Once completed, the expansion of the Gas Transmission Northwest pipeline could account for nearly half (48%) of all greenhouse gas emissions in Northern California, Oregon, and Washington combined.
© Photo by Katie Moum on Unsplash
By Kyle Ferrar, FracTracker Alliance Western Program Director; Wyatt Stanley, University of Washington: Department of Geography; and Nick Hadjimichael, University of Washington, Evans School of Public Policy and Governance
Overview
Major oil spills have already caused long-lasting harm in the region, including on Tribal Lands.
Recent Supreme Court decisions, including San Francisco v. EPA, Sackett v. EPA, and the overturning of Chevron deference, make it easier to bypass state objections and accelerate federal permit approvals.
Of the eight LNG terminal proposals paused under the Biden administration, five have now received federal approval to export LNG.
Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals in Puget Sound
The Pacific Northwest is increasingly being targeted for the expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and other midstream petrochemical facilities. Its location—close to major oil and gas basins and equipped with extensive transportation infrastructure—makes it a strategic site for the fossil fuel industry.
While past proposals have been successfully blocked by grassroots organizing and strong state-level environmental protections, that could change. The Trump administration’s support for Project 2025 includes plans to fast-track permitting processes by weakening environmental reviews and limiting state oversight.
To better understand the risks, FracTracker Alliance collaborated with GIS specialist Wyatt Stanley (University of Washington, Department of Geography) to map the region’s existing oil and gas transportation routes through the Puget Sound. The interactive map highlights marginalized communities at risk from spills, derailments, and ruptures and documents where such incidents have already occurred.
FracTracker also provides national data on LNG terminal proposals, with a focus on the three major proposals previously submitted in the Pacific Northwest. None of those terminals were built, thanks to public opposition and state regulatory action.
Pacific Northwest Oil and Gas Transport
When people think of fracking or oil and gas drilling, the Pacific Northwest usually isn’t part of the picture. But the region’s deep-water ports and major transportation hubs are making it a growing target for petrochemical expansion—including new refineries, storage sites, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.
Most U.S. LNG exports currently leave from Louisiana, which accounts for about 61% of current exports. But under the Trump administration, federal policies were changed to speed up approval for new LNG terminals, aiming to reach expanding energy markets in Asia. That shift has put the Pacific Northwest squarely in the path of future development.
This expansion would have real consequences. Building more LNG infrastructure would increase pollution risks—not just at the terminal sites, but along the entire transportation network. That means more pipelines, more oil trains, and more tankers on the water. And it puts frontline communities, especially marginalized and Indigenous communities, at even greater risk of toxic spills and long-term environmental damage.
In response to the approval of the GTN (Gas Transmission Northwest) pipeline expansion, FracTracker Alliance worked with University of Washington GIS specialist Wyatt Stanley to map the growing footprint of petrochemical infrastructure in the region. The maps show major pipelines, marine terminals, tanker traffic, and railways used to transport oil and gas products. They also highlight where spills have already occurred, and where communities, Tribal lands, and waterways are most vulnerable.
This data makes one thing clear: the Pacific Northwest is facing a quiet but growing threat from petrochemical development. Raising public awareness is key to protecting the region’s health, environment, and communities before it’s too late.
Explore the Map: Oil and Gas Spill Risks in the Pacific Northwest 🡥 |
Expanding LNG and Petrochemical Industries
The Pacific Northwest is positioned to become a key site for future oil, gas, and petrochemical development. Its proximity to Canada’s Tar Sands and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale, combined with the U.S. West Coast’s access to Asian markets, makes the region especially attractive for energy industry expansion.
In 2023, China increased its imports of LNG by 12%, and U.S. oil and gas companies are eager to capitalize on that growing demand. Shell—the world’s largest LNG trader—projects that global demand for LNG will rise by 50% by 2040. Much of this growth is expected to come from Asia, where countries like China are shifting from coal to gas and ramping up LNG use to support industrial and economic growth.
According to Shell’s annual LNG outlook, the global LNG market will continue to expand well into the 2040s, driven by China’s push to decarbonize its industries and rising energy needs across South and Southeast Asia.
Given these trends, the Pacific Northwest is a prime target for expanding LNG infrastructure and other petrochemical industries.
State Determination
