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.

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.

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.