WASHINGTON (AP) — In a move that environmentalists are calling a betrayal, the Biden administration has approved construction of a deep-sea oil export terminal off the Texas coast that would be the largest of its kind in the United States.
The Sea Port Oil Terminal, being developed off Freeport, Texas, will be able to load two supertankers simultaneously and have an export capacity of 2 million barrels of crude oil per day. The $1.8 billion project by Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners received a deep-water port license this week from the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration, the latest step in a five-year federal review.
Environmentalists criticized the approval of the license, saying it contradicts President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and would lead to “catastrophic” planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to the output of nearly 90 coal-fired power plants. The move could threaten Biden’s support among environmental allies and young voters already disillusioned by the Democratic administration’s approval of the massive Willow oil project in Alaska last year.
“Nothing about this project is consistent with President Biden’s climate and environmental justice goals,” said Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks, an environmental group that has long opposed the export terminal.
“The communities that will be affected by (the oil terminal) have once again been ignored and will be forced to live with the threat of further oil spills, explosions and pollution,” Crane said. “The best way to protect the public and the climate from the damage of oil is to leave it in the ground.”
In a statement after approving the license, the Maritime Administration said the project meets a number of requirements mandated by Congress, including extensive environmental reviews and a federal determination that operating the port is in the national interest.
“As the Biden-Harris administration accelerates America’s transition to a clean energy future, it is also taking steps to manage the transition in the near term,” said the agency, nicknamed MARAD.
The government’s multiyear review included consultations with at least 20 federal, state and local agencies, MARAD said. Ultimately, the agency concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the production or consumption of U.S. crude oil.
“Although the (greenhouse gas) emissions associated with the upstream production and downstream end-use of crude oil to be exported from the project may represent a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions, most of these emissions already occur as part of the U.S. crude oil supply chain. “,” the agency said in an email to The Associated Press. “Therefore, the project itself is likely to have minimal impact on the current greenhouse gas emissions associated with the overall U.S. crude oil supply chain.”
Environmental groups ridiculed this claim.
“The Biden administration must stop dithering on fossil fuels,” said Cassidy DiPaola of Fossil Free Media, a nonprofit group that opposes the use of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.
“Approving the Sea Port Oil Terminal after halting LNG exports is not only bad news for our climate, but also incoherent policy,” DiPaola said. Biden “can’t claim to be a climate leader one day and then turn around and give the oil industry a huge handout.” “It’s time for President Biden to listen to the overwhelming majority of voters who want a move away from fossil fuels and don’t want a doubling of dirty and deadly energy projects.”
DiPaola was referring to the administration’s announcement in January that it was delaying consideration of new natural gas export terminals in the United States, even as gas shipments to Europe and Asia have surged since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The decision, announced at the start of the 2024 presidential election year, puts the Democratic president in line with environmentalists who fear the huge increase in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will lead to potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions, even though Biden This has promised to halve climate pollution by 2030.
Industry groups and Republicans have condemned the pause, saying LNG exports stabilize global energy markets, support thousands of American jobs and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by weaning countries off coal, a far dirtier fossil fuel.
Enterprise, which produces oil, natural gas and petrochemicals, welcomed the oil project’s approval, saying the terminal will provide “a greener, safer, more efficient and more cost-effective way to deliver crude oil to global markets.”
Since the project was first submitted for federal review in 2019, “Enterprise has worked diligently with various federal, state and local agencies and participated in several public meetings that have enabled individuals and stakeholders to learn about the project and their “To provide comments,” including some studies translated into Spanish and Vietnamese, the company said in a statement. According to U.S. data, more than half of Freeport’s 10,600 residents are Hispanic. Statistics Office.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, hailed the license approval as “a major victory for the Texas energy industry” and said the Biden administration had delayed the Sea Port terminal and other projects for years.
“After the tireless work of my office and many others to secure this deepwater port license, I am pleased that we are helping create more jobs in Texas and greater energy security for America and our allies,” Cruz said in a statement. “That this victory was delayed by years of unnecessary bureaucratic hesitation shows why we need more comprehensive permitting reform in this country.”
The oil export facility, one of seven license applications currently under federal review, is located 30 miles off the coast of Brazoria County, Texas, in the Gulf of Mexico.
The license approval followed a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week that rejected claims by environmental groups that federal regulators failed to comply with federal environmental laws when reviewing the project.