The long legal battle over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline looks like it will continue to drag on after a recent court ruling.

Last week, U.S District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the pipeline, owned and constructed by Energy Transfer Partners, had not undergone an adequate environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers and that a more thorough environmental review is needed. He wrote:

[The Army] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.

However, it was a partial victory for the environmentalists and Native American tribes who opposed the pipeline’s construction. Boasberg said that oil could still flow through the pipeline at this time but indicated that he would make a formal ruling on that decision at a later date.

The judge asked lawyers from both sides to submit written arguments to determine whether the pipeline should be shut down while the Army Corps of Engineers makes its evaluation, or if it should continue to transport oil. A lawyer representing the Sioux tribe expects a decision to be made in September.

This is only the most recent development in the long and complicated battle to establish the 1,200-mile pipeline that will transfer crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Since the Army Corps of Engineers published a plan to approve the pipeline route in 2015, there has been a wave of protests, legal challenges, and executive orders to determine the project’s status.

In December 2016, the Obama Administration temporarily halted the construction of a controversial segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline, citing the need for a further environmental review. But when Trump took office in January, he signed an executive order calling on the Army to expedite the review process and complete construction as soon as possible.

The Army is still in the process of determining a timeline for the environmental review, but according to the Army Corps of Engineers Lawyer Mathew Marinelli, the Army will have an updated schedule when the first briefs are required by the court on July 17.

The order for a new environmental review in Dakota has created yet another issue for Energy Transfer Partners. The company’s construction of another $4.2 billion natural gas pipeline is under a rare public investigation for pollution in Ohio wetlands and the destruction of a historic home. The company could lose $10 million a week if it fails to finish construction by November 1.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Judge Orders Further Environmental Review for Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

As the civil war in Syria has escalated, American, Saudi Arabian, and Russian interests have played increasingly larger roles. The Obama Administration adopted the stance, shared by the majority of the U.N., that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of human rights violations and must be removed from power. Russia, on the other hand, has long been an ally of Syria, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported Assad throughout the conflict. This has led to what is in part a proxy war, with Syrian rebels that have been trained and armed by Saudi and American militaries fighting against Assad’s forces, which are armed with Russian weapons and drive Russian tanks. Amid this turmoil has been the growing power of ISIS, opposed in different ways by both the United States and Russia.

As the war has carried on, it has grown increasingly bloody. By the end of 2015, the war had claimed a staggering 470,000 Syrian lives, representing a loss of 11.5 percent of the nation’s population. Even among the survivors, the damage to Syrian national security has been extreme; over half of the nation’s population has been displaced by the war. The Syrian conflict is vast and extremely complicated and both Russia and the U.S. have numerous reasons for their involvement.

However, it’s imperative to analyze one important but under-emphasized element of the war: the role of energy. Both the U.S. and Russia stand to influence the future of the global energy market if their side comes out dominant in this conflict. If the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, it will likely push ahead with current plans to build a natural gas pipeline running from Iran through Syria. The pipeline would be built by the Iranian government in collaboration with Russia’s major gas corporations, and would allow both countries to profit off of the largest gas reserve on earth. On the other hand, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an active interest in preventing this from happening to protect its share in the energy market, as well as the strength of the petrodollar, against Russian and Iranian competition.

President Trump has long denounced America’s anti-Assad position and previously discussed working with Russia, and possibly Assad, against the common enemy of ISIS. However, following the Syrian Air force’s chemical attack in the Idlib Province, Trump at least temporarily reversed his public position on Assad and Russia. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has grown increasingly closer to Saudi Arabia. Future negotiations will tell whether there is still a possibility for Russia and the U.S. to work together in Syria, and Trump’s ultimate stance on the Assad regime will heavily influence whether the Iranian pipeline is built. We are currently at a critical moment in the future of the Syrian conflict, and for the roles of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the global energy market. Read on to see what each side stands to gain and lose as we move forward.

Syria: The Energy Crossroads

The conflict in Syria is fueled by numerous religious and geopolitical divisions within the Middle Eastern Region and energy is far from the only relevant factor in American or Russian involvement. However, the importance of energy within the Middle East and its ever-present role in regional conflict is hard to overstate. Control of the global energy market means being able to exert huge influence on the international economy, and the Middle East’s vast fossil fuel reserves have always attracted the interest of international superpowers. The last two decades of constant regional conflict have been a consistently perilous struggle for power and market control, especially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest economies in the Middle East.

Syria has attracted international interest because its central location in the Middle East makes it a potential energy crossroads for pipelines that could transport natural gas across the region from the South Pars/North Dome gas field. Because of Syria’s critical position, the results of the war will likely determine who gains access to the gas field, and thus will greatly impact the future of energy sovereignty within the region. The oil and gas trade is very directly related to the strength of the American dollar and both the U.S. and longstanding ally Saudi Arabia are worried that Syria could become the construction site of a pipeline. A new major pipeline could upset the balance of the energy market, and subsequently the power of the dollar and the Saudi Riyal, which is pegged to the dollar.

Saudi Arabia, home to 16 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and the leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has long used whatever means are necessary to ensure that its business never shrinks. Recently, as foreign dependence on petroleum in the last few years lessened due to a boost in gas production abroad, the Saudis chose to ignore their 2014 promise to reduce output and actually increased their production up until 2016. This caused international petroleum prices to drop, keeping Middle East petroleum competitive, despite the fact that the price gouge also sent many of the poorer OPEC countries near collapse.

In order to maintain its status as the largest energy producer in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has also spent the last two decades attempting to block energy infrastructure proposals designed to access the South Pars/North Dome gas field. The South Pars/North Dome Gas Field lies beneath the Persian Gulf, with the northern end of the field in Iranian territory and the Southern edge in Qatari territory. It is the single largest gas reserve on earth, and a pipeline that allowed cross-regional transport of its resources could dramatically change the future of the energy market. The first pipeline was proposed in 2009 and would have carried gas from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, although both the late King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Assad in Syria rejected its construction in 2009. It is sometimes falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia supported this pipeline, but the Saudis also opposed its development because a pipeline would have given the E.U. direct access to cheap gas. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with its then ally Qatar had at the time also grown unstable, and the Saudis were skeptical about a large scale business collaboration.

However, in place of the Qatari project, an alternative pipeline was proposed, which would be built avoiding Saudi land and would replace Qatar with Iran as the central supplier of natural gas. Saudi Arabia views Shiite Iran as its primary enemy within the Middle East and is determined to keep it from growing in power in the energy market. However, Assad publicly supported this pipeline, which would give Russian and Iranian business interests primary access to the gas field’s massive resources. Saudi Arabia lacked the veto power it held with the first pipeline, which forced Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan to reach directly out to Putin, promising to ensure that the gas reserve would not be utilized in competition with Russia’s business if Putin abandoned his support of Assad’s regime. Putin refused and Saudi Arabia pushed forward with regime change in Syria by militarizing rebel Sunni groups, including the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nursa Front, and the organization that would become ISIS.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia

The U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia is a tense and complicated one. Saudi Arabia has come under international criticism for its human rights record and the Saudis have continuously funded extremist Sunni groups that threaten the Western world. However, the economies of the two nations are tied together through the petrodollar. Petroleum is the most commonly traded substance on earth by volume, and globally, petroleum has been traded almost exclusively in American dollars for the last 40 years. If a country wants to buy oil, it must first purchase U.S. dollars, which increases demand for the dollar and dollar denominated assets. Because of this, the success of the oil industry and cooperation with Saudi Arabia very directly affects our domestic economy. The United States and Saudi Arabia have worked together in coordination for almost three-quarters of a century to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics, from the establishment of the petrodollar system to the Persian Gulf War to both Yemen Civil Wars and the battle against Al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia has also been a central customer of the U.S. defense industry for decades, although Obama ordered a weapons sales freeze following large-scale civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen. Some have accused this freeze of being largely political theater, since overall the Obama Administration sold over $46 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any president in the 71-year alliance. The State Department also went on to grant a pre-planned $3.51 billion initiative to arm and train the Saudi army to defend the Saudi-Yemen border, claiming none of this money would go the actual war it supposedly condemned. While the Obama Administration has been critical of Saudi Arabia, it also continued to support the country and many of its conflicts throughout Obama’s presidency.

While Assad is certainly guilty of human rights violations, the U.S. also has a critical interest in coordinated regime change because the current pipeline proposal would give unfriendly Iran dominant control of the largest source of energy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia’s three largest gas companies will play a large part in the development of the pipeline, meaning Russian interests stand to profit directly off the reserve. Russia and Iran are two of the few countries worldwide that refuse to use the petrodollar, so not only does control of the gas field give them a huge business advantage, the greater their share in the market the weaker the U.S. dollar and Saudi Riyal will become. While the United States and Saudi Arabia disagree on many things, the two nations are united geopolitically in their desire to prevent Russia and Iran from gaining greater regional power and control over the energy market through a coordinated business venture.

In 2014, following a meeting between John Kerry and King Abdullah of Jordan, the United States agreed to work with Saudi Arabia on a military offensive in Syria through Operation Timber Sycamore, with Saudi Arabia funding and arming the Free Syrian Army and the CIA training them in preparation for the war. While the stated purpose of U.S. involvement was to counter ISIS, the choice to fund the rebel group looking to overthrow the ruling Baath party reflects the Obama Administration’s consistent desire for regime change.

“Obama/Saudi Ties” courtesy of Tribes of the World; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Russian Involvement

Currently, Syria is Russia’s oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East, although Iran and Russia have grown increasingly closer throughout the last decade. Aside from representing Russia’s foothold in the region, Syria is also the location of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base. In exchange for this critical regional access, Syria has the support of one of the world’s largest superpowers. The long-standing connection between these countries makes it no surprise that Russia is willing to give political and military support to Assad.

However, Russia also stands to gain significantly moving forward if Assad can suppress the rebel forces. As long as the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, then construction of the Iranian pipeline should move forward as planned. Russia is the second largest producer of fossil fuels globally and recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s top crude oil producer. Together oil and gas exports account for 70 percent of Russia’s $550 billion annual exports. European natural gas imports from Russia dramatically increased from 48 percent in 2010 to 64 percent in 2014, and Putin’s long-term plan is to become an even larger energy superpower, spiking production and exports by 2020 by increasing sales in Europe and expanding into the Asia-Pacific region. It is no secret that the E.U. dreads increasing its dependence upon Russia’s major gas giants. Because of heavy resistance to the Russian energy business in the West, Putin has been continuously looking for new projects in the East, notably in China and the Middle East. Iran has long been looking for international investors in its shale business, and in 2013, the Russian state-controlled gas corporation Gazprom signed a deal with the Iranian government to cooperate in ongoing energy infrastructure development. The infrastructure agreement makes Gazprom the third major Russian corporation to be heavily invested in Iranian energy, following Lukoil and Zarubezneft. The construction of the Iranian pipeline would give these corporations new ability to profit off of huge quantities of natural gas. By ensuring that the field is developed and utilized first by friendly Iran, along with Russian gas corporations, Putin can avoid dangerous new competition in the European energy market as was planned in the original Qatari pipeline, thus maintaining Russia’s position of market dominance.

Fear of Saudi Arabia and increased U.S. support for the Syrian insurgency pushed Assad to request greater assistance from Putin, which resulted in Russia joining the conflict in September 2015, mounting a series of airstrikes both against the Free Syrian Army and ISIS. What followed became an increasingly serious proxy war between the Syrian rebels, backed by the United States, and the Syrian military, backed by Russia. The bloodiest of these conflicts has centered around the City of Aleppo, where over 400,000 have died thus far. The FSA has suffered both massive causalities and the loss of members who have defected to join the more radicalized Al-Nursa Front and Jaysh Army. The Syrian Air Force’s chemical attack on Idlib came shockingly during negotiations that were expected to come out in Assad’s favor. President Trump sided initially with the majority of the Western world and voted in favor of a U.N. resolution to launch an investigation into the attack. The resolution was blocked by Russia and we are currently in a pause, waiting to find out how the conflict will move forward.

“Aleppo, Syria” courtesy of yeowatzup;  License: (CC BY 2.0)

Conclusion: What does the Future Look Like?

While Trump has criticized Saudi Arabia in the past for its own role in funding radical Islam, he seems to have recently made a complete reversal on this stance and has even sided with Saudi Arabia in its dispute with U.S. ally Qatar. The Trump Administration and Saudi Arabia have also recently entered into a $110 billion dollar weapons deal, the largest in U.S.-Saudi history. Following the attack on Idlib, it seemed possible that Trump might decide to align with the anti-Assad stances held by the Obama Administration and the Saudi government. However, since the U.S. airstrike and the failed U.N. Security Resolution, the Trump Administration has not publicly emphasized Assad’s removal.

Currently, it’s uncertain whether Trump will side with reestablished ally Saudi Arabia or if his administration still plans to find a way to work together with Russia in Syria. The U.S. warned the Russians prior to the airstrike on the Shayrat base, allowing them to evacuate without casualty. There have also been accusations that the airstrike was essentially political theater to dispel the notion that Trump is compromised by Russian interests, given the fact that Russia chose not to deploy its anti-missile systems, effectively allowing an attack it knew was coming to take place.

While the future of the South Pars/North Dome gas reserve isn’t certain, at this point Assad has successfully dominated the majority of rebel forces in Syria. As long as the Assad regime is still in place, any major cross-regional energy infrastructure utilizing Syrian land will most likely be to the advantage of Assad and his ally Putin. If the Iranian pipeline does end up being built, the reverberations will be felt throughout the global energy market. Saudi Arabia may lose the upper hand in several markets where it competes with Iran and Russia, especially in East Asia where Saudi Arabia has struggled to maintain active business in the face of Russian competition. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Europe will ever be able to utilize the gas field as a cheap alternative to lessen its dependence on Russia.

If Iran and Russia become larger figures in the energy market, the petrodollar will weaken as less U.S. dollars are needed for oil transactions, which would affect the economies of both America and Saudi Arabia. How dramatic these effects will be is impossible to say. Saudi Arabia still has massive hydrocarbon reserves and is in no danger of being pushed out of the global fossil fuel trade. While the petrodollar has played a large part in the strength of the American dollar since the end of the Gold Standard, it is only one of many factors that contribute to and decide the strength and stability of the U.S. economy. We will have to wait and see what direction the Trump Administration takes American foreign policy in the Middle East to learn the answers to these questions.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Pipelines: The Influence of the Energy War in the Middle East appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

Reversing what President Barack Obama did to protect federal waters only four months ago, President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to expand offshore drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans. The order also looks into the possibility of drilling in current marine sanctuaries in the Pacific and Atlantic, and halts the creation of any new sanctuaries.

While signing the order, “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” Trump emphasized that it would boost the economy and the job market. “We’re unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying American energy jobs,” he said.

Trump claimed that this order will help America on its way toward becoming energy independent. Increasing the use of domestic energy was one of his campaign promises. He said energy independence would create job opportunities.

Trump’s new offshore drilling order is even worse than environmentalists expectedhttps://t.co/9mIiV4UUMl

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) April 28, 2017

However, while Trump’s order is meant to increase the use of fossil fuel and get coal jobs back, China is further developing its use of renewable energy sources. A new research report published this week shows that wind and solar power in China could attract as much as $782 billion in investments between 2016 and 2030.

The BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is often recognized as the worst oil spill in U.S. history; it claimed 11 human lives. The environmental fine BP had to pay, $18.7 billion, could not undo the impact it had on the environment and wildlife. But in his new order, Trump asks Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to repeal some of the safety rules that were implemented after the disaster, as he believes they are “burdensome regulations that slow job creation.”

At the very end of his presidency, Obama used a little known law from 1953 to block further drilling for fossil fuel in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. He ordered a freeze of fossil fuel exploration in 98 percent of federal waters, or 115 million acres, off the coast of Alaska, and restricted drilling in 3.8 million additional acres. Environmentalists cheered the decision.

I joined 27 Senators to call on Trump to protect our coastlines from #OffshoreDrilling & today I’m taking this fight to the #Senate floor pic.twitter.com/owZczcTMj2

— Sen. Maria Cantwell (@SenatorCantwell) April 28, 2017

Environmental groups called Trump’s recent order reckless and maybe even illegal, and several Democratic Senators have said they will fight his attempt to expand offshore drilling. Interim executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, Kristen Miller, said:

In no point in history has a president challenged another administration’s permanent withdrawals. Trump’s action could set a dangerous precedent, which will only undermine the powers of the office of the president.