Community and grassroots opposition has played a critical role in stopping multiple LNG projects in the Pacific Northwest. Despite receiving approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), these proposals have been blocked at the state level.
In both Oregon and Washington, state agencies have denied building permits, determining that the proposed petrochemical facilities would not meet clean air and water standards. These decisions were heavily influenced by local organizing and public pressure.
Thanks to sustained grassroots efforts, three major LNG proposals in the region have been successfully defeated—protecting communities and preventing further industrialization. Short overviews of the three projects are presented in the story map below. Yet, remaining proponents of these proposals are attempting to revive the projects.
From Local Control to Federal Mandates
While the Biden administration placed a pause on new LNG export approvals, the Trump administration quickly reversed that move—immediately resuming the approval of LNG export permits. One of the first approvals under this shift was granted to Commonwealth LNG, allowing the company to export gas from Louisiana to countries without free-trade agreements with the U.S. The application, originally submitted in 2019, was approved in February.
Since mid-January, the Department of Energy has issued several similar approvals: a conditional export approval for Venture Global’s CP2 project in Louisiana, a February order related to LNG transfer operations, and a time extension for the Golden Pass LNG terminal in Texas, jointly owned by QatarEnergy and ExxonMobil. Most recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was directed to fast-track permits for the Line 5 pipeline, which would transport LNG and other hydrocarbons beneath Lake Michigan.
Alongside these developments, the Trump administration is working to shift regulatory power away from states and toward the executive branch, which would make it easier for the oil and gas industry to bypass local environmental protections. A series of recent and upcoming judicial decisions are helping pave that path:
- Sackett v. EPA (2023): This Supreme Court ruling removed wetlands from Clean Water Act protections.
- Chevron Deference overturned: This decision significantly reduced the authority of federal agencies to interpret and enforce regulations.
- San Francisco v. EPA (2024): This ruling restricted how state regulators can shape policy, forbidding them from basing permitting decisions on projected environmental impacts.
The result? States may lose their ability to block harmful projects like LNG terminals and petrochemical facilities, with permitting potentially streamlined through federal agencies alone.
In California, these efforts are already being tested. Sable Offshore Corp, a Texas-based oil and gas company, is actively working to restart a crude oil pipeline that ruptured in 2015 despite a cease-and-desist order from the California Coastal Commission and in direct violation of state law.
These aggressive tactics to expand LNG exports are part of a larger strategy outlined in Project 2025 and supported by the Institute for Energy Research. Chapter 12 of Project 2025, written by a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) commissioner, calls for reshaping the Department of Energy to prioritize fossil fuel development over renewable energy. Among its goals: fast-track approvals for LNG export terminals and natural gas pipelines, regardless of state or environmental concerns.
The Future of Proposed LNG Facilities
Although there may be political pressure to ramp up LNG exports, many of the proposed projects may not be financially viable. Even during periods of high gas prices, new LNG developments have struggled to attract investors and secure long-term buyers.
So far, investor interest in the sector has remained low. However, that could change if environmental protections continue to be rolled back and new financial incentives are introduced to support fossil fuel infrastructure.
Currently three proposed LNG facilities are awaiting approval from the Department of Energy, while eight in total were impacted by the freeze. None have reached a final investment decision yet. The map below highlights these pending projects, along with existing operational terminals and those that have been withdrawn.
Learn More
- Explore Sierra Club’s LNG tracker that compiles and analyzes information on all existing and proposed LNG export projects in the U.S.
- Explore more from FracTracker Alliance on Liquefied Natural Gas
Join the Conversation
Stay Informed
FracTracker Newsletter
Support Our Work
FracTracker Alliance helps communicate the risks of oil and gas and petrochemical development to advance just energy alternatives that protect public health, natural resources, and the climate.
By contributing to FracTracker, you are helping to make tangible changes, such as decreasing the number of oil and gas wells in the US, protecting the public from toxic and radioactive chemicals, and stopping petrochemical expansion into vulnerable communities.
Your donations help fund the sourcing and analysis of new data so that we can keep you informed and continually update our resources.
Please donate to FracTracker today as a way to advocate for clean water, clean air, and healthy communities.
What You Should Read Next

