Cheap Gas

As rapidly as it has fallen, the average pump price of unleaded regular gasoline in the US still has a ways to go, to end up lower on Barack Obama's Inaugural Day next January 20 than its inflation-adjusted level of $1.60 per gallon when Bill Clinton took office in 1993. However, it does seem likely to beat the adjusted $1.82 per gallon in effect when George W. Bush took the oath of office. The fall from its $4.11 peak in July is a classic good news/bad news story, with evidence of the latter showing up in several forms this week.

I can't recall when I've spent more time examining the data for US car sales, or for that matter when they have received more media attention. The November figures were simply awful, and not just for the Detroit Three that are pleading for life-support in Washington, DC. The sales of Toyota and Honda fell by slightly more than Ford's, compared to November 2007, with Nissan off by as much as GM. But contrary to the view that the summer's high gas prices were burned indelibly into the minds of consumers, "light trucks", the category that includes SUVs, recovered some of their lost market share for the month, accounting for 51.9% of all light vehicles sold, in contrast to their year-to-date market share of 48.5%. That might not be entirely attributable to low gas prices, though it struck me as significant that Honda's only model to post a sales gain for the month was their Pilot mid-sized SUV (EPA 18 mpg), while Toyota's popular Prius hybrid (EPA 46 mpg) fell by 48%, year-on-year. One month does not a trend make, but it's clear that sub-$2 gasoline negates essentially any financial benefit from expensive fuel-saving technology.

An interesting analysis of gasoline prices from the American Petroleum Institute puts today's prices in perspective. Despite the precipitous drop of the last several months, the average price for 2008 should still tie the previous annual, inflation-adjusted high of $3.277/gal. for 1981. That makes today's $1.81/gal. even more remarkable. While it looks typical or even high compared to most of the years from 1982-2002, it appears quite low in the longer historical context. The question facing consumers and policy-makers alike is whether future gas prices are more likely to resemble the first two-thirds of 2008 or the last third, once the economy recovers. Setting aside concerns about Peak Oil, which has receded from attention, lately, the period coinciding with the lower gas prices on API's chart featured a weak OPEC and steady non-OPEC oil production growth of around 1% per year. That looks unsustainable, even without the likely impact of $40 per barrel oil on new deepwater drilling and oil sands projects.

Nor is it clear how much more biofuels can contribute, at least in the next several years. US ethanol output already stands at roughly 10 billion gallons per year, the energy equivalent of about 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil. That's priced into today's oil balance. Getting beyond 15 billion gallons will require a large contribution from cellulosic ethanol technologies that are still at the demonstration scale, with the largest currently-operating facility producing only 1.4 million gallons per year--less than 100 barrels per day.

So if $1.80/gal. gasoline looks unsustainably cheap, what should we be planning for? Eyeballing the API's 1918-2007 gasoline price chart suggests the long-term average is pretty close to 1949's inflation-adjusted $2.43/gal. Coincidentally, that's consistent with the level implied by OPEC's notional "fair price" for oil of $75 per barrel. That's a problem, because $2.50 gas won't do much for the sales of the hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric cars that Congress and others are insisting the Detroit Three agree to build more of, in order to qualify for a federal bailout. Even a $50/ton carbon tax or cap & trade permit price for CO2 only gets us to $3.00. Without a lot more help than that, gas prices alone are not likely to deliver the anticipated contribution of fuel economy towards improved US energy security and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. That might just require convincing Americans that more efficient cars are justified by values, rather than mere value.

Read More

The Road to Copenhagen

The road to Copenhagen goes through Poland. If you know what that geographically-dubious statement refers to, then you must follow the news relating to climate change pretty closely. This week and next, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is holding its fourteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-14) in Poznan, Poland. Along with conducting the ongoing business of the UNFCCC, the main goal of the meeting is to table a first draft of the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. A new agreement is meant to be finalized in a year's time, at COP-15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. While this is all consistent with the "road map" agreed at last year's conference in Bali, the current conference is taking place in a remarkably different context, with financial uncertainties that were never contemplated in Bali.

