Environmental advocacy organizations have brought legal challenges before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals against federal approvals for two significant offshore energy export facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. The cases, heard on Monday by separate judicial panels, question whether the Maritime Administration properly followed legal requirements when authorizing projects for liquefied natural gas and crude oil exports.
The first case involves the Delfin LNG deepwater port, located approximately 40 nautical miles off the Louisiana coast. The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Habitat Recovery Project are seeking to overturn the 2025 license issued by the Maritime Administration. The facility is designed to export up to 12 million tons of liquefied natural gas annually through floating vessels, platforms, and pipeline infrastructure.
The environmental groups argue that significant modifications to the project since its initial 2017 approval should have triggered new regulatory requirements. These changes included implementation of a different mooring system, reduction in the number of vessels, and adoption of updated cooling technology. Attorney Lauren Parker, representing the petitioners, pointed to a 2024 letter from the Maritime Administration that characterized these modifications as a revised proposal requiring an amended application, environmental review, and public consultation.
Parker emphasized that the agency failed to follow its own prescribed procedures before issuing the license. She presented evidence from three individuals claiming harm from the project: a commercial fisherman, a researcher studying the critically endangered Rice’s whale, and a Holly Beach resident. These declarants expressed concerns about impacts on their daily activities and argued they were denied adequate procedural rights.
The government’s position, presented by attorney Rebecca Jaffe, characterized the modifications as beneficial refinements that actually reduced environmental impacts while maintaining the fundamental nature of the original project. Jaffe noted that the revisions resulted in fewer ship berths, reduced seafloor disturbance from fewer pilings, and elimination of seawater cooling systems that could affect water quality and marine life.
Sean Marotta, representing Delfin LNG, challenged the standing of the petitioners, arguing that their declarants provided insufficient detail about their specific use of areas that would be directly affected by the project’s footprint.
The second case concerns the Texas GulfLink crude oil export terminal, with Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County challenging the Maritime Administration’s approval process. The dispute centers on how the agency defined the project’s application area under the Deepwater Port Act, which determines competition parameters and environmental review scope.
Attorney Amy Dinn argued that the Maritime Administration improperly excluded offshore pipelines from the application area definition, potentially allowing overlapping projects without conducting the statutorily required national interest comparison. She highlighted apparent inconsistencies in the agency’s approach to similar projects within a short timeframe.
Government attorney Ezekiel Peterson defended the agency’s interpretation, arguing that including all pipelines in application areas would create impractical outcomes given the extensive existing pipeline infrastructure throughout the Gulf. He emphasized distinctions in statutory language between deepwater port sites and application areas.
Todd Everage, representing the project as an intervenor, noted that the Texas GulfLink has already received full licensing and permits following years of review. He argued that the Maritime Administration has discretion to define reasonable application areas, particularly in waters already containing numerous pipeline crossings.
The judicial panels examining these cases included several appointed judges from different presidential administrations. For the Louisiana case, Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith, Don R. Willett, and Irma Ramirez presided. The Texas case was heard by Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, Edith Brown Clement, and Kurt Engelhardt.
Both cases raise fundamental questions about federal agency procedures and the balance between energy infrastructure development and environmental protection in offshore waters. The outcomes could significantly impact future deepwater port approvals and the regulatory framework governing offshore energy export facilities. Neither panel provided immediate indication of when decisions would be issued.
Leave a Reply