SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rio grande lng
Rio Grande LNG Expansion: a Lose-Lose Proposition
The project jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks.
May 26, 2025
In its 2024 fourth quarter update, NextDecade, a Houston-based liquefied natural gas company, announced its intention to more than double its export capacity at the Rio Grande LNG facility near Brownsville, Texas. Despite NextDecade’s sunny projections, community members and investors in the project’s owner, Global Infrastructure Partners, and its parent company, BlackRock, should be wary of risks associated with the LNG facility. The proposed expansion could further harm local communities, the region, and pose significant risks to investors.
LNG is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As originally proposed, this project was estimated to emit the equivalent emissions of 44 coal power plants every year, about 163 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The newly announced expansion would be projected to emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from 83 coal plants annually.
Perhaps in an effort to address criticism about emissions, NextDecade’s original proposal included carbon capture and storage (CCS), though some opponents described this as greenwashing from the beginning. The company withdrew its CCS application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2024, yet continues to tout sustainability on its website.
The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
The Rio Grande LNG facility sits in a region already burdened by economic hardship and environmental injustice. Its expansion will amplify air pollution, exposing local residents—many of whom are Latino and low-income—to increased risks of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other serious health conditions.
Several nearby towns and entities formally oppose the project, including Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and the Laguna Madre Water District. The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built on the sacred land of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, yet Rio Grande LNG, regulatory agencies, and banks have failed to consult with that Tribe on its impacts.
Additionally, according to an environmental report,, the facilities will likely significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping, and natural tourism industries, putting communities’ livelihoods at risk. The project also threatens critical wetlands adjacent to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which protects endangered species such as the ocelot and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The noise, light, and industrial activity will disrupt fragile ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. The opposition shines a light on the environmental risks inherent in this project.
Rio Grande LNG has faced significant challenges, including pending approval and permitting of the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some banks and insurance companies have wavered in their support. Long before the expansion announcement, insurance company CHUBB backed out of the project. Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and La Banque Postale have also pulled financial support from the project in the last several years.
For investors, this means escalating risks: construction delays, legal battles, potentially stranded assets, and the threat of diminished returns. Continuing to pour capital into this project is not just environmentally irresponsible—it is financially imprudent.
The global energy market is also shifting rapidly. Ongoing trade wars and on-and-off-again tariffs could make it difficult for Rio Grande LNG to meet its Final Investment Decision, the last fundraising hurdle a project like this must clear before beginning a new stage of construction. At the same time, LNG demand is projected to peak before 2030, and an oversupply threatens to depress prices. And the methane emissions from LNG production undermine the climate benefits often touted by proponents.
The Rio Grande LNG expansion is a lose-lose proposition. It jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks. The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
Investors in Global Infrastructure Partners and its parent company BlackRock can limit the harms associated with this project. Potential investors with each company should decline to invest in the expansion of the Rio Grande LNG terminal for the sake of local residents, the region’s economy, and returns on investments.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Insurance Giant Chubb Shows 'Promising Leadership' by Dropping Texas LNG Project
"Chubb has the potential to lead the industry and raise the bar for AIG and Liberty Mutual to follow suit," said one campaigner.
Aug 06, 2024
Climate, environmental, and Indigenous rights defenders on Tuesday welcomed news that global insurance giant Chubb dropped out of a highly controversial methane gas project on the Texas Gulf Coast after months of grassroots community pressure.
The Sunrise Project published an insurance certificate obtained via a public information act request showing that Chubb is no longer insuring the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Brownsville. Houston-based NextDecade—which touts itself as a "sustainable LNG" company—says Phase I of Rio Grande LNG is currently under construction and that the 984-acre site "will be the largest privately funded infrastructure project in Texas."
In addition to exacerbating the climate emergency, Rio Grande LNG threatens land and sites sacred to the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe, which opposes the project.
"When you do the due diligence and understand Indigenous rights, this project is a no-go," Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas Chair Juan Mancias said in a statement. "Investors and major banks have dropped Rio Grande LNG, and now insurers are following suit because the claims of the fossil fuel companies can't be trusted—here, or anywhere in Texas."
According to the Sunrise Project:
This is the latest setback for the not-yet-built project that would harm the coastal landscape of the Rio Grande Valley as one of the last pristine areas of the Texas coastline—a haven for wildlife, fishing, tourism, and recreation and home to Latine and Indigenous communities—into an industrial methane export hub. Years of campaigning was a likely factor in the insurer backing away. Five banks—SMBC, Société Générale, Credit Suisse, and privately, two additional banks—committed to not financing the project after pressure from community leaders.
