Energy, Energy Service, Natural Gas &amp; Oil Sectors

Top 1308. Oct 28, 2005 7:43 AM

» lcha - profits

Amidst the reporting of record profits by oil companies it seems the disturbing news has been glossed over. XOM production was down 5%. BP production was down 15%. Marathon production was down 5%.

How much of this is Katrina/Rita related I don't know but these are all companies in the international sphere and their production is DOWN.

-- posted by lcha

Top 1309. Oct 28, 2005 10:26 AM

» Normxxx - Re: profits

In response to profits posted by lcha:

Are the results in for anybody that didn't have Gulf operations?

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 1310. Oct 28, 2005 2:26 PM

» Normxxx - The Russians Are Coming

The Russians Are Coming
Russia’s Quiet Natural Gas Deal With U.S.

By Joe Duarte, MD | 28 October 2005

While the peak oil theory is gathering mainstream momentum, liquefied natural gas remains a viable alternative for the United States as a major fuel source.

In this article, Dr. Joe Duarte details a potentially significant agreement between Russia and the United States, which, if it is eventually taken to its full potential, could rewrite a significant portion of the current script in the global energy markets.

A quiet deal between the U.S. and Russia could change the landscape and the entire power structure in the energy markets.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Russia, could be on its way to the U.S. by 2008. According to the Moscow Times, the controversial Sakhalin field could be fully operational by then, making the Murmansk port a key cog in the Russian LNG industry.

The Russian daily reported: “The legendary sea-faring route from the United States across the Atlantic to Russia's northern city of Murmansk, through which vital supplies went to the Soviet Union some 60 years ago to help the country fight in World War II, is looking to get a new breath of life. This time, however, the traffic is going to be reversed, shipping liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from Russia to energy-hungry North America.”

According to the Times, hurricane Katrina was a wake up call for Washington, leading to a new focus on negotiations. “The hurricane seems to have given new impetus to the energy dialogue between Washington and Moscow. It has also given Russia a chance to flex its muscles in its pursuit of a role as an energy superpower— even if Russia is yet to produce its first LNG.”

The New Saudi Arabia

According to the Times, Russia’s goal is to become the world’s new energy hub, in essence the “New Saudi Arabia.”

Indeed, the fruits of the Kremlin’s war on Yukos, and the expansion of national natural gas giant Gazprom are starting to pay off. "Russia wants to be the new Saudi Arabia in terms of global energy— a global energy partner for consumer countries," said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Alfa Bank, who has advised the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Saudi Arabia has since the 1980s reaped considerable political benefits from having an energy partnership with consumer countries. "But it seems that the model that Russia is pushing is a more expensive version of that. Instead of just being a big global energy supplier shipping lots of oil ... Russia wants to be and is able to be a supplier of several types of energy ... which gives it better political leverage," Weafer said.

Indeed, this is a big bet on both sides, and one that has been carefully guarded by the two governments, whose public portrayal of relations has been cool at best. “The development of the huge offshore Shtokman field— which contains 3.2 trillion cubic meters of gas and 31 million tons of gas condensate and is by far the largest LNG project in Russia— aims to develop the natural gas deposits located under the Barents Sea. As the production is launched in 2010, most of the gas condensate will be shipped to the United States, which plans to boost its total LNG imports to 180 billion cubic meters per year by 2025.”

LNG: The Solution

After 9/11, Russia and the U.S. have haphazardly tried to build an energy partnership. But politics, and the Yukos situation, in which the Kremlin gutted what was Russia’s energy crown jewel, and jailed its founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, provided a major set back to an already complex situation.

The solution seems to have become LNG. In essence, the solution was reached by default. "All the oil Russia produces has essentially already been sold," said Valery Nesterov, an oil and gas analyst at investment bank Troika Dialog.

Meanwhile "The U.S. market has a great potential for growth. We can only reach it using LNG technology. After all, you can't build a pipeline from Russia to the United States," said Sergei Kupriyanov, the spokesman for Gazprom. In addition to the competition that Russia would have to face to sell oil to the United States— mostly from the Gulf states, Mexico and Venezuela— shipping oil across the Atlantic is very expensive. But even more importantly, Russia simply does not produce enough oil to feed United States' energy needs.

