Threats of Permitting New Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals in the Pacific Northwest

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.

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