Two changes, in particular, will affect the effort to develop a new set of international commitments on the emissions contributing to climate change, and for addressing the consequences of further warming. The election of a US President with a very different approach to climate change alters the negotiating dynamic, even though he has not yet taken office. The official US delegation is accompanied by a Congressional delegation headed by Senator John Kerry (D-MA.) Although Sen. Kerry does not officially represent the President-Elect, he certainly brings a point of view much closer to that of the incoming US administration than to the outgoing one, reflecting a shift back toward greater harmony with the positions of the EU members, Japan and other countries that adopted the Kyoto targets. Considering the views on climate change of Senator McCain, however, this change since Bali is not nearly as surprising as the one that ultimately may overwhelm it: the evolution of a US housing slump and already-nascent recession into a global financial and economic crisis.

We don't know what lies ahead, but we can make some reasonable guesses. Unemployment will continue to increase in the US and EU, and even if the recession in Asia proves less severe than the one in the late 1990s, as a recent article in the Economist suggested, China and India will face the prospect of millions of people falling back into poverty, after having risen close to middle class status. That will make it harder for their governments to devote resources to reducing CO2 or to be seen to sacrifice future economic growth to slow emissions. Nor will it be easy for Western governments to agree to terms on delayed targets and generous technology transfers benefiting countries that many of their citizens worry are competing for their jobs.

It was always going to be tricky for the delegates following the Bali road map to design an agreement that would reconcile the divergent emissions histories and economic growth rates of the developed and developing countries in a way that left all parties feeling fairly-treated, while still making meaningful progress on stabilizing and ultimately reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Attempting this against the backdrop of a major global recession complicates matters greatly, going beyond the question of whether economic priorities will trump environmental challenges for the next few years. Depending on the ultimate duration of the current crisis and the manner in which it is resolved, the future mechanisms of our international system might look quite different, and the scope for a global response to climate change could alter significantly. Simply put, the delegates to Poznan cannot assume that the world in which a Copenhagen Protocol would be implemented will resemble the one in which the process for negotiating its terms was outlined a year ago.

Read More

The Right Price

So OPEC has kicked the can down the road another two weeks, deferring further production cuts until at least their December 17th meeting in Algeria, when they can better assess the impact of the cuts they've already made--code for observing how badly its members have cheated on their earlier quota reductions. As usual, the cartel's control over prices is much stronger when demand is surging and production capacity strained, than when markets develop considerable slack. This is a much-rehearsed dance, and the market has apparently already discounted it, with the price of light, sweet crude poised to test the $50 mark again this week. The more interesting commentary out of Cairo concerned OPEC's desired price, which is apparently $75 per barrel: well above today's level but far below summer's peak. Wishing won't make it so, but there has been much discussion lately about the "right" price for the most liquid of energy commodities.

I can't help observing the irony that $50 oil, the prospect of which seemed nearly inconceivable to seasoned industry experts only a few years ago, now looks too cheap, not just to OPEC, but also to producers of unconventional oil, developers and supporters of alternative energy, and those concerned about climate change. When you dig a little deeper, however, the insight here seems to be that the absolute price matters less than its volatility, at least from a planning perspective. It's hard for producers of all kinds of energy to plan their business, if the monthly average price of their output--or the key commodity affecting it--can spike up by 150% and then drop by 60%, all within the course of two years. Oil remains a cyclical business, as anyone who's been around it for a while understands, but this is ridiculous.

That $75 per barrel figure from OPEC is interesting for many reasons. It probably represents the minimum level needed to balance the considerable budgetary expansions taken on by its most aggressive spenders, such as Venezuela and Iran, along with pseudo-member Russia. But it also looks like the level that is required to keep additions of new unconventional oil capacity, such as Canadian oil sands, on track. With typical refining margins, instead of the bizarrely-inverted pricing we've seen recently, it would translate into an average gasoline pump price in the US of around $2.50/gal. And because US ethanol distillers are producing well beyond the volumes required to satisfy the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, that would yield an ethanol price after subsidies in the neighborhood of $2/gal., enough to give ethanol producers a 75 cent per gallon "crush spread" over corn at $3.50 per bushel. That's a lot better than the 40 cents or so implied by the current ethanol and corn futures prices.