Aside from Russia having the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, there are other advantages. “The planned route for Shtokman gas from Murmansk to the east coast of the United States will be significantly shorter than the distance the shipments from the Middle East have to make to North America, giving it an advantage over the Gulf exporters of LNG. And the money that Washington is ready to shell out for LNG is certainly not getting smaller— the price for 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas rose threefold in 2004 to reach $222. At the same time, European customers paid Gazprom only $136 for 1,000 cm of natural gas. But most importantly, gas is set to grow in importance— for Russia as well as for other hydrocarbon exporters— because its global reserves are estimated to be immeasurably larger than those of oil.”

Conclusion

Russia and the United States are once again on friendly terms, at least on one issue, energy. To be sure, this is the apparent situation today, which means that tomorrow could be different, given the usual state of affairs between the two countries.

And of course, there are the hidden agendas on both sides, and the inevitable healthy dose of self interest, especially for the White House and the Kremlin.

Nevertheless, as the Moscow Times notes: “by involving Western partners in LNG production— as in the case of Shtokman— or taking part in the distribution of gas abroad, as is assumed in Germany once a pipeline is built to that country under the bottom of the Baltic Sea, Russia is forging close cooperation not only with foreign governments but also the consumers themselves, thereby taking its role as a global energy provider much further.”

Indeed, "A more extensive web is being created in which Russia has a much safer role than just energy supplier ... and LNG is going to be a part of it," Weafer said.

The Russians are coming.

[Normxxx Here: I wonder how the public will respond to the first blow up of a LNG ship at a port near a city!?! ]

______________

The contents of this letter/report does not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.

The content of this message is not to be construed as constituting market or investment advice. It is intended for educational purposes only. Individuals should consult with their own advisors for specific investment advice.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 1311. Oct 28, 2005 5:40 PM

» axolotl - Re: The Russians Are Coming

I would expect that any hydrocarbons deep within the earth would be gaseous due to heat and pressure. I do not believe that "centrifugal force" would bring any hydrocarbons towards the surface, but movement from high to lower pressures nearer the surface might explain movement. Russia is the Saudia Arabia of NG and I am surprised that China has not made a deal for a pipeline. I am sure China with all the air pollution would like some cleaner burning natural gas.

-- posted by axolotl

Top 1312. Oct 29, 2005 8:46 PM

» Normxxx - High-Dividend Oil Trusts

High-Dividend Oil Trusts

By Richard Lehmann, Forbes | 29 October 2005

Oil and gas stocks have been the darlings of an otherwise lackluster stock market. Integrated energy giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron have shown gains of 25% or more over the past year. But fixed-income investors haven't been left out. One rewarding alternative has been Canadian energy trusts— stocks that trade in the U.S. with lofty, bondlike yields that equities seldom attain and that also have the stability of good bonds.

These trusts' fine performance has made them staples for diversified fixed-income investors. A year ago I wrote a column (Sept. 6, 2004) recommending two Canadian oil-and-gas trusts— Provident Energy and Petrofund Energy. I saw them as a way to play the energy sector and as income producers with sizable yields— taxable at the 15% dividend tax rate. Since that time oil and natural gas prices have doubled, and the prices of these two trusts are up 50%. Action is heavy everywhere in this arena: StarPoint Energy Trust is acquiring Acclaim Energy Trust. So is now the time to take profits? I think not.

What makes Canadian trusts so attractive is that they operate in the lowest-risk segment of an otherwise high-risk business. They buy proven and probable reserves, on dry land, from exploration or full-service oil companies. No worry about hurricanes, dry holes or unstable governments. No worry about getting their energy to market; they can pipe it direct to the largest market on earth. Their biggest variable is the weather— rain or cold, which can interrupt production.

While the activities of a trust are straightforward, evaluating them is anything but. The first concern of an investor is how many years of reserve life the trust has if it continues to produce at current levels. This in turn can be broken down into proven reserves (those you currently access) and probable reserves (those you think you can tap). So look for a long reserve life that shows no sign of dropping significantly, year to year.

