Activist Investor Pressure on Oil Majors

Exxon has been under pressure from activist investors such as Engine No 1 to alter its operations in order to stop climate change. If each gas station had one charging station for EVs, it would totally reshape the landscape and instantly put legacy majors in charge of electrification. What do you think the likelihood of Exxon buying out an EV charging company, for example a recently listed company like Chargepoint, Canoo, or Blink Charging?

If they can see it as a way to make money, I see no reason why they wouldn’t. The same goes for any service station really. Particularly if they have food to help span the charging time.


They can have diesel gen sets powering the charging stations, like many do.
Thats a supply and demand result…lol


Where is that prevalent?


Plus the EV station in many countries run by coal power station.
That may well mean buying an EV is increasing the worlds CO2 emissions till the change over in power sources.
Cleaning up the cities where the rich live though.

1 Like

Ahh the beauty of misinformation. That pic’s caption says it a picture of what’s “popping up everywhere”. Except its actually a pic from this article and the single station was set up specifically to test efficiency for remote installation, which ended up being orders of magnitude higher than the made up number in your meme’s caption…and not actually “popping up everywhere”.

But I digress. Regardless of whether your local EV charger is powered by a coal power plant or a gas plant, or a nuclear plant, it’s a far more efficient use of the energy than a regular car’s gas combustion engine.

As to the OP, I can absolutely see oil majors getting onboard with installing EV chargers through investment or outright purchase of one of these companies. Especially one that already has a legacy point of sale system. My money is on Shell, as EV already seems to be of interest to them.

Yes gas stations popped up all around the world due to demand so easy to sea they will add charging stations.

You mention use of energy, I thought this argument was all about pollution?

I’d contend they are closely related. I don’t think it can be argued that efficient use of energy won’t lead to less pollution. Or even if one does, I still think efficient use of energy and resources is a good thing.

Hard to agree, cheap power from any source is what will get used, and here we are today with most power in the world being produced from fossil fuel.

Flooding the world with EV’s and powering them by fossil fuels will reduce polution in cities but not help with the big picture of global pollution for many years till cheap alternatives replace what we have today.
Cost of power will be another tool to shift manufacturing around the world.

IMHO the UN should devote more attention to Co2 labelling of products so consumers can make better choices, like food etc.
Then the market dictates the lower Co2 product.

1 Like

But it can be argued that even a device with close to 100 percent energy conversion efficiency is a disaster if the source of the energy it converts is a heavily polluting, low efficiency producer.

Efficiency is lost at every conversion. There is no way around that fact and cherry picking the single most efficient link in the the chain between source and the highway is a bit deceptive.


Yes, but all fossil fuel energy production isn’t created equal. Large power plants, even ones with diesel generators, are SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient than a gasoline car engine.

In my travels along the interstate, I am beginning to see these mixed with the other typical signs (food lodging, gas and diesel) near the highway exits.

Aren’t ship’s plants operating at close to 50-55% thermal efficiency, where most ICE vehicles operate at 28-35%?

If fixed power plants could exceed a ship’s thermal efficiency I would imagine that would help.

Most gas stations in the US are independently owned, with the owner paying icensing fee to use the logo of a major company, along with a requirement that they exclusively purchase one grade of fuel (usually high test) from that oil major. Other grades of fuel can be generic, and usually are. As such, without a mandate from the licence issuer, stations that are not corporate-owned would be under no obligation to invest in EV charging, leaving such things to market forces.
Granted, corporate-owned and new stations might go that way for sure, but I myself can’t see existing indy owners getting excited to pay for EV without motive to profit by it at this time.

I seems you are too smart for the typical progressive consumer. As long as the heart is filled with joy during the charging process and the combustion reaction of molecules are not in the vicinity, life is good in the well of oblivious perpitude. You will start breaking hearts if you get into upstream Q-in calculations.
I already see the equity argument coming for the most fortunate among us that can afford an EV vehicle not paying their fair share of road taxes.

Disclaimer: My wife drives a Telsa and I like it. This decision was based on performance, technlogy, and convenience. I offset this decision with my F-250 for the same reasons.


In 2010, convenience stores sold 80% of all U.S. motor fuel. I doubt if that has changed much since. You are talking about the likes of QuikTrip, Loves, WAWA, Pilot, Sheetz, to name just a few. You can bet places like these will add charging stations if it adds to the bottom line.


It will add to the bottom line if you have something to do on the property…it generally takes 45 minutes to charge if you want a full charge from 20%, if not longer…the last 20% of the charge drops down. Anyhow, potential customers will look for charging stations close to restaurants, stores, etc. Most that charge outside of their home will be roadtripping more than likely.

Wawa has already installed Tesla superchargers in New Jersey. But no one besides the majors are big enough to buy one of the recently public companies. It seems like a purchase would be attractive to oil majors since they love bidding wars, like bidding over Anadarko.

I’m not sure I follow on the cherry picking or misunderstanding the upstream process. We’re taking about efficient use of resources.

Take anchorman’s wife’s Tesla. Teslas now average .26kWh/mi. The EIA puts the average heat rate for combined cycle petroleum power plants in 2020 at 9,208 btu/kWh. This equates to 2,394 btu/mi for the Tesla. If the power came from a coal plant it’s similar From a natural gas plant its only 1,977 btu/mi.

Compare to a very efficient gas burning car getting 30mpg. EIA puts the btu content of a gallon of gas at 120,286 btu/gal. This equates to 4,009 btu/mi.

So while granted there are transmission line losses and transformer heat losses for end-point delivery of electricity, there is also fuel used in the end-point delivery of fuel, and 2/3 of the fuel burned in the vehicle is lost to heat. But regardless, the energy consumption is ultimately less in an EV, at least half by my math.

There’s no reason to charge to full in the middle of the day. Drivers can top up (not fill up). From a convenience station’s perspective this is ideal. That gives people a reason to linger and browse the coffee and junk food, order a sandwich and spend on non-gas.

Did you know that selling gas is low or no profit for most United States service stations? Many stations with large food setups (Wawa, 7-Eleven…) sell gas at cost or a loss. The food/drink is where the money is made. EV drivers are affluent with money to spend.

EV stations at convenience stores seems like it will be a good investment.