Fuel

[John R]

It seems that the republicans want us all to get a check for, ready for this?, $100 for gas price relief. nice gesture, but in reality, a joke. they also want to start drilling in ANWR. they've been down this road before, and have been turned down numerous times. now is not the time to start drilling in our wildilfe reserve. there is no 'safe' drilling as has been claimed by some. see http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4316&highlight=spill

the president, as the leader(?) of the most powerful nation on the planet should be championing the development of alternative fuels, not lining the pockets of big oil, auto, and his demographic peers.

i urge you to write the president president@whitehouse.gov and your elected officials, to let them know how you feel on this issue, however you feel.

do the right thing.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue.

The energy package, sponsored by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, will be offered as an amendment to an emergency spending measure now before the Senate funding the Iraq war and hurricane relief, according to a senior GOP leadership aide.

Under Senate rules, either the GOP amendment or the Democratic alternative would probably need 60 votes to pass, which is considered unlikely. However, the amendments would give senators a change to cast votes on measures designed to help constituents being hit by high gas prices.

As outlined by the senior GOP leadership aide, the energy package would give taxpayers a $100 rebate, repeal tax incentives for oil companies and allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute retailers unlawfully inflating the price of gasoline.

The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.

The GOP senators are also calling on the Bush administration to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months to increase the nation's oil supply. President Bush announced Tuesday that he would halt new deposits into the reserve until after the summer driving season.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats on Wednesday called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers.

"There's no reason why we can't put forth a real energy policy that addresses the needs of this nation," said Rep. Bart Stupak, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "from gouging to market manipulation to biofuels. We can do it."

And leaders of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday asked the Internal Revenue Service to let them examine the tax returns of the nation's 15 largest oil and gas companies, as part of a "comprehensive review" of oil industry profits.

"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley, the committee's chairman, in a written statement

[jdarg]

$100??


I wonder how they came up with this figure.

I would send the check back, "thanks but no thanks"

[Smiling JOe]

Woo-hoo! $100. I think I will buy a new pair of pants and underwear because I just crapped mine with all the excitement, or is that excrement? Anyway, I notice the president has an interesting spelling for his email, or was that a typo? I am not sure if W spells president, "presidnet." :idontno:

Thanks for posting John R, but this post did not help my keep my blood pressure in check.

BTW, did you know that 43 million votes were called in for American Idol two nights ago? Skeery! What I really want to say is that the TaxMan receives more money from taxes on the sale of gasoline that the oil companies. If the gov't really wanted to do something to save us consumers money (while avoiding the thought of alternative fuels) they should cut the taxes on gasoline. It is no wonder that it is difficult for the gov't to point fingers at Big Oil when Gov't doesn't even touch the stuff yet makes more money than the "gaugers."

[beachkids]

5$ a gallon and higher gasoline is exactly what the democrats wanted and finally may get. Fossil fuel emmissions are the devil!

What is everyone complaining about?

The higher the price of oil the more alternative sources will be viable and the U.S. will become more energy independent. Right?

[John R]

Woo-hoo! $100. I think I will buy a new pair of pants and underwear because I just crapped mine with all the excitement, or is that excrement? Anyway, I notice the president has an interesting spelling for his email, or was that a typo? I am not sure if W spells president, "presidnet." :idontno:



fixed, thanks.

[Smiling JOe]

5$ a gallon and higher gasoline is exactly what the democrats wanted and finally may get. Fossil fuel emmissions are the devil!

What is everyone complaining about?

The higher the price of oil the more alternative sources will be viable and the U.S. will become more energy independent. Right?I will tell you what I am complaining about. (by the way, I am neither democrat nor republican) In a nutshell, I am complaining about the crooked way of politics in this country and the @ssbackward ways of what we call progress.