The next important measure is what percentage of free cash flow (net income plus depreciation minus capital spending) is paid out to shareholders. The lower the percentage, the more assurance that dividends can be sustained or increased as oil and gas prices fluctuate. A trust that pays out, say, 90% of the cash flow may have difficulty keeping up the dividends if prices plunge or production costs rise.

Trusts can hedge their oil and gas production in the forward markets. Thus they may realize revenues well above current market prices if they guess right. Most trusts will commit up to a third of their production in this way. Not all have been right. A year ago $40 and $50 per barrel looked very attractive, but forward sellers would have done better to sell in the spot market ($66 the other day).

Remember that a trust is a depleting asset that must constantly acquire new reserves. Trusts have been known to use the dividend payout as a life-support mechanism to attract new capital. Are the new reserves paid for with reinvested cash flow or with sales of new shares? There's all the difference in the world, if the new shares dilute the reserves per share on which future dividends depend.

Four trusts, trading on U.S. exchanges, pass my tests. The two I mentioned last year are still buys: Petrofund Energy (19, PTF), with a 9.0% yield, and Provident Energy (12, PVX), 10.1%. Two other good ones are Enerplus Resources (44, ERF), yielding 8.4%, and PrimeWest Energy (30, PWI), 10.1%. In all cases their reserves have risen or stayed constant over the past five years.

Enerplus, for instance, had 14 years of reserves in 2004, compared with 13.3 in 2003. In August it spent $387 million to acquire Lyco Energy, a private oil company with producing fields in Montana and NorthDakota. While the acquisition was paid for with a new stock issue, the trust assured investors that the acquisition would not dilute per-share reserves or cash flow and upped the monthly dividend by 2 cents a share to reinforce the point. Also, make note that today's high and rising energy prices have allowed the trusts to use debt to enhance their returns.

Despite their run-up, Canadian trust stock prices have a way to go even if oil and natural gas prices fall back to the equivalent of $50 per barrel. The current dividend rates look very solid for these four trusts. Canadian residents will find there are others, even more attractive, that trade only in Canada.

While you may have read about companies developing Canadian oil sands and how this may be the future for our oil needs, stay away for now. Developing the oil sands is an evolving technology and will take a decade of low-dividend payouts. Leave that for the stock speculators. (Information on energy and other trusts can be found in a newsletter covering Canadian trusts at http://www.canadianedge.com.)

______________

The contents of this letter/report does not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 1313. Nov 3, 2005 9:53 AM

» lcha - Backlash forms over oil profits

Lcha here: Two things. While I am not at ALL for any kind of windfall profits tax, I would cheer it if enacted. It would put a long term gaurantee on my future raises and bonuses.

It is unbelievable that these congresspeople would punish American companies making LEGAL profits while doing NOTHING about giving MORE business to the illegal OPEC cartel. The Saudi's must be laughing all the way to the explosives depot at how we are so willing to punish our own companies for excess profits while they use their excess profits to fund even more anti-American, western hating schools throughout the world. Amazing.

Backlash forms over oil profits
By DAVID IVANOVICH and LYNN J. COOK
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The major oil companies' gigantic profits have created an embarrassment of riches.

Scrambling to quell an uproar sparked by their third-quarter earnings, the oil companies are buying newspaper ads and dialing up members of Congress in the hopes of reining in the outcry before the winter heating bills hit.

Exxon Mobil Corp. alone rang up a $9.9 billion profit. Whether Exxon and its competitors will be able to persuade the public their earnings aren't really so huge remains to be seen.

"You make nearly $10 billion in a quarter, and you're making more than number of Fortune 500 companies put together," noted Ed Rothschild, a longtime energy industry critic in Washington.

Arguments that profits are not so high don't ring true to drivers still paying nearly $2.50 per gallon. "That's not going to wash," Rothschild argued.

While Exxon Mobil's earnings figure was the grandpappy of them all, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips all rolled out blockbuster profits last week.

And the political fallout was almost immediate.

Oil company executives have been called to testify about those earnings before a Senate panel Nov. 9. Exxon Chief Executive Officer Lee Raymond, ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva and Shell Oil President John Hofmeister all have been asked to appear.

