WASHINGTON (AP) — In a move that environmentalists called a betrayal, the Biden administration has approved the construction of a deepwater oil export terminal off the Texas coast that would be the largest of its kind in the United States.
The Seaport Oil Terminal being developed off Freeport, Texas, will be capable of loading two supertankers at the same time, with an export capacity of 2 million barrels of crude oil per day. The $1.8 billion project from Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners received a deepwater port license from the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration this week, the final step in a five-year federal review.
Environmentalists denounced the approval of the license, saying it contradicted President Joe Bidenin climate agenda and would lead to “disastrous” emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases equivalent to nearly 90 coal-fired power plants. The action could compromise Biden’s support from environmental allies and young voters already disenchanted with the Democratic administration’s approval last year of the massive Willow oil project in Alaska.
“Nothing about this project aligns 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 more oil spills, explosions and pollution,” Crane said. “The best way to protect the public and the climate from the damage of oil is to keep it buried.”
In a statement after approval of the permit, 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.
“While the Biden-Harris administration is accelerating America’s transition to a clean energy future, steps are also being taken to manage the transition in the near term,” said the agency, dubbed MARAD.
The administration’s multiyear review included consultations with at least 20 federal, state and local agencies, MARAD said. The agency ultimately determined that the project would have no significant effect on U.S. crude oil production or consumption.
“Although (greenhouse gas) emissions associated with the upstream production and downstream end use of the crude oil to be exported from the project may represent a significant amount of GHG emissions, these emissions already largely occur as part of the US crude oil supply chain. ,” the agency said in an email to The Associated Press. “Therefore, the project itself will likely have a minimal effect on current GHG emissions associated with the overall U.S. crude oil supply chain.”
Environmental groups scoffed at this claim.
“The Biden administration must stop changing direction 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 Seaport Oil Terminal after halting LNG exports is not just bad news for our climate, it is incoherent policy,” DiPaola said. Biden “cannot claim to be a climate leader one day and then turn around and give a huge handout to the oil industry. It’s time for President Biden to listen to the overwhelming majority of voters who want to see a move away from fossil fuels, not a doubling down on dirty, deadly energy projects.”
DiPaola was referring to the government’s announcement in January that it is delaying consideration of new natural gas export terminals in the United States, even gas shipments to Europe and Asia soared since Russia invaded Ukraine.
The decision, announced at the start of the 2024 presidential election year, aligned the Democratic president with environmentalists who fear that the huge increase in exports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is blocking potentially catastrophic emissions that cause the planet to warm, even when Biden committed to cutting climate pollution in half by 2030.
Industry groups and Republicans condemned the pause, saying LNG exports stabilize global energy markets, support thousands of American jobs and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by moving countries away from coal, a much dirtier fossil fuel.
Enterprise, which produces oil, natural gas and petrochemicals, welcomed the approval of the oil project and said the terminal will provide “a greener, safer, more efficient and 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 numerous federal, state, and local officials and participated in numerous public meetings that have allowed individuals and stakeholder groups to learn about the project and provide their feedback. ”. ‘, including some studies that have been translated into Spanish and Vietnamese, the company said in a statement. More than half of Freeport’s 10,600 residents are Hispanic, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, hailed the permit approval as “a huge victory for the Texas energy industry” and said the Biden administration had delayed the seaport terminal and other projects for years.
“After the tireless work of my office and many others to secure this deepwater port license, I am excited that we are helping bring more jobs to Texas and greater energy security for America and our allies,” Cruz said in a statement . “The fact that this victory was delayed by years of unnecessary bureaucratic dithering shows why we need broader licensing reform in this country.”
The oil export facility, one of seven permit applications under federal review, is located 30 miles off the coast of Brazoria County, Texas, on the Gulf of Mexico.
The permit approval followed a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week rejecting claims from environmental groups that federal agencies failed to comply with federal environmental laws in reviewing the project.
