
Houston is one hurricane away from an oil and gas disaster
HOUSTON — The Gulf Coast — and its multibillion-dollar oil industry — is no stranger to hurricanes.
Hurricane Beryl last year caused widespread power outages that in some cases lasted almost two weeks. Hurricane Harvey in 2017 flooded Houston homes and buildings with nearly 50 inches of rain. And 2008's Hurricane Ike sent a storm surge though Galveston Bay that resulted in about $30 billion of damage.
But all those storms would pale in comparison to the major hurricane experts say will one day hit the nation's most critical oil refining and petrochemical processing hubs.
Advertisement
A Category 3 hurricane hitting just south of Houston could send a two-story storm surge through the city, becoming what experts and local leaders say could be one of the most catastrophic events in history.
'The biggest problem is that we're talking about storms that are hard for people to imagine happening because we've not really seen it,' said Rice University professor Jim Blackburn. 'So we really don't have benchmarks, and it's like with a lot of climate-related things — everyone says that's just not possible, and then it happens. That's what the reality is. '
Houston and the Gulf Coast are home to 55 percent of the country's petroleum refining capacity, and Houston alone helps process about 2.53 million barrels a day of the country's oil. But this region is uniquely vulnerable to hurricanes and storm surge, which have become increasingly more common and damaging in recent years thanks, scientists say, to climate change and a warming Gulf.
The implications of a major hurricane wiping out part, or most, of one of the crucial energy-producing hubs along the Gulf Coast could have national and global ramifications. Even Hurricane Harvey, which shut down some refineries and petrochemical plants for a couple of weeks, was felt globally.
'Harvey really impacted production, and it impacted exports, which Latin America and Mexico and specifically in Brazil depend heavily upon the U.S. for [oil-derived] products,' said Debnil Chowdhury, vice president of North and Latin American refining and marketing at S&P Global. 'It affected pipeline movements from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast and the Midwest. It had significant impacts kind of throughout the country and price impacts as well.'
Meanwhile, decadeslong efforts to better protect the Houston ship channel and other infrastructure along the Texas Gulf Coast have been slow going.
A massive coastal protection plan that would include floodgates, levies and bolstered sand dunes has been studied and tweaked since 2008, when the Category 2 Hurricane Ike highlighted the vulnerability of infrastructure in Galveston Bay and the Houston Ship Channel.
Congress approved that plan in 2022 but didn't fully fund it. One of the plan's main linchpins — a system of massive floodgates known locally as the Ike Dike — has only attracted $500,000 in federal funding.
While the region waits for more federal funding, leaders worry about what could happen to the unprotected infrastructure in the Houston region as hurricane season gets underway this summer.
Officials with NOAA expect above-normal hurricane activity this season, which officially began Sunday. Meteorologists with NOAA estimated that about six to 10 storms will become hurricanes this hurricane season, with three to five of them becoming major hurricanes, or Category 3 and above.
'It's not if we get another hurricane — it's when we get another hurricane,' said Republican Rep. Randy Weber, whose district includes Galveston.
The worst-case scenario
The Houston metro region has already experienced the deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. In 1900, a Category 4 storm hit Galveston Island, killing an estimated 8,000 people and wiping out nearly all structures.
That storm hit decades before oil and gas infrastructure began to line the Texas coast.
Now, nine oil refineries stretch from Baytown on the northeastern portion of Galveston Bay to Texas City on the southwestern end. More than 7,000 manufacturing facilities are spread across the Houston metro region, according to the Greater Houston Partnership, and the region accounts for more than 44 percent of the nation's overall petrochemical manufacturing capacity.
Researchers and scientists at Rice University's Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters — or SSPEED — Center have studied what could happen if a major hurricane were to hit the region and its massive petrochemical and energy complex.
In their worst-case scenario, a Category 4 or 5 storm would hit the Freeport area, which is located about 60 miles south of downtown Houston. That level of storm could create a 20-plus-foot storm surge, sending it up through Galveston Bay into the Houston Ship Channel, Blackburn said.
