Conservation Groups Say DOT Didn't Conduct Proper Analysis Before Allowing Oil Export Terminal

The Maritime Administration illegally approved the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT), which would be the largest offshore oil export terminal in the U.S., by not conducting analysis on "critical environmental harms and Congressional licensing requirements," conservation groups led by Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water argued in a reply brief. Responding to arguments made by the Department of Transportation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the conservation groups said the agency's request for deference in the case evades its "legal failings" (Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria County v. U.S. Department of Transportation, 5th Cir. # 23-60027).

The reply brief alleged that the Maritime Administration must look to the worst-case environmental consequences of a spill but ultimately "punted analyzing the problem." The administration never analyzed the project's risk to total ozone emissions, which is particularly damning given the terminal's location near the Houston region, which "suffers from legally unhealthy air," the conservation groups claimed. The brief said the decision to approve the project violates the Deepwater Port Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

In the reply brief, the conservation groups vie for standing to sue in the case given SPOT's claim that the groups allege only possible future injuries. The conservation groups said their members' harms are not "entirely independent" of SPOT but "directly relate" to the Maritime Administration's "deficient environmental and licensing analysis."

The terminal, located 30 miles off the coast of Brazoria County, Texas, in the Gulf of Mexico, proposes to ship 2 million barrels of crude oil per day -- a number equivalent to 18% of annual U.S. oil production. The case was taken directly to the 5th Circuit from the Maritime Administration. The conservation groups further claim that the administration failed to analyze the "no-action alternative's benefits or a smaller-capacity alternative to the Project," despite the mandate from the National Environmental Policy Act.