[dbuck]

The tax on gasoline goes toward the upkeep and the building of new roads, at least that is what they tell us in Kentucky.:scratch: BTW, how do you feel about nuclear power? :idontno:

[Smiling JOe]

The tax on gasoline goes toward the upkeep and the building of new roads, at least that is what they tell us in Kentucky.:scratch: BTW, how do you feel about nuclear power? :idontno:I too, am told that the taxes go toward roads, but let me pose a question. Is the impact on the roads of a smaller, lightweight hybrid vehicle larger or greater than the impact of a 6,000+ lb vehicle which burns much more fuel and often allows the owner to get a substantial up-front deduction on taxes?

If we were rewarded with tax breaks as large for buying energy efficient vehicles as we currently give for buying the gas guzzling 6,000+lb vehicle, we would burn less gas, have less impact on the roads, thereby reducing the need to keep the gas taxes as high, nor would the demand on oil be as great, so prices of gasoline may decrease.

My point is that the gov't rewards us for purchasing the heavy vehicles, and we in turn have to purchase more gas to keep them going. The gov't will need the money to pay the road contractors to repair or replace the roads more often because the 6,000 lb vehicle damages the roads much more than the 3,000 lb vehicle. In summary, the concept of rewarding us for buying the larger vehicles is out of whack, but I guess that is what keeps the gov't rolling.

[Smiling JOe]

The tax on gasoline goes toward the upkeep and the building of new roads, at least that is what they tell us in Kentucky.:scratch: BTW, how do you feel about nuclear power? :idontno:Nuclear powered autos? I am not sure that I want to be too close to nuclear power plants, no matter how big or small.

[Excalibur]

Try this one on for size:
http://www.drudgereport.com/ex.jpg
3-MONTH PROFIT: $8,400,000,000.00 (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=businessNews&storyid=2006-04-27T124209Z_01_WAA000191_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-EXXON-EARNS.xml&rpc=23)

[Bob]

The Feds could offer substantial tax credits on, say, +35 mpg vehicles to reward responsible consumption. Hybrids are not the answer. Buying more expensive cars with two powertrains in order to save a few mpgs does not make sense. Instead, a policy of higher taxes for gas guzzlers and tax credits for efficient vehicles would make a huge impact now.

[SlowMovin]

The tax on gasoline goes toward the upkeep and the building of new roads, at least that is what they tell us in Kentucky.:scratch: BTW, how do you feel about nuclear power? :idontno:
There are federal, state and local taxes on gasoline. Do they all go to building/upkeep of new roads?

[Excalibur]

Exxon Mobil profit rises on soaring prices

Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:42am EThttp://i.today.reuters.com/images/spacer.gifNEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Thursday reported quarterly profit surged, driven by rising oil prices.

Net income in the first quarter was $8.4 billion, or $1.37 a share, up from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 a share, a year earlier.

Revenue jumped to $88.98 billion from $82.05 billion. :pissed:

Crude oil prices have risen steadily from about $20 a barrel in 2002 to over $75 last week, handing oil and gas companies a long-running profit bonanza.

But the fat profits have also angered U.S. drivers grappling with rising gasoline prices and provoked sharp criticism of Big Oil from lawmakers and consumer advocates.

[John R]

The tax on gasoline goes toward the upkeep and the building of new roads, at least that is what they tell us in Kentucky.:scratch: BTW, how do you feel about nuclear power? :idontno:

tax from fuel indeed goes to roads, i've got no problem with that, the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/homepage.cfm) is in terrible shape as a whole. it's the base price of oil that's the problem.

there really is no place for nuclear 'as we know it' in our future. where will the waste end up? who will be responsible for it? the govt? :bang: sooner of later, they will take the funds needed for guarding it, since it will be considered too much of a debit. possibly turning storage and security over to the private sector. remember the 60 minutes piece of them walking right into 'secure' chemical plants, and doing what they pleased. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/60minutes/main583528.shtml if we can't protect nuclear, we shouldn't be considering more. check this; http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/gorbachev_sound.php

[dbuck]

There are federal, state and local taxes on gasoline. Do they all go to building/upkeep of new roads?
No.
I heard on tv this morning that in Venezuel gas is 12 cents a gallon. Why is that? They did go on to say that the average weekly income is $30, but is that relevant to the price of gasoline?:idontno:

[TooFarTampa]

No.
I heard on tv this morning that in Venezuel gas is 12 cents a gallon. Why is that? They did go on to say that the average weekly income is $30, but is that relevant to the price of gasoline?:idontno:

From Money Magazine online, 2004:

"The main driver of price disparities between countries is government policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, said a spokesperson for AirInc.

