The Biden administration’s approval of the construction of a deepwater oil export terminal off the Texas coast has been deemed a betrayal by environmentalists. This terminal, set to be the largest of its kind in the United States, has raised concerns among those advocating for environmental protection.
The Sea Port Oil Terminal, currently being constructed off the coast of Freeport, Texas, will have the capability to simultaneously load two supertankers. With an export capacity of 2 million barrels of crude oil per day, this ambitious $1.8 billion project is being led by Enterprise Products Partners, a Houston-based company. Recently, the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration granted the deepwater port license, marking the culmination of a rigorous five-year federal review process.
Environmentalists strongly criticized the approval of the license, arguing that it goes against President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and could result in devastating greenhouse gas emissions. They likened the potential environmental impact to that of nearly 90 coal-fired power plants. This decision has the potential to strain Biden’s relationship with environmental allies and young voters who were already disheartened by the administration’s prior approval of the extensive Willow oil project in Alaska.
Kelsey Crane, a senior policy advocate at Earthworks, an environmental group that has been a vocal opponent of the export terminal, expressed concerns that the project is not in line with President Biden’s climate and environmental justice objectives.
According to Crane, the communities affected by the oil terminal are once again being disregarded. They will be compelled to endure the constant risk of oil spills, explosions, and pollution. Crane believes that the most effective way to safeguard both the public and the environment from the detrimental effects of oil is to leave it untouched in the ground.
The Maritime Administration has stated that after the approval of the license, the project fulfills various requirements mandated by Congress. This includes thorough environmental reviews and a federal determination that affirms the port’s operation is in the national interest.
The agency known as MARAD stated that the Biden-Harris administration is not only expediting America’s shift towards a clean energy future but also taking steps to effectively manage the transition in the immediate future.
Environmental groups dismissed that assertion.
Cassidy DiPaola, a representative from Fossil Free Media, a nonprofit organization advocating against the use of fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas, expressed concern over the Biden administration’s inconsistent stance on the matter.
According to DiPaola, approving the Sea Port Oil Terminal after pausing LNG exports is not only detrimental to our climate but also represents inconsistent politics. DiPaola argues that President Biden cannot claim to be a climate leader while simultaneously granting a significant advantage to the oil industry. DiPaola emphasizes the need for President Biden to heed the voices of the majority of voters who advocate for a transition away from fossil fuels, rather than an amplification of harmful and hazardous energy initiatives.
At the beginning of the 2024 presidential election year, the Democratic president made a decision that put him in line with environmentalists. They are concerned about the significant rise in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, which they believe will result in irreversible emissions that contribute to global warming. This move comes despite Biden’s commitment to reducing climate pollution by 50% by 2030.
Industry groups and Republicans have strongly criticized the decision to pause LNG exports. They argue that these exports play a vital role in stabilizing global energy markets, as well as supporting numerous American jobs. Furthermore, they highlight the fact that LNG exports help reduce global greenhouse emissions by encouraging countries to shift away from coal, which is a much dirtier fossil fuel.
According to the company’s statement, since the project was initially presented for federal review in 2019, Enterprise has been actively collaborating with federal, state, and local authorities. Additionally, they have participated in numerous public meetings where individuals and stakeholder groups have had the opportunity to gain insights into the project and share their feedback. The company has even gone the extra mile by translating some studies into Spanish and Vietnamese to cater to Freeport’s diverse population. It is worth noting that over half of Freeport’s 10,600 residents are Hispanic, as reported by the US Census Bureau.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, celebrated the approval of the license as a significant triumph for the state’s energy industry. He criticized the Biden administration for causing delays in the development of the Sea Port terminal and other projects over the past few years.
In a statement, Cruz expressed his enthusiasm for the deepwater port license that his office and others worked tirelessly to secure. He emphasized the positive impact it would have on job creation in Texas and the enhanced energy security it would bring to both the United States and its allies. Cruz also highlighted the unnecessary bureaucratic delays that hindered the progress of this victory, emphasizing the need for broader permitting reform in the country.
The oil export facility, which is currently being reviewed by federal authorities, is situated in the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 30 miles offshore of Brazoria County, Texas.
The license approval came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed claims made by environmental groups last week. These groups had alleged that federal agencies did not comply with federal environmental laws during their review of the project.