If the drop to $50 were short-lived, most of those energy producers would experience little lasting impact, other than ethanol firms that have been pushed to the brink by the combination of overly-rapid expansion, tightening credit, and slumping prices. But looking ahead, no one can say with any certainty whether oil will remain here, test $40/bbl, or zoom past $100 again next summer. In this regard the futures market, which last week reflected prices above $70/bbl. beyond 2010, has been a very poor barometer. Nor have the forecasts of government departments or international agencies fared any better at anticipating the volatility that is so disruptive to economies and to the plans of energy companies and oil-exporting countries.

Consumers are in the best position of anyone affected by these developments. If you drive an average car an average amount, your fuel bills ought to be about $90 per month lower than they were in July, which is the equivalent of a $120 per month raise for anyone in the 33% combined federal income and social security tax bracket. Save it or spend it, but don't count on it lasting longer than a year. That means buying your next car with the prudent assumption that at some point in its life, you will be paying $4 or more per gallon, once again.

Read More

2009 Jaguar XKR-S

The Jaguar XKR-S coupe is the fastest production XK to date. Powered by Jaguar's acclaimed 4.2litre V8 supercharged engine, it has been developed for the true Jaguar enthusiast. It is faster and more agile than the XKR, taking the Jaguar sports car experience to a new level, whilst retaining the refined, dynamic excellence and crafted luxury that is unique to Jaguar.



Sharing the XKR's highly advanced lightweight aluminium body architecture, the high performance of the Jaguar XKR-S is made totally accessible by the enormous reserves of the 4.2-litre all aluminium four-cam supercharged V8's 420bhp (SAE) and 560Nm of torque.

With recalibrated engine management, the Jaguar XKR-S reaches an electronically limited top speed of 174mph (280kph) - 19mph (30kph) faster than the XKR. This additional performance is made accessible by improved aerodynamics (reduced drag and lift) and unique suspension set-up.

Sharing the XKR's class-leading six-speed sequential automatic transmission, the Jaguar XKR-S has exceptional refinement and the option of ultra-fast manual shifts controlled by steering wheel-mounted paddle shifts - with shift times measured in milliseconds to make this one of the fastest shifting transmissions in the world.

To match its increased performance, the Jaguar XKR-S adopts the most powerful brakes on any Jaguar production model, plus extensive changes to its suspension and steering to provide further enhanced ride and handling characteristics without compromising comfort.



The high performance braking system for the Jaguar XKR-S was developed by Jaguar's Special Vehicles team in partnership with British competition brake specialist Alcon, which supplies the stopping power for some of the fastest cars in the world, on both road and track. The brakes were perfected over thousands of miles of testing on some of Europe's most demanding roads, and by Jaguar's engineering team at the Nurburgring in Germany. The Jaguar XKR-S Alcon R Performance braking system features 400mm diameter discs on the front and 350mm discs at the rear. Each disc is radially ventilated for maximum cooling and to resist fade even under the hardest use, and will perfectly match the Jaguar XKR-S's increased top speed. The friction surfaces of each disc carry a series of crescent-shaped grooves that help clear water from the discs during wet weather and help to keep the brake pads clean at all times. The Alcon R performance brake package uses lightweight monobloc six-piston callipers at the front and four-piston callipers at the rear - each calliper finished in a distinctive red and carrying the R logo.

The Jaguar XKR-S coupe's dynamic balance focuses on achieving an even more sporting character while retaining the XKR's supple ride comfort. Its blend of control and refinement begins with the extremely stiff all-aluminium body structure, and a re-tuning of the XKR's all-wishbone suspension. The Jaguar XKR-S features new springs, new anti-roll bars and unique dampers. All the major suspension parameters are recalibrated, and the Jaguar XKR-S uses Jaguar's proven Computer Active Technology Suspension (CATS) with unique tuning. It also uses a faster ratio steering rack, for quicker reactions and optimum feel.



The limited edition coupé in Ultimate Black is identified by the unique Jaguar XKR-S badge on the rear of the car. The exterior of the Jaguar XKR-S has been subtly enhanced to make it recognisably different without being overstated. Another significant element in the revised handling package is that the ride height of the Jaguar XKR-S has been reduced by 10mm compared with that of the XKR, and the Jaguar XKR-S sits on unique, lightweight 20-inch Vortex forged alloy wheels with bespoke tyres. That naturally makes the Jaguar XKR-S look lower and even more sporting, but it has a number of other distinguishing details. It features a new front aerodynamic splitter, side sill extensions, revised rear spoiler and rear diffuser panel, with contrasting finishes to details such as the front mesh grille, power vents, sills and rear diffuser panel.