"In Venezuela, on the other hand, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said."

[Excalibur]

No.
I heard on tv this morning that in Venezuel gas is 12 cents a gallon. Why is that? They did go on to say that the average weekly income is $30, but is that relevant to the price of gasoline?:idontno:

The Government of Venezuela owns CITGO, which supplies our gasoline here at Tom Thumbs. Venezuela gives their citizens gasoline subsidized at "cost" to help their poor, presumably.

Hydrogen is the way to go. Long term storage of hydrogen is the issue, as well as being able to get enough PSI in a tank to increase its mileage range for use in vehicles. :roll:

[John R]

The Government of Venezuela owns CITGO, which supplies our gasoline here at Tom Thumbs. Venezuela gives their citizens gasoline subsidized at "cost" to help their poor, presumably.

Hydrogen is the way to go. Long term storage of hydrogen is the issue, as well as being able to get enough PSI in a tank to increase its mileage range for use in vehicles. :roll:

i believe the weight to range ratio is a factor too, as well as onboard capacity.

[SHELLY]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.


So the market price has been established for my vote....and the oil company still gets to reap in big profits--yep, sounds as if it's business as usual.

[John]

It took 9-years following the 1970's oil embargo for gas to reach $1 per gallon. It took 25 more years for gas to reach $2. From there, it took less than 12-months for it to top $3.

Exxon/Mobil recently reported the largest corporate profits in history.

Is this a great place or what?

[John R]

excellent article shelly, thanks.

Ford trying to play Green. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/ill_take_the_su.php)

I’ll Take the Sunroof, Rims, and TerraPass, Please
April 27, 2006 03:15 PM - Jacob Gordon, Los Angeles, CA

Greener-Miles.jpg

Paying to offset your car’s emissions is a contentious issue. To some it’s a clever and accessible way to get a little greener. Others see it as a feel-good cop out. The New York Times weighed in on the issue this week and made their opinion clear enough: Gas Guzzlers Find Price of Forgiveness. Of course the issue is more nuanced than that and as the idea of going carbon neutral spreads, the debate will broaden. Ford announced this week that it has joined with TerraPass to educate car buyers about the option of offsetting their greenhouse emissions by investing in renewables. Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury will promote the Greener Miles cross-branding program at their dealerships and on the Web, although Ford “has no plans to run a broad-based advertising campaign for the initiative,” according to Green Car Congress

TerraPass is one of a host of companies like FutureForests, GreenFleet, and Native Energy that let drivers invest in tree planting or alternative energy programs to counterbalance their emissions. TerraPass is a for-profit company that sells emissions credits it earns though domestic wind and methane energy programs, and was featured in the ending credits of Syriana as a suggested way to a greener life, presumably one that doesn’t fuel Middle East warfare. For those considering carbon neutrality, EcoBusiness has done a bit of comparison shopping.

And for you California folks>> Who Voted Against the Environment 90% of the Time? (http://www.dccc.org/pombo/main.html)

[TooFarTampa]

SHELLY, great article, thanks. It all makes perfect sense. But here's something I never thought of before:

"The dollar's purchasing power has fallen dramatically, especially in the past few years as the dollar index has fallen from 120 to 87, a decline in the dollar of 27.5%. The falling dollar is just as much a part for the rising price of gasoline as it has been for a ridiculous rise in home prices across the nation."

:blink: :doh:

[Excalibur]

SHELLY, great article, thanks. It all makes perfect sense. But here's something I never thought of before:

"The dollar's purchasing power has fallen dramatically, especially in the past few years as the dollar index has fallen from 120 to 87, a decline in the dollar of 27.5%. The falling dollar is just as much a part for the rising price of gasoline as it has been for a ridiculous rise in home prices across the nation."

