With the purchase of XTO, Exxon-Mobil is now the largest natural gas producer in North America. It seems logical, therefore, that the company would research both compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles and competing vehicle technologies to project natural gas demand.

Rob Gardner, manager of corporate strategic planning, economics and energy division, recently presented ExxonMobil’s Energy Outlook to 2030 to a broad-based audience at Rice University, in Houston. The major has produced the study annually since the 1940s.

“Technology evolves and impacts consumption,” said Gardner, noting that it took 40 years for coal to supplant wood as a primary fuel source. He had plenty of data on hand to prove his point. For example, he noted, if we are only as efficient in energy use by 2030 as we were in 2005, we would need three times as much energy in 18 years.

Fortunately, due to efficiency, the U.S. has been able to grow its economy significantly without increasing energy consumption. But for continued growth and prosperity, efficiency alone will not cover all of U.S. demand.

In addition to oil and natural gas supply and demand research, ExxonMobil has studied vehicles, specifically hybrids. It might come as a surprise that the hydrocarbon giant would bother extrapolating hybrid-vehicle market penetration, but plotting demand helps it put a value on future projects. It anticipates U.S. liquids demand to be down 4 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per day by 2030, with a biofuels contribution of 1 million BOE per day.

According to ExxonMobil’s research, hybrids are likely to have the most market penetration of any advanced vehicles. This category primarily includes hybrids such as Toyota’s Prius, battery-electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrids. This group is expected to comprise 12% of the global fleet by 2030, and of that percentage, regular hybrids would be the largest sub-group.

The company examined consumer costs, and concluded hybrids have the cheapest incremental cost of any of the advanced vehicles. Research indicates the time frame for recouping vehicle investment is three to five years or less. Given such a short time horizon, the incremental cost of pure electric vehicles—around $15,000—is non-recoverable. But hybrids have an incremental cost of around $2,000, and because all vehicles remain in the “fleet” for 15 to 17 years, that cost is relevant now: what is cheapest gets bought today.

ExxonMobil’s researchers also believe hybrids match consumer behavior much better than other types of vehicles with a shorter range—a byproduct of slow-to-develop battery technology upon which many advanced vehicles rely.

Given the facts about consumer behavior, hydrocarbon demand will be robust for the foreseeable future. If one assumes that ExxonMobil is correct about hybrids, and consumer transportation fuel decisions rest on incremental cost, why then have few people beyond Aubrey McClendon and T. Boone Pickens seen CNG as a solution?

Scouring the web for “CNG vehicles” will deliver YouTube videos featuring do-it-yourself CNG conversions that cost $1,000 to $2,000. Retail websites post similar costs for a kit and a CNG tank of modest capacity, but converted vehicles can still use gasoline, much like today’s hybrids. Several kit retailers advise that EPA scrutiny is not required for do-it-yourself conversions, though EPA certification for retail installers costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If legal, these conversions would provide a low-cost solution that could also be adopted faster than waiting for fleet turnover.

The $2,000 cost is in line with ExxonMobil’s cost figures for CNG, a technology with market penetration potential, but it stands to reason that if one cannot find more than a single CNG refueling station in range of Houston, few people will get on board. CNG stations seem more prevalent in the West, where vehicle conversions are occurring. Unfortunately, available home-refilling devices seem to cost thousands of dollars and compress less than a gallon-of-gas-equivalent per hour. That is not likely to win many converts to natural gas.

U.S. and European transport fuel demand is nearly flat. Natural gas prices in North America barely sustain development beyond that necessary to hold acreage. Would not now be a great time to roll out a CNG vehicle with an incremental cost of $2,000 that does what people expect, and that runs on $1.40 gallon-of-gas-equivalent, domestically sourced fuel?

Technology impacts consumption. But must we wait 40 years for CNG to find its way?