Trump signed the order on his 99^th day in office. He has signed more executive orders during his first 100 days than any other president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Order to Reverse Obama’s Ban on Offshore Drilling appeared first on Law Street.

For the last several years, Venezuela has been plagued by uncertainty following the death of its former enigmatic leader Hugo Chavez. This is a situation that has only been exacerbated by the steep drop in oil prices. Recently, the crisis in Venezuela reached such a low point that current President Nicolas Maduro accused the country’s bakers of waging an unannounced war on its people through price gouging. Although the bakers of Venezuela are clearly not the major issue plaguing the country, real problems certainly exist. Read on to find out how the country’s leadership and its economic decisions have brought a nation rich in natural resources into a political and economic crisis.

History of Venezuela

Venezuela’s first interaction with the western world began right at the end of the 15th century, around 1498, when Christopher Columbus first landed there. The actual colonization of what would become Venezuela began in 1521 by the Spanish. In 1810, the country declared its independence, and in 1829, it broke away from Gran Colombia to become its own independent nation. In 1945, the country threw out its military leader in a coup and elected its first democratic government. However, that government’s reign was short-lived, with the military taking back over after another coup in 1948.

Democratic government was restored in 1958 and the first peaceful transfer of power between leaders occurred in 1964. Venezuela then rode high oil prices throughout the 1970s and 80s until prices finally started to lag. This development forced then-President Carlos Perez to negotiate for relief with the International Monetary Fund–negotiations that ultimately led to riots in the streets. Following Perez’s eventual impeachment on corruption charges, Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998.

Venezuela Under Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez eventually rose to the presidency following a failed coup attempt that he led in 1992. After he was captured, Chavez delivered a speech on national television that garnered him popularity among average, disaffected Venezuelans. This popularity was essential to Chavez’s eventual pardon and release from prison in 1994. It also positioned him as an anti-establishment force, which would rocket him to the presidency in 1998.

Upon his initial election, Chavez was extremely popular among Venezuelans. He used that public support to give himself extraordinary control over all three branches of government. However, many of those moves, along with his plans to imitate Cuba’s style of government and his decision to antagonize the United States, alienated Venezuela from the West. Those moves, coupled with efforts to gain more power, caused his approval ratings to sink from as high as 80 percent to a low of 30 percent.

Dissatisfaction reached the point where, in 2002, Chavez was briefly removed from office in another coup. However, he quickly returned to power and later gained greater control over the local oil industry following a large-scale strike. Using these new resources and buoyed again by high oil prices, he offered citizens lavish social programs to help ensure his reelection in 2006. In 2009, he passed constitutional reforms to remove term limits and ensure that he could continue leading the country. This move also enabled him to crack down on dissent. Chavez’s power consolidation took a secondary role in 2011, when he went to Cuba for cancer treatment. Chavez would ultimately die from cancer-related effects in 2013.

Post-Chavez

Chavez was succeeded by loyalist Nicolas Maduro. Maduro, a career politician who had been elected as Venezuela’s vice president in 2014, went to great lengths to further Chavez’s ideals. Upon ascending to the presidency, Maduro hoped to solidify his grip on power by arresting opponents. This approach seemed to be working, especially when he garnered the support of the military until oil prices began to fall once more.

Falling Oil Prices

In 2014, global oil prices began to plummet from a high of over $100 a barrel to below $30 a barrel. Venezuela was hit especially hard because roughly half of the government’s revenue comes from the oil industry. While the country set up a fund to save surplus revenues during the oil boom of the 1990s, the fund was drained during Chavez’s reign, as he used it to fund social welfare programs and help ensure his reelection. The accompanying video explains many of the issues plaguing Venezuela following and as a result of Chavez’s regime:

Venezuela’s economy became so dependent on high oil prices, that countries grew less willing to invest there as they started to doubt its ability to pay them back. An example of this occurred in 2016, when the Chinese Development Bank was one of only a few institutions willing to continue lending directly to the South American nation, but it did so with many more conditions than in years past. This also had the added effect of reducing Venezuela’s influence among its neighbors, as it can no longer use its oil exports as leverage. Even if oil prices rebound, Venezuela is still likely to face serious trouble, as its state-run oil company will have so much debt that it could have trouble paying for further oil exploration.

Country in Free Fall

In a country where 95 percent of all exports are oil-related, it is clear how devastating a dramatic drop in prices can be. This drop led the government to make dramatic currency interventions that have sparked massive bouts of inflation and triggered supply shortages for essentials like medicine and even food. When the crisis first began developing, President Maduro denied that there was even a problem to begin with, although he eventually issued food vouchers in an attempt to prevent people from going hungry. Nevertheless, more Venezuelans are increasingly going without food and malnutrition rates are rising. The government itself cannot afford to even import more food as it is out of money.

On top of the food and humanitarian crises–which are largely a result of economic mismanagement and fluctuations in international oil markets–are unpopular political moves by President Maduro to consolidate his power. In March, loyalists who were selected by President Maduro on the Venezuelan high court chose to dissolve the National Assembly. The power of the Assembly was to be transferred to the courts under Maduro who, critics argue, effectively became a dictator. While the ruling was revised days later, much about the rule of law in Venezuela remains in question, particularly given that the high court had already been ruling against the National Assembly’s attempts to rein in Maduro.

These moves, and the sheer desperation experienced by many in the country, have led to mass protests. In recent weeks, thousands of people have taken to the streets in Caracas, the capital, to protest and demand new elections. However, these protests were met with force both from police and paramilitary groups supported by the Maduro government known as colectivos. The harsh crackdown by the government has led to international condemnation from nearby countries such as Peru and global powers like the United States. It has also spurred calls for more mass protests across cities in Venezuela. Nevertheless, Maduro remains in power and enjoys some support among his base and by those who believe the actions of protesters are not the appropriate way to bring about change.

The video below looks at recent protests:

Conclusion

Venezuela, like many countries with a colonial legacy, has struggled to create the vibrant and dynamic economy needed to be competitive in the global economy. For most of its independent history, it has been ruled by military dictatorships with a few years of democratic governance in between–but these temporary civilian governments have been undone by a perpetual series of coups. This inability to establish a competent government and the country’s over-reliance on oil for its economy held the potential for disaster.

That disaster came when oil prices bottomed out, leaving the country unable to feed its citizens or meet their basic needs. Naturally, this has led to a crisis of confidence in current President Nicholas Madero, successor to the charismatic and extremely controversial Hugo Chavez. Chavez and Maduro both ascended to power on the notion of cleaning out the old, corrupt government institutions and installing something more responsive to real people’s concerns. However, the actual results of their decisions led to unsustainable social programs that plunged the country into debt as oil prices fell. Now it seems that most Venezuelans want a new government and most of all, a new president.

How the situation with Madero plays out is critical to the country’s future. If protesters and the government can reach a political resolution and rebuild the government’s rapidly decaying institutions, there is hope for a major turnaround. On the other hand, if Madero continues to crack down on dissent and refuses to address the humanitarian crises taking over the country, Venezuela could be on a course for even more chaos. Even if a resolution emerges, the country will need to diversify its economy to manage its reliance on oil. Given its past failures to do so, that will not prove to be an easy task.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Behind the Crisis in Venezuela? appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia marked the week following International Women’s Day with a historic event–the country’s first ever girls’ council, convened in the province of Qassim. The council is a small part of the sweeping Vision 2030 plan, a set of goals for the kingdom that includes creating a more tolerant and inclusive atmosphere for women. Yet the council has now become a viral joke rather than an important turning point for the country, after photos from the convening of the council revealed that it was entirely comprised of men.

Some women apparently do sit on the council, but the gender segregation codes of Saudi Arabia meant that they had to sit in a separate room, connected to the main conference by video link. In a country where women quite literally cannot get a seat at the table, what can the girls’ council accomplish?

Qassim Governor Prince Faisal bin Mishal bin Saud, who hosted the conference, framed the council as important because “we look at women as sisters to men.” This is far from a rallying cry for gender parity, but it may be the best we can expect from Saudi Arabia. Life for girls and women in the Kingdom is dictated entirely by their male guardians, who are able to control where they go, who they see, and what they do with virtually every moment of their day. Women are not treated as legal adults, which means even as progress slowly trickles into the country, they are still denied basic legal rights and protections.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is always wise to temper expectations and remember that the Vision 2030 goals may not actually be reached by 2030. Women’s rights are not the only issue on the table–poverty, youth unemployment, a lack of affordable housing and a clearly defined racial hierarchy that has been reinforced over the years by the wealthiest Saudi families preserving the status quo.

These civil rights issues are inextricably linked to the oil economy, which has concentrated wealth in certain pockets and has left the rest of the country out in the cold. Vision 2030’s mission requires an overhaul of every part of Saudi life–and it may be impossible to successfully implement the changes that must be made unless the government is willing to relax the ties between its extreme interpretation of religion and rule of law.

The Qassim girls’ council has already been turned into a meme, being compared to the photo of an all male Trump Administration team reinstating the Mexico City Policy (also known as the global gag rule) by executive order this year. Western news outlets picked up the images from Qassim, pointing out the absurdity of a girls’ council without any women present. Still, the criticism has not moved the Saudi organizers to change the make-up of the council or let the female advisers participate alongside their male counterparts.

I sincerely hope that the girls’ council does not fade into the background, and that it does receive the necessary funding and attention to advance gender equality. Yet, at this moment, it seems like a mere publicity stunt gone wrong: an attempt to showcase the Vision 2030 goals that revealed exactly how far Saudi Arabia still has to go.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Saudi Arabia Isn’t Going to Hit its 2030 Goal appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump revived the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday, creating a quandary for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. How does he balance support for the climate, a cornerstone issue for him, while also supporting a job-creating project that environmental groups–in Canada and the U.S.–generally oppose? This is a question that had the usually tranquil leader a tad flustered during a town hall meeting at the University of Calgary on Tuesday evening.

A man in a “Make America Great Again” cap told Trudeau, who supports the pipeline project, but signaled the need to “phase out” drilling in Canada’s oil sands, he is either a “liar” or “confused.” Trudeau replied: “If you know the oil sands, sir, you know the kinds of innovation, the kinds of advances, the kind of high technology, and research that’s being done, right here at the University of Calgary.”

This is the balancing act that Trudeau has found himself performing in a country rich in oil reserves yet with an equally rich tradition of environmental protection. A former executive at TransCanada, the company that is building the Keystone XL pipeline, told The New York Times the prime minister must strike a delicate balance. “The country needs to find a balance between a credible carbon policy and seizing this economic opportunity,” Dennis McConaghy said.

Trump revived the pipeline with an executive order on Tuesday. He promised to “renegotiate” the contract with TransCanada. While there is a long way to go before construction on the pipeline resumes, Trump’s executive action signals a new U.S. stance on the issue. President Obama, who initially supported parts of the pipeline, shelved the project in 2015. The pipeline would transfer 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Alberta oil sands to Nebraska, where existing pipelines would shuffle it to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Thousands of temporary jobs would be created if construction resumes.

Trudeau seems confident the project is a responsible way to bolster Canada’s economy while protecting its environment. “I have repeatedly said that yes, the responsibility of any Canadian prime minister is to get our resources to market and yes, that includes our oil-sands fossil fuels,” Trudeau said at Tuesday’s town hall. “We need to get those to market. I’ve also said we need to do that in a responsible, sustainable way. You cannot separate what’s good for the environment and what’s good for the economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keystone XL Revival Puts Canadian PM Justin Trudeau in a Bind appeared first on Law Street.

The military tactic of “scorched earth”–destroying land and resources while entering or retreating from a territory so that enemies cannot benefit from occupying the land–dates back to ancient history. But most of us associate it either with the Napoleonic wars or the World Wars, when both Russia and Germany destroyed infrastructure and land to slow the advance of their enemy.  And in Iraq, as ISIS fights to control Mosul, the scorched earth tactic is alive and well–during its retreat, ISIS has been regularly lighting oil wells on fire, hoping to slow the government forces advancing on it.

The town of Qayyarah, south of Mosul, has been burning for months, the peril escalated by ISIS igniting the Mishraq sulfur plant outside of the town in October. A sulfur cloud stretches out over the town and crude oil runs through the streets, forcing the evacuation of local families.

It can take weeks to put out just a single fire, as the firefighters have to check the land around the well for booby traps and landmines before beginning their work. The toxic smoke that the firefighters inhale makes the work almost unbearable and despite their best efforts, there are still over a dozen wells burning night and day. Even after the fire has been extinguished, the damage is not yet done. Entire villages are stained with soot and smoke inhalation is already damaging the lungs of the populace, as hundreds are being rushed to hospitals. The sky is dark for most of the day and livestock are dying at an escalated rate under the pressure of constant exposure to smoke and soot.

The burning of the oil wells will have a lasting, devastating impact on the landscape–not just in terms of environmental damage but regarding human security–an entire generation of children growing up with lung damage. NASA satellite images provide a grim portrait of how quickly the smoke and sulfur-dioxide released by the fires has spread and raise questions about when the land will be inhabitable again.

It is fitting that ISIS, with its medieval vision of law and order, would revive a violent tactic that should have died out before the turn of the century. ISIS’ burning of the oil wells is not the only way that ISIS is manipulating natural resources. ISIS has also cut electricity to water stations in neighborhoods where Iraqi troops are arriving, leaving approximately half a million people without access to running water or clean drinking water. The lack of drinking water would have been a critical problem even without the fires, but with citizens choking on the smoke, the need for drinkable water is greater than ever before. ISIS is leaving nothing but husks of infrastructure in its wake, forcing civilians to cooperate with it in order to survive–following the terrorists to cities with clean air and water rather than staying put and waiting for Iraqi troops to arrive under the clouds of sulfur.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Weaponized Oil: Scorched Earth Warfare in Iraq appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re caught using too much water in Prince Albert, Canada, you could be fined up to $1,000. Need to get your car washed or go to the laundry mat? You’re out of luck, they’re all closed. Prince Albert and the surrounding communities in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan are under a state of emergency that was declared Monday following an oil spill on the North Saskatchewan River, the area’s main water source.

Prince Albert city council has declared a local state of emergency due to #huskyoilspill. https://t.co/T8SuMIWD9r pic.twitter.com/mlEMj3sT7T

— 350 Canada (@350Canada) July 26, 2016

The city is coping with the disastrous oil spill by rolling out an emergency waterline that will connect the South Saskatchewan River, the next biggest water source, to Prince Albert and the other communities who are under strict water restrictions. The temporary waterline will extend a little over 18 miles, and will feed clean water into Prince Albert’s water plant by Tuesday evening. On Monday, Mayor Greg Dionne said the waterline was about halfway complete.

“Once we get the [waterline] up and running we’ll be in a different situation,” Dionne said. “There’s enough water delivered on that line to get our plant fully up to capacity and that’s key, because we’ll be able to put everyone back in business.”

So just how bad was the oil spill? About 66,000 gallons of heavy oil and natural gas, enough oil to fill about a tenth of an Olympic-size swimming pool, spilled into the North Saskatchewan River. But that figure is nothing compared to the 2010 BP oil spill where 200 million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf Coast, enough oil to fill 302 Olympic-size swimming pools.

However, the amount is still enough to cause headaches among city officials who are already expecting complications and problems. Depending on how well Prince Albert residents save water, the city’s reservoir could last anywhere between 48 hours and a week. The city is depending on that reserve of water until the 18-mile temporary waterline is completed. But, it will not be all smooth sailing when the waterline is completed. At about every mile of the waterline, there will be a pump in order to facilitate water flow from the source to Prince Albert. In case there is a problem with that, the city is already exploring secondary water supply options like ponds from private land owners and using the city’s retention ponds.

Globs of oil floating down #NorthSaskRiver #huskyenergy #oilspill #PrinceAlbert #Saskatchewan #WaterIsLife #water pic.twitter.com/YG5RQDTeLn

— Shelley Essaunce (@shelleyshell4) July 26, 2016

It’s unclear when Prince Albert will rely on its primary water source, according to Dionne.

