Javier Bello could hardly believe what he was seeing in the waters off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico. Where the Canadian fossil fuel company TC Energy claimed there was little more than piles of sand, it saw a thriving ecosystem. Sunbeams cut through the water, and fish danced among the delicate array of wire and black corals 328 feet below the surface. “It was unbelievable,” he said.
The marine scientist, watching from a submarine, was one of the first to view a marine habitat that he and others fear will be devastated by the construction of a natural gas pipeline. The whole point of the trip, in which scientists, fishermen and activists gathered aboard the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise for three weeks last June, was to show what could be lost through the project.
“We don’t often have access to these kinds of research opportunities in Mexico,” Bello said, “so this is a really good example of non-governmental organizations working with universities to make things happen together.”
TC Energy — the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline – proposed an extension of a natural gas pipeline that would stretch about 497 miles from the coastal towns of Tuxpan to Coatzacoalcos in the Mexican state of Veracruz. The company claimed that there was nothing of significance on the seabed along its planned route, and that construction did not exist marine protected areas. But Bello says researchers have always had an idea that the reefs extend beyond the protected areas.
The exact coordinates of the pipeline remain classified, but information leaked to Greenpeace by an anonymous government official pointed to a general area – about 400 feet (120 meters) from the coast – that led the Arctic Sunrise’s route. Previously, researchers lacked the resources needed to study those depths, but the views by the Arctic Sunrise research team revealed a rich and vibrant ecosystem that extends beyond the protected areas—one that scientists like Bello would like the opportunity to continue studying.
But unease about the project extends beyond protecting and studying corals and fish. Pipeline opponents believe that in addition to destroying the environment, the project will disrupt the livelihoods of local communities and keep Mexico dependent on fossil fuels, further exacerbating the effects of climate change.
In July 2022, TC Energy announced a partnership with Mexico’s state-owned electric utility CFE to expand its Sur de Texas-Tuxpan Gas Pipeline. With an estimated cost of $5 billionTC Energy has announced a public offering of common stock to help finance the project the next month.
Following the investment announcements, 18 environmental organizations led by the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental warned of the pipeline’s serious risk to the surrounding coral reef corridor. They claimed that TC Energy and CFE tried to avoid examining the project’s impact by presenting an environmental impact assessment fragmented into two pieces, one for each stage of the pipeline – terrestrial and aquatic.
“In the ocean, our main concern is that the pipeline will be built right on top of the reefs, which is very possible,” said Pablo Ramirez, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Mexico. “But even if they just build near the reefs rather than on top of them, the sediments can affect the reef, which is very concerning.”
Ramirez notices this Greenpeace has obtained leaked documents which outlined TC Energy’s environmental review process. Of particular concern is the assessment methodology it used to determine the suitability of the proposed “dumping ground,” where sediment excavated to make way for the pipeline would be placed. The leaked information reveals that, according to TC Energy’s assessment request, Mexico’s Safety, Energy and Environment Agency (ASEA) dropped a 50-meter rope to see what was below the surface and, because the rope does not reach the seabed did not, concluded that the site did not have evidence of an active ecosystem.
In an email to Grist, a TC Energy spokesperson noted that “this project was specifically designed with sustainability in mind. We believe in evidence and science-based decision-making. … This marine project route is one of the most studied routes that has ever been undertaken.”
But the proximity of the proposed dumping polygon to the reef alarmed environmentalists, and when Greenpeace sought clarification, Ramirez says, TC Energy responded by providing heavily redacted paperwork, further raising the organization’s concerns.
“That’s when we decided to go into the ocean and see for ourselves,” Ramirez said.
What they found were thriving, previously unexploited reefs – a continuation of a highly biodiverse reef system with many endemic species. Bello notes that his primary concern is the absence of transparency between the fossil fuel industry and scientists in cementing the pipeline. “There is a lack of knowledge,” he said. “They don’t give access to enough of the information, and during the operation of the pipeline there can be accidents that will have major consequences for the corals and ecosystem.”
While there is still time to stop the project, ASEA has already approved phases one and two, which are responsible for construction on land. Through litigation and advocacy campaigns, Greenpeace and other environmental groups seek to delay the project as long as they can, hoping that Mexico’s next president will be more prone to kill the project.
Ramirez notes that for local residents, the pipeline is an encroachment on their land and a threat to the livelihood of more than 70,000 people whose only income depends on fish. The threat is particularly acute for the communities of El Bosque and Las Barrancas, who could lose their fish stocks if the pipeline disrupts the marine ecosystems. At the same time, they are losing ground to ongoing ocean and coastal erosion, driven by reliance on fossil fuels such as the natural gas the pipeline will carry. The coastlines of Mexico are heavily affected by storms and rising sea levels — and reefs, which buffer coastlines, can help protect coastal communities from increasingly violent storms.
Ramirez also expresses concern that the communities along the pipeline’s route have not been fully informed of the risks. “The companies talk to local communities about all the so-called benefits, but when we then went to the communities and presented that the projects were to transport methane, which can be explosive, the local residents were very shocked.”
“We didn’t even know about the pipeline production,” El Bosque resident Lupe Cobos told Grist. “And in a community facing major consequences of climate change — we are literally losing our homes — this is important information.”
Since Greenpeace representatives began talking to the local residents of Veracruz about the potential risks, Ramirez says, the community has become eager for the organization’s efforts. But in this area, resistance to development can be dangerous. Although Greenpeace has not yet had reports of anything ominous regarding this pipeline, the risk is still uppermost in the minds of local residents.
“There’s a lot of violence and repression for this kind of resistance,” Ramirez continues, “so we’re still trying to figure out the best way to do it, and how Greenpeace can take the risk.”
Veracruz is no stranger to the oil industry. Promises of development and benefits from oil were promised to local residents more than a century — and yet more than 60 percent of Mexican households live in energy poverty because of accessibility, affordability or both. According to Ramirez, Greenpeace has heard anonymous reports from residents that TC Energy has already approached fishing communities in the state of Tabasco and offered them money in exchange for their assurances not to oppose the project. (TC Energy did not respond to Grist’s email inquiry about the allegation.)
“We have to fight this narrative that they actually want to help the communities,” Ramirez said. “Because this kind of energy model ends up leaving the communities behind.” He believes that switching to renewable energy would be a better strategy to promote energy security and independence for Mexico.
He notes the effects of the 2021 Texas winter freezing pointwhen Mexico lost its gas supply due to frozen pipelines in the US When the states were forced to prioritize national consumption, about 5 million people in Mexico lost power; although most of the affected customers had their power restored within the day, even more people were then affected by temporary planned outages as the National Energy Control Center struggled to maintain a reliable supply.
In addition, the new infrastructure will go against the international goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. At COP28, the annual UN climate conference at the end of last year, countries – including Mexico – participated in the first “global stocktaking”, assessing progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement. The resulting agreement named fossil fuels as a driver of climate change for the first time, and called on countries to begin “switching away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”
“The fossil fuel model does not meet Mexico’s needs,” Ramirez said. “Increasing our gas consumption means that we will remain dependent on American and Canadian gas. We need to change the focus of the model where the improvement of the people is at the center of energy policy.”
