- It will cost most Canadians about 10 per cent more to heat their homes this winter than it did last year, despite the fact that natural gas prices have been low recently, the head of the Canadian Gas Association said Wednesday.

Michael Cleland said the reason for the increase is that natural gas distributors buy their supplies well in advance of the home-heating season, which begins around this time of year and lasts until March.

So even though prices for natural gas have been at low levels recently – around US$6.78 on the New York Mercantile Exchange Wednesday afternoon – they were close to double that during the summer, when distributors were stocking up.

Try living in the UK, all our Gas and electric companies have raised our prices 35% in the last month despite making record profits!

Duration : 0:3:39

Technorati Tags: Change, climate, consumption, Corporate, cost, electricity, Energy, estate, global, management, power, property, real, saving, warming

The U.S. has limited methods to transport CO2. Denbury is currently installing the Green Pipeline to transport CO2 from both natural and manmade (anthropogenic) sources to petroleum reservoirs. We have currently entered into eight agreements with owners of potential sources of man-made CO2 and are in various stages of discussions with several other entities. To date, none of these potential industrial plants have started construction, so we are not certain that they will be built. Denbury plans to use this CO2 to recover oil that would not otherwise be economically produced. In addition to increased domestic oil production, our use of this CO2 will help reduce the release of this greenhouse
gas into the earths atmosphere.

FACTS ABOUT THE PIPELINE

Size: 24 diameter pipeline

Length: Approximately 320 miles (200 miles in Louisiana)

Volume: Designed to transport up to 800 million standard cubic feet per day of carbon dioxide (CO2)

Design and Operations: The pipeline has been designed to operate under the rules and regulation of the Department of Transportation (DOT)

Regulatory: Compliant with local, state and federal regulations. Pre-pipeline construction involved approvals for wetland-delineation, habitat evaluations and culture resource studies, along with other environmental and safety statutes

Targeted Completion Date: Louisiana to Galveston Bay in mid 2010; Galveston Bay to Hastings in late 2010

Denbury Resources Inc. is a growing independent oil and gas company engaged in acquisition, development and exploration activities in the U.S. Gulf Coast region. We are the largest oil and
natural gas producer in Mississippi, own the largest carbon dioxide (CO2 ) reserves east of the Mississippi River used for tertiary oil recovery, and hold operating acreage in the Barnett Shale play near Fort Worth, Texas, onshore Louisiana, Alabama, and properties in Southeast Texas. Our primary goal is to increase the value of acquired properties through tertiary recovery operations, together with a
combination of exploitation, drilling, and proven engineering extraction processes.

To learn more about Denbury Resources Inc., please visit ww.denbury.com.

Duration : 0:4:2

Technorati Tags: carbon dioxide, co2 enhanced oil recovery, co2 eor, CO2 pipeline, co2 sequestration, denbury resources, green pipeline, greenhouse gas, industrial co2

Also, a little fun FACT: Only 4% of carbons created is caused by humans, that includes use of vehicles, electricity, breathing, and yes even omitting natural gases from your behind. Of that 4%, only 25% is being produced from the United States. Which means that we in the US only create 1% of the carbons which are claimed to be increasing the effect of global warming. How can we slow a natural process when the human contribution is so low? I would like to underline the natural process part of the previous sentence. Chew on that for a while…
Facts are not facts until proof or evidence is submitted, (the current weather is not proof as the 40’s held far more record highs than any other decade in the past century… another FACT) until then it is simply a hypothesis. You should know this as a teacher.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it’s a delicate balance and we’re messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its’ thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The natural carbon cycle buried them over a very long time. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.

In scientific terms, the response of the carbon cycle to inputs from burning fossil fuels is non-linear. More about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/#more-220

Did you think PhD climatologists don’t understand this stuff?

I "buy" global warming because the data overwhelmingly supports it. The best summary of the data is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The data is why the vast majority of scientists "buy" global warming. Proof here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

and why this is true:

"the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16620307.htm

You can’t listen to glib arguments about the sun or natural cycles or volcanoes or natural CO2 and get to the truth about global warming. You need to look at the data. And the data speaks clearly.

Duration : 0:2:29

Technorati Tags: CNG, Community, Explosion, Gas, Malaysia, Natural, NGV, safety, vehicle

And so, why, for goodness sakes, would we want to intentionally inflict financial harm on the folks that are producing the crude oil and natural gas from domestic sources? It is counterproductive in the extreme.