An estimated 2,000 tanks — storing everything from unrefined crude to petrochemicals — would be flooded with a 22- to 24-foot storm surge, according to modeling by Rice University researchers. The contents of the tanks would spill out into the gushing water and eventually be sucked out to sea by way of Galveston Bay.
Then there are the industrial containers.
'There's thousands of them, and those containers will float,' Blackburn said. 'And if those float and get floated on the incoming surge, they will become battering rams. Those will be breaking the sides of tanks; they will be potentially hitting chemical infrastructure.'
In short, it would mean unprecedented chemical releases into the air and water and mind-numbing damage to one of the country's largest energy and petrochemical hubs.
The death toll could be in the hundreds or thousands, depending on the evacuation orders and the ability to get people out ahead of the storm, Blackburn said. On top of that, widespread damage to refineries and petrochemical plants could take months or years to repair.
Some facilities may never reopen in that worst-case scenario. Phillips 66's Alliance Refinery in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, for example, permanently shut down after it was flooded with several feet of storm surge that breached the refinery's levee system in 2021's Hurricane Ida, a Category 4 storm.
The impacts of similar closures or even temporary outages in Houston would be felt far beyond Texas and the Gulf Coast.
National impacts
About 30 percent of all U.S. oil refining capacity went offline in the days before and after Hurricane Harvey came ashore near Corpus Christi in 2017, according to an S&P Global oil market briefing published at the time.
The hurricane parked over Houston for nearly a week. It took another several days for storm water to begin receding and for refiners and petrochemical plant operators to see the extent of the damage, said Patrick De Haan with fuel-price-tracking service GasBuddy. He said most refineries in the Houston region were down for about two or three weeks before picking back up production.
The average cost of a gallon of gasoline rose by about $0.50 to $0.75 nationally, De Haan said. But few, if any, refineries experienced substantial permanent damage.
'You had a month or a couple of weeks where prices spiked, and then it probably took another six to eight weeks of them declining' before they got back to their pre-storm levels, DeHaan said.
In a worst-case hurricane scenario, he said, the national average price for gasoline could rise by $0.50 to $1.00 a gallon if Houston's refining capacity dropped off.
How long that price spike would last would depend on how quickly refineries and other infrastructure could come back online.
The price shocks for products made from petrochemicals — everything from fertilizers to plastics to synthetic fibers and soaps and rubbers — could be more pronounced.
Chowdhury, with S&P Global, said the Houston region is the primary storage hub for all petrochemical feedstocks in the United States. Pricing for most of those chemicals, for example, is set at a storage hub in Mont Belvieu, located just northeast of the Houston Ship Channel, Chowdhury said.
Hurricane Harvey's impact on that sector was felt globally, Chowdhury said.
'The U.S. is the No. 1 exporter of propane and butane and naphtha as petrochemical feedstock as well. [Harvey] impacted India, because India actually imports butane from the Houston area for cooking. China, Japan [and] Korea import propane and butane for petrochemical stock, right? And India also imports ethane as well from the U.S Gulf Coast,' Chowdhury said.
Those impacts to the petrochemical and fossil fuel supply chains could be more pronounced if a storm were to hit now, Chowdhury said. That's because the industry has become more concentrated on the Gulf Coast as petrochemical plants and refineries in the Northeast and California shut down due to local pressure and state environmental regulations.
'You can argue that we're in a slightly worse spot now than in Harvey,' Chowdhury said, referencing industry consolidation in Houston and the Gulf Coast.
Funding lags
In 2022, Congress gave the Army Corps of Engineers and Texas the green light to build the Texas Coastal Project, the massive engineering effort that spans from the Louisiana border to Brownsville, Texas.
The Galveston Bay Storm Surge Barrier System is among the project's most ambitious aims. It includes the Ike Dike — a system of floodgates at the mouth of Galveston Bay — as well as surge gates at the end of the bay, 43 miles of beefed-up sand dunes, improvements to existing seawalls and an ecosystem restoration plan.
