In February 2025, the U.S. Maritime Administration gave final approval to a massive new offshore oil export project: the Texas GulfLink Terminal, a proposed deepwater facility located 30.5 miles off the Texas Gulf Coast. Backed by Sentinel Midstream under the subsidiary Texas GulfLink, LLC, the project is pitched as a “modern” solution to oil transport bottlenecks. But let’s be clear—this is not a solution. It’s a false solution that deepens our dependence on fossil fuels, threatens marine ecosystems, and endangers Gulf Coast communities already bearing the brunt of climate change.
The GulfLink terminal would connect pipelines from the Permian Basin to offshore loading buoys that transfer oil directly to Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs)—super tankers capable of holding 2 million barrels of oil each. This would allow crude to bypass crowded onshore ports and be shipped directly to global markets.
On paper, this looks like efficiency. In practice, it’s a step backward.
The Gulf of Mexico is already overburdened with industrial activity, and this project increases the risk of catastrophic oil spills. According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, a worst-case discharge could spill 2.8 million barrels of oil into the ocean—worse than the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The terminal’s construction and operation would also disrupt critical marine habitats. Species like the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, sperm whales, and bottlenose dolphins are already vulnerable to underwater noise, habitat degradation, and collisions with vessels. GulfLink would exacerbate all these threats.
“There’s no safe way to move this much oil offshore,” said Kelsey Crane of Earthworks. “This is not compatible with our climate goals.”
— Earthworks, Feb 2024
Back onshore, the pipeline and associated 319-acre tank farm near Jones Creek, Texas, have raised alarms. The facility would sit in a flood-prone zone along the Brazos River, which has a history of severe inundation during storms and hurricanes.
“If a hurricane hits this tank farm, we’re looking at an environmental and public health disaster,” warned the Houston Chronicle editorial board.
— Houston Chronicle, Feb 2025
Residents and community advocates have urged regulators to reject the project, citing concerns over water contamination, air pollution, and increased truck traffic near homes and schools.
Approving a project like GulfLink in 2025 sends the wrong signal at the worst possible time. The Biden administration has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, yet continues to greenlight fossil fuel infrastructure that locks in carbon emissions for decades.
This is not just a local issue. By facilitating the export of millions of barrels of oil a day, GulfLink would drive global demand for fossil fuels—at a time when the International Energy Agency has warned that no new oil and gas projects are compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
“The science is clear: more oil infrastructure means more climate chaos.”
— IEA Net Zero Report, 2021
GulfLink is being framed as a modern infrastructure upgrade. In reality, it’s a handout to oil companies—and a massive step away from real climate solutions. It prioritizes profit over people, fossil fuels over clean air, and short-term gains over long-term survival.
While industry executives are celebrating new export routes, frontline communities are demanding better solutions—ones that invest in clean energy, sustainable jobs, and coastal resilience.
It’s time to stop pretending that expanding oil exports is compatible with a livable future. The real path forward isn’t found in deeper ports or longer pipelines—it’s in rooftop solar, wind farms, battery storage, and investments in community-based resilience.
We don’t need more pollution. We don’t need more empty promises. We need great solutions rooted in justice, sustainability, and science.
Tell your representatives, “No more false solutions like GulfLink.” Demand a clean, just energy future—because the Gulf deserves better.
