4 ms·

This is from 2016: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale-insight/2016/09/feds-to-assess-if-spacex-south-texas-lng-plants.html https://www

This is from 2016: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale-insight/2016/09/feds-to-assess-if-spacex-south-texas-lng-plants.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale... It suggests the FAA’s role is consideration of launch failure and safety on the proposed plant. FERC also evaluated the proposal. FERC doesn’t really do environmental reviews. Here is a document from April which at the time said EPA had no comment on the draft environmental impact statement as part of an interagency process: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/SAR%20-%20Texas%20LNG%20Brownsville%20LLC%20April%201%202021.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/SAR%20-%2... In short, it looks as if all the usual players are engaged here. While I suspect the FAA has considered the impact of Oil and gas infrastructure on flight paths and airports, I would guess their involvement in this kind of process is an extra layer, not a circumvention.

speedybird 5y ago
This makes sense. If the EPA is slacking and rubber-stamping things, that warrants investigation and criticism. But I'm not buying the angle that the FAA should be expected to enforce the EPA's rules. That's what the EPA is for.
- criley2 5y ago
  The EPA was utterly gutted over the past 4 years. The sad part is that it takes much longer to rebuild than it does to tear down. The EPA being unable or unwilling to enforce environmental protections is by design.
  - reddog 5y ago
    Utterly gutted? How do you figure? The EPA headcount was 14,779 in 2016 and was 14,172 in 2020. https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
  - speedybird 5y ago
    Supposing the EPA is gutted as you suggest (my sibling comment suggests otherwise), it surely still has more capability and expertise when it comes to environmental regulation than the FAA. I think expecting the FAA to act as a surrogate EPA is expecting too much.

speedybird 5y ago

This makes sense. If the EPA is slacking and rubber-stamping things, that warrants investigation and criticism. But I'm not buying the angle that the FAA should be expected to enforce the EPA's rules. That's what the EPA is for.

criley2 5y ago
The EPA was utterly gutted over the past 4 years. The sad part is that it takes much longer to rebuild than it does to tear down. The EPA being unable or unwilling to enforce environmental protections is by design.
- reddog 5y ago
  Utterly gutted? How do you figure? The EPA headcount was 14,779 in 2016 and was 14,172 in 2020. https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
- speedybird 5y ago
  Supposing the EPA is gutted as you suggest (my sibling comment suggests otherwise), it surely still has more capability and expertise when it comes to environmental regulation than the FAA. I think expecting the FAA to act as a surrogate EPA is expecting too much.