“We could have it up as long as two months. It all depends on the river, how much oil has sunk in the river, where is it pooled, because at the end of the day, we can’t start a water plant up if there’s still pools of oil out there that can damage our plant.”

Authorities have cleaned up about 40 percent of the spill as of Tuesday afternoon. Husky Energy, the company responsible for the spill, and the Canadian government teamed up to create booms to catch more of the leakage. Jeff Da Silva, manager of public works with the city, said consultants have been hired to test the water in the river and the water coming out of the water treatment plant to see if any hydrocarbons are present.

So just how many people are impacted by the spill? Prince Albert has about 35,000 residents, and in the surrounding communities there are about 1,200 rural properties that currently have no water because of the shutdown. A representative from Husky Energy, Al Pate, said the company would try and do everything they could for those affected.

“We’re deeply sorry this has happened,” Pate said. “We accept full responsibility for the event and the cleanup and we will make things right.”

However, since the oil spill happened on Thursday, Husky Energy has yet to send a representative to Prince Albert. But, the CEO of Husky has assured the mayor of Prince Albert that the company will cover all costs incurred by the city because of the spill.

“This waterline alone is costing over $1 million,” Dionne said. “Husky have given us assurances that they’re going to make us whole and that they’re going to fix whatever has to be fixed, and I take them for their word.”

Pate said the cause of the oil leak is unknown, and it may take weeks or even months to understand the causes.

When will we learn?? We continue to live with zero responsibility as if there are no consequences.#huskyoilspill #environmentaljustice

— Khaled خالد (@KhaledAlwaleed) July 26, 2016

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State of Emergency Declared In Canadian Town Due to Oil Spill appeared first on Law Street.

In the past 20 years, fuel has been the fastest growing export in the world, both in terms of volume and value. Oil makes up a huge portion of these fuel exports and is also the primary energy source for transportation throughout the world. Currently, the only alternatives to oil for the transportation sector are electric and hydrogen cell powered cars. Both of these are comparatively very small industries and only act as energy alternatives to on-road vehicles, while the transportation sector also includes all the world’s ships, planes, and military vehicles, which are all heavily dependent upon petroleum. As of now, oil is here to stay on planet earth, whatever its consequences may be.

Oil production in the United States has changed a lot in recent years. Following the discovery of the Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, the United States increased its domestic production dramatically. The Bakken formation combined with the Eagle Ford and Permian Basins located in Texas allowed the U.S. to produce 66 percent of its oil domestically in 2014. The discovery of the Bakken Shale was hailed by some as an incredible discovery that will allow the United States newfound energy independence. But an equal number of people have objected furiously to our exploitation of the shale patch, claiming that it only further solidifies the United States on a path toward fossil fuel dependence. Our domestic production has decreased somewhat in the last two years as oil prices have dropped abroad, but overall our production rates are higher than they have been in a very long time and there is a considerable push to continue strengthening the industry domestically.

Now that a greater quantity of oil is being produced on the U.S. mainland than before, the amount of oil being shipped via tanker to the United States has dropped dramatically, which means that globally the risk of ocean oil spills has decreased as well. However, transporting oil domestically poses its own environmental problems and even imported oil often needs to be shipped to different parts of the country by land transport. If oil spills on the mainland, it can destroy ecosystems and watersheds and render communities unstable. If oil catches fire, it can lead to gigantic explosions, a few of which have historically had terrible consequences for American towns. Read on to learn about the pros and cons of different methods of oil transportation and the policy fights involved.

Rail

Currently, the most common method of oil transport is by railway. Truck transport of oil now only accounts for 4 percent of all petroleum moved because of its high level of inefficiency and risk. While pipelines can often be more efficient modes of transport, their construction can lead to political battles. The advantage of rail transport is that the infrastructure is already in place and already spans across America–all it needs is to be re-utilized.

Many railroads owners are willing to sign contracts with crude oil companies that allow for their railways to be used for transporting oil. Often these contracts are short term and many railway owners reserve the ability to withdraw from the business relationship later down the road. The railway transport business has grown exponentially along with the upward spike in oil extraction. Only 9,500 carloads of oil were moved on freight lines in 2008; by 2013 435,560 carloads of oil were moved, equivalent to 300 million barrels of oil.

“Crude Oil Storage on Stilts” courtesy of Anthony via Flickr

However, this increase in railway transport has led to an increase in the risk of oil-related disasters. When a train transporting oil (also known as a “bomb train”) runs into a problem, it generally causes the oil to ignite, which results in an explosion. These explosions can be gigantic in size and result in large scale destruction. While railway movement is considerably safer than trucks in terms of land transportation, a single incident can have disastrous effects. This is further compounded by some evidence suggesting that Bakken shale produces a more flammable crude oil because of its specific mineral content. Because of North Dakota’s location in the very center of America, these bomb trains have to span incredible distances to move oil to the coasts of the country, which increases the risk that something may go wrong. Between 2013 and 2015 more than 10 major explosions took place in America.

The explosions can have devastating immediate effects, but oil leakage also poses its own risk. In 2013 alone more than 1.15 million gallons of oil were spilled. Oil leaks can take a considerable amount of time to clean up and the damage can happen very quickly. Oil is mostly made up of a combination of thousands of different hydrocarbons and is generally toxic to almost every living creature. Crude oil, in particular, is oil in its least processed form and poses a greater risk than refined petroleum to an area it enters and contaminates. Because of this, an oil spill can cause tremendous damage to an ecosystem. Furthermore, an oil spill in the ocean will eventually go away, partially through evaporation and partially through breaking down and falling to the ocean floor as an inert tar. However, if oil enters freshwater it can permanently render it undrinkable, which can be particularly serious in areas where humans live nearby and rely on freshwater for drinking water.

Pipeline Alternatives and the Keystone XL Expansion

Right now Canada is the largest U.S. supplier of foreign oil, which offers a certain level of ease of transport because the two countries are on the same landmass. Currently, 70 percent of petroleum products in Canada and the United States are shipped via pipeline. A certain amount of crude oil can be moved over the border on the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railway, but there’s been a huge push to connect the two countries via new and larger pipelines. Pipelines would dramatically expedite the process of oil movement by making it both quicker and cheaper, and many argue that it would make the process dramatically safer for Canadian and American communities.

“Trans Canada Keystone Oil Pipeline” courtesy of shannonpatrick17 via Flickr

Much of the argument around pipeline transport has focused on the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline expansion, a gigantic pipe system that would in theory run 1,661 miles between Alberta, Canada and Illinois. The oil giant TransCanada proposed Keystone XL in September 2008 and estimated that it would cost about $7 billion to create. Most of the labor force that would go into its  design would be from the United States, creating up to 20,000 new jobs. It would also generate about $585 million in taxes for the states it ran through and over $5.2 billion in property taxes over the course of its functional lifetime. Many saw the pipeline as an incredible chance to increase energy security and to generate new job opportunities. An equal number of people opposed the movement, saying it only put the United States at greater risk of leaks.

There are others who support the pipeline from an environmental/human health perspective. It’s important to remember that while one can object to oil as an energy source in theory, we still very much need it to live our normal lives. Oil transportation will happen one way or another, and pipelines are generally thought as being safer than trains and therefore the lesser of two evils. However, the distinction really depends on how you measure safety. If you use damage to human life and property as your metric, then trains are the far more dangerous method of transportation because they can generate large explosions. When something goes wrong on a train, the damage is immediate and severe. However, a leak from a pipeline can last indefinitely and may even go unnoticed, pouring a continuous stream of oil into the surrounding areas. Because of this, pipelines cause a much greater level of oil spillage overall than trains and may have a much more severe impact on the environment.

Keystone Pipeline Debate

There was a lot of opposition to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from environmentalists as well as worried community members who felt that their areas would be endangered by potential spills. A large portion of the public opposition to the pipeline has come from Native American communities that live in the states the pipe would run through. Several Native American groups in Nebraska especially have argued that the location of the pipeline directly endangers the Ogallala Aquifer, which sustains huge numbers of people and a thriving agricultural business. The sheer length of the pipeline is also alarming to many; while it ends in Illinois, the crude oil will then be processed in-state and shipped south via existing pipelines all the way to the Texas coast. This means that gigantic streams of crude oil would constantly be moving across the center band of the United States.

“pipeline” courtesy of Ripperda via Flickr

TransCanada argued that the pipeline would be built with state-of-the-art safety equipment, including over 16,000 smart sensors along its body, to allow for the quick relay of any problems and relevant information to repair teams. These sensors deliver information to satellites, which then dispatch emergency response crews that are located along the pipeline in each state. This level of security is particularly important because the Keystone XL would transport pre-processed crude oil to refineries. Crude oil is so thick that it has to be continuously heated in order to flow properly, which increases its volatility in the event of a spill.

Four years after it was initially proposed, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL expansion presidential permit in 2012. Not to be deterred, TransCanada began to explore alternative methods of building the pipeline and working closely with Nebraska, which led to the submission of another presidential permit less than half a year after the original rejection. The Obama Administration spent several years refusing to make a final decision on the expansion, saying that while it supports the pipeline’s ability to spur business and create jobs, it wouldn’t make a decision that will cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

In November 2015, President Obama made the final decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming that the benefit it would have for the economy in the long term wouldn’t outweigh the damage it would do to U.S. energy security and the country’s role as a progressive energy leader. TransCanada responded by asking for a delay on the review of the Nebraska route, which most likely would have pushed the final decision back for another indefinite period of time. This most likely would have placed the power of approving or rejecting Keystone XL in the hands of the winner of the 2016 Presidential race. However, the Obama Administration rejected this as well, ending the battle over the Keystone XL once and for all.

Conservatives were mostly furious and environmentalists were generally overjoyed. However, from a public health perspective, it isn’t completely clear what impact this decision will have. The risk of oil pollution will decrease but railway oil transportation and its dangers will remain prevalent instead. Furthermore, a large part of the argument from pipeline supporters is centered around energy security; increasing oil imports from Canada is viewed as a much safer business deal than increasing them from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for instance. With the pipeline abandoned, it’s possible that the next energy argument will center around increasing oil extraction from U.S. reserves back to their 2014 levels and beyond, which would increase energy independence but also cause greater damage to the U.S. ecosystems and communities.

Conclusion

No method of oil transportation is completely safe, and different methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Boats are generally the safest method for moving oil but have the greatest possible impact on the environment when they do actually spill. Oil movement on land is a completely different issue because it involves areas where humans live. While oil spills from trains result in higher levels of human death and property destruction, oil spills from pipelines are more common and often more severe, with longer lasting effects on the environment.

The extreme position is to fight against all forms of oil transportation under the argument that every resource dedicated towards oil industry infrastructure takes away from resources that could go to more progressive transportation technologies, such as electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells. Currently, the world is nowhere near ready to wean itself completely off oil, but competitor transportation technologies have steadily grown larger and larger in the past decades.

It’s important to remember that none of these alternatives are perfect and completely environmentally friendly–electric cars require large-scale mining operations to access the lithium iron for their batteries, for instance. However, overall a shift toward non-fossil fuel based transportation alternatives would still dramatically reduce global emissions. The world may not be technologically prepared to survive without oil, but as long as we depend on it, oil transportation and its risks and dangers will always be a factor in our lives and communities.

References

Americans for Tax Reform: A Brief History of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Aljazeera America: A History of Keystone

Desta: The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the World Trade Organization, and Regional Trade Agreements

Forbes: Pick Your Poison for Crude: Pipeline, Rail, Truck or Boat

The Hill: Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline

Institute for 21st Century Energy: Background of Keystone XL

Oil 150: Early Oil Transportation: A Brief Transportation

RiverKeeper: Crude Oil Transportation: A Timeline of Failure

RT: What’s the Hold Up?  Still no Decision on Keystone XL Nearly 7 Years Later

Scientific American: The Ogallala Aquifer: Saving a Vital U.S. Water Source

Sightline Institute: Oil Train Explosions: A Timeline in Pictures

U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress

The Des Moines Register: Corps: We’re Not For or Against the Bakken Pipeline

World Trade Organization: International Trade Statistics: World Export for Commercial Services

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Best Way to Transport Crude Oil? appeared first on Law Street.

An oil leak was discovered close to Shell’s Brutus platform on Friday, releasing nearly 90,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico before it was closed, according to officials. The leak reportedly issued from a subsea infrastructure, but an exact cause has not yet been determined. Spokesperson Curtis Smith said that the leak is under control and no drilling activity is going on at the Brutus for now. The platform is connected to four subsea wells in what is called the Glider Field, about 97 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A sheen was reported by a company helicopter observing the area, which led to an immediate shut off of operations.

Oil spills have so far been an inevitable part of the industry, which is one of the biggest and most important industries in America. Oil operations in the Gulf produce about 17 percent of the oil in America and account for a quarter of a million jobs, but sometimes at the cost of environment and animal life.

During the Deepwater incident in 2010, an explosion of a BP well caused the death of 11 workers, sank the Deepwater Horizon drill rig, and released 134 million gallons of oil into the sea. This led to an uproar from anti oil activists, who now get support for their argument from recent events. Earlier this year during a federal auction of oil and gas leases in the Gulf, a massive group of protesters from different environmental groups interrupted the event, fighting to stop the sale. The sale still happened, but it was a big step forward for the clean energy movement, and according to Anne Rolfes, founder of the group Louisiana Bucket Brigade: “People have woken up. We’ve always known this was hurting us, but now we’re also willing to act.”

By Friday night cleaning operations of the Shell oil spill had started, as well as an investigation of what caused the leak by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shell Oil Spill Releases Nearly 90,000 Gallons Outside Louisiana appeared first on Law Street.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) recently met in Vienna to discuss an official output quota. By the end of the meeting, however, the member countries did not agree on a quota and oil production remains near record levels. While this may not seem like breaking news, the group’s decision will have major ramifications far beyond its members. That is because this decision comes at a time when the price of oil is falling to lows not seen since the Great Recession. It is also coming at a time when a massive over-supply of oil exists in the market.

Read on to learn more about OPEC’s decision based on its past and future plans. Why does the group refuse to turn off the pumps when the wealth of supply seems to be hurting the bottom line?

History of OPEC

OPEC was founded in 1960 by its five original members: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Since then, nine members joined the group: Qatar, Indonesia, Libya, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Nigeria, Ecuador, Angola, and Gabon. The organization’s stated objective is to “co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers,” but the group has historically faced criticism for trying to control the price of oil for political and economic reasons. OPEC’s members meet regularly to agree upon oil production quotas, which in turn influence the price of oil internationally.

While many have a negative perception of OPEC, the organization’s roots were generally good-intentioned. The group formed shortly after many oil producing countries emerged after colonial empires were split up. Its inception, in part, explains OPEC’s desire to set a price as a means to control and benefit from its member nations’ natural wealth.

Criticism of the group peaked in the 1970s after two high-profile events: namely, its 1973 embargo on oil exports to the United States and the fallout from the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Oil prices eventually dropped dramatically in the 1980s only stabilizing in the 1990s. This happened because of a variety of factors including a burgeoning interest in the environmental impact of oil. Oil experienced another boom in the late 90s through to the mid-2000s. However, it once again experienced a sharp decrease as a result of the 2008 Global Recession.

Following the recession, oil prices started rising, reaching a peak in 2014. Since the middle of last year, the price of oil has dropped precipitously, causing a flurry of responses from countries that are dependent on the oil industry for survival. The video below provides a detailed history of OPEC:

What is OPEC up to?

The most recent drop in oil prices brings us to where we are now. On December 7, oil prices hit their lowest levels in seven years. In fact, since June 2014 when the price of oil peaked at $108 per barrel, the price of oil has lost two-thirds of its value. The underlying driver behind the recent price drop is primarily an over-supply of oil. One explanation for the drop is the American shale boom, which significantly increased oil production in the United States. Another is the decision by OPEC not to cut its production but to keep it at near record output levels.

If a good’s supply increases but demand stays the same or decreases then its price will go down. The overall goal then is to find the equilibrium somewhere in the middle, where sellers can offer their goods at a price they feel is reasonable and at which consumers are willing to pay. OPEC’s recent decision to continue to keep production levels high has contributed to the massive drop in the global price of oil. Doing so challenges OPEC members’ ability to cover their expenses and profit off of high prices.

