dead last at 498th place (see Washington Post article "Responsibility Is Still Good For Business," February 15, 2009.).
          EVnerdGene
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @garylai
          yeah, I remember seeing youtube videos of the corporate boardroom when they decided to ground the tanker as a publicity stunt. I wonder how much they paid that ship captain to drink too much and end his career? Unfortunate accident. 22 years later you still have hate (when you probably weren't even alive at the time). Where did you learn this propensity to hate and intolerance; in our nationalist socialist schools? Corporate - bad; Gov - good --- remember who says they'll take care of me me me. Did you ever hear or care about Exxon's side of the story? Of course not. Think on your own. Don't allow yourself to be indoctrinated with this hate and intolerance culture coming down from the top and in our media. Seems like a rerun of the 1930's Merry Christmas everyone !
          EVnerdGene
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @garylai
          How about showing us the list and source, and telling us how XOM is not a "responsible corporate citizen" in your opinion. In fact, tell us what it would take to be a "responsible corporate citizen". I'm not saying they are or aren't. I just think throwing something out there like that without substantiation and/or source is a waste of your typing and my reading. claptrap
        chechnya
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        "..that provides a decent living to over 100,000 employees" Who also pollutes the world. Sure, 100k people might live at a decent wage, but at what cost? The cost of clean drinking water, clean air to breathe. I could go on forever about the environmental effects. "..pays more in taxes to the US Government than it makes in profits" Who also reaps in corporate welfare and tax breaks. When a company cares more about profit than humanity, you have a problem.
          EVnerdGene
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @chechnya
          tell me how you personally do not pollute the world. you don't drive a gas or dieselcar, and never use any petro-powered transportation (like airlines, buses, trains, or boats), never heat your home with any electric power, or natural gas, or propane, or coal never buy groceries delivered to your local store in diesel belching trucks and petro-fertilizers and herbicides never use anything electric in your house including your CFL mercury filled bulbs always recycle everything including your poop and never exhale - that dastardly CO2 you are part of the problem ?
      JamesJ
      • 3 Years Ago
      Most of those vehicles are likely to be older cars.
      goodoldgorr
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's because in the last 10 years exxon observed what the car makers have said and today what it look like and they concluded that even with big talks and subsidies nobody have displaced the petrol market share.
        Ele Truk
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Yea, but they seem to be ignoring what the car manufacturers are saying NOW. All major car manufacturers are working on BEVs, PHEVs, & HFCVs. So if Exxon really was listening to car manufacturers, they would be singing a different tune.
      josephdennie
      • 3 Years Ago
      Hopefully we will not be running on 90% by that time period because if we are we'll be in deep trouble. Seeing as how China is putting more and more cars on the road there wont be enough oil in the ground that we could pump out to supply the need. Im sure though that big oil companies like the idea though and probably at that time oil will be 500 dollars a barrel. sad actually.
      PR
      • 3 Years Ago
      This is why Biofuels is yet another part of the solution to oil independence along with EV's, etc. Especially advanced biofuels like celulosic ethanol, biogas, and algae-based biodiesel.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @PR
        Yes... remind me who's brought cellulosic, algae, etc fuels to market again? So i can join your biofuel parade..
        skierpage
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @PR
        Exxon has "Wind/Solar/Biofuels" growing 6% a year, but that amounts to a tiny part of the global energy mix by 2040. The challenge is getting the renewables part of the solution to grow faster than that.
        Spec
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @PR
        Biofuels contribute but they'll never be real big unless someone comes up with some scientific break-throughs. Corn ethanol has a pathetically low EROI. We need to do cellulosic but no one has really cracked the code on it yet. For light duty transport, we are better off with electric vehicles. But biofuels will still be needed for heavy-duty long-haul transport, aviation, etc.
      EV News
      • 3 Years Ago
      Exxon also predict that in 30 years time EV battery technology will not have develop in energy density or price AT ALL, rendering EVs a dud technology...!!! ROTF-LMAO
        SNP
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @EV News
        and it still is. EVs currently do not retain enough of a charge at an affordable price that even 10% of the population would be willing to pay for.
          Spec
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @SNP
          EVs certainly do retain enough of a charge at an affordable price that more than 10% of the population would be willing to pay for. It is just that they still have a cheaper alternative available to them right now (gasoline/diesel). But that won't last forever.
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 9 Hours Ago
          @SNP
          Uh.... actually a hundred mile EV would have cost you $100k+ 10 years ago, now you would be theoretically able to pick one up for $40k ( a bit over the cost of the Nissan Leaf ). And batteries have been getting better every year. 7 years ago, the best we had was 100-125wHr/KG for EV batteries. Now it's up to 200wHr/KG. That's a size/weight reduction of 1/2 in a short period of time. 250wHr/KG is on the horizon in a few years as well. You can afford an EV now if you're OK with 2 wheels.
      markkiernan
      • 3 Years Ago
      News Report 1 Jan 2040: Today the multinational oil company closed its and shut off its wells for good. The company had been complaining of weak demand for its product and a changing market place. Commentators had remarked that the company had been resistant to change and for investing in non sustainable enterprises. As staff leave wells and offices today they are upbeat about finding work in other sectors. ABG attempted to contact the ExxonMobile CEO Derty Auil but he was unavailable for comment.
