FACT CHECK: Does the Dakota Access Pipeline need to be shut down during additional environmental review?

The University of Pittsburgh’s Pitt News published an opinion column calling for the Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172 mile crude oil pipeline that runs from North Dakota to Illinois, to be shut down as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducts an additional environmental impact statement (EIS) on the pipeline as ordered by a federal judge last week. The column reads:

Until a more in-depth environmental statement is complete, we will not know the full scope of the pipeline’s risks. It’s possible that the USACE was accurate in its findings, but it’s also possible that the tribe’s concerns are valid.

FACT CHECK: Should DAPL Optimization be put on hold?

CLAIM: The Chicago Tribune recently highlighted environmental activists continued opposition to the proposed optimization of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The project – which has been approved by regulators in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa – is awaiting a decision from the Illinois Commerce Commission after hearings took place in early March. On March 25, a federal judge ruled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must conduct additional environmental review of the pipeline despite nearly three years of safe operation. The Tribune reported:

Citing the judge’s ruling, as well as possible ramifications of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic on domestic and

FACT CHECK: Does the Dakota Access Pipeline Really Need A Further Review?

CLAIM: The Hill reports on a federal judge’s ruling that the Army Corps of Engineers must once again review environmental impacts of the Dakota Access Pipeline:

The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline hit another roadblock Wednesday when a federal judge struck down permits for the pipeline and ordered a full workup of the environmental impacts of the project. … Judge James Boasberg said the environmental analysis by both the companies behind the pipeline and the Corps were severely lacking.

“In projects of this scope, it is not difficult for an opponent to find fault with many conclusions made by an

FACT CHECK: Are The Keystone XL Pipeline Protests Protecting The Environment?

CLAIM: The New Yorker claims that protests against the Keystone XL pipeline have been successful in protecting the environment:

The Keystone fight was successful in stopping that pipeline, at least so far. … The delay has been very useful: it has meant eight hundred thousand barrels a day of the dirtiest oil on earth not flowing down through Nebraska.




Refusing to build the Keystone XL pipeline will do absolutely nothing to protect the environment or reduce the demand for oil. In fact, it will make transporting the oil that is taken from the ground more …

FACT CHECK: Is proposed LNG terminal threat to bird species?

CLAIM: The Houston Chronicle today reported environmental groups have employed yet another tactic in their attempts to stop construction of Commonwealth LNG’s proposed export facility in Cameron, Louisiana:

Environmentalists plan to sue the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to protect a rare marsh bird whose coastal habitat is being lost to urbanization, agriculture, climate change and some say, the liquefied natural gas industry.

The Arizona-based Center For Biological Diversity and the New Orleans environmental group Healthy Gulf plan to sue the agency and U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to protect the eastern black rail, a shy marsh bird that can

The Latest Democratic Debate: Loose Talk Of Bans On Oil

In the Democratic presidential debate Sunday night, former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders touched on energy policy – and reiterated their positions on fracking (against) and focus on climate change.

But Biden, the new frontrunner after the latest primaries, said something noteworthy:

Number one, no more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, no more drilling on federal lands, no more drilling, including offshore, no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.

We don’t believe Biden is really calling for a complete ban on drilling for oil, but it does …

New Hampshire Pipeline Vote Ignores Reality of Natural Gas and Pipelines


The voters of Exeter, New Hampshire, voted to urge their town leaders to express opposition to the Granite Bridge natural gas pipeline under review by the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

“The safety risks of gas pipelines is evident in the recent leaks and explosions in Keene and Lawrence, Massachusetts,” Article 25 stated. “Furthermore, this fossil fuel project with its methane emissions and carbon dioxide is in opposition to the principles of Exeter’s ‘Right to a Healthy Climate Ordinance’ passed in 2010 and the Select board’s vote to support the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.”




FACT CHECK: How much economic investment in energy projects has Canada lost out on?

From the growing political and regulatory challenges to indigenous opposition that recently led to hundreds of train delays and cancellations across Canada this past month, one thing is clear: building a pipeline or any type of energy facility in Canada is no easy feat. And unfortunately, energy companies and investors are growing weary over the regulatory hurdles and vocal opposition to new energy development.

After the latest rail blockades and pipeline protests made international headlines – it begs the question: what are the economic ramifications of Canada’s increasing unfriendliness towards energy investment?

Around $150 billion, according to a recent

Is transporting LNG by train safe?

The Washington Post recently highlighted concerns regarding President Trump’s proposal to allow railroads nationwide to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) – a largely untested practice that poses unique risks. The proposal comes as the United States continues to produce records amount of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and the Permian Basin in Texas.

The Post reports:

A proposed Transportation Department rule allowing liquefied natural gas, or LNG, shipments and imposing no additional safety regulations has drawn widespread criticism from local elected officials, attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, firefighters’ organizations, unions

Where The Presidential Candidates Stand on Fracking

With Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren dropping out of the presidential race, Democrats are left with two primary candidates – Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden – in the running to face President Trump in the November election.

The new electoral dynamics offer a useful time to look at where the two contenders stand on energy issues – specifically, their views on fracking, which has helped the United States achieve energy independence while keeping energy prices low.

Sanders’ position is straightforward. In January, he introduced the Ban Fracking Act, which would issue an immediate ban on all …