The question then is why? The simple answer is market share and scale of production. Saudi Arabia, a major player in OPEC, is willing to take a loss on oil in the short-term in an effort to disadvantage its competitors. The relatively long period of high oil prices that occurred over the past few years made new, more expensive means of getting oil profitable. This led to a rise in oil extraction methods like deep-water drilling and shale oil production (including fracking) in the United States. This method of getting oil is notably difficult and expensive, but with high oil prices, companies were able to spend more to extract oil because they could still turn a profit. Now that the price of oil has fallen dramatically, such efforts are becoming too expensive and shale oil production has gone down. If the price of oil stays low for a long period of time this could significantly hurt the shale industry helping OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia in the long run. This would play into the Saudis’ long-term goal of gaining back its market share, once the playing field has been thinned. But while a decrease in U.S. production has already started to happen oil prices have not yet gone back up, putting oil producers in a tricky place. The accompanying video gives a look at OPEC’s actions:

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC also have to contend with other established nations in the oil industry, namely Russia. While the Saudis have started to make their way into traditional Russian oil markets, Russia has fired back by temporarily becoming the largest supplier to Asia, an area typically dominated by OPEC.  The struggle between these two has also added to the oversupply in the market, as neither wants to concede its customers.

Further Trouble Ahead

OPEC’s strategy is decidedly risky for reasons beyond temporary loss in revenue due to lower prices. First, there’s the return of Iran to the forefront of the global oil market. Iran is currently under sanctions and its oil exports are limited to roughly 1.1 million barrels a day–about half of its peak production in 2012.  However, international sanctions on Iran are now going away in light of the Iran nuclear deal, and the country plans to produce 500,000 more barrels a day with the ultimate goal of reclaiming its market share–as Saudi Arabia and Russia are doing–no matter the cost.

Second, demand for oil could also start contracting next year, as some analysts think demand could shrink by up to as much as one-third. While drivers typically do more driving when oil is cheaper, the economic slowdown in Asia, particularly in China, threatens to cause an even larger over-supply of oil on the world market. But foreseeing changes in demand can be particularly difficult. Other analysts argue that the recent changes in China could lead to even greater demand for oil as the country shifts to a more consumer-driven economy.

Ramifications

OPEC

The concerns listed are less true for Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s de facto leader, which the IMF estimates can last about five years with oil prices at current levels before it needs to make significant changes to its budget. The Middle Eastern countries in the worst shape, however, are Iran and Iraq. While Iran’s refining costs are not particularly high relative to other countries, its economy suffered a significant blow from international sanctions. Its neighbor, Iraq, is in even worse shape, facing not only mounting debt but also the specter of ISIS operating and controlling a large swath of its territory. Forgone revenue from unusually low prices could start to hurt oil-exporting countries without large cash reserves.

The consequences of low oil prices could be just as bad, if not worse, for members of OPEC outside of the Middle East. Countries such as Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Algeria are extremely reliant on oil for government revenue, often for the majority of their budgets. Low prices have already sparked fear of unrest in areas such as Nigeria and Venezuela, which like Saudi Arabia use oil revenue to maintain social and economic stability. In Ecuador, these fears have already been realized–thousands have gone to the streets to protest government cost-cutting as a result of the falling price.

Russia

Outside of OPEC, perhaps no country is feeling the effects of the declining value of oil as much as Russia. Like many of the OPEC nations, it is very dependent on oil for income. In fact, oil and gas make up roughly two-thirds of Russian exports and half of all government revenue. With prices dropping so low, the nation has subsequently felt the effects–Russia’s economy will contract by about 3.8 percent this year and is expected to shrink further in 2016.

United States

Unlike Russia and the OPEC nations, the United States is not particularly dependent on oil production for government revenue, but the drop in prices will have some impact. If OPEC and Saudi Arabia hope to keep prices low to eliminate American competitors, evidence suggests that may be working. The number of oil rigs in the United States has fallen slightly and domestic production has decreased. In fact, for some U.S. states that rely on the oil industry for jobs and revenue, like Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, falling prices can pose a notable economic challenge.

However, the price plunge is certainly not all bad news for Americans. The average price of gasoline per gallon is now considerably lower than this time last year. Additionally, according to the United States Energy Information Administration, the average household is also likely to save $750 on gas this year. These savings are especially helpful for lower-income people who spend more of their income on gas and heating. Similar savings will likely occur in many European countries as well. The following video looks at some of the effects of low oil prices:

Conclusion

The members of OPEC, particularly Saudi Arabia, are taking a notable gamble with their decision to keep oil production high despite low prices. If oil-exporters reduce their production they could lose their market share, but if oil prices remain low they could face fiscal crises and possibly unrest. Yet the decision could pay off in the long run as more expensive forms of oil production slow down and prices go back up.

While OPEC is notably pumping too much oil, an issue that will likely become worse when Iran increases its exports, nearly all oil producing countries find themselves in a race to the bottom. Oil producing countries are already experiencing the consequences of low prices, but that will likely worsen if the status-quo continues. Meanwhile, the United States and most oil-importing Western nations stand to benefit.

Resources

CNN: OPEC is at War and it’s Sending Shockwaves Around the World

OPEC: Brief History

CNN: Oil prices dive below $37 to Lowest Level in Seven Years

Library of Economics and Liberty: Supply

Bloomberg View: Saudi Arabia’s Oil War with Russia

U.S. News and World Report: Iran to Add 500,000 Barrels of Oil Exports After Sanctions are Lifted Through Nuclear Deal

The Wall Street Journal: Global Demand Growth for Oil May Fall by a Third in 2016

CNN Money: Saudi Arabia to Run Out of Money in Less Than 5 Years

New York Times: From Venezuela to Iraq to Russia, Oil Price Drops Raise Fears of Unrest

Reuters: Russian Government Sees 2015 GDP Down 3 percent, More Optimistic Than Other Forecasts

International Business Times: Oil Price 2015 Russia Forced to Make Additional Spending Cuts, Official Says

Guardian: OPEC Bid to Kill off U.S. Shale Sends Oil Price Down to 2009 Low

New York Times: Oil Prices What’s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

The Christian Science Monitor: Can Canada’s Oil Sands Survive Low Oil Prices?

U.S. News and World Report: Energy Stock Winners and Losers When U.S. Oil Exports Go Global

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Over-Supply of Underpriced Oil: Explaining the New Energy Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone tuning into the first Democratic debate heard hopeful Bernie Sanders’ shout out to Denmark–and Hillary Clinton’s subsequent dismissal of applying standards that work in Denmark to the United States. It’s become common practice for politicians from around the world to constantly applaud Northern Europe as a set of model countries: their healthcare, their political participation, their education, and their commitment to environmental protection. On the environmental front, Northern Europe is a heavyweight that puts its money behind implementing policy that results in substantive change. Denmark, for example, has funneled time and funding into wind energy nationwide and seeks to use 100 percent renewable energies by 2035. No one is claiming that Northern Europe deserves anything less than respect for its efforts–but let’s step away from the Prom Queen of Electric Energy for a moment and talk about the wallflower making moves without attention from the global media. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s turn to Uruguay.

Uruguay is a powerhouse of hydroelectric and wind energy in Latin America, hosting dozens of projects that are pushing alternative energy to the forefront of the country’s economy. In the past fifty years, the country has transformed from an unstable agrarian community plagued by insurgency and economic instability into a thriving, stable leader in the Western hemisphere. Yet because Uruguay is located in “the Global South,” the international community rarely takes the time to applaud its commitment to green energy. Let’s take a minute to catch up on what you’ve been missing in Uruguay:

Uruguay’s Accomplishments

Uruguay, with a population of approximately 3.3 million people, is the second-smallest country on the continent. Good things come in small packages: the State Department ranks Uruguay first in Latin America for democracy, quality of living, peace, press freedom and a host of other attributes. Uruguay is a beacon for political liberty, a financial powerhouse and a force for peace both in the region and abroad (it is one of the highest contributors to UN peacekeeping forces). Plus, Uruguay has legalized marijuana, same-sex marriage, and abortion. Healthcare is both high quality and affordable, as is higher education, and Uruguay considered the safest country in Latin America. The icing on the cake is that Uruguay’s former President José Mujica, who just stepped down in March, was known as the “world’s humblest president” because he lived an extremely modest lifestyle and donated the majority of his salary to charity. Although it’s obviously not perfect, Uruguay has a lot to be proud of: particularly its commitment to alternative energy.

Uruguay and Alternative Energy 

Denmark better watch its back–Uruguay is aiming to get as much as 38 percent of its national power from wind energy by 2017 and that goal appears easily within reach. In comparison, Denmark started shifting to alternative energy in the 1970s and currently gets about 30 percent of its electricity from wind power. Uruguay is aiming to hit the same energy goal in half the time–ambitious, yet seemingly plausible if wind turbine development continues at aggressive rates. Uruguay exists outside of the ongoing tug-of-war between electric energy and fossil fuels that rages in most of South America–as a nation with no significant coal, oil or gas deposits, alternative energy was a necessity. Historically, Uruguay was dependent on Argentina and Brazil for energy imports but the shift to alternative energy is granting Uruguay a path of economic self-reliance at an astounding rate. In fact, Argentina and Brazil may start importing energy from Uruguay soon.

Starting in 2005, Uruguay invested over 3 percent of its GDP each year in overhauling the energy system. This has transformed the nation into a major center for wind turbines and hydroelectric energy. Uruguay’s flat landscape makes it ideal for wind energy, which proved especially important when major droughts disrupted hydroelectricity productivity in 2014. Billions of dollars have flooded into Uruguay in recent years as UTE (the state-owned electric company) grants projects to international bidders looking to create large-scale wind farms. Uruguay has the highest clean energy growth on the continent and it has created this growth without excluding native workers. Uruguay requires that the control centers of these projects are built in Uruguay and that after the first year of operation, 80 percent of maintenance jobs go to local employees. Expanding the job market for local workers is giving the country traction on its path to energy independence. Beyond wind energy, Uruguay has two unique projects in the works: making Carrasco International Airport the world’s first sustainable airport and using electric energy to power all public transport by 2030.

Oil on the Horizon

The 2005-2030 energy plan that Uruguay has been committed to has performed incredibly so far, but national governments have to plan for worst-case scenarios. Uruguay’s worst-case scenario would be abandoning green energy for fossil fuels.  Uruguay, despite its lack of on-shore resources, has been scouted for off-shore drilling to the tune of over $1.6 billion in 3 years. The current administration wants to reach a consensus before committing to oil ventures but with companies such as BP, BG Group, and Tullow Oil knocking on Uruguay’s door, the pressure is rising. Alternative energy is working for Uruguay, but the lure of oil investment is no doubt tempting for the small nation. The transition to oil would lead to a huge shift in the political culture of the country, as new lobbies and political partnerships would open the door for corruption and conflict. Uruguay has made almost unparalleled strides in energy development, yet all those efforts may crumble if the country turns to oil development.

So, Why is No One Cheering for Uruguay?

Why is Uruguay flying under the radar while Northern Europe is lauded on the world stage for its work on alternative energy? One could argue it is because of the size of Uruguay–who is keeping track of a country that small? Well, Latvia and Estonia are both smaller than Uruguay but a quick Google search will turn up a dozen listicles praising these nations’ commitment to green energy. Uruguay may have a small population but that doesn’t mean we dismiss it out of hand. Uruguay has done nothing to anger the international community, on the contrary, it has upheld essentially every possible standard of good governance. So why isn’t everyone planning to retire to Montevideo?

Instead, many suspect that it all comes back to the global North-South divide. The North (Europe, North America, Australia–“the first world”) and the South (Central and Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East–“the third world”) developed in different ways but although economic prosperity has been redistributed over recent decades, the North is still considered the ultimate authority on economic matters. We shed attention on successful European countries that already hold our attention because historically the “global South” has been years behind us in development. We like to think of Latin America in terms of coconuts and jungles rather than a diverse continent with a set of booming economies that rival our own. We are used to Northern European countries succeeding at everything they try their hand at, so watching them succeed at alternative energy implementation is par for the course. However, Uruguay’s success is all the more impressive because it didn’t come from the more stable economy of Northern Europe. Uruguay rebuilt itself after the turbulence of the 1970s–the Tupumaros Marxist guerilla movement, of which Mujica was a part, led a nation-wide insurgency for over a decade–and transformed into not only a regional leader, but to perhaps the most impressive wind development center of the hemisphere. Uruguay is overturning the stereotype of a Latin-American nation plagued by corruption and violence that lags behind the rest of the world. Hopefully, the continuing growth of wind energy in Uruguay will grant it a larger spotlight but until then, the pressure from oil investment places the fate of Uruguay’s energy plan in a vulnerable position. In order to continue creating incredible energy changes, Uruguay must receive more international attention–the media must promote the nation as an ideal location for investment. In the meantime, politicians are going to keep writing love letters to Denmark while Uruguay creeps towards being the most environmentally friendly nation in the world.

Ignoring Uruguay’s achievements is not only insulting to the country, it increases the probability that Uruguay will turn to oil dependency. A concerted effort to recognize Uruguay’s energy achievements will give the nation the public support that it needs, and deserves, to meet its energy goals.

Conclusion

Uruguay is a much-overlooked dark horse when it comes to energy independence. The country’s move toward clean energy threatens to pass its European counterparts, but it doesn’t get nearly as much recognition as European nations. While that may, in part, be because of endemic biases in the United States and Europe, it’s important to recognize the innovative technology being used in the Latin American green-energy haven.

Resources

Primary

Embassy of the United States-Montevideo, Uruguay: Uruguay Rankings

Additional

CountryStats: Uruguay-Introduction

IRENA: Renewable Energy Policy Brief Uruguay

Jean-Pierre Lehmann: Bridging the 21st Century’s North-South Divide

Katell Abiven: Latin America Divided between Oil and Green Energy

Ken Parks: Uruguay Spends $2.6 Billion to Become South America Wind Leader

MercoPress: Uruguay Among the World’s Top Ten Greenest Countries

Pulsamerica: Uruguay:A Record Breaking Wind Power Revolution

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Uruguay’s Green Energy Policy: The World’s Best Kept Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently an Amtrak train traveling the busy northeast corridor route near Philadelphia derailed at a high speed, killing eight people and injuring more than 200. While experts weigh in over the speed of the train, the state of the engineer, and whether the locomotive was struck by a foreign object, many other people are now concerned about a different matter: the safety of trains in the United States. Read on to learn about the development of the train industry in the U.S., the rules and regulations that trains must follow, and considerations moving forward in light of the recent, horrific Amtrak crash.

Locomotives: The American Backstory

The first charter for a railroad in North America was granted to John Stevens in 1815. The same man also tested the first steam locomotive in the United States, nine years later in 1826. A railroad boom began in 1840, stemming from the northeast. However, this initial expansion was beset by unregulated practices and differing track gauges, which kept the lines from unifying. Individual owners of regional charters fought over territory. This chaos led to dangerous conditions for passengers and cargo traveling by rail.

As track mileage continued to expand rapidly, the rail industry achieved one of its greatest moments with the completion of the transcontinental railway in 1869 in Promontory Point, Utah. Starting in the 1880s and continuing through the 1920s, rail companies enjoyed greatest success. This was in part due to owners finally agreeing to standardize track gauge size and the development of a number of safety features that also improved efficiency. Ultimately, 1916 served as a peak year, with rail mileage reaching an all time high in the United States and stretching a total of 254,000 miles.

This expansion would come to a halt in the 1930s however, with the rise of individual automobiles and continue to stagnate throughout the 1940s and 50s following WWII. In the 1960s train companies began merging or going bankrupt, as passenger and freight numbers continued to dwindle. In 1971 Amtrak, a government supported system that dealt primarily with passenger traffic, was created. Even with government support however, the train network nationwide would likely have collapsed without a move towards deregulation in 1980. This move allowed the remaining companies to negotiate better rates and drop routes that were unprofitable.

This renaissance has continued into the present, as companies have merged into larger and larger entities. Freight has also returned to rail in large numbers, so much so that it is actually in danger of overwhelming the current system. Passenger travel has also increased, as people seek to avoid traffic and relax during commutes. The following video gives an overview of the history and development of railroads in the U.S.:

Trains By the Numbers

People

In the 2014 fiscal year, 30.9 million people rode Amtrak trains. During that same year 11.6 million passengers rode along the Northeast Corridor route, where the recent accident occurred. This was a 3.3 percent increase from the year before. In fact, this route is so popular that it actually accounts for 77 percent of combined rail and air travel between Washington DC and New York. These numbers would likely be even higher, except that Amtrak suffers from outdated infrastructure and has its efficiency hampered by freight trains using the same rails.