Community members voiced the impacts that the methane terminal's gas storage tanks, flare stacks, pipelines, and explosion risks pose to the Port of Brownsville, including the city of Brownsville and those known as the "Laguna Madre": Port Isabel, South Padre Island, Laguna Vista, Long Island Village, and Laguna Heights. The cumulative impacts on soils, air and water quality, community health, vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, tourism, commercial fisheries, and noise would be significant.
"We tell companies the truth about these projects that would be an environmental disaster for our South Texas community. It feels good to be heard," said Bekah Hinojosa of the South Texas Environmental Network. "I expect other insurers like AIG and Sompo to drop next because the LNG facility, the pipeline, the company—they're losers with a dangerous project."
In June, hundreds of Gulf Coast residents traveled to Chubb's New York office to protest the company's insurance of fossil fuel projects including Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG, Freeport LNG, and Cameron LNG. Six activists were arrested for blocking the main entrance to Chubb's building. The protest—one of several targeting fossil fuel funders and insurers—was part of the Summer of Heat, a civil disobedience campaign aimed at getting Wall Street to stop funding planet-heating oil, gas, and coal projects.
Ethan Nuss of Rainforest Action Network (RAN) asserted that "Chubb is showing some promising leadership by pulling out of Rio Grande LNG."
"Now Chubb must take the next step of becoming a true climate leader and stop insuring all methane," Nuss added. "Now Chubb must take the next step of becoming a true climate leader and stop insuring all methane. Chubb has the potential to lead the industry and raise the bar for AIG and Liberty Mutual to follow suit."
In February, RAN and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen published a report revealing that at least 35 different insurance companies were underwriting Rio Grande LNG. The report named Chubb and AIG as the world's two most prolific insurers of fossil fuel projects.
"AIG has tripped over itself to insure Rio Grande LNG in the wake of Chubb's exit," Public Citizen insurance campaigner Rick Morris said on Tuesday.
"This move is the latest in a long pattern of insuring and investing in fossil fuels that shows AIG's climate and human rights commitments aren't worth the paper they're written on," he added. "We have one message for AIG: We won't stop fighting until you drop these disastrous projects."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Someone Needs to Show President Biden the Latest IPCC Report,' Greenpeace Says After Texas LNG Approvals
"The stunning amount of new LNG export deals being approved underscores the climate hypocrisy of the Biden administration."
Apr 20, 2023
Climate groups called out U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday after a federal agency gave a green light to three liquefied natural gas projects in Texas despite local opposition and scientists' calls to swiftly transition away from fossil fuels.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—which has two Democrats, two Republicans, and one vacancy—issued orders on Glenfarne's Texas LNG project, NextDecade's Rio Grande LNG export terminal, and Enbridge's related Rio Bravo Pipeline.
"This president has the gall to say he cares about environmental justice and the climate emergency."
In response to the moves, Greenpeace USA campaigner Destiny Watford pointed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released last month as well as projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
"Someone needs to show President Biden the latest IPCC report, where it clearly says that we need to move away from dirty energy sources like LNG if we want to keep our planet livable," Watford declared. "U.S. LNG export capacity is on track to exceed the IEA's net-zero emissions estimate for global LNG trade by 2030."
"This is a level that we cannot overstep if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change—and the U.S. could pass that mark by itself," she stressed. "The stunning amount of new LNG export deals being approved underscores the climate hypocrisy of the Biden administration. This president has the gall to say he cares about environmental justice and the climate emergency while continuing to sanction limitless production and export of oil and gas."
\u201cWe're here on HWY 48 near Port Isabel, TX protesting the @FERC approving Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG, and the Rio Bravo Pipeline. We're calling attention to the destruction our community and sacred lands face from LNG & SpaceX.\n @VocesUnidasRGV https://t.co/sfD3MLZCnp\u201d— Another Gulf Is Possible (@Another Gulf Is Possible) 1682022540
FERC's moves follow the Biden administration's recent approval of an LNG project in Alaska, which came on the heels of allowing ConocoPhillips' controversial Willow oil project in the state. The president is also under fire for last weekend's Group of Seven statement that leaves the door open to future gas investments.
Oil Change International U.S. program co-manager Allie Rosenbluth argued Thursday that "the approval of any new fossil fuel project is a failure of the Biden administration's stated commitment to take action on both climate change and environmental justice."
