Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Oil and gas in our lives: Women’s World Cup of Soccer

Published

4 minute read

Players react moments after Australia’s forward #16 Hayley Raso (unseen) scored her team’s second goal during the Australia and New Zealand 2023 Women’s World Cup Group B football match between Canada and Australia at Melbourne Rectangular Stadium on July 31, 2023. Getty Images photo

This article from Shawn Logan of the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.  

‘The beautiful game’ wouldn’t look the same without petroleum products

The Adidas OCEAUNZ, official ball of the 2023 Women’s World Cup of Soccer, soars through the air, its polyurethane skin a blur as it arcs toward the goal. 

The goalie makes a desperate dive across the emerald green natural turf – strengthened at the root for durability by flexible polypropylene fibres – to make the stop. 

The ‘keeper’s hands, sheathed in high-tech gloves made primarily from latex and polyurethane, reach for the streaking ball. 

The crowd leaps up from their moulded plastic seats as the ball hits the back of the net, an interlacing spiderweb most commonly made from polyethylene or nylon. 

As soccer fans prepare for the Women’s World Cup final in Australia and New Zealand, it’s difficult to imagine how different the event, which is expected to be viewed by a staggering 2 billon people around the world, would look and feel without products derived from oil and gas. 

At field level, nearly every practical aspect of the game relies on or is impacted by petroleum-based gear. 

From the synthetic leather turf cleats and polyester jerseys to the players’ benches, water bottles and medical equipment that adorn the sidelines, all are made possible from the contributions of oil and gas products. 

When a referee flashes a yellow or red card, it’s often made from a sturdy polyvinyl chloride, more commonly known as PVC. 

Extending beyond the field, that trend continues. 

From plastic spectator seating to polycarbonate scoreboards to advertising placards in and around the arena, all are thanks to the contributions of oil and gas. The event lights that encircle the arenas and the broadcasting equipment that allow the world to cheer their countries also rely heavily on products derived from petroleum. 

Even the competing nations’ flags that drape the facilities are made from nylon and polyester. 

With an expected 1.5 million spectators taking in the action in Australia and New Zealand, most will have had to travel by air or vehicle, which largely require oil and gas to operate. 

And when Canada’s women return home – unfortunately without the result they wanted (Tokyo’s Olympic gold medal helps to ease the pain a bit) – they’ll arrive on an airplane built with light-weight polymers and carbon fibre that will touch down on a smooth runway made of asphalt and concrete, neither of which would be possible without oil and gas. 

So while some may yearn for a return to the days of less aerodynamic leather balls, heavy cotton jerseys and fragile natural turf, the impact on “the beautiful game” would be enormous. 

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Straits of Mackinac Tunnel for Line 5 Pipeline to get “accelerated review”: US Army Corps of Engineers

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Army Corps of Engineers on Tuesday announced an accelerated review of a Michigan pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac following President Donald Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” on day one of his second term.

Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline is among 600 projects to receive an emergency designation following Trump’s January executive order declaring a national energy emergency and expediting reviews of pending energy projects. The action instructed the Army Corps to use emergency authority under the Clean Water Act to speed up pipeline construction.

“An energy supply situation which would result in an unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship,” if not acted upon quickly, the public notice reads.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order as (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum look on in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order as (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum look on in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure,” Calgary-based Enbridge wrote to the DCNF. The company noted that it submitted its permit applications to state and federal regulators five years ago and described the project as “designed to make a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region.”

Army Corps’ Detroit District did not respond to the DCNF’s request for a copy of the notice or for comment.

The pipeline has been active since 1953 and extends for 645 miles across the state of Michigan, according to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy website. Line 5 supplies 65% of the propane needs in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 55% of the state’s overall propane demand, according to Enbridge.