Freight

So exactly how much freight do these cumbersome trains move each year in the U.S.? In 2010, approximately 1.7 billion tons of freight were transported on rails, the last year with complete data. This accounted for 16 percent of the total freight shipped within the U.S. and equated $427 billion dollars. The industry is dominated by seven major carriers that employ 175,000 people. The number is expected to grow in the future, but is currently stagnant due to old infrastructure and insufficient investment.

Incidents

With all these people and things being moved by rail, the next questions is how likely are accidents like the one outside of Philadelphia? The answer is extremely unlikely. In fact, a person is 17 times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a train accident. While some of this can be explained by the obvious fact that most people travel in cars more than they travel in trains, the accident rate is also lower. There’s just .43 accidents per billion passenger miles for train travel versus 7.3 accidents per billion passenger miles for cars.

In addition, when rail accidents do occur, they usually do not involve passengers, as most rail traffic is moving freight. Thus, while 1,241 derailments occurred last year, there were few injuries. Furthermore, while the number of derailments may seem fairly high, it is less than half the number seen just thirty years ago. Most of the derailments that do still occur are a result of track conditions like the ones being blamed in the recent high profile crash. Experts worry that these are a result of underfunding, especially when it comes to Amtrak. This is the case even with ridership growing in the Northeast corridor route because Amtrak must spread its revenue across all its routes and many of them don’t make a profit.

Rules and Regulations

Benefits of Deregulation

As touched on earlier, the railroad industry actually experienced deregulation in the 1980s. The railroad industry wasn’t doing well, and needed to become more flexible in order to survive. Thanks to two separate acts passed in Congress, in 1976 and 1980 respectively, a collapse of the railroad industry was avoided. Basically both these acts provided greater flexibility to railroad companies to negotiate rates, change routes, and merge to stave off insolvency. While fears grew of monopolies, these acts were also designed to lower the cost on entry into rail travel and transport, which was supposed to prevent any one company from dominating the industry. Since these acts went into effect, the rail industry has enjoyed a strong comeback. Additionally, deregulating the rail industry may have also improved infrastructure, as the large companies that have come to dominate rail traffic can afford to reinvest in improving safety and the technology that guides their trains.

Thus, while the technology and knowledge exists to improve safety and prevent accidents like the one in Pennsylvania, everything ultimately comes back to money. In 2008, Congress passed a bill requiring trains to implement a system known as positive train control. This utilizes a number of technologies to sense how fast a train is moving and slow it down if necessary. However while this system was in place on the tracks going the opposite direction it was not yet in position on the tracks heading northbound towards Philadelphia. The accompanying video explains some of the safety measures in place, particularly positive train control:

There are other measures in place to alert the conductor and slow down the train as well. If the conductor does not alter the train’s trajectory in any way for a certain amount of time, bells go off in the cabin to alert him or her. Additionally, the train is also supposed to slow itself down, but it was unclear if these safeguards were initiated before the crash.

Money Troubles

However, in its 2008 decision, Congress required Amtrak to bid for the communications channels required to send and receive signals. For an already cash-strapped system that was also facing major budget cuts, this was a deadly requirement. Implementing this technology costs $52,000 dollars per mile and must be universally applicable to a variety of trains that use different technology. Nonetheless, despite all these challenges, the Amtrak system was actually one of the leaders and was one of the few on pace to complete the required installation by 2018.

Following the crash however, Congress vetoed a bill being pushed by President Obama that called for $1 billion dollars in additional funding for Amtrak. This funding is clearly needed not just because of this crash but also because of how Amtrak compares to foreign train systems. In the UK for example, this type of braking technology has been in place for nearly ten years. This is also true in other more train-centric countries such as France and Japan.

Shipping Oil

Along with recent concerns over rail safety in general, there are long standing worries over trains carrying oil. Due to the nation’s energy boom, trains are increasing being relied upon to transport oil. For example, in 2012 trains shipped more than 40 times the amount of oil they did just four years earlier, an amount which doubled again in 2013.  The video below documents the rise and danger of shipping oil by rail:

This increased traffic has also led to an increase in the number of accidents. In 2014 there were 141 incidents termed “unintentional releases” of oil. The year before, while there were less individual incidents, even more oil was spilled, about 1.4 million gallons. For some perspective, that amount was more than all the oil that had ever been spilled by train transport to that point. These spills and accidents can lead to massive explosions, deaths and contaminated ecosystems. The increasing threat is so troubling that some people are calling for more pipelines to be built, rehashing the Keystone Pipeline debate.

Thus, while all trains are facing tighter rules and regulations, those carrying oil and gas are facing the most stringent changes to protocol. In new rules outlined at the beginning of May, more durable containers are now required for transporting fuel in the event of a crash. Additionally, trains are required to go no faster than 30 miles an hour unless they have electronic brakes. This action was part of a joint announcement in conjunction with Canada. It was also in the wake of a number of crashes involving fuel shipments, including four this year alone. This has also rekindled the argument over lack of funding and overly tight timelines.

Conclusion

The crash of an Amtrak train along the nation’s busiest passenger rail route has raised fears over train safety. These fears are compounded by a rail industry facing budgets cuts and relying on outdated technology. However, the rate of crashes and derailments remain low, especially in relation to other types of transportation such as cars. Nevertheless, in the future more investment and infrastructure improvements must be made in order to prevent accidents, like the one outside of Philadelphia, from repeating themselves. Greater efforts must also be made and continue to be made to regulate the usage of trains in moving massive quantities of oil, which has proven very dangerous. The rail system is the unsung and often forgotten cog of the transportation system in the U.S. But, it only takes one accident to put concerns over its safety back on America’s one mind.

Resources

American-Rails: Railroad History: An Overview of the Past

The New York Times: Amtrak Says Shortfalls and Rules Delayed its Safety System

Washington Post: Trains and Carrying and Spilling a Record Amount of Oil

CNN: Amtrak Installs Speed Controls at Fatal Crash Site

Amtrak: News Release

Guardian: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor

Center for American Progress: Getting America’s Freight Back on the Move

Vox: 4 Facts Everyone Should Know about Train Accidents

Hofstra University: Rail Deregulation in the United States

Guardian: Amtrak How America Lags Behind the Rest of the Developed World on Train Safety

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Lays Down Stricter Railcar Rules

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fatal Amtrak Derailment Casts Light on a Forgotten American Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Never before has a sitting president been defeated in a Nigerian election–until now. General Muhammadu Buhari ousted President Goodluck Jonathan in a decisive victory in the country’s latest election, and it is an incredibly momentous event in Nigeria’s history.

Courtesy of Chatham House via Flickr.

Buhari’s All Progressives Congress (APC) won 15,424,921 votes against President Goodluck Jonathan’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which won 12,853,162. Since independence from Britain in 1960, there have been numerous coups and many contrived elections–even this election has observers wondering.

President-Elect Buhari, a 72-year-old Muslim from northern Nigeria, won the presidency on his fourth attempt. Previously he ruled the country from January 1984 through August 1985 after taking control through a military coup.

Buhari lead the northwestern states, which have suffered the most by Islamist militant group Boko Haram. In Borno state, one of the worst affected by Islamist violence, Buhari won 94 percent of the vote.

For 16 years, PDP had been in power. This year Nigerians decided that the Opposition should have a go at sorting things out. Nigerians are accustomed to the incumbent fulfilling a second term; something rather big made them change their minds. The keyword is change.

Buhari now has to prove he really can change things. Boko Haram, the economy, and the unceasing cry of corruption are at the forefront of the list.

Boko Haram

Islamist militant group Boko Haram  has instilled so much fear in the Nigerian government that the Presidential elections were delayed for six weeks to allow time for the security situation to improve. Its existence is one of the biggest reasons that only 17 percent of Nigerians turned out to vote.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Boko Haram has been launching military operations since 2009 with the goal of creating an Islamic state in Nigeria. The group is responsible for the death of more than 20,000 Nigerians, and it’s terrorized Northern Nigeria, taken over cities, and infamously kidnapped 200 school girls in April 2014. Many people question the strategy of the Nigerian military, and criticize Jonathan for not challenging this threat.

The Economy

Nigeria is Africa’s leading oil producer, yet more than half of its people live in poverty. The market for stolen oil has increased violence and corruption in the Niger Delta–the home of the industry. Few Nigerians, including those in oil-producing areas, have benefited from the oil wealth.

Read More: The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices

Nigeria was badly hit by the fall in the oil price. Oil represents 90 percent of Nigerian exports and 70 percent of its government revenues; it’s hard to recover from a fall in the oil price. Additionally, the U.S. is no longer importing Nigerian oil because it has had such success in the shale revolution.

Corruption

The contentious issue of corruption undermines the trust in Nigeria’s government. Allegations of deception, fraud, and bribery include security funding, the legality of government officials, and enforcement of policies and elections. Past elections have been tarnished by serious suspicions of rigging. In 2007, observers said the presidential poll was not “credible.” In 2011 the vote was considered better, but fraud still took place.

This time the electoral commission took more steps to prevent rigging, including new biometric voters cards.

These are the changes the Nigerian people–and international community–call for and will be looking at closely. If there are significant advances toward counterterrorism strategy, economic schemes, and financial circulation, as well as more serious crackdowns on corruption, then we could look forward to long-term positive outcomes not only in Nigeria, but globally as well.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change appeared first on Law Street.

Since November 2014 when Republicans won control of the Senate and maintained control of the House, there have been promises that many hot topics will get attention. One of the first on the list was the issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline. While the political status of the bill is still up in the air, read on to learn about what the Keystone XL Pipeline is, and the political arguments for and against it.

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a pipeline transport that is to start in the town of Hardisty in Eastern Alberta, Canada and extend southeast to Steele City, Nebraska. The goal of the pipeline is to help transport crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast in Texas, and to help move oil from the Bakkan region in North Dakota and Montana to places where it can be used.

The pipeline would actually be an extension to the current Keystone pipeline that already runs from Hardisty to the town of Patoka, Illinois. That’s the reason that it’s called “XL”–it’s an extension to the current operation. When running at full capacity, the Keystone XL will be able to handle up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The video below explains the purpose of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

In order for the Keystone XL Pipeline to become a reality, Trans Canada has to receive approval from the President due to the fact that the project crosses into the United States from Canada. But since the Constitution states that the President cannot make the laws, and that Congress has to create a law or bill for the pipeline to be built, the issue has been languishing in Congress.

What is the Keystone XL Pipeline’s current status?

The authority to build the Keystone XL pipeline is currently the focus of two versions of a bill in the House and the Senate. The two versions need to become one bill, which will force members from both houses of Congress to work together. The biggest difference between the two bills are the amendments that have been tacked on, particularly on the Senate side. For example, the Senate, which passed its version of the bill on January 29, 2015, added on amendments that protect landowners from the use of eminent demand. The House version of the bill passed on January 9, 2015.

What is the next step for the Keystone XL Pipeline bill?

The House has said it will pass the Senate version soon, so the bill will go to President Obama’s desk for his signature; however, the White House has stated that Obama will veto the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill if it comes to his desk. If this happens, the bill will go back to Congress where a two-thirds majority will be needed to override the president;s veto. If that majority is reached, the pipeline will become a reality. If majority is not reached, the bill will go back to Congress where they will have to hammer out something else.

What are the arguments in favor of passing the Keystone XL Pipeline?

The Economic Argument

Some proponents who would like to see the Keystone XL Pipeline become reality argue that it will create jobs for Americans. The American Petroleum Institute stated that 42,000 American jobs are at stake. While exactly how many jobs would be gained through the construction, maintenance, and operation of the pipelines is difficult to estimate, it’s certain that manpower would be needed for each of these steps. The United States Chamber of Commerce stated that on its Keystone XL Pipeline Lost Opportunity Tour it encountered numerous business owners, civic leaders, and citizens who will benefit from construction of the pipeline, as the jobs it creates will stimulate other parts of the economy.

The Safety Argument

Trans-Canada, the company that will be building the pipeline, emphasizes the safety benefits. It points to the existing Keystone Pipeline that has safely transported more than 700 million barrels of the same oil to U.S. refineries since 2010 as proof of its commitment to safety and the amount of oil that it has successfully moved already. It argues that a pipeline is the safest way to move oil and natural gas. According to a recent Frasier study, there are fewer accidents with pipeline transport than with trains or trucks. Furthermore it points out that five studies and 20,000 pages of scientific review have led the U.S. State Department to conclude that the project can be built and operated with minimal environmental impact.

Energy Independence

One political concern that has deepened in recent years is the worry that the United States relies too much on outside producers for oil, gas, and other forms of energy. While the amount of oil that we import from OPEC countries has gone down over the years, we still do import significant amounts of oil from the Middle East. While the new pipeline means that we will still be importing oil, it will be from Canada, our consistent ally. Those who emphasize the need for energy independence point out that this development would allow the U.S. to separate its economic relationships from its political relationships in world affairs.

Image courtesy of Tar Sands Blockade via Flickr

What are the arguments against the Keystone XL Pipeline passing?

The Environmental Argument

Those who oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline include environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and The National Resources Defense Council. In fact, the National Resources Defense council stated that “this pipeline will lock the United States into a dependence on hard-to-extract oil and generate a massive expansion of the destructive tar sands oil operations in Canada.” Environmentalists worry that “in addition to the damage that would be caused by the increased tar sands extraction, the pipeline threatens to pollute freshwater supplies in America’s agricultural heartland and increase emissions in already-polluted communities of the Gulf Coast.”

Further arguments against the pipeline come from a group of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates including former president Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who state that the tar sands are “among the world’s most polluting oil” and their growth in Northern Alberta has high costs for the climate. They also stress that the Keystone XL pipeline is the “linchpin for tar sands expansion and the increased pollution that will follow.” The result of the increase in pollution will trigger “more climate upheaval with impacts felt around the world.”

Former Vice President Al Gore stated in his blog that the tar sands are the “dirtiest source of liquid fuel on the planet” and this pipeline would be an “enormous mistake.” Those who agree with Gore believe that the “answer to our climate, energy, and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels” but in more “rapid development of renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.”

The Dependency Argument

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont, made the case back in 2014 that the Keystone XL Pipeline would move America in the wrong direction as instead of making us greener, it would make America more dependent on nonrenewable resources. Proponents of the dependency argument point out that even though we may become less dependent on foreign producers of oil, we would become more dependent on crude oil and natural gas as energy forms. Instead of exploring other energy options, such as solar or wind power, we would continue to rely on nonrenewable resources. Those who are worried about this dependency argue that we could create jobs and energy by focusing on these alternate types of energy.

The Health Argument

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) explained this school of thought well in a recent speech in the Senate. She reminded everyone that the oil being transported would be tar sand oil, not the conventional crude that we are used to hearing about on the news. Tar sand oil contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead. Sulfur dioxide can penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as Emphysema and Bronchitis, while an influx of nitrogen dioxide can increase symptoms in people with Asthma. According to this argument, these problems will increase in areas affected by the pipeline.

Conclusion

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a massive pipe that will run from Canada to Nebraska and link up with other pipelines to get oil down to refineries in Texas. Bills have passed the House and Senate; however, the bills will need to be made into one large bill that will pass Congress jointly in order to be sent to President Obama’s desk.This process has been made difficult by the storm of criticism that has come from both sides of the argument on whether or not a pipeline should cross the American heartland.

Resources

Primary

Senate: Keystone Pipeline XL Bill

House of Representatives: Keystone Pipeline XL Bill

Additional 

TransCanada: About the Project

American Petroleum Institute: API Applauds Swift Senate Action on Keystone XL

Institute for 21st Century Energy: U.S. Chamber Statement on Congressional Action to Approve Keystone XL Pipeline

John Hoeven: Statement on Keystone XL

Think Progress: Find Out How Your Senator Voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline 

John Manchin: Statement on Keystone XL

Al Gore: The Dirtiest Fuel on the Planet

Nobel Women’s Initiative: Nobel Laureates Urge Obama to Deny Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit certain information to Al Gore’s blog. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Keystone XL Pipeline: Economic Breakthrough or Environmental Disaster? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the arguments in favor of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is that it has largely enabled the recent oil boom in the United States. Vast stores of shale oil and natural gas are now accessible in large quantities and in short spans of time. Prices at the pump and dependence on the Middle East and OPEC are both down, and domestic industries are up. Yet the key concept in the term “boom” is that it is temporary; the United States must realize that, as with any nonrenewable resource, reservoirs will eventually deplete and we will be back to square one. In the meantime, a vast web of pipelines is being constructed to accommodate for the surge and the necessity to transport the product. This raises an additional set of concerns, namely for the health of the environment.