And so when you talk about reducing our Nation’s dependency over some period of time, since we recognize we are going to have to have crude oil and natural gas, then by reducing the domestic production of crude oil and natural gas, you have, in fact, increased the foreign source requirements of that crude oil and natural gas. And so that is what this bill does.

Let me talk a little bit about the specifics of what this bill does. Back under the Big Oil category, let me talk about what that did. That is simply a tax increase. Most businessmen and -women understand that taxes on businesses go up and they go down, they go up, they go down, so a 3 percent increase in the tax rate on businesses is not something that is going to destroy any single business, I wouldn’t expect. But it is cash flow that would have otherwise gone into their business. And in this instance, their business is producing crude oil and natural gas.

Statistics show that the small producers who are impacted by this provision reinvest about, in 2005, reinvested 617 percent of their profits back in the ground. Let me make sure you understand that. If they made a dollar out of their businesses, they borrowed $5 and put $6 back in the ground.

Now I would give you the statistics from 1999 to 2005, but it is embarrassing. It is 898 percent. And so these are folks that take that money that they earn, taking the risks of drilling for oil and gas. And I am going to be joined here in a few minutes by a colleague who fed his family for a while owning a service company in the oil and gas business, taking the risks that are inherent with all the oil and gas exploration, all of the regulatory burden with trying to produce crude oil and natural gas and making money with it and turning that money back into additional activity.

That 617 percent provides additional jobs, because you spend that with drilling contractors; you spend it with service companies, some large and some small, some mom and pop organizations. In fact, my dad and mom owned an oil field service company for the last 25-plus years of my dad’s career. They spent it with folks like him, who he also hired folks, and so that is how that system worked.

What section 102 does is to change a section of the code, section 199, which, back in 2003 when America was losing jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, the Republican Congress in place at the time said, we need some way to incent manufacturing jobs because most manufacturing jobs have better benefits and better pay than service jobs, particularly entry-level service jobs.

Now, you know, lawyers and accountants and doctors and others are in service business and they make really good money. But the bulk of service jobs are such that they don’t make as much money. But manufacturing jobs, by and large, really are important to this economy on a go-forward basis.

In fact, back in 2003, Speaker Pelosi said manufacturing jobs are the engines that run the economy. These are good jobs. They give working families high standards of living. So even our current Speaker agreed that to incent manufacturing jobs to stay in this country was an important thing to do. So that is what section 199 of the code was intended to do.

The net effect was to take the corporate tax rate which, on C corporations is 35 percent, and over its implementation time frame would lower that rate about 3 percent to somewhere between 32 and 33 percent, meaning that those manufacturing jobs would have that 3 percent taxes that instead of coming to the Federal Government and having the 435 of us spend it, the companies would spend that money themselves. And with respect to the oil and gas business, they would take that money and multiply it by, from 200 percent to 600 percent for the small companies with additional activity, additional jobs.

Now, by definition, oil and gas production was considered to be manufacturing under the definition that was put in place. Now, under the ending subsidies for Big Oil, every single oil company, the companies that produce the largest average daily production down to the smallest daily production, if they are a C corp, are impacted by this. So I guess by impact, we will have to assume, my colleagues on the other side’s definition of Big Oil includes every oil company, just because that is how this impact will be. This impacts every single oil company that is in that business.

And again, I said taxes go up, taxes go down. But the net effect on this is that there is less money for these companies to spend in the oil business drilling, producing, completing all the things that go on to produce additional crude oil and natural gas which, again, as I said earlier, limits our need for imported crude oil and natural gas. Every single barrel is a barrel that we have not had to buy from somebody who really hates us.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:102:./temp/~r110ZnC6YU:e0:

Their positions are arrived at viscerally rather than logically. They see profit as somehow being evil. They are convinced that oil companies are evil & must be punished. That’s just their worldview & they’re sticking with it. Facts don’t matter.

The move will most likely lead to more imported oil, higher gas prices, and is a giant missed opportunity for new jobs. While offshore drilling has been largely avoided by the administration, there have been discussions of installing offshore wind turbines.

So how do offshore natural gas and offshore wind production compare? This video analyzes the differences between developing the Manteo Prospect, a natural gas platform, with Cape Wind, a proposed wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts.

For an in-depth look at the facts and figures behind this video, visit the full post on our website: http://bit.ly/9CtonN

Follow IER on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/ierenergy

Duration : 0:2:23

Technorati Tags: after effects, cape wind, drilling, infographics, Natural gas, obama, offshore, turbines, wind