The Jaguar XKR-S has an Active Exhaust System, which is specifically tuned to ensure quiet, refined high-speed cruising while producing a much more hard-edged and sporting V8 sound under hard acceleration - not over loud, but full of performance character.

While the mechanical specification and the exterior revisions are driven largely by performance and dynamic enhancement, the interior changes reflect Jaguar's vision of the Jaguar XKR-S as an uncompromisingly luxurious sports car.

The full soft grain leather trim is finished in Charcoal with Ivory twin-needle contrast stitching, with leather wrapping the seats, instrument panel top, centre console, inner door panels and rear side panels. This is complemented by Piano Black veneer, Charcoal Alston luxury headlining, plus a revised instrument cluster - calibrated to accommodate the higher top speed - with XKR-S branding. The contrast-stitched leather trimmed steering wheel, alloy and leather gear selector with alloy surround, bright aluminium pedals, and XKR-S branded head-restraints, tread-plates and carpet mats further set the tone for this very special interior.

Taking Jaguar's 525W Premium Audio system with Pro Logic II surround sound as a starting point, renowned premium British loudspeaker manufacturer Bowers & Wilkins has tuned a signature speaker system specifically for the cabin of the Jaguar XKR-S. High output, low distortion Kevlar mid-range speakers and specially designed aluminium-dome tweeters deliver superb mid-range and extended high-frequency responses.

On sale in summer 2008 and limited to just 200 cars in European markets only, the Jaguar XKR-S is an even more driver-focused sports grand tourer than the XKR.

Read More

Chevrolet Camaro 2009

BumbleBee also known as Chevy Camaro, in the movie Transformer was a outstanding beautiful sport car. Well, the Chevy Camaro should be on production around 2008-2009.
The specification;

Engines: 3.9-liter V6 or 6.0-liter V8
Horsepower: 250 (V6) and 400 (V8)
Torque: 260 pound-feet (V6) and 400 (V8)
Transmission: 6-speed manual or 6-speed automatic

Read More

Artificial Carbon Cycle

Part of the research for my writing and consulting involves watching for trends or common themes, and one that I've been picking up from diverse sources reflects a growing skepticism about "clean coal" and the processes for capturing and sequestering carbon (CCS) that are central to it. To get a flavor for this, Google on "clean coal" and "oxymoron". Some of these concerns are grounded in the science of thermodynamics, while the balance seem to reflect the long-standing attitude of environmentalists toward the coal industry, which would be the primary beneficiary of a practical CCS scheme. It's worth taking a few minutes examining why CCS is unlikely to be easy, but why, if it can be done cost-effectively on an industrial scale, it would be so beneficial.

It helps to think about CCS in the context of the earth's carbon cycle, in which carbon is exchanged through natural processes among the land, ocean, atmosphere, and living things. The principal issue in anthropogenic climate change is that our activities have upset the balance of this natural cycle, overloading it through the rapid release of vast quantities of stored carbon that had accumulated over geological time in fossil fuels. The goal of climate policy is to reduce the magnitude of that overload and eventually eliminate it by using carbon-intensive energy sources much more efficiently, while working to replace them with carbon-neutral or carbon-free energy. That's why biofuels, wind and solar power are regarded as essential elements of climate change mitigation, though it turns out that current biofuels are not remotely carbon-neutral. The idea behind CCS is to complement the main climate change mitigation strategies by creating an artificial version of the carbon cycle, in which the carbon released from the combustion of fossil fuels is collected and returned to long-term storage, before it can enter the natural carbon cycle.