Environmental organizations, Native American tribes and Democratic leadership have opposed the project due to concern regarding the risk of an oil spill in the Great Lakes. Enbridge and the Army Corps argue that the tunnel is a necessary addition to the long-standing pipeline. (RELATED: ‘Taking Away Local Control’: Whitmer Signs Massive Green Energy Mandate Into Law)

The project has faced legal trouble and permitting delays that have hindered its expansion. Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2019 used a legal opinion by Attorney General Dana Nessel to argue that the law that created the authority to approve the project “because its provisions go beyond the scope of what was disclosed in its title.”

The State of Michigan greenlit the project in 2021 and the Michigan Public Service Commission approved placing the new pipeline segment in 2023.

Trump has championed an American energy production revival, stating throughout his 2024 campaign that he wanted to “drill, baby, drill,” in reference to oil drilling on U.S. soil.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Executive Orders ensure ‘Beautiful Clean’ Affordable Coal will continue to bolster US energy grid

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By

 

President Trump signed several executive orders Tuesday that will allow coal-fired power plants to stay online past planned retirement dates, identify coal resources on federal lands, and bolster the reliability of the electric grid. The orders may help the U.S. face an uncomfortable truth: wind turbines and solar panels can’t cost-effectively meet the U.S.’ growing electricity needs.

Coal provides an important source of the reliable and fuel-secure energy needed to keep the lights on. Our organization’s research shows that it is more affordable than wind and solar, too.

Mr. Trump’s executive orders will allow coal operators the flexibility to delay the premature closures caused in part by President Biden’s policies. May 2024 rule from the Biden Environmental Protection Agency would have forced coal plants to spend billions on unproven technology to capture 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions. If coal plants failed to comply by 2035, they would be forced to shutter by 2039. The Trump EPA has since announced it will reconsider this rule, but the process could take years.

Coal should be allowed to help keep the lights on, especially because U.S. electricity demand is rising. The North American Electric Reliability Council’s 2024 long-term reliability assessment warns that “resource additions are not keeping up with generator retirements and demand growth” in most regions of the U.S. Coal produced 16% of the U.S.’ electricity in 2023, and coal, natural gas and petroleum together produced 60%. Nuclear comprised another 18%. It is folly to believe that the U.S. can meet its growing power demands while kneecapping a significant source of its baseload power.

Not only is reliable baseload power a must for the grid, but electricity generated by coal is less expensive than intermittent resources like wind and solar. It’s easy to understand why: the cheapest source of electricity is from plants that have already been built. Most of the U.S.’ coal fleet is like houses where the mortgages have been paid off. With no loans or interest left to repay, operating costs for existing coal plants typically consist of property taxes, insurance, labor, maintenance, and fuel.

Our organization models the full costs of building enough wind, solar, and battery storage to replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants. Powering a grid on wind, solar, and batteries is more expensive than coal because connecting wind turbines and solar panels to the grid entails system-wide costs like constructing new transmission lines. The intermittency of wind and solar means you need more power plant capacity to generate the same amount of power. More power plant infrastructure means more property taxes. More weather-dependent resources means more costs to managing the grid, like turning off wind turbines and solar panels when they are producing too much electricity for the grid to absorb — or conversely, ramping up natural gas generation on cloudy and still days when wind and solar aren’t producing.

Our research incorporates system-wide costs and shows that a realistic midpoint estimate for wind turbines is $72 per MWh. Electricity from new solar can range between $50 per MWh to $85 per MWh. Data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shows that the average coal plant generated electricity for only $34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2020 (the last year of available data). It could be even less expensive for coal plants to generate electricity if states and utilities allowed coal plants to operate more often. In 2024, the coal fleet generated electricity only about 43% of the time. If that approached 80%, costs could go as low as $29.

Keeping America’s “beautiful, clean coal” plants online is the right thing for the country and it is good news for consumers that the U.S. has recognized the electric grid’s reliability hole and decided to stop digging.

Isaac Orr is vice president of research, and Mitch Rolling is the director of research at Always On Energy Research, a nonprofit energy modeling firm.

Continue Reading

Trending

X