:blink: :doh:

TooFar Tampa is right on the money about the decline in the value of the dollar. Oil, Gold, Silver, Copper, ect are all denominated in USD. It is not that they are going up in value - their value is fixed. It is our dollar that is declining, ergo it takes more $$$ to buy them........ Iran is opening an Oil Bourse priced only in Euros.............could get quite interesting. Our trade imbalances, 9 Trillion dollars of debt, coupled with the fact it takes several billion dollars a day of foreign investment just to keep our economy afloat is the main reason for the decline in the value of the dollar. Plus our $$$ are not backed by anything - literally, and Bush & Co are printing them like they are going out of style. Each new dollar printed decreases the value of the dollars that we all currently own. March 23, 2006 the Federal Reserve decided to withold for the first time in its history the "M-3" "money supply" data from the US public and the world. Basically, we stopped telling everyone how much dollars we are printing up each week. :shock:

[John R]

Each new dollar printed decreases the value of the dollars that we all currently own. March 23, 2006 the Federal Reserve decided to withold for the first time in its history the "M-3" "money supply" data from the US public and the world. Basically, we stopped telling everyone how much dollars we are printing up each week.

it will be quite interesting to watch, and nowhere to run to, when the already struggling dollar falls by the wayside to the euro. since we really export nothing of value except outsourced help desks, there will be nothing solid to back the dollar with, unless george inflates the value of gold a la Goldfinger. we're in for quite a mess. watch intrest rates then. i suppose he could raise the price of wheat :banging:

[SlowMovin]

If anyone is remotely interested in a nicely written, very current (today) explanation of the current oil/gas story, here is a link:

Energy Economics 101 (http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm)
That really is a good article. Thanks for posting it.

So am I to understand that it is not the oil companies' profits that are driving up gas prices, but their production costs instead?

[TooFarTampa]

That really is a good article. Thanks for posting it.

So am I to understand that it is not the oil companies' profits that are driving up gas prices, but their production costs instead?

And the purchase price for the barrel of crude, if I am reading it right. And the dollar being very weak.

So what do we attribute the record profits to? Simple demand? The fact that they are selling more gas than ever, thus more opportunity for the record profits? Not that I want to let the gas companies off the hook ...

[John R]

it will be interesting to see the auto-trader and the classifieds in 90-120 days. it already costs $45 to fill up my ford ranger work truck with regular gas. i can't imagine the sting(red hot poker) of filling up an excursion or the like. like dinosaurs dying off, excursions, tahoes, H1, H2, H3, etc, sitting in the driveways of 30a covered with a layer of dust and salt. no more running two blocks to the tom thumb for soda or milk :roll:

[beachkids]

If anyone is remotely interested in a nicely written, very current (today) explanation of the current oil/gas story, here is a link:

Energy Economics 101 (http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm)

Suffice to say--there's not much George-the-Lesser or his band of Merry Men can do to "kiss it and maywk it awll bwetter." It's up to each individual to conserve or slurge how they please--depending on how much of their money they want to hand over to the oil company shareholders, execs, or A-rabs.

Good article.

I thought we were supposed to bash big oil like the media says?

democrats want impose a "windfall profits tax" on big oil companies- I bet that will really help drive the price of oil down

How would you like a windfall profits tax on real estate? Many people have made obscene profits in real estate. Senator chuck shoe-mer seems to know how to define obscene profits.

[John R]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/rosenrosen15/supercar.gif

[SlowMovin]

So what do we attribute the record profits to? Simple demand? The fact that they are selling more gas than ever, thus more opportunity for the record profits? Not that I want to let the gas companies off the hook ...
This example is a little simplistic but I think it gets the point across.

Let's say I own an oil company and I typically average a 10% profit margin. For the sake of example we'll say that crude oil has stayed at a constant price for several years. Year after year I spend a total of $100 billion (with $50 billion of that being the result of the crude oil price). My gross revenues are $110 billion of which $10 billion (i.e. 10%) is profit.