That sounds simple enough, but to understand why it's so hard to do, consider the amount of coal necessary to produce one kilowatt-hour of electricity. In 2007 the US burned a little more than a billion tons of coal to generate just over 2 trillion kWh of electricity, for an average of 1.0 lb./kWh. Because most of the energy from coal derives from its carbon content, the main chemical reaction involved is very simple: C + O2 → CO2. So unlike the sulfate (SOx) or nitrate (NOx) pollution we have managed for decades, CO2 is neither the result of a fuel impurity nor an inadvertent byproduct of combustion, but rather its primary outcome, along with heat. On average, every lb. of coal yielding a kWh of electricity also emits 2 lb. of CO2 to the atmosphere. In other words, the mass of CO2 leaving coal-fired power plants is double the mass of coal that went in. That's a lot of gas to separate, compress, transport, and dispose of in geological or other storage.

Now consider the energy balance of such a system. Before adding CCS at the back end, you had to mine the coal, ship it to the power plant and burn it, producing heat that was used to make steam to turn a turbine that generated power. The typical thermal efficiency of such a facility is 35-45%, depending on coal quality, plant design and operation. But CCS is inherently energy-intensive, reducing the overall efficiency and the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for the entire coal-to-power process. If separating the CO2 from the flue gas, compressing it, and putting it back into the ground at some remote location consumes up to a third of the energy generated from the coal, as some estimates suggest, then our artificial carbon cycle doesn't look very impressive, as a net energy source. After referring to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, you might even wonder whether we could produce enough net energy from such a loop to be worthwhile, at all.

I had a hard time finding the EROEI of the standard coal-fired power lifecycle. It appears to fall in the range of 5:1 to 9:1, which compares favorably with conventional oil production and refining, and with the best renewable energy sources. If CCS reduced those returns by one-third, then while the energy balance would remain positive in a physics sense, the economics of some applications might become marginal, because CCS would consume a large helping of the energy surplus that coal-fired power normally creates. Another way to look at that is that the portion of the energy surplus thus consumed was attributable to the non-monetized externality of putting a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, and thus not sustainable, anyway.

As daunting as all this sounds, there may be some clever ways to overcome the toughest impediments to getting started rounding up the carbon from coal power and stashing it back in the earth. In a new study, a team from MIT has proposed "partial capture": removing only enough CO2 from the flue gas to cut the emissions from a coal-fired power plant to the level of one running on natural gas, about a 35% reduction. This would allow CCS to be introduced incrementally, at a much lower investment cost and a less severe efficiency penalty than full CCS. And as I discussed in another posting, using captured CO2 to enhance the output from productive oil fields creates a positive value for it that offsets at least some of the cost of collecting and transporting it. Work at a Canadian oil field that does this suggests that the stored CO2 can be effectively monitored underground. Even more intriguingly, naturally-occurring mineral deposits called peridodites can act as CO2 sponges. These might be used to increase the efficiency of direct CCS, or to establish indirect CCS--a coal-scale emissions offset that would remove CO2 from the atmosphere without requiring a CO2 pipeline from the emissions source.

Easy or difficult, our motivation for pursuing CCS, instead of abandoning coal as incompatible with alleviating climate change, is based on the reality that we still derive roughly half of our electricity from coal and only about 1% from wind, solar and geothermal power. That means that our annual additions of renewable generating capacity are not yet covering the roughly 1.5% per year growth in US electricity demand we've experienced over the last 5 years, let alone taking market share away from coal or any other carbon-based fuel. Could we advance efficiency and renewables rapidly enough to displace a sizable fraction of our coal use within 10-20 years? Perhaps, though I'd feel a lot more confident about meeting the aggressive emissions-reductions targets the US is likely to take on within the next year or two, if we could tackle coal's emissions directly with CCS.

I'd like to wish my US readers a Happy Thanksgiving. Postings will resume on December 1.

Read More

Sales Mix and Fuel Economy

When Detroit's CEOs return to Washington, DC in early December for further Congressional hearings on a rescue package, the industry's prospects for meeting tougher fuel economy standards are likely exert significant influence on the granting of federal assistance. When I was writing last Monday's posting on "Detroit, Bailouts and Fuel Economy", the CAFE database of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, was undergoing maintenance. That meant I couldn't calculate the impact of this year's shift in the sales mix of the Big 3 on their fleet fuel economy. The numbers indicate that simply selling fewer SUVs and more of their existing car models, without any major changes in technology, is already yielding significant fuel savings. In addition, the figures for the leading Japanese brands indicate what might be possible for GM, Ford and Chrysler, simply by offering fewer V-8 and V-6 engines and selling more four-cylinder cars. That's a good thing, because the latest survey from R.L. Polk & Company suggests that hybrids will still make up less than 6% of US new car sales in 2012.