California’s New Oil Wells Average 13.5 Barrels/Day — Far Below State Projections

FracTracker Launches Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical Data Portals

Colorado Operators Increase Chemical Disclosures After Public Pressure, but Major Gaps Remain

Evaluation of Federal Requirements for Plugging Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells: A Missouri Case Study

Methane Matters, but Make Polluters Pay: FracTracker’s Response to Carl Pope

Shell Polymers Monaca: 17.9 Billion Pounds of Emissions and Repeated Violations in Pennsylvania

Plum Borough Rejects Fracking Waste Injection Well After Public Pushback

Power Plant Locations and Unemployment Rates

Pipeline Incidents Are a Daily Occurrence

Environmental Justice Analysis of Oil Extraction in Los Angeles Communities

How Increased Protective Buffer Zones Could Help Protect 3.6 million Pennsylvanians

Regulatory Gaps and Resistance: The Battle Over Fracking in Southern Illinois

Can California Energy Policy Move Past its Contradictions?

Data Gaps: A Critical Examination of Oil and Gas Well Incidents in Ohio

Indigenous Communities’ Fight Against CO2 Pipelines in the Great Plains

Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Industry Trends: Drilled Wells, Violations, Production, and Waste

A Closer Look at Risks of the Appalachian Hydrogen Hub

Falcon Pipeline Criminal Charges Explained

The Importance of Surveying Rural Landowners in North Dakota on Fracking

Exploring the Fallout of Precision Scheduled Rail: A Rail Worker’s Perspective on Precision Scheduled Rail

Not-So-Radical Transparency: An Ineffective and Unnecessary Partnership Between Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro and the Gas Company CNX

California Must Improve Management of Idle Wells

Holes in FracFocus

Mapping PFAS Chemicals Used in Fracking Operations in West Virginia

Chevron’s $2.3 Billion Asset Adjustment Raises Questions Amidst Regulatory Changes in California

Stop Toxic Threat: A Heavy Industrial Zoning Battle

East Palestine Warning: The Growing Threat From Hazardous Waste Storage

Index of Oil and Gas Operator Health in California Shows Risks to State Economy and Taxpayers

Calling for Change: Life on the Fracking Frontlines

On the Wrong Track: Risks to Residents of the Upper Ohio River Valley From Railroad Incidents

Digital Atlas: Exploring Nature and Industry in the Raccoon Creek Watershed

Why Do Houses Keep Exploding in One Pennsylvania Suburb?

FracTracker Alliance Releases Statement Opposing Governor Shapiro’s Agreement With CNX

Oil and Gas Activity Within California Public Health Protection Zones

Assessment of Oil and Gas Well Ownership Transfers in California

Evaluation of the Capacity for Water Recycling for Colorado Oil and Gas Extraction Operations

Evidence Shows Oil and Gas Companies Use PFAS in New Mexico Wells

CalGEM Permit Review Q1 2023: Well Rework Permits Increase by 76% in California

2022 Pipeline Incidents Update: Is Pipeline Safety Achievable?

Testimony On EPA’s Proposed Methane Pollution Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry

Assessment of Rework Permits on Oil Production from Operational Wells Within the 3,200-Foot Public Health Protection Zone

CalGEM Permit Review Q4 2022: Oil Permit Approvals Show Steep Rise Within Protective Buffer Zones

A Contentious Landscape of Pipeline Build-outs in the Eastern US

Major Gas Leak Reveals Risks of Aging Gas Storage Wells in Pennsylvania

Coursing Through Gasland: A Digital Atlas Exploring Natural Gas Development in the Towanda Creek Watershed

Falcon Pipeline Online, Begins Operations Following Violations of Clean Streams Law

Synopsis: Risks to the Greater Columbus Water Supply from Oil and Gas Production

Desalination: The Chemical Industry’s Demand for Water in Texas

Take Action in Support of No New Leases

Carbon Capture and Storage: Developments in the Law of Pore Space in North Dakota

Carbon Capture and Storage: Industry Connections and Community Impacts

Carbon Capture and Storage: Fact or Fiction?

Pipeline Right-of-Ways: Making the Connection between Forest Fragmentation and the Spread of Lyme Disease in Southwestern Pennsylvania

FracTracker Finds Widespread Hydrocarbon Emissions from Active & Idle Oil and Gas Wells and Infrastructure in California

California Regulators Approve More Oil Well Permits Amid a Crisis of Leaking Oil Wells that Should be Plugged

An Insider Take on the Appalachian Hydrogen & CCUS Conference

Does Hydrogen Have a Role in our Energy Future?

Oil and Gas Brine in Ohio

PA Environment Digest Blog: Conventional Oil & Gas Drillers Dispose Of Drill Cuttings By ‘Dusting’

Real Talk on Pipelines

2021 Production from Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Wells

Mapping Energy Systems Impacted by the Russia-Ukraine War

Dimock residents working to protect water from a new threat: fracking waste

Implications of a 3,200-foot Setback in California

New Trends in Drilling Permit Approvals Take Shape in CA

Oil and Gas Drilling in California Legislative Districts

New Report: Fracking with “Forever Chemicals” in Colorado

Introducing: FracTracker’s comprehensive new Pennsylvania map!

