EPA grants air permit, clears way for new deep-water oil port off Southeast Texas coast
This August 2014 shows the Gulf shoreline in Texas’ Bolivar Peninsula.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an air-quality permit for a proposed deep-water crude oil port about 30 miles off the shore of Freeport, a Gulf Coast town south of Houston. Its supporters say it takes an extra step toward reducing emissions, while environmental advocacy groups and some nearby residents worry it will still exacerbate pollution. The Texas GulfLink deep-water port would implement a "first-of-its-kind use of vapor capture and control technology mounted on an offshore support vessel," according to a news release issued Monday by the EPA. The agency notes that such technology has been used on shuttle tankers for decades with 96% emission-control efficiency. "Sentinel Midstream is proud to unveil a groundbreaking vapor control application that will revolutionize the loading of Very Large Crude Carriers in the Gulf of America," said Jeff Ballard, the CEO of Sentinel Midstream, of which Texas GulfLink is a subsidiary, in the EPA news release. "Developed by our Texas GulfLink team in close collaboration with the EPA, this innovative approach significantly reduces volatile organic compounds, setting a new industry standard for environmental performance and advances the implementation of Best Available Control Technology." Air pollutants that are emitted during the process of obtaining crude oil "will be captured at the tanker and routed via flexible hose to a control system located on an adjacent, dynamically positioned offshore support vessel," according to Brad Toups, an EPA official who wrote the permit and presented it during a public hearing in June. Those emissions, referred to as volatile organic compounds, are either stored and sold, or they're used as fuel. Sentinel Midstream did not immediately respond a request for comment Tuesday. The permit, under the Clean Air Act, is one piece of the puzzle toward the rig's development. The other is approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, or MARAD. In February, MARAD issued a Record of Decision, indicating its approval of the project. RELATED: EPA approves long-awaited plan to clean up San Jacinto River waste pits near Houston Though the project takes steps toward reducing emissions, clean energy advocacy groups have expressed criticisms of the Texas GulfLink deep-water port. "Approving yet another massive offshore oil terminal like this will only worsen a global climate crisis that is already slamming Texans with flooding, heat waves, and drought," Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, told Houston Public Media. "This terminal is expected to release more than 21,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year, as much as much as 4,321 cars and trucks driven for a year. It is good that the Trump Administration says the terminal will be using some pollution controls. But we should remember that ‘unleashing' more dirty fossil fuels like this also means more air and water pollution released upstream during the fracking, drilling, and processing of the oil before it even arrives at the oil export terminal. And then more pollution again when it is burned — all to the detriment of the climate and local communities." During a public EPA hearing in June, members of the Brazoria County community also shared concerns about the initiative. "This project doesn't benefit people in Brazoria County, it only benefits rich executives who continue to squeeze profits at the expense of communities like Freeport," said Riley Bennington, a Brazoria County resident, according to an EPA transcript of the hearing. "As a kid growing up in Texas, I really thought we'd be past this by now. We've had renewable energy figured out. Why is this even being considered?" Though most of the testimony during the June 25 public hearing opposed Texas GulfLink, the initiative wasn't completely without praise. Amy Dinn, an attorney from Lone Star Legal Aid representing Better Brazoria, said GulfLink's permits are "much better and more protective of the environment" than other such projects, though she still expressed concerns that not enough research was done on the ozone emissions and impacts of severe weather.
The Texas GulfLink would be about 30 miles off the coast of Freeport. It's touted for first-of-its-kind technology to reduce emissions. Environmentalists and Brazoria County residents still have concerns.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an air-quality permit for a proposed deep-water crude oil port about 30 miles off the shore of Freeport, a Gulf Coast town south of Houston. Its supporters say it takes an extra step toward reducing emissions, while environmental advocacy groups and some nearby residents worry it will still exacerbate pollution.
The Texas GulfLink deep-water port would implement a "first-of-its-kind use of vapor capture and control technology mounted on an offshore support vessel," according to a news release issued Monday by the EPA. The agency notes that such technology has been used on shuttle tankers for decades with 96% emission-control efficiency.
"Sentinel Midstream is proud to unveil a groundbreaking vapor control application that will revolutionize the loading of Very Large Crude Carriers in the Gulf of America," said Jeff Ballard, the CEO of Sentinel Midstream, of which Texas GulfLink is a subsidiary, in the EPA news release. "Developed by our Texas GulfLink team in close collaboration with the EPA, this innovative approach significantly reduces volatile organic compounds, setting a new industry standard for environmental performance and advances the implementation of Best Available Control Technology."
Air pollutants that are emitted during the process of obtaining crude oil "will be captured at the tanker and routed via flexible hose to a control system located on an adjacent, dynamically positioned offshore support vessel," according to Brad Toups, an EPA official who wrote the permit and presented it during a public hearing in June. Those emissions, referred to as volatile organic compounds, are either stored and sold, or they're used as fuel.
Sentinel Midstream did not immediately respond a request for comment Tuesday. The permit, under the Clean Air Act, is one piece of the puzzle toward the rig's development. The other is approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, or MARAD. In February, MARAD issued a Record of Decision, indicating its approval of the project.
RELATED: EPA approves long-awaited plan to clean up San Jacinto River waste pits near Houston
Though the project takes steps toward reducing emissions, clean energy advocacy groups have expressed criticisms of the Texas GulfLink deep-water port.
"Approving yet another massive offshore oil terminal like this will only worsen a global climate crisis that is already slamming Texans with flooding, heat waves, and drought," Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, told Houston Public Media. "This terminal is expected to release more than 21,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year, as much as much as 4,321 cars and trucks driven for a year. It is good that the Trump Administration says the terminal will be using some pollution controls. But we should remember that ‘unleashing' more dirty fossil fuels like this also means more air and water pollution released upstream during the fracking, drilling, and processing of the oil before it even arrives at the oil export terminal. And then more pollution again when it is burned — all to the detriment of the climate and local communities."
During a public EPA hearing in June, members of the Brazoria County community also shared concerns about the initiative.
"This project doesn't benefit people in Brazoria County, it only benefits rich executives who continue to squeeze profits at the expense of communities like Freeport," said Riley Bennington, a Brazoria County resident, according to an EPA transcript of the hearing. "As a kid growing up in Texas, I really thought we'd be past this by now. We've had renewable energy figured out. Why is this even being considered?"
Though most of the testimony during the June 25 public hearing opposed Texas GulfLink, the initiative wasn't completely without praise. Amy Dinn, an attorney from Lone Star Legal Aid representing Better Brazoria, said GulfLink's permits are "much better and more protective of the environment" than other such projects, though she still expressed concerns that not enough research was done on the ozone emissions and impacts of severe weather.
