In a recent development that has sparked controversy among environmentalists, the Biden administration has given the green light for the construction of a deepwater oil export terminal off the Texas coast, a move that is being criticized as contradictory to President Biden’s climate agenda. This terminal, known as the Sea Port Oil Terminal, is set to be the largest of its kind in the United States. It will have the capacity to load two supertankers simultaneously, allowing for an export capacity of 2 million barrels of crude oil per day.
The approval of this $1.8 billion project by Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners comes after a five-year federal review process. However, environmentalists argue that the construction of such a terminal will result in disastrous planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to nearly 90 coal-fired power plants. The move has raised concerns among environmental allies and young voters who have already expressed disappointment with the Democratic administration’s approval of the massive Willow oil project in Alaska last year.
Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks, an environmental group opposing the export terminal, stated that “nothing about this project is in alignment with President Biden’s climate and environmental justice goals.” Crane further added that the approval disregards the communities that will be directly impacted by the terminal, subjecting them to the threat of more oil spills, explosions, and pollution. According to Crane, the best way to protect both the public and the climate from the harms of oil is to keep it in the ground.
In response to the criticism, the Maritime Administration, also known as MARAD, stated that the project met numerous congressionally mandated requirements and underwent extensive environmental reviews. MARAD emphasized that it believes the port’s operation is in the national interest. The agency also claimed that the project would have minimal effect on the overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with the U.S. crude oil supply chain.
However, environmental groups have dismissed these claims. Cassidy DiPaola of Fossil Free Media, a nonprofit group opposing fossil fuel use, argued that the Biden administration’s decision is inconsistent and called for a shift away from fossil fuels rather than a doubling down on dirty and deadly energy projects. DiPaola referred to the administration’s decision to delay consideration of new natural gas export terminals while gas shipments to Europe and Asia have increased since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The upcoming 2024 presidential election year also played a role in the administration’s decision, as it aligned President Biden with environmentalists concerned about the surge in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and their potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions. Biden has pledged to cut climate pollution in half by 2030.
Industry groups and Republicans have criticized the pause on LNG exports, arguing that these exports stabilize global energy markets, create jobs, and help transition countries away from coal, a dirtier fossil fuel. Jim Teague, CEO of Enterprise, welcomed the approval of the oil project, claiming that the terminal will provide a more environmentally friendly, safe, efficient, and cost-effective way to deliver crude oil to global markets.
The terminal project includes two pipelines to transport crude oil from shore to the deepwater port, reducing the need for ship-to-ship transfers. It is expected to start operations by 2027. Throughout the federal review process, Enterprise collaborated with various federal, state, and local authorities, engaging in multiple public meetings to gather feedback and address concerns.
The approval of the deepwater port license for the Sea Port Oil Terminal has been hailed as a major victory for the Texas energy industry by Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz criticized the Biden administration for delaying this project and others for years. He expressed his satisfaction at the prospect of bringing more jobs to Texas and enhancing energy security for America and its allies. Cruz also emphasized the need for broader permitting reform in the country, citing the unnecessary bureaucratic delays in approving projects like this one.
The oil export facility, amongst several license applications under review, is located in the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 30 miles offshore of Brazoria County, Texas.
In conclusion, the approval of the Sea Port Oil Terminal off the Texas coast has triggered a contentious debate between environmentalists and the energy industry. While the Biden administration claims that the project meets requirements and has minimal impact on greenhouse gas emissions, critics argue that it contradicts President Biden’s climate agenda and will result in disastrous environmental consequences. This decision reflects the ongoing challenges faced by the administration in balancing environmental concerns and economic considerations. As the energy industry continues to evolve, future trends will likely involve a push for cleaner alternatives and stronger regulations in line with global climate goals. It remains to be seen how these opposing forces will shape the future of the industry and its impact on our planet.