New Letter from Federal Regulators Regarding how the Falcon has Been Investigated

US Army Corps Muskingum Watershed Plan ignores local concerns of oil and gas effects

Oil and gas companies use a lot of water to extract oil in drought-stricken California

Southeastern Texas Petrochemical Industry Needs 318 Billion Gallons of Water, but the US EPA Says Not So Fast

Chickahominy Pipeline project tries to exploit an apparent regulatory loophole

Map Update on Criminal Charges Facing Mariner East 2 Pipeline

It’s Time to Stop Urban Oil Drilling in Los Angeles

Infrastructure Networks in Texas

California Prisons are Within 2,500’ of Oil and Gas Extraction

New power plant proposal called senseless and wasteful by climate groups

Ongoing Safety Concerns over Shell’s Falcon Pipeline

New Neighborhood Drilling Permits Issued While California Fails to Act on Public Health Rules

The world is watching as bitcoin battle brews in the US


California Oil & Gas Drilling Permits Drop in Response to Decreased Permit Applications to CalGEM

California Denies Well Stimulation Permits

Mapping PFAS “Forever Chemicals” in Oil & Gas Operations

Updated National Energy and Petrochemical Map

Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania Fracking Story Map

Ohio & Fracking Waste: The Case for Better Waste Management

Pennsylvania Conventional Well Map Update

Impacts of 2020 Colonial Pipeline Rupture Continue to Grow

Gas Storage Plan vs. Indigenous Rights in Nova Scotia

Mapping Gathering Lines in Bradford County, Pennsylvania

Trends in fracking waste coming to New York State from Pennsylvania

2021 Pipeline Incidents Update: Safety Record Not Improving

New York State Oil & Gas Well Drilling: Patterns Over Time

Risky Byhalia Connection Pipeline Threatens Tennessee & Mississippi Health, Water Supply

Shell’s Falcon Pipeline Under Investigation for Serious Public Safety Threats

Kern County’s Drafted EIR Will Increase the Burden for Frontline Communities

Pennsylvania’s Waste Disposal Wells – A Tale of Two Datasets

California Oil & Gas Setbacks Recommendations Memo

Oil and Gas Wells on California State Lands

Industrial Impacts in Michigan: A Photo Essay & Story Map

People and Production: Reducing Risk in California Extraction

Documenting emissions from new oil and gas wells in California


FracTracker in the Field: Building a Live Virtual Map


Mapping Gathering Lines in Ohio and West Virginia

The North Dakota Shale Viewer Reimagined: Mapping the Water and Waste Impact

Falcon Pipeline Construction Releases over 250,000 Gallons of Drilling Fluid in Pennsylvania and Ohio

Systematic Racism in Kern County Oil and Gas Permitting Ordinance

Fracking Water Use in Pennsylvania Increases Dramatically

New Yorkers mount resistance against North Brooklyn Pipeline

California, Back in Frack

California Setback Analyses Summary

Air Pollution from Pennsylvania Shale Gas Compressor Stations – REPORT

New York State Oil & Gas Wells – 2020 Update

National Energy and Petrochemical Map

Governor Newsom Must Do More to Address the Cause of Oil Spill Surface Expressions

Oil & Gas Well Permits Issued By Newsom Administration Rival Those Issued Under Gov. Jerry Brown

Pipelines Continue to Catch Fire and Explode

The Hidden Inefficiencies and Environmental Costs of Fracking in Ohio

Fracking in Pennsylvania: Not Worth It

Fracking Threatens Ohio’s Captina Creek Watershed


How State Regulations Hold Us back and What Other Countries are doing about Fracking

New Method for Locating Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells is Tested in New York State


Abandoned Wells in Pennsylvania: We’re Not Doing Enough


The Underlying Politics and Unconventional Well Fundamentals of an Appalachian Storage Hub

Permitting New Oil and Gas Wells Under the Newsom Administration

Mapping the Petrochemical Build-Out Along the Ohio River

Impact of a 2,500′ Oil and Gas Well Setback in California

Production and Location Trends in PA: A Moving Target

The Falcon Public Monitoring Project

Release: The 2019 You Are Here map launches, showing New York’s hurdles to climate leadership

Idle Wells are a Major Risk

Literally Millions of Failing, Abandoned Wells

Wicked Witch of the Waste

The Growing Web of Oil and Gas Pipelines

Unnatural Disasters

Getting Rid of All of that Waste – Increasing Use of Oil and Gas Injection Wells in Pennsylvania

A Disturbing Tale of Diminishing Returns in Ohio

Pennsylvania Drilling Trends in 2018
216 Franklin St, Suite 400, Johnstown, PA 15901
Phone: +1 (717) 303-0403 | info@fractracker.org
FracTracker Alliance is a 501(c)3 non-profit: Tax identification number: 80-0844297
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!