NHTSA tracks fuel economy for every automaker in three categories: domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, and light trucks. The latter includes most SUVs. These data, in combination with the year-to-date auto sales figures through October, facilitate some quick spreadsheet analysis revealing the key factors differentiating the fuel economy performance of the big US carmakers from their competitors, such as Toyota and Honda. For example, for the 2007 model year, the US companies averaged a combined 24.9 miles per gallon, while the US models of these two Japanese firms averaged 30.2 mpg. That gap is attributable to two components, neither of which comes as a surprise. The Japanese passenger cars averaged 5 mpg better than their US counterparts, helped considerably by their imported hybrid models. The passenger cars made in these firms' US factories averaged just under 3 mpg better than their US peers.

The other big influence comes from the relative sales mixes of these companies. Of the combined 2007 sales of GM, Ford and Chrysler, nearly 65% were "light trucks", comprised of SUVs and pick-up trucks. Such vehicles only made up 42% of the sales of Toyota and Honda. That's particularly significant for fuel economy, because the Big 3's light trucks turned in fuel economy ratings averaging 7 mpg lower than their passenger cars, while the light trucks of Toyota and Honda were 10 mpg worse than their cars.

With gas prices that surged past $4 per gallon this summer, 2008 has produced some modest but encouraging shifts in fuel economy. SUV sales are down much more than those of passenger cars, for both US and Japanese makes, while the cars and SUVs sold tended to be from the more economical models within their respective categories. This has improved the average fuel economy of the Big 3 by 0.4 mpg, year-to-date, with 75% of that improvement coming from the shift between passenger cars and light trucks, which fell to 63% of Detroit's mix. Toyota and Honda saw an even bigger fractional change in light trucks, with the drop to 38% of sales helping to boost their combined average by more than one full mile per gallon.

Why do these figures matter in the context of a bailout of Detroit? Last year the Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which among its many provisions included an increase in the federally-mandated new-car fleet average to 35 mpg by 2020, including both passenger cars and light trucks. Given the emphasis during the recently-concluded election campaign on both energy independence and greenhouse gas emissions, Congress appears concerned that a bailout of Detroit should not be viewed as providing any leeway on fuel economy. So it's important to understand whether achieving 35 mpg would require a technological revolution that might be beyond the resources of the cash-strapped domestic industry. Encouragingly, the figures above suggest otherwise. If the Big 3 merely matched the 2008 passenger-car performance of the top Japanese brands (35.5 mpg) while reducing their light truck sales proportion to 25%--the level that prevailed in the US car fleet prior to 1990--they would be three-fourths of the way toward achieving their 2020 CAFE target.

As helpful as advanced-technology cars like the upcoming Chevrolet Volt would be for speeding up that transition, simply by shedding the least-efficient SUVs and offering peppy four-cylinder engines as the standard across most of their product lines, Detroit could deliver greatly-improved fuel economy, of the kind the Congress and new administration are seeking. Just as important, considering the priority that US consumers have placed on vehicle performance in the last decade, European-style turbo-diesels, better gasoline-engine technology, and hybridized drivetrains can deliver these gains at an mpg-vs-power trade-off that car buyers should find much more palatable than the one we were forced to accept in the early 1980s, the last time high oil prices focused US policy-makers on automotive fuel economy to this degree.

I don't want to make this change sound easier than it is likely to be. Reducing SUV sales by the necessary extent would require re-tooling on a massive scale, sending ripples through the North American auto supply chain that might be nearly as dramatic as the bankruptcy of one or more of the Big 3. Consumers are leading this shift today, and they must be willing--or encouraged by new policies--to stay the course. The fall of gasoline prices back below $2 per gallon, if it persists for more than the next few months, will work against that. If a rescue or restructuring is to succeed, it must result in a new mix of products that are globally competitive and not just more fuel-efficient, but also profitable to make and market. That argues against embedding expensive, unproven technology in millions of cars, until Detroit is strong enough to stand behind the warranties that will be crucial to selling them.

Read More