"It's bad for the communities in Brownsville and the Rio Grande Valley who will suffer the worst consequences of this massive industrial plant on their health and well-being, it's bad for our country as laggards to climate commitments, and it's bad for our planet, as the clock is ticking to stave off the worst climate disasters," she said of FERC's new orders.
"Industry false solutions, such as carbon capture and certified gas, are making these projects even more dangerous," Rosenbluth continued, highlighting that "the company behind Rio Grande LNG claims it will 'certify' the greenhouse gas intensity of LNG to be sold from the proposed export terminal."
Citing a new report from Oil Change International and Earthworks on gas certifiers, the campaigner explained:
The investigation uncovered failures with monitoring technology, documented the concerns of methane emissions experts, revealed an absence of data transparency, and exposed conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the report detailed how the gas and LNG industry cannot rely on simply cleaning up to align with climate goals. They must also plan for a phaseout [of] gas production. This evidence calls into question the degree to which the gas certification process is misleading gas markets, giving consumers and investors a false sense of security about the environmental impacts of methane gas.
In Texas, "the fight is far from over," Rosenbluth said. "This March, after years of trans-Atlantic organizing, French bank Société Générale withdrew from Rio Grande LNG and no final investment decision on the LNG terminal has been made. People around the world will continue to fight these projects and demand a just transition to renewable energy."
\u201cA new report from @Earthworks and @PriceofOil shows how the gas industry is selling "certified gas" as a solution to its out of control methane pollution.\n\nI spoke with authors @JoshEisenfeld and @LorneStockman about this new form of industry deception \u2b07\ufe0f\nhttps://t.co/50UmK1Yw8Q\u201d— Emily Sanders (@Emily Sanders) 1681913140
The Houston Chroniclereported Thursday that Glenfarne's LNG project "has less financial traction" than NextDecade's terminal.
The newspaper also flagged a disagreement between FERC's two Democratic commissioners:
In August, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled FERC needed to more closely examine Rio Grande LNG's impact on climate change and local communities. Commissioner Allison Clements said the commission had failed to do what was requested of it and that moving forward without doing so creates "a lose-lose situation" that would invite more legal challenges and deprive potentially impacted communities of the chance to comment on the developments.
"This procedural corner-cutting represents a gobsmacking departure, frankly, from the lessons I took away from the environmental justice roundtable we held just a month ago," Clements said.
FERC Chairman Willie Phillips, viewed as more moderate on climate issues than his predecessor Richard Glick, said he thought the commission had reached "an appropriate middle ground."
"Importantly, today's order takes an unprecedented and bipartisan step to protect environmental justice communities from potential concerns about the project's effect on air quality," Phillips said. "The commission is for the first time on its own accord, requiring that the project sponsors ensure that the overlapping construction and operation of a project do not cause any significant air quality impacts on environmental justice communities."
Phillips is notably a Biden appointee. When the president selected him in September 2021, green groups sounded the alarm, given his record in government and as a private attorney, and branded the candidate as "a crony of the fossil fuel industry."
Carrizo Comecrudo Tribal Chairman Juan Mancias said Thursday that "the court sent Rio Grande LNG and Texas LNG back to FERC for a review because these gas projects are cutting corners to try and build on our sacred lands. FERC did a piss-poor job, once again, of reviewing the dangers that LNG will bring to our people: pollution, risks of explosions, and destruction of our sacred sites."
"Neither FERC nor the LNG companies have ever consulted with the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas," Mancias added. "FERC is promoting and perpetuating the sacrifice zones that come with short-sighted colonialism."
"We are disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that FERC has failed us again."
The tribe is far from alone in opposing the projects. Sierra Club Gulf Coast campaign representative Rebekah Hinojosa said that "for nearly a decade, our community has made it clear to FERC that we oppose Rio Grande LNG, Rio Bravo Pipeline, and Texas LNG because this is environmental racism," but the agency and industry "are forcing dangerous gas plants on the Rio Grande Valley that do nothing to help our community so fossil fuel corporations can profit."
"We are disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that FERC has failed us again by conducting a haphazard review of Texas LNG and Rio Grande LNG and by deciding to move forward with these destructive gas projects that will destroy some of our remaining wildlife habitat, be the biggest polluters in our poor community, and raise energy prices for families across the country," she said.
"We're not backing down," Hinojosa vowed. "FERC will hear our outrage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular