The more batteries in a hybrid would greatly increase the amount of oil used to build a hybrid car compared to non-hybrid.
There was a link on TOD or some other forum that indicated that hybrids used, IIRC, 154% more energy then a regular car.  Sorry, I don't have a link at my finger tips to support this.  In any case, it isn't a 1:1 situation.
I'm sorry you only heard the (marketing) survey, and not the rebuttal!!!

Those hybrid critics stacked the deck. They claimed, quite arbitrarily I thought, that a "car" lasts 100,000 miles while a "truck" lasts 250,000 miles. Those convenient assumptions lead to calculations showing a lower per-mile energy costs for a Hummer H3 than for a Toyota Prius.

Someone happened to report the real numbers:

The improvements are helping cars' longevity. In 1977, half of all U.S. passenger cars lasted until they were 10.5 years old, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates. Their travel lifetime was 107,000 miles. By 2001 -- the latest year tallied -- median longevity was 13 years for passenger cars and their travel lifetime was up to 152,000 miles.

For light trucks, the mileage rose from 128,000 to 180,000, reports NHTSA, but longevity remained 14 years, largely because more trucks were being used like cars.

For more on the way they worked that number, look here.

To name just one other funny numeric business:

The study includes the energy put into research and development, which Art said is much higher for the hybrid than it is for the ICE. I'd like to see these numbers though. There is still research and development work going into the ICE.

So, you've got a few hundred million conventional cars on the road, their R&D all amortized ... what happens when you force an R&D accounting on any new technology?  Fewer units to divide by, and higher "costs" ... even if they'd really be paid over time by higher production.

If we weren't avoiding bad words today ....