The system comes with an estimated price tag of about $34 billion — 65 percent of which is to come from federal sources and 35 percent of which is to come from the state or nonfederal sources.
But while the Texas Legislature has appropriated more than $1 billion toward the project, Congress has only handed over $500,000. The federal money went to the Army Corps to study and design beach breakwaters, which are permanent structures like large rocks or concrete that slow waves and protect the shoreline from erosion.
The House Appropriations Committee in 2023 denied a $100 million funding request made by Weber, the representative whose district includes Galveston. None of the already allocated state and federal funds can be used for construction until the project and the Army Corps receive a 'new start' designation and federal funds specifically earmarked for the project's construction.
That can happen in two different ways. Congress can specifically allocate funding through an appropriations bill for the project or give the Army Corps a lump sum for construction projects. In the latter case, the Trump administration would have to allocate some of the construction funds to the Galveston Bay Storm Surge Barrier System or the Texas Coastal Project.
Trump's fiscal 2026 budget request, which was published Friday, did not include any funding for those projects.
But some are hopeful the project could ultimately be funded in the fiscal 2027 budget, including Michel Bechtel, mayor of Morgan's Point in Galveston Bay. Bechtel is also chair of the state-created Gulf Coast Protection District, which serves as the required nonfederal partner for the Galveston Bay portion of the Texas Coastal Project.
'This entire summer, we're going be going up to Washington, D.C., to advocate for this project,' Bechtel said. 'We're going to be hitting appropriation staff on the Hill, energy and water folks, as well as the [Office of Management and Budget].'
He said the sell is simple: The regional and national implications of losing the manufacturing capacity are too much to risk.
'I think the manufacturing capacity, particularly in the oil and gas realm, and the national security implications that that are involved would be our best advocate,' Bechtel said. 'I mean, we manufacture 80 percent of the military grade jet fuel for the nation — 80 percent just in our region. We think that's going to be an important talking point.'
He said his office has been in contact with the Trump administration and that the president's pro-oil-industry stance and favoritism towards Texas could help the funding pitch.
But even if the program gets funding, it would still take 20 years for most of the projects to come to fruition, depending on how steady the flow of funding is throughout construction. The Army Corps said that projects would likely come online piecemeal, with some of the larger projects like the Ike Dike taking the longest to complete.
Last week, the SSPEED Center at Rice University also published a separate plan, called the Galveston Bay Park Plan, that would include a 25-foot barrier built within the Bay to protect against catastrophic storm surge, as well as more floodgates closer to the actual ship channel.
That plan would piggyback off of an already planned Houston port project that includes dredging large parts of this ship channel in Galveston Bay. Blackburn said officials could use the material that was dredged up to create the sea wall, and local governments and private partners could fund raise for floodgates that could be closed before an impending storm.
While both projects await funding, the Houston metro area and its energy and petrochemical complexes remain as unprotected as they were in Ike.
'I hope it doesn't take another catastrophe like Hurricane Harvey or Hurricane Ike to get people's attention, because, Lord forbid, we could go through some death and destruction,' Weber said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
40 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The NASA science missions that would be axed in Trump's 2026 budget
President Donald Trump's fiscal 2026 budget request, if approved by Congress, would kill many of NASA's plans for robotic exploration of the solar system. Gone, too, would be multiple space-based missions to study Earth, the sun and the rest of the universe. Among the planets that would get less attention are Venus, Mars and Jupiter. But the planet facing the biggest drop in scrutiny from space is our own. The Trump budget proposal calls for reducing Earth science funding by 53 percent.


Los Angeles Times
44 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated 'R' for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, 'I have a [expletive deleted] dream.' Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand 'toxic.' Walz told his fellow Dems: 'We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing.' It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: 'A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.' Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers 'win elections because their opponents were unpopular,' Levin wrote, 'and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.' It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy 'maybe' period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.


Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them.