The wells from which all this liquid gold now flows are a fraction in size to most of the ones in the Middle East. Projections suggest that domestic oil production may plateau as soon as in the next few years, and begin to decline by 2020. Thus the boom is more like a flash in the pan. Being that the oil reserves of just a handful of Middle Eastern nations total more than forty times that of the United States, the latter nation would be wise to retain productive dialogues and relationships with the former, as it is likely that the previous course of trade will resume in due time. It would be unfortunate if the United States burned some bridges in the excitement of its boom, only to find quickly that it is once more dependent on imports. Policy and national behavior are tightly tied into these environmental realities.

In the meantime, it has become necessary to bolster the infrastructure for delivering domestic oil throughout the country. Among the environmentally motivated criticisms of fracking are heavy truck traffic and volatile oil trains. North Dakota, the site of the Bakken Oil Fields fueling the boom, has endured a spike in spills, explosions, and other dangerous missteps over the last few years as production and transportation of the product has increased. It has done so in a haphazard and unregulated fashion, focused more on economic expansion than safety. A primary source of these accidents is a complicated and growing network of pipelines that have sidestepped federal inspection.

In addition to the ongoing controversy regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, many smaller ones are being approved and constructed throughout the country. New Jersey has recently been faced with proposals to construct a slew of pipelines throughout the state. As with many states in the path of Keystone XL, New Jersey would not directly benefit from the lines, as it serves simply as a crossroads that bears all the burdens and risks. These pipes will not create new jobs or bolster the local economy.

A resolution to oppose the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline in the Northern Valley was recently voted down. If constructed, it would likely run through ecologically sensitive areas and near local water supplies. In the event of a leak or spill, which despite claims that these pipes meet safety standards is more likely than one might expect due to the explosive nature of the particular oil that they will transport, water would be contaminated and difficult to purify.

Courtesy of Mark Klotz via Flickr.

A North Jersey politician who is a proponent of the Pilgrim Pipeline indicated that arguments of the nature that the line will not directly benefit New Jersey are not sufficient because lines that run through other states help bring oil here. While this may be true, it is not persuasive for several reasons. The first is that it throws others under the bus; we enjoy that there are pipes bringing oil here and benefitting us and our economy, while those states bear heavy social and ecological risks to do so and this is presumably all acceptable. Next, complex routes of ecological motion are endangered and still threaten us. For example, another pipe will soon be constructed to bring fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Many are concerned with the possible threats this line will pose for the Delaware River, whose water is vital for the variegated regional biodiversity as well as residents over a wide geography. Thus whether a pipe runs through New Jersey to elsewhere, or in from somewhere else, threatens more complications than a localized leak. Finally, the enthusiasm for oil pipelines simply encourages too much economic investment in and social reliance on oil. The domestic boom will die out sooner than later; all these new pipelines will become useless, while in the meantime they present a surge of dangers.

A pipeline running through ecologically sensitive Alaska. Courtesy of US Geological Survey via Flickr.

Once more, investment in renewable energies is a more desirable option, as their production, delivery, and use is far less hazardous and much cleaner, and more realistically intertwined with the United States’ energy and economic future.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fracking is Shortsighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Governor Andrew Cuomo officially announced that New York State will ban fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process of extracting natural gas that involves injecting water, sand, and a combination of chemicals underground on site in order to fracture the shale rock and release the gas. A highly controversial topic, Cuomo’s decision was controversial as well–he was met with both praise and criticism from a highly divided demographic. However, the move to ban fracking is a strongly defensible choice, and the arguments against the ban do not hold up well under scrutiny.

For example, natural gas has been lauded as a solution to American foreign oil dependence. In the wake of ongoing turbulent relationships with the Middle East and oil rich nations therein, many suggest that the large deposits of natural gas within the borders of the United States is a possible means of alleviating the country’s need to import oil from them. But is such a complex plan of developing an elaborate and brand new energy industry the most logical solution to problems in international relations? Rather than go about this process in order to avoid dealing with these tense situations, why not attempt more diplomacy in hopes of alleviating them? Oil and natural gas aside, it would not be such a bad thing to genuinely pursue better relationships with Middle East countries. Hiding behind the energy industry as an excuse is not a sustainable argument.

Others argue that natural gas is cleaner than oil. Natural gas emissions byproducts are lower and less damaging than those of oil, and it is of a substantial energy density so as to sufficiently provide power to our machines and devices. However we should not be tempted by the quick, convenient, and immediate solution. It will still cause problems and will run out eventually. This argument comes back to renewable energy. There is plenty of potential and increased economic accessibility to renewable energy, which is cleaner than natural gas and will not run out. Thinking purely in terms of energy requirements, we do not need natural gas.

Aside from geopolitics and national scale energy needs, some tie natural gas and fracking directly to the benefit of people on the ground. There is an American cultural identity tied into coal and mining towns. It is a widely applicable occupation, providing employment to individuals and income for families. Coal mining is a means of asserting ones identity, and has often been passed down through generations. Fracking is a technology intensive process demanding expertise and consequently cannot be undertaken by anybody. Arguments that fracking provides economic opportunities for towns in which shale is located are shaky. Unlike coal, where the industry arrives on site and hires locals to pursue the mining, fracking companies often bring in outside workers to extract the gas; the residents of the town rarely benefit from the boom.

A fracking site. Courtesy of Casey Hugelfink via Flickr.

Some people of a financially minded nature have suggested that the moratorium represents a transfer of economic resources from farmers to environmentalists. Residents of southern New York State are now unable to receive royalties from resource development and gas mining. Tim Worstall, the author of a fiscally conservative Forbes Magazine article on the topic, suggests that the environmentalists are being granted their desires and benefits at a cost which is the loss of acquisition of desires and benefits for the people who could receive money for fracking on their land. He proposes a hypothetical situation that in order to maintain a balanced public policy, environmentalists should literally pay homeowners their losses for not fracking. He is of strong opinion that this would be met with high resistance, in demonstration of his point that this process is unfair.

No doubt this scenario represents a substantial portion of the controversy over fracking. However the author is thinking of benefits and losses purely from an economic standpoint. On the one occasion that he might be considering the state of the environment, he refers to environmentalists’ interest in preventing fracking in “the fair state of New York”. In this sense it is an aesthetic issue. Interestingly enough, there is little in the way of aesthetic damage when it comes to fracking, although it does turn small farm towns into industrial sties. Then there is the catastrophic side effect of increased likelihood of earthquakes. However, environmentalists’ resistance to fracking is very much motivated by human health concerns. The primary problem with fracking is that the myriad of chemicals injected into the rock seeps into the groundwater. This can be damaging to the human body when consumed, potentially causing neurological disorders, birth defects and cancers, and is most visibly linked to flaming faucets. The volume of chemicals is so high that water can literally catch fire. The documentary Gasland delves further into these issues and additional dangers of the industry and refineries. Here is a trailer:

Flaming faucets and contaminated drinking water are most common for homeowners in close proximity to the fracking site. Namely, those on whose land the fracking will take place. Here is a major cost for which the author of the Forbes article does not account.

Produced water is the mix of chemicals, metals, and carcinogens that comes up during the fracking process. In some New York counties, produced water has been used as a de-icer, sprinkled across roadways throughout the winter. Then it runs off into streams and waterways. This is dangerous for fish and local wildlife that live nearby, as well as for humans who drink that water. This increases the range of contamination from near to the fracking site to across the entire state. It is a misuse of a substance that should not exist in the first place.

Considering the long list of potential alternatives for meeting our energy needs, we do not need natural gas. Furthermore, considering all the problems associated with the current method of extracting it, we certainly do not need fracking.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the New York Fracking Moratorium a Good Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

As anyone who drives a lot–or has a TV, reads the paper, or just generally pays attention–knows, the price of gas has gone down recently. Way down! More specifically the price of Brent crude oil, a major global type, dipped below $60 a barrel Tuesday for the first time in more than five years. That means the price of crude oil has dropped by more than $50 a barrel since its peak, which was just in June. Additionally, nationwide the average price of a gallon of gas has dropped from a high of $3.70 in April 2014 to the current low of $2.53. There are several reasons for this drop; there are also numerous issues that have already begun to arise from the drop in price and many more potential problems if the price of oil remains low or falls even further.

Why is the Price of Oil Falling?

First, the obvious questions: why are oil prices suddenly dropping and why is it happening so rapidly? To answer these queries one must look into account, supply, and demand.

Too Much Supply

First is supply. Specifically, there is too much oil out there, or at least that’s the perception. This buildup is the result of several actors overproducing when the market is not ready to absorb their goods.

• OPEC: OPEC stands for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC is an intergovernmental organization aimed at fixing oil prices of its member countries to ensure each has a fair and stable market for its product. The organization is made up of countries from South America, North Africa, and the Middle East. OPEC gained its greatest notoriety, and also put its fairness into question, with two embargoes in the 1970s that dramatically increased prices at the time. In a surprising about face however, in late November 2014, members elected to continue production at current levels. Why would OPEC elect to continue producing at high rates when basic economic wisdom called for a smaller supply? First, several members of OPEC have only just recently been able to ramp production back up to earlier levels. Libya, for example, was in a long struggle with rebels before it recently was able to reopen two key ports critical for oil exportation. Saudi Arabia was already burned before by trying to reduce supply to match demand back in the 1980s. Instead of keeping prices high it saw a significant loss in market share.
• U.S. Energy Boom: OPEC members increasingly have to tangle with the United States. While reports vary on which country is ranked where, the United States is unquestionably the world leader in energy production when natural gas and bio-fuels are included along with oil manufacturing. Biofuels and natural gas aside, the United States still ranks second in oil production behind Saudi Arabia, it being responsible for approximately 12 percent of the world’s output. The reason for the spike in American production is the now well documented shale boom that transformed places like North Dakota into energy and job hot spots. The video below details some of the pros and cons of the U.S. oil boom.

• Other Players: Along with OPEC and the United States there are several other major players in the Oil Industry. Chief among them is Russia, which sits closely behind at number three on the world’s production list. Russia is incredibly dependent on its energy sector, which generates up to 50 percent of the funds necessary to underwrite its budget. Along with Russia there are a few other non-OPEC countries, namely China, Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

Less Demand

Clearly then, higher supply is impacting world oil prices, but it is not alone. Equally as important is demand. After all, you can make as much of something as you like, but if no one wants it you are never going to make any money. So it is, in a sense, with oil.

A major decline in demand has occurred in two generally reliable regions–Asia and Europe–but specifically in Germany and China, due to economic slowdowns. In other key places such as the United States, similar sags in demand have been seen, but for different reasons. In the U.S., use of gasoline by companies plummeted following the financial crisis and has never returned to pre-crisis levels. Additionally, after numerous experiences being burned by unstable prices America has shifted away from high gas consumption toward more efficient technology like hybrids.

What It Means Now

Bad News

So what does this all mean then? For some countries this drop in oil prices is very bad. Russia in particular has a lot to lose with plunging oil prices. As alluded to earlier, up to 50 percent of its economy is dependent on oil prices and those prices have plummeted. As a result, Russia’s currency–the Ruble–has recently collapsed, losing a massive amount of value in just a couple of days. The collapse, coupled with western sanctions over Ukraine, is threatening to send Russia into a recession. The big question then is whether Russians are still willing to support Putin’s tactics when their standard of living starts to decline?

Other countries such as some of the members of OPEC also have a lot to lose as a result of the crisis. Like Russia, much of their budgets are predicated on their oil revenue. Thus countries like Iran and Nigeria that had relied on oil prices at much higher rates to maintain a sound budget now find themselves being forced to make cuts or face deficits–and even potentially defaults. It is even worse for another member: Venezuela.

Venezuela, despite having huge oil reserves, is facing an impending crisis that could be even worse than Russia’s. At least in Russia’s case it has reserve currency and little debt. Venezuela on the other hand has neither and was already dealing with shortages of other goods earlier this year. This situation has the makings of a powder keg. Some of these countries may also have to consider giving up stipends or canceling social programs funded by oil production. Some of these programs were instrumental in countries like Saudi Arabia potentially avoiding Arab Spring-style uprisings. The video below touches on the problems dropping oil prices imposes on Russia and Venezuela.

Mixed News

What about the United States? As mentioned earlier it has recently become either the biggest or second biggest producer of oil itself. What would a prolonged drop in the price of oil mean to the stars and stripes? Well, as is often the case, the United States may provide the most difficult answer. In certain ways this is a good thing. For example, Americans spending less on gas have more money to spend on other consumer goods, which could help spur faster economic growth.

Conversely, lowered prices could also mean some firms could no longer compete in the market. Many have speculated that lowered prices could dampen the U.S. oil boom currently taking place. In fact in has been widely circulated that OPEC’s decision to keep production high is basically a stare down between it and the United States where one side will eventually be forced to lower production to artificially inflate prices to stay in business. Additionally, employment is a major concern. Lost jobs here could be especially painful as they account for many of the jobs created since the recession.

 Conclusion

At the end of the day it is still unclear what will be the long term results of the drop in oil prices. In fact, as of right now it is still unclear how long these drops will be maintained at all; however, as the price continues to plunge and producers continue to forge ahead it seems fair to at least speculate. Really it’s just amazing that after all the war and talk of renewables globally that the world finds itself on such a precipice again concerning the familiar black gold. It seems then for now the impact of oil’s price drop will be left, much like its value is calculated, up to speculation.

Resources

Primary 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries: Brief History

Additional

Finances Online: Top 10 Oil Producing Countries in the World: Where’s the Greatest Petroleum Domination

USA Today: Eight Countries that Win and Lose Big from Oil Plunge

Vox: Why Oil Prices Keep Falling and Throwing the World Into Turmoil

USA Today: Russia’s Ruble in Free Fall Amid Panic

CNBC: Ticking Time Bombs: Where Oil’s Fall is Dangerous

Sovereign Investor The Hidden Cost of Oil

Foreign Policy: Can OPEC Kill the US Oil Boom?

Forbes: Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth and Security

CNN: Oil Plunge Takes Prices Below $55 A Barrel

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices appeared first on Law Street.

Fracking. The word is thrown around in newspapers, in political debates, in discussions about the future of our global climate change problem. But what does it actually mean? What effect does it have on our environment and economy? Is it even legal? Read on to learn about fracking, the legal framework in place to permit it, and the arguments about the practice.

What is fracking?

Fracking–more scientifically referred to as hydraulic fracking–is the injection of fluids, including water and toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells at high pressure in order to extract the gas and oil. The fluids are projected at the earth with such strong force that it creates cracks from which the gas or oil can freely flow. It mirrors the hydraulic fractures can happen in the earth naturally.

What’s the law on fracking?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by Congress on July 29, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, is “an act to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.” It provides incentives for diversifying sources of energy production. This includes ensuring increased use of biofuel with gasoline, requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to study and report on already existent natural gases, and providing tax breaks and guaranteed loans for making energy conservation improvements to homes.

While fracking was not protected under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Halliburton Loophole is the nickname for the ability to frack under the Act. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the EPA created an exemption in order to allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be legal.

The exemption is on page 102, Section 322 in the EPA.

SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) EXCLUDES—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’

There are no regulations that require documenting the chemicals used during fracking, or their possible health or environmental effects. As a result, multiple states, the most recent being California, have passed laws to create fracking regulations. In 2011, Texas became the first state requiring companies to disclose the chemicals being used.

What’s the argument against current regulations on fracking?

Many argue that these state regulations still lack crucial information that all residents should know about. Additionally, certain state regulations and laws have trade secrets that keep important information about different chemicals from the public. The Clean Water Act found 32 million gallons of diesel fuel illegally injected into the earth during fracking.  Evidence indicates that over six hundred different chemicals are used to frack. The popular HBO documentary Gasland 2 shows footage of Dimock, Pennsylvania where faucet water could be lit on fire because of contamination due to fracking. Many argue that the government should restrict the use of at least certain chemicals used in the process, or at the very least, require companies to state what materials they are using.