Even before many energy companies announced their hearings, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called on the oil companies to funnel their anticipated profits toward expanding their refining capacity. Hastert swatted away suggestions the oil companies be subject to a windfall profits tax, the oil companies' tax nemesis from the 1980s.

On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman reiterated the Bush administration's opposition to any such move. "We tried a windfall profits tax ... as a country back in the 1980s, and it failed," Bodman said.

But Republicans aren't in complete agreement.

Last week, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., called for a windfall profits tax that could be used to assist low income residents pay their heating bills this winter. And on Tuesday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to industry trade groups calling on them to donate a portion of their profits to low income heating assistance programs.

Democrats have more radical ideas. Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., have proposed levying a 50 percent excise tax on profits earned when a barrel of oil sells for more than $40 a barrel.

Under the plan, companies could reduce this tax liability by expanding their refinery capacity, boosting domestic oil and gas production or investing in renewable forms of energy.

While the Republican leadership's opposition would usually doom such a proposal, the measure has a feature that might make lawmakers think twice about saying no. It would require that the proceeds from the windfall profit tax be sent to American consumers in the form of "refund" checks. Proponents are clearly hoping voters who otherwise might be averse to raising taxes on the oil industry might be won over if they can count on a check in the mail.

'Oil and Apples'
For their part, the oil companies have been trying to make the case their earnings aren't out of line.

Exxon Mobil has taken out ads in major daily newspapers comparing oil and gas company earnings with other sectors. An ad headline "Oil and Apples," features a chart that shows pharmaceutical companies, banks, software firms and tobacco giants all earning more pennies on the dollar than energy companies.

The ad shows energy companies earning 7.7 cents per dollar of revenue, and Exxon Mobil 8.6 cents, versus 7.9 cents for U.S. industry overall. With "a true 'apples to apples' evaluation — you see that oil earnings are not out of step with other major industries," the ad reads.

Whether comparing the oil companies with other sectors is a smart strategy is a matter of debate.

Bala Dharan, professor of accounting at Rice University, doesn't see the point in comparing Big Oil to the makers of tennis shoes or TVs. But he said the fact they are using their profits to buy back stock, pay off debts and hoard cash is a sound long-term strategy.

Energy lobbyists are knocking on doors all over Capitol Hill, trying to get their message heard.

"Constituents are asking questions and looking for answers and, thus, members of Congress are looking for answers as well," said Mark Kibbe, senior tax policy analyst for the Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, which represents the majors. "That's what we're doing — nothing clandestine or anything. We're just being responsive and trying to get our message out."

API officials have been pointing to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on the nation's last, eight-year experiment with a windfall profit tax.

Conducted in 1990, two years after the repeal of the windfall profit tax, that report concluded the tax generated only a fraction of the revenue proponents had predicted, while actually helping to reduce domestic oil production by anywhere from 3 percent to 6 percent.

Proposal aimed at majors
The Democrats' new, windfall profit tax proposal is aimed specifically at the major, integrated oil companies. But the smaller independent producers fear they might get caught up in the same legislative sweep.

"People start looking for solutions, and bad solutions can gain traction," noted Lee Fuller, a lobbyist for the Washington-based Independent Petroleum Association of America.

All of the anger with the oil companies comes at a time when oil stocks are on the downward slide. Investors in oil stocks are in a funk, worried about high petroleum prices reducing demand. Oil sector stocks plunged 8 percent in October, said Deutsche Bank oil analyst Paul Sankey.

Indeed, the sector's stock performance last month ranked as the worst October since the stock market crash of 1997.

The greatest political danger for the oil companies could come early next year, when homeowners could be slammed with the heftiest home heating bills they've ever seen and lawmakers on Capitol Hill are gearing up for their primary races.

"Windfall profit taxes are driven by politicians who are driven by constituents who are driven by their pocketbook," noted energy analyst Dan Pickering of Pickering Energy Partners in Houston.

"Gasoline prices got into their pocketbook last month and ... what we have in front of us is a round of heating bills that are going to be even more significant. They're going to hurt everyone.

"And you don't get re-elected by doing nothing," Pickering said.