      Mark Schaffer
      • 3 Years Ago
      I am shocked that an oil company would make that prediction. Shocked! When wouldn't they make such a prediction?
      Dave D
      • 3 Years Ago
      Exxon mobile thinks we will keep using lots of gas. And in other news...water is wet, grass is green and the sky is blue.
      Randy C
      • 3 Years Ago
      This will ONLY happen if the fuel prices stay low. Economics 101 has taught me that every drop of oil pumped from now on is going to be more expensive. First, they have to go farther and deeper to get ever decreasing amounts (reduced supplies). Second, countries like China and India have large populations entering a period of "2 cars in every garage" prosperity (increased demand). Third, they got a taste of $147 a barrel and they liked it so the price will not be allowed to fall (pure greed). Alternative fuels will become more prevalent. As the price of gas passes the $5.00 to $6.00 a gallon mark the push for electric cars will intensify dramatically. Research in battery technology will give the perfect 300 mile 20 minute battery or other power source. Who knows, maybe the scientists may have fixed the problems with HFC cars by then, but I doubt HFC will ever be economical for transportation uses.
        Ele Truk
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @Randy C
        Actually, countries like China and India are still striving for "1 car in every garage" or even "I have a garage". Per capita, China is #115 (37 vehicles per 1000) and India is much farther down at #127 (15 vehicles per 1000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
      skierpage
      • 3 Years Ago
      Slide 8 seem completely wrong about plug-in hybrid vehicles, it shows ~700M hybrid vehicles by 2040 but only 60M EVs *and* PHVs combined. Once you have a battery and electric motor, plugging in is the cheapest way to travel the first XX miles. Most of the car companies that have FAILED to beat Toyota's HSD are coming out with plug-in hybrids so they can claim sky-high "MPGe" numbers; since a lot of drivers mostly make short trips, the gas savings are real. If the hybrid market will really remain 11x bigger than the electric and PHV market combined, then buy stock in Toyota. The next slide says electricity demand will be 90% higher, that sounds about right, but it doesn't match slide 4 showing electricity growth from ~175 quadrillion Btu to 280. Exxon grudgingly admitting 6% wind/solar/biofuel growth a year is nice, but it shows how hard transitioning off carbon will be, since that growth only amounts to ~25 quadrillion Btu by 2040. The climate is well and truly f***ed in their scenario.There's no reduction in annual CO2 emissions until about 2027 (and CO2 stays in the atmosphere for years). We need to *reduce* CO2 and other greenhouse gases by 2020 to stay below 2°C warning (from "A comprehensive review of 193 emission scenarios" http://www.sciencenewsline.com/nature/2011102715270010.html ). Maybe Exxon plans to sell us carbon capture technology for $100bns for all the fossil fuel they sell us for $trillions.
        Marco Polo
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @skierpage
        @Skierpage, Well done for actually reading and analysing the report before commenting. I agree that the idea of Hybrids without plug-in facilities, isn't terribly inspired. Like you, I think the Hybrid is already beginning to give market share to plug-in varieties. The report seems to have very similar conclusions to the IEA's central scenario, with the main exception being Exxon preference of NG over Coal. Although Exxon is careful to publish a disclaimer, is it reasonable to make no allowance for developments in either energy storage technology, or Bio-fuel feedstock developments ? Why would these technologies lack the rapid developments exhibited in Oil extraction and exploration technology? Is it reasonable to assume that the price differences of todays models would not be affected by volume production? I suppose Exxon would reply that even if a dramatic development in either technology were announced today, it would take some years to be developed, commercialised and put into production in significant numbers. The effects would only start to be felt in 2040. On the positive side, Exxon is predicting that by 2040, the overwhelming technology for passenger car production, will be some form of EV. If the fleet is to contain 700 million by 2040, production percentages between by 2035 must be nearing 85% of total! (the battery industry will be truly gigantic!)
      josephdennie
      • 3 Years Ago
      Hopefully we will not be running on 90% by that time period because if we are we'll be in deep trouble. Seeing as how China is putting more and more cars on the road there wont be enough oil in the ground that we could pump out to supply the need. Im sure though that big oil companies like the idea though and probably at that time oil will be 500 dollars a barrel. sad actually.
        EZEE
        • 9 Hours Ago
        @josephdennie
        Actually you hit the key right there. And a simply reason why there is little to worry about. $500 a barrel? If they are still gas powered, they will be small, ultra efficient, light weight, aero, and most likely a super version of the volt. Think of it this way. People want higher gas taxes to increase price to reduce usage. Guess what $500 a barrel do?
    • Load More Comments