What’s the argument in favor of current regulations on fracking?

Fracking supporters argue that it is economically beneficial to the country. The IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported that fracking “supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost $75 billion in federal and state revenue, contributed $283 billion to the gross domestic product, and lifted household income by more than $1,200.” Fracking has promised us affordable and clean natural gas to help combat the foreign fuels we have now. Approximately 20 to 30 billion barrels of natural gas and oil have been recovered due to fracking. Currently, there is no other technology that retrieves natural gas and oil in places from places that fracking can reach.

Conclusion

Fracking has entered the national discourse as a possibly effective way to get some non-renewable resources that are available but difficult to reach. The regulations over whether or not we can use fracking to reach oil and gas resources have evolved over time, but they have done very little to stem the greater debate about the environmental and economical impacts of the process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry

Clean Water Action: Fracking Laws and Loopholes

Independent Voter Network: Middle Ground is Possible for Debate on Fracking in America

State Impact: Pennsylvania’s Disclosure Rules: What the Frack’s in the Ground

Slate: Who’s Fracking in Your Backyard?

EnergyFromShale.org: Pioneering America’s Energy Future

Real Clear Politics: The Breathtaking Benefits of Fracking

Reason.com: The Promised Land of Fracking

American Enterprise Institute: Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking

Elsevier: Fracking–The Pros and Cons 

Economist: Fracking

Inhabitat: The Costs and Benefits of Fracking

Huffington Post: Fracking Pros and Cons–Weighing in on Hydraulic Fracturing

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Announces Final Study Plan to Asses Hydraulic Fracturing

—

Nicole Counts is a freelance writer, activist, and lover of books. She is graduate of Temple University with a BA in English and she lives in New York City. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [greensefa via Flickr]

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Fracking and the Environment appeared first on Law Street.

The world has a complicated relationship with non-renewable resources. Large chunks of these resources are controlled by just a few countries. The United States has long worried about its ability to help our allies obtain these resources. One proposed way has been to pass the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Read on to learn about the underlying energy crisis, and the arguments for and against this legislation.

Background of the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

As the Ukrainian crisis continues to wage on, the question of oil dependence has emerged as a relevant and pressing issue that could impact geopolitical events. Currently, Russia provides one third of Western Europe’s natural gas, and an even higher percentage of Eastern Europe’s, leaving countries such as Ukraine locked under the power of Russian oil prices. As oil and gas prices rise as a result of political tensions in the region, these countries will look to import their natural gas from other sources, hoping that wider options in the market will drive prices down for their manufacturing and private sectors.

Meanwhile, the United States currently has large reserves of natural gas that amount to more than enough for domestic consumption for the foreseeable future. The natural assumption here would be to export US natural gas to these countries seeking independence from Russian energy. However, in order to export natural gas, it must be processed and liquefied at cryogenic temperatures, creating a liquid that can be shipped. The application process for creating export facilities that create Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which must pass through both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is convoluted and delayed; only seven applications have been approved since 2011, with 24 applications still pending.

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and through the House in full, would remove these restrictions by federal agencies and expedite the process for approving applications for the construction of LNG export facilities. However, fierce opposition has risen against this bill. Opponents argue that the bill will inadvertently raise domestic oil and gas prices while providing funding to energy production methods that wreak havoc on natural environments.

What’s the argument for the legislation?

The goal of the act is clear: provide Ukraine with American natural gas, thus breaking their dependence on Russia for energy and balancing the scale of global power in region. Until former satellite nations are able to break their dependence on Russian energy, many argue, Russia will be able to economically, and therefore politically, control these countries. The U.S. State Department recently announced, “The United States is taking immediate steps to assist Ukraine, including the provision of emergency finance and technical assistance in the areas of energy security, energy efficiency, and energy sector reform.” This, in short, is an announcement that US natural gas reserves will be shipped to Ukraine in order to regulate the balance of power that has tipped in that region.

Exporting US natural gas to these areas would, advocates argue, create a number of benefits for the United States and its citizens, in addition to benefits for Ukraine. The act would make the US the world’s top producer of natural gas, thus reinstating America’s dominance in energy production and improving its trade deficit. Shipping natural gas overseas requires the construction and operation of natural gas liquefaction installations, which could create roughly 450,000 jobs by 2025. The main impediment to the export of natural gas, which the bill addresses, is the application process for constructing these new facilities. Both the DOE and FERC have to sign off on any natural gas liquefaction projects, where environmental factors, the LNG buyers’ Free Trade Agreement status, public interest, and a number of other factors must be taken into account. During the FERC phase of the approval, over 20 government agencies become involved in the review process, creating a bottleneck effect in the long line of applications. Advocates argue that this act, designed to expedite this review process and enable LNG buyers to begin exporting American natural gas, will strengthen both America’s economy and the economy of nations such as Ukraine that are heavily dependent on Russian energy.

What’s the argument against the legislation?

Opponents, however, argue that the infrastructure required to ship gas to Ukraine has not yet been built, making it years before any gas would actually reach Ukraine (which, coincidentally, does not have any LNG import facilities, as it gets almost all of its natural gas via pipeline from Russia). Approving applications now to construct LNG export facilities, opponents state, is a long-term solution to an immediate problem. Many believe that exporting natural gas reserves would also negatively impact the US economy in a number of ways, creating more economic problems than the current geopolitical situation is worth. Some experts believe exporting America’s natural gas reserves will increase domestic gas prices, which have been kept low, internationally speaking, by its abundant reserves. Exporting natural gas and creating scarcity would drive up domestic oil and gas prices, hurting commercial interests and everyday consumers. This would also stifle what many refer to as the “American manufacturing renaissance” that has been occurring as a direct result of these gas reserves.

The great quantity of easily accessible natural gas has drawn energy-intensive companies to the U.S. to invest in manufacturing facilities across the country. Recently 97 energy-intensive chemical manufacturing companies invested roughly $72 billion in the U.S., spurring job growth and economic strength. Opponents argue that it is this type of economic growth that America must seek, instead of distant, fleeting profits from the sale of our natural gas. Were America’s natural gas to be exported, rising energy prices and a growing scarcity of domestic energy would smother the manufacturing renaissance and would place economic growth in the unstable hands of the oil and gas industry, instead of the diversified and profitable chemical manufacturing industry.

Lastly, opponents have been joined by environmental advocates who have voiced their concern over the environmental impacts of increased drilling and exportation of American natural gas. If the demand for natural gas export increases, opponents argue, then the demand for natural gas would also increase, which would lead to expanded drilling projects using controversial methods such as fracking to extract more natural gas. The construction of LNG export facilities and expanded drilling projects would also place more wildlife areas at risk that environmentalists have struggled to protect. The pressure for more natural gas recovery would also lead to increased carbon emissions and higher risks of spills and accidents that could dramatically damage an ecological area. Instead, many economic experts argue that the US should export drilling technology and raw materials to countries such as Ukraine to enable them to produce their own natural gas and free themselves from the bonds of Russian energy. In this way, the US could immediately profit from international trade and provide economic aid to its ally, the Ukraine.

Conclusion

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act passed the House this summer, and now is waiting in the Senate. While the bill is subject to much debate, it does begin to deal with the question of how nonrenewable resources are transferred internationally, and the political implications that accompany such transfers.

Resources

Primary

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee: Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Additional

Fuel Fix: U.S. LNG Exports Could Ensure European Energy Security

Energy Collective: Exporting U.S. LNG to Prized Non-FTA Countries: Bottlenecks in the Approval Process

Oregon Catalyst: Walden Presses Obama to Stop Natural Gas Export Delays

Roll Call: LNG Exports: An Opportunity For America

Deseret News: Liquid Natural Gas Exports Threaten U.S. Jobs

The New York Times: Foreseeable Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas

Sierra Club: Stop LNG Exports

Reuters: The Case Against Natural Gas Exports

Greeley Tribune: Colorado’s Delegation Pushes to Fast-Track LNG Exports to Non Free-Trade Countries

Lexology: Congress Turns Its Attention to LNG Exports

The New York Times: U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

Hill: DOE Approves Natural Gas Export Terminal

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Politicization of Natural Gas Exports appeared first on Law Street.

As a world, we’re constantly on the lookout for new ways to obtain our non-renewable resources. Some of the new areas that have been discussed as possible drilling areas include the Arctic and Antarctic. Read on to learn about what drilling in those regions would mean, and the arguments for and the against expanding drilling to the Arctic and Antarctic.

Why would we want to drill in the Arctic and Antarctic?

The Earth’s poles, comprised of the Arctic at its northern pole and the Antarctic in the south, are held in a precarious geopolitical and environmental situation as melting ice at the fringes of the poles reveals reservoirs of valuable resources that are easier to extract than ever before. In September 2012, it was found that arctic ice levels were at their lowest on record, dating back to 1979. Aside from a myriad of environmental effects, these lower ice levels have also revealed the treasures they have held for millions of years: vital natural resources, and plenty of them.

Some have estimated that the Arctic holds roughly 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil, while others have quantified the amount at around 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In addition to natural gas and oil, the Arctic and Antarctic contain large deposits of coal, lead, iron, chromium, copper, gold, nickel, platinum, uranium, and silver, which become increasingly valuable in an industrialized world. Figures such as these have many eager to begin extracting these materials for market, but they are held in restraint by grave environmental concerns over the economic and environmental future of the Arctic and Antarctic, and by international organizations that attempt to balance these concerns with the global need for fuel.

The Arctic is governed by the Arctic Council, a collection of eight countries whose international borders lie directly within the Arctic Circle. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has no territorial claims and is therefore governed by an international council of countries that conduct scientific experiments on the continent and who have a vested interests in its security and/or resources. As these resources grow steadily within our grasp during a time of economic stagnation, these groups must decide whether to make the Arctic and Antarctic off limits to resource exploration and exploitation, or to begin devising plans for environmentally sound exploitation of these regions.

Resource extraction in the Arctic has occurred since the 1970s, with both the US and Russia successfully drilling for oil north of the Arctic Circle. Since then, technological innovation has made oil drilling more profitable and environmentally sound than it has been in the past, which has advocates calling for an expansion of drilling projects currently occurring in the Arctic. Resource extraction, many argue, is currently ideal due a number of factors.

1. The melting pack ice surrounding both the Arctic and Antarctic is gradually melting, making it easier to reach natural resources with less environmental impact.
2. While the Arctic has territorial claims on its southern fringes, the majority of the Arctic and the entirety of the Antarctic have no political ownership and have no indigenous populations to stand in the way of these natural resources. Extraction would not displace or steal land away from any native population, and no one country or group of countries can monopolize the reserves of carbon-based and mineral resources there, making the polar regions a vital economic opportunity for all nations. Drilling has been taking place in Russia, Norway, and parts of Greenland and Canada with few negative environmental repercussions while providing these countries with vital natural resources, and advocates argue that as technology progresses, the positive potential for resource exploitation in the Arctic only increases. Oil drilling efforts have, in fact, brought economic prosperity to several northern towns and cities that would otherwise have been remote, forgotten villages on the political as well as geographical fringes of their respective countries. During the current economic recession, advocates argue, an influx of natural resources and raw materials would help to kick start manufacturing and consumption that would benefit the economy on a global scale.
3. As climate change progresses, it will be come even easier and more cost effective to access these areas to drill.

What’s the argument against drilling in the Arctic and the Antarctic?

Opponents, led by environmental groups, argue that resource extraction in the Arctic and Antarctic will only exacerbate the current rate of global warming, strengthen our addiction to fossil fuels, and risk destroying one of the last untouched wildernesses on Earth. While melting pack ice on the fringes of the Arctic and Antarctic helps to uncover these stored resources, opponents of oil drilling and resource extraction point out that the reason why the pack ice is melting in the first place is because of global warming due to irreversible exploitation of resources and the burning of fossil fuels.

The “opportunity” that tantalizes advocates of exploitation, opponents argue, is merely an unfortunate side effect of that same opportunity. Achim Steiner, the United Nations Environmental Program’s Executive Director, said, “What we are seeing is that the melting of the ice is prompting a rush for exactly the fossil fuel resources that caused the melt in the first place.” The polar caps of the Earth are, in fact, a vast wilderness teeming with biodiversity and an area yet to be fully understood by scientists and naturalists. Because of its remote location and harsh environment, it has remained largely unchanged throughout the course of human industrialization. As technological innovation provides greater access to these regions and makes the exploitation of its resources easier, environmentalists are worried that the relentless search for energy will permanently ruin one of the last pristine wild areas on the planet.

Allowing resources such as oil, natural gas, and minerals to be extracted from the Arctic and Antarctic increases the risk of oil spills, Arctic pollution, and the destruction of natural habitats. While the Arctic and Antarctic may contain vast reservoirs of fossil fuels and natural resources and the combination of current technology and melting pack ice is making these resources easier to reach, many are fighting to keep the Arctic and the Antarctic the way they are: untouched by man.

Case Study: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was established in 1960 for the purpose of preserving a 19.6 million acre area of wilderness and the accompanying wildlife in northeastern Alaska bordering northern coastline. ANWR, operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, is home to a variety of ecosystems as well as a variety of wildlife such as caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, and muskoxen. The rest of Alaska’s northern coast, including Prudhoe Bay and much of the North Slope, have been opened to oil exploration and drilling, has delivered billions of barrels of oil to American markets since the 1970s. Since its formation there has been debate on whether to allow oil exploration and drilling to take place in ANWR. It is well known that Alaska sits on large oil reserves.

Advocates claim that oil drilling in ANWR would benefit the American economy with minimal environmental impact. Through land leasing, bids, and taxation the oil in Alaska’s wilderness is estimated to add billions of dollars in revenue to state and federal treasuries. The oil found here would be an alternative to costly imported oil, and the extraction of oil in ANWR is also estimated to create 250-735 thousand new jobs, further stimulating the economy. Advocates of drilling also argue that the environmental impact of oil exploration and drilling would be minimal, citing advanced drilling technology and the fact that only eight percent of the wildlife refuge would be used for exploration and drilling. Additionally, supporters cite polls that show a majority of Alaskan citizens favor drilling for oil in the refuge. Proponents of oil drilling say that the economic benefits would far outweigh the minimal environmental impact in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Opponents argue that the proposed economic benefits of oil drilling in the Arctic are minimal, and that the drilling severely harms local ecosystems and species. Given that oil prices are based upon world supply and are largely dictated by OPEC, drilling at ANWR would have little impact on oil prices for everyday consumers. This oil reserve would only account for one to four percent of daily consumption in the U.S., and if approved the oil would not reach markets for another ten years due to the exploration, construction, and production involved in creating a new oil field. Opponents cite a report written by the Environmental Information Agency claiming that at peak production in 2030 ANWR oil would only reduce foreign oil imports by three percent. Opponents of drilling also questions oil companies’ desire to find oil in ANWR when it was reported in 2010 by the Bureau of Land Management that oil companies were developing less than 30 percent of the federal land they had already leased or owned for the purpose of oil drilling. Citing these figures, opponents argue that access to oil inside ANWR would have little economic benefit to the United States.

Opponents also dispute the drilling advocates’ claim that the environmental impact of drilling would be much greater than proponents estimate. They disagree on the claim that exploration and drilling would use only eight percent of ANWR land. The oil in this area is scattered in several small pockets instead of one large reservoir, requiring much more land to explore and access these oil reserves. These lands would include birthing areas, migratory routes, and natural habitats of numerous wild species and a variety of ecosystems. Many opponents accept that advanced technology reduces the risk of oil spills and other disasters, but they argue that even the presence of heavy machinery and human interference will have adverse effects on these ecosystems and on the flora and fauna that live there. Environmentalists are also worried that allowing oil drilling in ANWR would open the floodgates to more corporate control over federally protected wildlife areas, thus nullifying the point of creating national parks and wildlife refuges in the first place.

Conclusion

It’s clear that there’s pressure to find new and reliable sources of natural gas and oil, but many opponents pose the important question: at what cost? There are both incentives and huge downsides to drilling the Arctic and Antarctic poles. As the options for where to get non-renewable resources continue to narrow, it’s an important debate to keep an eye on.