-- posted by lcha

Top 1314. Nov 4, 2005 8:10 AM

» lcha - ANWAR

Well, it looks like U.S. oil companies will get to drill in the Arctic Refuge. Let's see, 10 billion barrels of estimated reserves. At the world usage rate of 80 million barrels per day, that is 125 days worth of oil. That's right, a whole 125 days. 25 years of debate for 125 days worth of oil. To be fair it IS 1.25 years worth of U.S. oil usage.

This is not the least bit sobering new for me. The fact we have put so much political energy into an area that will supply us with crude for such a short time. Without adding the right to drill of CA, FL and the Eastern seaboard as well as numerous federal lands, ANWAR is meaningless.

-- posted by lcha

Top 1315. Nov 4, 2005 2:15 PM

» Normxxx - The Energy Report

The Energy Report

By Phil Flynn | 4 November 2005

Maybe it's a new definition of mall walking perhaps? October retail sales blew away expectations in a month where we were supposed to see high gasoline prices make consumers keep their wallets in their pocket. Yet across the board be it discounters, department stores or apparel, consumers defied expectations and went on a buying binge. Now with all the talk of unleaded gas demand destruction due to high prices the only logical explanation for all the consumer spending is that they must have walked to the malls so they could have money to shop.

A bull bounce back in oil spurred on by the soon to be retired Alan Greenspan. The Fed Chairman helped spur an oil rally by saying he did not believe higher oil prices would seriously harm the economy. He did acknowledge that the spike in price after hurricanes Katrina and Rita did provide a significant shock but the economic fundamentals seem to retain important forward momentum.

Still Mr. Greenspan says that uncertainty remains about the outlook for inflation. He said inflation has been kept under control with the integration of China, India and the former Soviet block. Yet his worries about inflation seem to suggest that the Fed Chairman is more concerned about a too strong economy as opposed to one that is too weak. Which means the outlook for oil demand would tend to also be stronger as opposed to weaker.

And Mr. Greenspan addressed his energy concerns directly when he said that near term supplies of natural gas seem to be adequate but that a colder than average winter could stress supply. He also thinks consumers will be in for a surprise when they see their first heating bills. Mr. Greenspan again stressed the need to invest in the drilling and importation of natural gas to try to head off an economic crisis in the future.

Other concerns on energy came from the International Energy Agency. The Financial Times reported that the IEA said, "Oil prices by 2030 would be 50% higher than today if Saudi Arabia does not muster the will to invest billions of dollars in new production." What the Financial Times doesn't mention is that some believe that even if the Saudis invest that capital their reserves are not as ample as some predict. So if the Saudis don't have the will or the oil, perhaps we'll see oil in the $90.00 to $100.00 area in 2030 according to the IEA. Which will be a real bummer for me because I'll be pushing 70 and social security will be broke and my Prius will still only get 50 miles to the gallon!

Faith, hope, charity and embarrassment. Why is Washington bringing up the concept of windfall profit tax for the oil industry? Perhaps their real intent is to embarrass them into becoming charitable. According to Senator Charles Grassley, even though there is no real strong support for taxing oil companies, it seems that this charade is (as the Senator puts it) to embarrass them into to helping low income families with their heating bills. But as a Republican Senator who is chairman of the Senate finance committee, maybe he should be embarrassed with the runaway spending in Washington.

If anyone should be embarrassed, it is the members of congress that helped get us into this energy mess. There is a need to embarrass them into stopping the massive pork barrel spending and maybe providing some incentives to spend on drilling and refining.

It may have been down for the count, but oil demand is apparently up and off the mat again! Throughout the less than inspiring Department of Energy report yesterday, one factor that should be noted is that energy demand is starting to bounce back. Oh sure, the DOE is saying demand is still being hurt by high prices but there is no doubt demand will rise again. And with the seventh straight drop in distillate stocks we had better hope it stays warm for the next few months.

The Department of Energy reported that crude oil inventories rose by 2.7 million barrels in the latest week. Gasoline inventories rose by 1.0 million barrels last week. Yet distillates fell again by 200,000 barrels. That drop leaves supplies below average for this time of year.
Gasoline demand rose to an impressive 8.9 million barrels a day but is still lagging last year by 1.7%.