Now let's say that one year the price of crude doubles and I now spend $150 billion with $100 billion of that on crude alone. Consequently I raise the price of my product accordingly to cover my new costs so that my profit margin stays the same. If nothing else changes I gross $165 billion...with $15 billion of that (10%) being profit; a record level of profits, perhaps, but the same ROI.

[John R]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114644818224940150.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

As Gasoline Prices Soar,
Americans Resist Major
Cuts in Consumption
By JEFFREY BALL
May 1, 2006; Page A1

With gasoline prices in the U.S. approaching an average $3 a gallon, Americans are moaning about the rising cost, but so far they are resisting big changes in their gas-guzzling ways.

A 25% jump in prices at the pump since December has set off a firestorm in Washington. Politicians are threatening auto makers with tougher federal fuel-economy standards and oil companies with higher taxes on record profits, while warning against price gouging. Auto and oil executives are predicting that a long-term shift toward greater fuel efficiency is under way. But none of these influences is likely to have much effect on gasoline prices or oil consumption in the near term.

Unlike the energy crises of the 1970s, which resulted from reduced supplies of Mideast oil, today's crunch is due largely to a swift rise in global oil demand. The surest way out of the problem, most experts agree, would be to curb consumption of vehicle fuel, particularly in the U.S. For years, economists have argued that the most effective way to moderate U.S. demand would be to hit Americans with significantly higher gasoline taxes. Today's high prices amount to a market test of that theory.

The early results: High prices do have some effect, but prices would have to be higher than they are today -- and would have to stay high for a long time -- to meaningfully curb gasoline consumption by the nation's massive fleet of cars and trucks, which accounts for about 10% of global oil use.

At the margins, there are some signs that high gasoline prices may be starting to alter consumer behavior. Traditionally, gasoline use in the U.S. rises about 1.5% each year. But in three of the six months from September -- immediately following the Gulf Coast hurricanes -- through February, gasoline consumption fell compared with a year earlier, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the three months in which it grew, it never rose by more than 0.4%. Yet in March, as gasoline prices soared, demand appeared to return to more-robust levels, growing by 1%, according to preliminary data.

"There's definitely a noticeable decrease in the growth of demand," says Tancred Lidderdale, senior economist at the Energy Information Administration. "The problem is demand is still growing."

Though the recent run-up in gasoline prices has been steep, it hasn't been debilitating for most Americans. The price of a gallon of regular gas averaged $2.74 in April, according to the Energy Information Administration. Adjusted for inflation, that was still 14% below the peak in March 1981, when, in today's dollars, gasoline averaged $3.18.

Moreover, Americans are better-positioned to handle a run-up in fuel prices than they were a quarter-century ago. Gasoline now accounts for only 3% of total personal-consumption spending, down from 5% in 1981, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That gives many consumers less reason to contemplate cutbacks when prices rise.

In Plano, Texas, a suburb north of Dallas, Alfred Goh, a 42-year-old commercial-real-estate broker, yesterday paid $63.86, or $3.06 a gallon, to fill up his sport-utility vehicle, a white 2004 Lexus GX 470. The vehicle averages 16 miles per gallon, according to federal figures, and Mr. Goh, who drives extensively for work, reckons he fills it up two or three times a week.

Mr. Goh says he has no plans to change his driving habits or his vehicle. "I won't limit driving because of gas prices, because it's a necessity," he says. As for his vehicle, "I think this is a safe car," he says, and "it's safety first." His only concession to rising gasoline prices is that he now uses midgrade gasoline instead of premium, a move that saves him about 10 cents a gallon.

Even Americans who want to slash their gasoline use will find it hard to do so in a society built on cheap energy, where far-flung suburbs and powerful cars are the rule. "If you've got to drive to work every day, you've got to drive to work every day," says John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's Washington-based trade group.

The limits of mass transit add to the difficulty of cutting fuel consumption. Though nationwide figures aren't yet available, many systems around the country are reporting significant increases in passengers, says William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association. In Washington, where his group is based, the Metrorail transit system reports that three of the 14 busiest days in its history occurred the third week in April. The problem: Public transit isn't available in much of the U.S. and doesn't match the commutes of many Americans in places where it exists.