 Resources

Primary 

Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty: The Antarctic Treaty

Additional

Moscow Times: Russia Pushes For Further Arctic Exploitation

CNN: It’s Time to Develop Our Arctic Resources

Earth Sky: Robert Blaauw on Oil Exploration and Development in the Arctic

Arctic: Towards An Agenda For Arctic Sustainable Development

Minnesota Daily: ANWR Drilling Benefits Americans

Committee on Natural Resources: ANWR: Producing American Energy and Creating American Jobs

CNSnews.com: ANWR Drilling Would Ease Energy Crisis, Create Economic Boon, Supporters Say

Cool Antarctica: Human Impacts on Antarctica and Threats to the Environment– Mining and Oil

Climate Science Watch: U.S. Arctic Strategy Aims to Exploit Oil and Gas For ‘National Security’

Reuters: Arctic Needs Protection From Resource Rush as Ice Melts

Grid Arendal: The Arctic–A New Victim of Global Development?

National Wildlife Refuge Association: Protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Record: Oil is the New Gold in Arctic ‘Cold Rush’

Globe and Mail: The North’s Resource Boom: Is it Prosperity or Exploitation?

SciDev: Developing Nations Seek a Share of Antarctica’s Spoils

CBN News: The ANWR Debate: To Drill or Not to Drill

National Geographic: Arctic Oil Drilling Debate Escalates

Heritage Foundation: Opening ANWR: Long Overdue

Alaska Dispatch News: Drilling ANWR is Not the Answer to U.S. Energy Challenges

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debating Resource Exploitation in the Arctic and Antarctic appeared first on Law Street.

My house rumbles and shakes as the cargo trains thunder down the rail that is less that 500 yards away. Although the necessity of turning up the volume on my TV is not much more than a nuisance, the fact that I sleep within the blast zone of a highly combustible material being transported in an inept and accident-prone manner is highly unnerving. Despite the speed of aircraft or the capacity of cargo ships, railroads remain the most efficient medium for transporting goods. That does not mean, though, that they are a flawless medium. In fact, when dealing with the transportation of crude oil, they and the system on which they operate are horrifically flawed.

Fracking in North Dakota yields a crude oil that is shipped in trains across the country and down the Hudson River. In the New York portion, the rail runs literally right along the river’s edge. The particular form of crude coming from these fields can turn into an explosive fire should the trains derail, giving this transportation system the name “bomb trains”. The American Petroleum Institute disputes this claim, though. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is being transported in outdated cars, called DOT-111s, which have thin hulls and are prone to puncture. In the last several years, oil train derailments have spilled millions of gallons and resulted in deaths, notably in Quebec last year.

Apparently the Transportation Department has been looking into the DOT-111 situation for several years now, but a surge in oil production in the North Dakota Bakken shale region has resulted in an immediate demand for large scale transport. There are not enough pipelines to accommodate this volume, so it is being sent along in trains, dubbed a “virtual pipeline.” Furthermore, the existing oil trains were not originally intended to move this type of oil at this level of intensity, thus the dangers. While safer designs are in the proposal stage, many of the existing cars are too old to be retrofitted with the new features and would have to be replaced all together. This is problematic, Jad Mouawad of The New York Times points out, because the transition period would mean that there are fewer cars on the rails and the oil demands would be difficult to meet.

Also sorely lacking is an emergency response plan. Should a disaster occur, sufficient measures are not currently in place either to mitigate the consequences of a spill or to effectively address the human welfare. Not only would lives be endangered, but a spill would gravely threaten the drinkability of the water for both locals and the eight million residents of New York City, as well as the wellbeing of the river’s biodiversity. In a flash, a spill could undo everything that the Hudson conservation organization Riverkeeper has spent the last half century trying to accomplish.

A bird struggles amidst an oil spill near Crimea, courtesy of Marine Photobank/Igor Golubenkov via Flickr

The lack of safety precautions is not the fault of emergency workers, but the Transportation Authority and oil industries themselves. The latter needs to be more open as to when trains are running through what areas, and what is the nature of their cargo. Last month, Orange County, New York joined neighbors Rockland and Ulster in calling for a full environmental review of the potential impacts of the increased oil shipments, a ban on DOT-111s, and an exploration of alternative means of transporting the oil. Embodying the philosophies of Riverkeeper, these actions criticize the secretive nature of the oil industry and demand the release of data to the public. By empowering the people with information, appropriate measures can be taken.

One town in North Jersey took things a step further, staging a protest and calling for a moratorium on the oil trains until safety standards are met. As previously mentioned, the trains run through my own hometown and neighboring ones in Bergen County, New Jersey pass through a very built up and densely populated region; a disaster in this area would be catastrophic and unquestionably deadly.

One must be cautious when performing a review of potential environmental impacts, as the method can be manipulated so as to be favorable to one party over another. The mayor of Albany recently accused the Department of Environmental Conservation of segmentation, an illegal action under the Environmental Quality Review Act. This process enables the review of a project in individual groups, not as an overall whole. In so doing, environmental impacts can be overlooked or miscast. This has allowed oil companies to enlarge or change their transportation permits time and again without raising any red flags. Ecosystems are large and complex; an issue in one arena will affect, often in an unforeseen manner, aspects of another. Further, humans are tightly intertwined with their surrounding environments. The issue must be looked at in its entirety in order to properly assess the dynamics of the dangers and their potential consequences.

The interrelatedness of people, policy, and environment with regard to this issue extends widely. The overemphasis on oil shipments is creating a backlog in other industries. Millions of dollars are lost and countless jobs are endangered as North Dakota farmers, the longtime mainstay of the economy there, are unable to ship their grain products across the country. A cascade effect follows; food companies are pressured to put out their products in light of delayed shipments, occasionally resulting in lower supply and higher prices. Exportation economics suffer as well, as these rails send grains to the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Asia, and down the very same routes in New York State to be sent to Europe. In the long run, grain will be a more reliable product than oil. Companies are too short sighted and capitalize on the spike, with wide ranging and ever worsening consequences.

While the increased production, transportation, and use of oil is frustrating enough for those who would rather see progress in the field of renewable energy, the fact that it is compounded by a massive threat to local ecosystems and human welfare is outrageous and unacceptable. This issue is more than a concern over energy policy; it is making the use of fossil fuels an environmental and human threat in manners that go beyond emissions and pollution. The dangers must be effectively addressed, and soon.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Black Death: Oil Trains and Insufficient Safety Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

The global community is quickly working its way through the natural resources available to us. As we seek new ways to access oil and gas, one of the newest possible frontiers is the American Atlantic Coast. The U.S. has toyed with using a supposedly minimally invasive tactic to test for oil and gas deep in the Atlantic Ocean called airgun testing. Read on to find out what airgun testing is, what affect it has on the environment, and what its prospects are moving forward.

What is Airgun Testing?

Airgun testing is essentially a way to test for oil and gas reserves. The seismic airguns attach onto ships, and then blast loud, strong bursts of air onto the ocean floor. How the air responds can tell the airgun operator whether or not there may be oil or gas reserves below the surface. Watch the video below for a simple, technical explanation of how airgun testing works.

The History of Airgun Testing in the United States

On February 27, an Environmental Impact Statement was released by the Interior Department that allows the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to begin issuing permits for seismic testing off the Atlantic Coast for oil and gas exploration. Although the ocean floor was tested for oil reserves in the 1970s and 80s, many experts feel those reports used outdated technology and gave an inaccurate representation of the oil and gas deposits in the Atlantic.

Some experts say that oil reserves could be found off the Atlantic coast that would be similar to those known to be in the Gulf of Mexico and could dramatically boost the American economy. Environmental groups, however, strongly oppose oil exploration using this method, as it is known to kill small fish and eggs in close vicinity to the air blasts. The long-term effects on the behavior of larger aquatic animals such as dolphins and whales is unknown. The proposed area for seismic exploration spans several miles off the coast and stretches from Delaware to Florida, and though the area in question is banned from any oil exploration activity until 2017, the next president could overturn that rule.

What are the arguments in favor of airgun testing?

Advocates of oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast using airgun seismic testing argue that the permits issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) place restrictions that will make airgun testing safe for marine wildlife. The Environmental Impact Statement recommends three restrictions to ensure that these tests are conducted in a safe, environmentally conscious manner:

1. Prohibit survey activity on the migratory routes of the endangered Right Whale. A path roughly 20 miles wide would be created in the middle of the proposed area in which exploration could not be conducted from November through April — the whale migration season — creating a safe corridor for the whales.
2. Prohibit more than one survey from being conducted at any given time.
3. Prior to any survey activity, exploration vehicles would be required to use passive acoustic monitoring systems to identify wildlife in the exploration area; if any wildlife are found that would be affected by the airgun, the survey area for that day would be shifted to a different location.

Advocates feel that these provisions, written into any permits issued by the BOEM, would safeguard against potential negative effects of airgun testing.

Advocates also point to the economic benefits of updated oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast. Some experts claim that the Atlantic coast could hold the equivalent of seven years of oil generated in the Gulf of Mexico, enough to boost the American economy and strengthen the United States’ energy security. The American Petroleum Institute has estimated that the oil to be found there could generate nearly 280,000 jobs, $195 billion in private revenue, and $51 billion in government revenue.These estimates, of course, are dependent upon the discovery of more oil than the current 3.3 billion barrels estimated to be there. Additionally, supporters argue that airgun testing can also be used for tasks such as discovering sand deposits for beach recovery and as scouting for possible locations of off-shore wind turbines.

What are the Arguments Against Airgun Testing?

Opponents argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has been too hasty in its approval for permits without proper studies of the long-term effects of airgun testing on marine wildlife. It is known that the high pressure airgun blasts can injure or kill small fish and their eggs, but little is known about the long-term effects on marine animals such as behavioral disruption, migration, and mating patterns. The area up for seismic testing puts 34 species of whales and dolphins and several species of turtles at risk. Because sound travels faster in water, aquatic wildlife miles away from the seismic testing could be affected, although the effects of airgun testing are still being studied. Environmental group Oceana argues that the November through April ban on seismic testing will not save the whales and that the BOEM did little to use current acoustic data on whale activity or search for alternatives methods to airgun testing.

Airgun testing in the Atlantic has also sparked backlash because it could potentially harm tourism and fishing industries in coastal areas, in addition to the negative effects of offshore oil production that are sure to result from oil exploration. Opponents point to the results of airgun testing off the coast of Southwestern Africa, which severely disrupted tuna migration patterns, and thus damaged the tuna industry that normally thrives in that area.

Some experts argue that while 280,000 jobs in oil exploration and production could be created, some 730,000 jobs in the fishing and tourism industries would be lost if oil exploration were to disrupt aquatic wildlife. Additionally, opponents argue that oil exploration will inevitably progress to oil production, which could have disastrous effects upon the Atlantic coast. The effects are still felt today of the 2006 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill near Alaska in 1989. The same type of oil spill could potentially occur off the Atlantic coast if drilling were permitted there, which runs the risk of affecting a greater population than either of the previous spills. Oil drilling itself could pose a myriad of negative effects upon marine wildlife, and airgun testing could be blamed for paving the way to large-scale offshore oil drilling near the Atlantic coast.

 Resources

Primary

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: Atlantic Geological and Geophysical Activities Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Additional

Bloomberg: Review Clears Path For Seismic Tests of U.S. Atlantic Oil

International Business Times: Obama Administration Releases Environmental Study to Set Rules For Oil and Gas Exploration in Atlantic Ocean

Examiner: Use of Air Guns Being Considered For U.S. Oil and Gas Exploration

Greenville Online: Rules Set For Oil Testing in Atlantic Ocean

Star News Online: McCrory Adds Voice to Coastal Governors Who Want Offshore Drilling

Climate Progress: ‘Airgun’ Drilling in the Atlantic Wouldn’t Find Much Oil, But Could Harm Wildlife

National Geographic: Atlantic Seismic Tests For Oil: Marine Animals At Risk?

EcoWatch: U.S. to Allow Seismic Airgun Testing For Offshore Drilling Exploration, Will Threaten Marine Life

Oceana: Seismic Airguns: An Ocean Threat

The New York Times: U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life

McClatchy DC: Interior Department Favors Controversial Seismic Tests For Atlantic Ocean Oil

Tech Times: Atlantic Oil Drilling Using Seismic Airgun May Wipe Out Endangered Right Whales

Washington Post: U.S. Rules Would Allow ‘Seismic Air Guns’ in Search For Offshore Oil, Gas

TIME: To Drill or Not to Drill: The Debate Over Offshore Testing and Drilling in the Atlantic

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airgun Testing For Oil Reserves is a Controversial Environmental Issue appeared first on Law Street.

If a red state known for its oil can spearhead a massive campaign in support of the installation of wind farms and restructure its economy to correspond, then there is no reason why the rest of the country cannot follow suit.

Texas is now the place to be when it comes to turbines and renewable clean energy. Bruce Selcraig explained in a Sierra Club article that politicians, including then-governor George W. Bush, deregulated the electricity industry in Texas in 1999. It was not so much motivated by environmental altruism, but by the nature of the business industry there. Investors are usually willing to make substantial investments so long as there is a reasonable expectation of profit. This is telling, though — clearly there are economic incentives to pursue renewable energy campaigns. If the government of Texas embraces and benefits from these changes, imagine the results on a national level.

Monetary returns provide the driving incentive for the wind industry in Texas on all fronts. In addition to the business-motivated profits, many private landowners are amenable to the installation of turbines on their land because of the promise of royalties. Further, corporate tax incentives and federal support have assisted substantially in wind’s ability to carve out a foothold. As long as it is fiscally advisable, it would seem that the wind will blow strong in Texas.

Harnessable Wind Energy in the US, courtesy of US Department of Energy via Wikipedia

There is a danger, though, in leaning too heavily on financial motivations for clean energy, while completely neglecting the environmental angle. In recent years, fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a reawakening of big oil and gas, especially in Texas. These industries, Selcraig points out, have historically received several billion dollars in annual support from the federal government, while wind has received less then one tenth of that amount. This disparity could widen with the recent increased attention on black gold.

Business savvy investors should understand, however, that in the long-run these non renewable sources of energy are not viable solutions. Despite the surge induced by fracking, wind energy has also been experiencing technological improvements that heighten its efficiency and viability. In 1991, the US Department of Energy speculated that North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone had enough wind potential to meet the country’s electricity needs. Since then, there have been many improvements to the technology. These include simple changes, such as making the shafts of turbines longer so that they reach heights where winds are stronger and steadier.

As a result of this and other changes, that same assessment now concludes that the wind capacities of those three states could satisfy the country’s energy needs. This is a bold statement, but if anything it demonstrates that wind is a more reliable and efficient energy source than most think. In addition, the technology continues to have room for growth and improvement, while non-renewable sources can only yield so much.

Large Global Wind Cells, courtesy of Wikipedia

With regard to renewable energy, the relationships between customers and utility companies vary. Thanks to the installation of new high-capacity electricity lines, a Texas panhandle wind project is on the rise. However, as New York Times journalist Matthew L. Wald illuminates, some residents are concerned that they are compelled to assume the financial risk; customers are seeing an increased monthly bill to pay for the new lines. Wald continues, however, that the efficiency wrought by the new lines will cut electricity costs by more than the increase. This dynamic ought to be conducive to encouraging more people to come on board, as it offers tangible returns.

Where in this debate are the voices of the people? The fate of the energy sector and the health of the planet ought not to be decided solely by corporations. As people become more aware of the dangers we face, and more able to voice their opinions on what to do about them, citizens will project ever increasing influence on the policy-making process. We still have a long way to go, as there are still many “climate denialists” and individuals with too jaded a nature to feel compelled to act. Some changes simply require small lifestyle adjustments. Others require dedication and major overhauls of the status quo. But the status quo is shifting, and the means of its shift continue to fall into our own hands. We must be cautious and proactive with this great responsibility. As Al Gore wrote in a Rolling Stone article,

The progressive introduction of Internet-based communication — social media, blogs, digital journalism — is laying the foundation for the renewal of individual participation in democracy, and the re-elevation of reason over wealth and power as the basis for collective decision making.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chuck Coker via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Winds of Change: Renewable Energy Booming in Texas appeared first on Law Street.