Still, despite the short term bearishness of this report, it shows that we still have a difficult time meeting any rise in demand. Seasonal strength in demand is coming and when demand spikes, as it most likely will, so too will price!

Last week the market got a little boost from a New York Times story calling into question OPEC's spare capacity. OPEC, as they usually do, responded this week with a flat out denial. OPEC claims that they indeed have (more than) sufficient spare capacity to meet demand. In fact OPEC's acting Secretary General Adnan Shihab-Eldin says OPEC's spare capacity of 2.0 million barrels of oil a day would be more than adequate to cover demand this winter. The Financial Times reported that OPEC's President Sheikh Akhmad al-Fahd al-Sabah said that the group had spare capacity and that demand was falling. He also said OPEC had offered extra crude deliveries in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but there had been no takers.

Yet the truth is the reason there were no takers is the oil offered up by OPEC was heavy crude. And the refineries that are best able to refine heavy crude were shut down in the storm. The issues with Katrina and Rita were all about the refineries that were and still are shut down.

This extra OPEC oil was also rejected because the US was offered Europe's reserve oil and that made heavy OPEC oil even less desirable. It's true that demand is down, but that's true every year at this time. This is normal demand slow down time. In fact it was just a little less than a year ago when OPEC was convinced demand was (sustainably) falling and moved to cut oil production. Of course OPEC was wrong about demand then too.

The Fed has been worried about too much oil demand. And they should be. The market is still trying to digest that stellar 3.85 GDP figure from last week and what it says about future oil demand. It does not appear demand will be slowing anytime soon.

______________

The contents of this letter/report does not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 1316. Nov 6, 2005 7:40 PM

» Normxxx - $3 gas? Don't sweat it.

Small-car interest falls with gas prices

By James R. Healey, USA TODAY | 6 November 2005

The pain of $3 gasoline is only a month old, but rapidly falling fuel prices seem to have made Americans less interested in fuel economy.

Buyers haven't re-embraced big, gas-thirsty SUVs. But several measures show waning enthusiasm for fuel-sipping.

That's probably because motorists have accepted and absorbed higher fuel prices and no longer fear shortages, says Philip Reed, consumer advice editor at car-shopping site Edmunds.com. "People will pay almost anything for gas. What freaks them out is when they just flat can't get it," he says. Today's prices are about 60 cents a gallon less than the September peak. "They don't like it, but it isn't as bad," he says.

Among the signs that conservation is less important than it was a month ago:

• This week's government report on gasoline use says that we're getting ever-closer to burning as much gasoline as we did last year, when prices were typically less than $2 a gallon. The nationwide average for regular now is about $2.45, according to travel club AAA.

Gasoline consumption the past four weeks was just 1.7% lower than it was a year earlier, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It had been down as much as 2.8% after Hurricane Katrina disrupted energy operations in the Gulf of Mexico and sent gasoline prices to a nationwide average peak of about $3.07.

• Three popular Internet car-shopping sites report notable drops in users seeking information on gas-electric hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars.

Edmunds.com says interest peaked Aug. 29 when Hurricane Katrina hit. That week, 19,500 users went to Edmunds' page on fuel economy. But that's dropped to about 3,000 views a week, the same as it was in early August.

Kelley Blue Book's kbb.com reports that the proportion of site users interested in information about hybrids and economy cars dropped a few percentage points each of the last two months. It wouldn't give details because its survey results aren't final.

Cars.com, partly owned by Gannett, which publishes USA TODAY, says searches for fuel-efficient used cars have fallen, too. The biggest decline is in searches for used Toyota Prius hybrids.

But that doesn't mean interest in fuel economy has vanished, Cars.com says: "Honda's fuel-efficient models drove more e-mail inquiries to dealers than any other used vehicles" in a recent survey period.

The switch shouldn't be read as a wholesale return to gas guzzlers, says AAA spokesman Geoff Sundstrom. "We'd be a little surprised if consumers turned on a dime— in this case 50 cents— and went back to big SUVs; $2.50 a gallon, on average, is still awfully high for most people," he says.

______________

The contents of this letter/report does not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.

-- posted by Normxxx