Research suggests it takes years for higher gas prices to meaningfully damp consumption. Opinions differ, but many experts say that, in the short term, the "price elasticity" of U.S. gasoline use is as low as 0.1. That means gas prices have to rise 10% to produce an initial 1% drop in demand.

Charles Komanoff, a New York energy analyst, believes the short-term elasticity is stronger than that, though it's still modest. "There is an impact" of higher prices on demand, he says.

What influences gasoline use more quickly than gasoline prices, experts say, is a change in personal income. Among the first things Americans do as their paychecks get bigger is to buy zippier cars and drive their existing cars more. Incomes have been rising in the U.S., as they have throughout most of the industrialized world. The result: "It takes a very big price increase to have a big impact today," says Philip Verleger, a Colorado-based oil economist.

Mr. Verleger estimates that real, or inflation-adjusted, gasoline prices have to rise at roughly five times the rate of real income just to keep the nation's gasoline demand flat. Given that real income is rising at about 3% a year, real gasoline prices would have to surge 15% to prevent consumption from growing, according to his analysis.

Broadly, the latest federal statistics appear to bear him out. In the first quarter, the real price of gasoline averaged about 17% more than a year earlier, and U.S. gasoline consumption was up just 0.3% -- fairly close to flat. Still, Mr. Verleger and federal energy officials caution that it's too early to discern any long-term trends from the data.

If gasoline prices stayed high for several years, researchers say, they would tend to meaningfully curb consumption. Over time, people would factor the higher prices into decisions that have big effects on their gasoline use. They might choose more-efficient models when it comes time to replace cars, as happened in the early 1980s. They might decide to switch jobs or move to shorten their commutes.

Some major industries say they believe that a long-term change in U.S. gas consumption is in the works. At the top of the list is the auto industry.

Sales of traditional sport-utility vehicles -- the ones built on the guts of pickup trucks, which tend to consume the most gasoline -- are falling fast. The decline began in 2003, when gasoline was cheap, but it has accelerated markedly since prices began rising in early 2005. Sales of truck-based SUVs, which fell 4% in 2003 and 3% in 2004, tumbled 13% in 2005 and 7% in the first quarter of this year.

The traditional-SUV market is "collapsing," says George Pipas, Ford Motor Co.'s U.S. sales-analysis manager.

When gas prices first began creeping higher, auto makers offered bigger sales incentives on SUVs, effectively giving buyers "a gas card in the glove box," Mr. Pipas says. But the continued rise in gasoline prices has largely inured buyers to such inducements.

"If you think that by putting an extra $1,000 on an Expedition you can sell enough to make it worth your while, you're wrong," Mr. Pipas says, referring to one of Ford's large SUVs. "You're pushing on a string. At some point you say, 'Pull back. The market is what it is.' "

Yet plenty of Americans still are buying fuel-thirsty rides. Despite the weakness of the SUV segment overall, U.S. sales of the recently redesigned Chevrolet Tahoe SUV soared 37% in the first quarter. And luxury cars not known for their fuel economy also remain hot sellers. In the first quarter in the U.S., BMW sales rose 11%, Mercedes sales increased 17%, and Porsche sales surged 26%.

The oil industry also is betting that a change is under way. Exxon Mobil Corp. says it believes that, by 2030, hybrid gasoline-and-electric cars and light trucks will account for nearly 30% of new-vehicle sales in the U.S. and Canada. That surge is part of a broader shift toward fuel efficiency that Exxon thinks will cause fuel consumption by North American cars and light trucks to peak around 2020 -- and then start to fall.

"For that reason, we wouldn't build a grassroots refinery" in the U.S., Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview. Exxon has continued to expand the capacity of its existing refineries. But building a new refinery from scratch, Exxon believes, would be bad for long-term business.

[John R]

my new bike.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e53/rosenrosen15/bike.jpg

http://xtracycle.com/