U.S. LNG export terminals impose nearly $1bn in health costs on communities: study

LNG export terminals in the U.S. result in significant health costs on communities living nearby, according to a new study.

Direct air pollution from existing LNG export terminals results in $957 million in annual health costs and roughly 60 premature deaths, a joint study from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace found. If the wave of LNG projects sitting in the regulatory queue go forward, those negative health costs would jump to $2.33 billion annually and contribute to 149 premature deaths each year.

The study only looked at air pollution from the export terminals themselves, but every stage of the gas extraction and processing supply chain also results in contamination. It likely also undercounts the full impacts of LNG terminals. While the study analysed pollutants such as particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), it did not include hazardous air pollutants like benzene.

“Nothing about these projects are good for our community. They are only bringing pollution. They are not bringing the economic growth that they promised,” Roishetta Ozane, a resident of Sulphur, Louisiana and director of the Vessel Project, a local community organisation in the southwestern corner of Louisiana, told reporters on an August 15th press briefing.

A handful of LNG terminals are currently operating in southwest Louisiana, including Cameron LNG, Calcasieu Pass LNG, and Sabine Pass LNG. Several other LNG projects in various stages of the permitting process are also planned for the region, including CP2, Commonwealth LNG, and Driftwood LNG.

LNG export terminals emit enormous volumes of air pollution even when everything is operating smoothly.

But some facilities, such as Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, has been plagued by chronic operational problems, resulting in long periods of near-constant flaring.

On August 20th, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality held a public hearing on Venture Global’s request to increase the amount of pollution that its Calcasieu Pass facility is authorised to emit. Rather than bring its pollution levels down, the company has gone to regulators and asked for more permissive limits. For instance, if approved, Calcasieu Pass’ revised permit will allow the facility to increase PM2.5 emissions by 17 percent, CO2 also by 17 percent, and benzene by 41 percent, among others.

“This is like asking a police officer to just raise the speed limit instead of complying with the law,” said Lori Cooke, programme coordinator with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a local NGO. “The state of Louisiana should be standing up for Cameron fishing families, not for an exploitative, out-of-state company like Venture Global.”

Venture Global did not respond to questions from Gas Outlook.

A study earlier this year from the Bullard Center for Environmental & Climate Justice at Texas Southern University found that many LNG projects have been cited in the same communities that have long suffered from heavy concentrations of pollution, replicating longstanding patterns of environmental injustice. 

“I can’t go in my backyard and plant a garden because the soil is so polluted. I can’t use the water from my faucet because it is polluted,” Ozane said. “The products that are being extracted, aren’t even for local and domestic use. They are being shipped across waterways to other countries. What are they doing for us? Absolutely nothing.”

Biden LNG “pause” 

A separate study from Evergreen Action, a national climate advocacy group, warned that the ongoing LNG expansion along the Gulf Coast threatens U.S. climate targets. The study noted that in 2025, the U.S. will need to update its nationally determined contribution (NDC) as part of the Paris Climate agreement. But if all the LNG projects that are currently under consideration eventually get built, U.S. LNG export capacity will quadruple, erasing the progress on reducing emissions in other sectors. 

The studies coming from the environmental groups are aimed at the Department of Energy (DOE), which earlier this year initiated a review of how it determines whether LNG projects are in the “public interest,” with a particular focus on environmental, health, and economic impacts of LNG export terminals. At the time, DOE temporarily froze permitting for new LNG projects. The agency has signalled that it will wrap up its review in early- to mid-2025, and Biden’s DOE has strongly suggested that it would lift the pause at that point.

A lot hinges on the outcome of the election. Former President Trump has promised to lift the LNG pause immediately if and when he takes office. If Vice President Kamala Harris wins, it is unclear what she will do, but environmental and climate groups argue that her DOE should make the LNG pause permanent because the positive impacts of exporting gas are much smaller than the harms.

The gas industry has argued that the LNG pause is ill-conceived and has damaged the investment climate for LNG projects. Instead, gas companies and industry trade associations argue that LNG carries climate benefits. One industry-backed study from earlier this year found that exporting U.S. LNG would have lower emissions than coal burned in Asia, implying climate savings by exporting gas.

“Greenpeace and the Sierra Club’s findings run counter to volumes of independent studies commissioned by a variety of sources, including DOE across multiple administrations,” Charlie Riedl, Executive Director at the Center for LNG, a Washington-based industry trade group, told Gas Outlook. “Natural gas plays a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as traditional pollutants and U.S. LNG exports help to grow those benefits by providing countries with a tool to replace dirtier fuels.”

“The United States is the world leader in emissions reductions and we are also the world leader in natural gas production and LNG exports,” Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration & Production Council, a lobbying group for oil and gas producers, told Gas Outlook in a statement. “This is no accident, and it’s a fact that too many choose to ignore for their own political purposes.”

Meanwhile, a new report from InfluenceMap finds that industry lobbying groups spent heavily on pro-LNG advertising in the months following the Biden administration’s pause on LNG permitting, touting messages that LNG is a “climate solution.” However, climate experts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have consistently warned that the world’s use of fossil fuels must decline rapidly in order to keep climate targets alive. That necessitates a significant reduction in the consumption of gas worldwide.

“New LNG export facilities just don’t make sense for our climate or the economy,” Mattea Mrkusic, senior energy transition policy lead at Evergreen Action, said on a press call. “LNG emits dangerous quantities of climate pollution up and down the supply chain. We shouldn’t be doubling down on dirty fossil fuel build-out, public health harms, and climate chaos.”