Federal government approves another deep sea oil export terminal off the coast of Texas

On Friday, the Trump administration approved plans for a second deepwater oil load terminal off the Texas coast, opening another door for continued long-term growth in crude production and exports in the United States.

It is the administration’s latest refusal to a previous international agreement to move away from fossil fuels as a way to mitigate carbon emissions that drive dangerous global warming. Trump has dismissed climate change as a threat and has pledged to grow the country’s oil and gas sector.

“Today, we are unleashing the full power of America’s energy,” U.S. Transport Secretary Sean Duffy said in the announcement. “With this approval, we are increasing our energy revenues and unlocking huge amounts of oil resources. We dominate the global market, not just for domestic security.”

The Gulflink Oil terminal loads up to 1 million barrels per day into the world’s largest class oil tanker for export overseas. It will eventually float along the much larger sea port oil terminal, which was approved in 2022 and remains undeveloped. In December, the Biden administration said it missed the deadline to control Gulflink’s proposal and was still evaluating whether the project is in the public interest.

Last year, the United Nations annual climate conference ended in Azerbaijan, with a noticeable lack of resolution regarding the phase-out of fossil fuels that were called the previous year. Global oil production and temperatures continue to rise, and the past two years have become the hottest on record. President Donald Trump has pledged to the rapid growth of American oil and gas, which has already recorded record production and profits under President Joe Biden.

The Gulflink terminal was first proposed by Sentinel Midstream a few years ago and remains years away from construction. This is one of four currently proposed deepwater terminals along the Gulf Coast, part of an infrastructure buildout designed to export American oil primarily flowing from West Texas.

“As the amount of fracked oil becomes more and more impactful, there will be a need for a more effective way to export it,” said the former U.S. Department of Energy’s former vice-versa of fossil energy. said Secretary Charles McConnell. Executive Director of the Energy and Carbon Management Center at the University of Houston. “I think the increase in offshore offshore terminals is probably the order of the day.”

He said that oil products exports are now the largest single source of export revenue in the United States, as the Trump administration seeks to use oil exports as a tool for geopolitical power.

“I believe this administration will not only apologise for it, but will be much more likely to use its benefits,” he said.

Growing oil exports

It has been less than 10 years since the US began exporting oil. It followed the fracking revolution and unlocked the enormous new wealth locks from the underground shale formations of Texas and several other states. As more and more shale oil was flowing from the ground, much of it was plumbed for exports abroad.

That decade’s fast-growing production led the US to become the world’s top oil producer and its third largest exporter in 2023, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. However, America’s export infrastructure remains relatively undeveloped, limiting further growth.

The Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana handle most of the US oil exports, but there is only one deep-sea terminal that can be docked at the Louisiana offshore oil port, a supermassive tanker.

At land terminals in the area, shallow coastal waters prohibit the approach of giant tankers, so small vessels lock the miles offshore while ferrying out oil in a relatively inefficient process. The development of the Deepwater terminal will draw more traffic into the region, said Anas Alhajji, managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors LLC.

“It’s going to bring more business and more pipelines,” he said. “As shale production continues to increase, almost all increases will be exports.”

Environmental issues

Environmental groups oppose the project, stating it is increasing its dependence on fossil fuels that impact the global climate and harm marine ecosystems.

“This decision will further sacrifice the health and safety of Texas communities for the sole purpose of advancing Trump’s dirty agenda that supports the fossil fuel industry,” Environmental Group Earthwork said in a statement Tuesday. Ta. “The Trump administration’s claim to export oil that not only exports more oil-powered climate change, causes environmental destruction, harms human health, but also stimulates the economy is a false promise.”

Gulflink developers describe offshore terminals as being more efficient and less pollution than existing onshore terminals. This avoids ferrying oil by shipping ships to tankers in the deep sea, and air quality is caused by moving 30 miles to the ocean, where emissions do not affect the coast. The company also said a special boat called “the first of its kind in the United States” would capture some of the associated emissions alongside the super tankers during oil loads.

According to the company’s website, “By reducing the cost of exporting barrels of American crude oil to a price more attractive to potential import customers, these customers use crude oil reserves. It can reduce relations with illicit regimes. Toxic political influences.”

The Federal Maritime Administration’s approval of the project, following a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency in October during the Biden administration, said it was not opposed to the licence.

In its review, the EPA calculated that it would create greenhouse gas emissions of 355,000 tonnes per year through the oil consumption that the project brings to the market.

“The EPA recommends continually highlighting that environmental justice and climate change considerations are included in licensing projects to protect overloaded communities,” the EPA letter states. Masu.

In addition to the Deepwater Port, the project includes two new pipelines and a 319-acre tank farm, which stores and supplies oil.

The facility is planned for rural Brazoria County, near the small town of Jones Creek, and cites concerns about light and healthy pollution, basin drainage, inadequate infrastructure and emergency response, and the project has announced the launch of the project. A resolution was passed in opposition.

“Does Texas have hundreds of miles of coastline? And they have to put it on top of the community,” said the 35-year-old mayor of Jones Creek, who lives in the home he still grew up in. Corey Thomas said. “I’m for oil and so on, but I only need something else.”

Tank Farm supplies pipelines that run offshore near the town of Surfside Beach. The seaside community is already adjacent to heavy industry.

“What’s frustrating is that people who have the power to stop or build projects don’t come here to see what it looks like,” says Surfside. said Sue Page, a 67-year-old retired school administrator. “Yes, we may be a small number compared to shareholders and shareholders and everyone else, but we are the ones who have to bear the brunt of these kinds of projects.”

Fix: Previous versions of this article incorrectly stated that Gulflink’s pipeline would be run through the town of Surfside Beach. Pass several miles south of town.