1. Market penetration. EVs are the new hotness, but right now your choices for an EV under $40k are things like a Chevy Spark, a Nissan Leaf, or a stripper Tesla mod 3 - perfectly adequate city commute cars, but not yet at the universal cost/value price point to replace a lot of people's daily driver in the US. US household median income last year was $62k. That means that lots of people are going to be driving cheap, used 10+ year old, ICE cars for another decade. Porsche, Lotus, et al are all selling EVs to the 0.1%, which is a great way to get a halo and good money, but not moving the needle for Wal-Mart shoppers at all.
2. where do you think the electricity is coming from to charge all these EVs? If you have a plug in at work, you can theoretically charge during the day with a photovoltaic farm, but far and away the most common use case is charge at night and drive during the day. Tesla's solution is a second battery pack mounted in your garage hooked to your PV array, but a PowerWall isn't exactly cheap, and we're talking about mass adoption here. Utilities will raise night time power rates as necessary to support the required generation capacity if it goes significantly above baseline.
3. To paraphrase a Saudi prince, the stone age did not end for a lack of stone, and the oil age will not end for a lack of oil. EVs need lubricants. The power systems that feed them will need lubricants and fuels.
4. Regulatory/economic capture. The energy extraction companies are mostly 'too big to fail' as Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon show. They can buy themselves out of most any economic hazard either by tilting the regulatory playing field against disruption or by buying the disruptor and making it part of their bottom line. I wouldn't count any of them out - they're all looking ahead and have plenty of cash flow and war chest to speculatively buy into the future.
To be fair, there are a few counterpoints to these arguments:
1. We agree that most buyers will be purchasing used ICE vehicles for quite a while. Most of the infrastructure simply isn't where it needs to be for mass adoption. That said, it is notable that average new car transaction prices eclipsed $36k in March 2019
(albeit mostly driven by high-priced SUVs and trucks), which is essentially the $35k goal/benchmark price that most automakers have set as "affordable" for a 200-mile EV. Also, lots of 80-mile EVs sit on the used market at $5-7k, which I'd argue is reasonable for a large number of people who want a commuter car with caveats. For the slice of consumers who are homeowners and can support a second family car, it's not an utterly terrible option (though admittedly this is not a huge portion of the market).
2. As stated before, we agree that the infrastruture isn't really there yet for mass adoption, but even at daytime rates, charging an EV can be cost-competitive with gas in some states. It should be noted that quite a lot of the daytime peak power is generated via NatGas, which is often produced as part of hydraulic fracturing.
4. I would argue that the more salient point here is that while the pure extraction companies may see long term strategic threats, the majors (e.g. BP, XOM, CVX, COP) have been diversifying their energy portfolios for years which is why they are energy
companies and not oil companies, despite oil being their primary product. For example, Texaco (bought by Chevron) owns NiMH battery patents
that led to them suing (and settling with) Panasonic over the Prius batteries.
Upon re-reading some of this, it comes off as being kind of condescending, and I hope you'll forgive that. I really am just trying to explain my argument.