Anti-energy left opposes more LNG terminals in Texas

Texans for Natural Gas:
This week, at an event hosted by the Sierra Club-backed “Save the RGV from LNG” campaign, two anti-gas activists from Oregon and Maryland spoke about their efforts to halt U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Promoted as a way to “build a resistance” against the three planned LNG export terminals at the Port of Brownsville, the event is another example of out of state activists misleading local Texas communities to promote the anti-fossil fuel “Keep It In the Ground” agenda.

The three planned LNG export facilities in Brownsville each represent a substantial economic opportunity for the local community. NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG facility alone is expected to create up to 6,000 jobs, supporting 3,000 permanent jobs in Cameron County alone. Additionally, construction of the Annova LNG project is estimated to generate $190 million in state and local tax revenues, while direct investment in the Texas LNG export terminal is projected to be nearly $1.3 billion.

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick wrote a letter to then Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Norman Bay urging him to approve the Texas LNG project:

“The Texas Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Brownsville Project will provide a much needed outlet for the eco-rich supply of Texas natural gas, which will prompt domestic economic growth.”

Yet Sierra Club, its Save the RGV from LNG campaign, and the two out of state activists brought to Brownsville earlier this week stood opposed to jobs and critical tax revenue for local communities. Donny Yanqui, one of the speakers at Monday’s event and member of activist group “We Are Cove Point,” led efforts in Maryland to stop Dominion’s Cove Point LNG export facility, a project estimated to represent $3.8 billion in investment. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted the project approval in 2014 and it is currently about 84 percent complete, despite Sierra Club’s challenges to block the project.
The Sierra Club does not have the best interests of the Rio Grande Valley at heart.   Its energy policy would be especially harsh on the poor and drive up the cost of energy for everyone.  It would also kill badly needed jobs in places like the Rio Grande Valley.  As someone who lived in the Valley at one time, I know how important these jobs would be to that economy.


  1. How does anti-LNG translate into anti-energy? More like anti-death wish. See Physicians for Social Responsibility have just released a February 2017 report entitled "Too Dirty, Too Dangerous: Why health professionals reject methane," Physicians for Social Responsibility, February 2017,

    In 2015, the city councils of four local tip of Texas communities passed resolutions opposing LNG (Port Isabel, Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, and Long Island Village), the school district that includes the Port (Port Isabel) turned down Annova LNG's request for a Texas Economic Development Act Chapter 313 tax break, and the Cameron County Commissioners' Court tabled Annova's request for a tax break.  

    At present we're networking with the Rainforest Alliance Network to defund Texas LNG, Annova LNG, and Rio Grande LNG (See and with the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas (See  Etc.  Visit saveRGVfromLNG on Facebook.

    Several Brownsville pediatricians and other health professions see the proposed LNG operations as dangerous to the health of the children living in Cameron County.  They conclude, in part, regarding just Rio Grande LNG:
    ● Emissions of PM 2.5 will cause cardiac and respiratory disease ranging from $120 Million to $300 Million in morbidity and mortality impacts each year of routine operation of the proposed Rio Grande LNG facility.

    ● Emissions of volatile organic compounds will increase the risk of birth defects, cancer and cognitive impairment in the children of Cameron County.

    ● Emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to further deterioration of our environment and contribute to the worldwide problem of climate change

    This assessment regarding the Rio Grande LNG emissions was signed by: Dolly Lucio Sevier, MD; Carmen D. Rocco, MD; Marsha Griffin, MD; Barbara Hill, FNP; Michelle Zeager, DO, MPH; Elizabeth Hernandez, PNP; Erika Lucio, FNP; Maria Castillo, FNP; and Martha E. Castañuela, PAC.

    The emissions would increase out heart problems as well. So I guess you could say that we're the ones that have the best interests of the Rio Grande Valley hearts at heart?

  2. The models that claim to show CO@ will cause the temperature to rise beyond tolerable levels is based on invalid assumptions which is demonstrated by the fact that the models all overestimate the actual effect when applied historically. Further, I do not think in kids will be working at the LNG facility. I just do not trust those who make wild predictions in order to kill jobs.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?