By Edith Loyola 
A massive energy project is underway in northern Mexico. Backed by the U.S.-based company Mexico Pacific Limited, the Sierra Madre pipeline aims to transport gas from the Permian Basin in Texas to Puerto Libertad in Sonora, where a liquefaction plant known as Saguaro Energía would process it for export to Asia.
This system, spanning more than 800 kilometers, would cover approximately 400 hectares—equivalent to 70 Azteca stadiums. It would cut across rural areas and communities in Chihuahua and Sonora, including subsistence fishing regions.
According to Claudia Campero, Climate Justice Coordinator at Conexiones Climáticas, the project is being developed in Mexico not because of social or environmental suitability, but due to legal constraints these types of infrastructures face in the United States:
“This project is a response to the gas glut in Texas and the legal difficulties in building such facilities in the United States, especially along its West Coast.”
Impacts on the Gulf of California
The megaproject is not limited to land-based infrastructure. Its operation requires the regular transit of methane tankers—large vessels that will navigate the waters of the Gulf of California, a region recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site since 2005.
Claudia Campero warns that the maritime consequences would be severe:
“The noise from these ships disorients whales, sometimes even deafening them, which affects their ability to communicate, protect themselves, find food, or reproduce.”
Beyond noise pollution, the risk of collisions between these vessels and marine mammals is high:
“Collisions with these enormous ships are often fatal, and many times the whales’ bodies sink to the ocean floor, going unnoticed.”
The Gulf of California is home to 85% of Mexico’s marine mammals, including endangered species such as the vaquita, heightening concerns among marine biologists and conservation organizations.
You might be interested in: Mexican Fishermen Have Unexpected Encounter with U.S. Marines off Holbox Coast Mexico
Baja California Sur: Indirect but Unavoidable Impact
Although no physical infrastructure will be built in Baja California Sur, the state is directly exposed to the continuous passage of methane tankers. Environmental groups warn that the repercussions will affect fishing, tourism, and the ecological balance of its seas.
In a joint statement, the organizations Conexiones Climáticas, BCScicletos, NRDC, and Say No to LNG stated:
“The pressure on marine ecosystems—from noise to collisions—endangers the viability of species like whales and affects others such as fish, reducing catches for local fishers.”
Questionable Benefits, Guaranteed Impacts
One of Mexico Pacific’s main arguments is job creation and increased foreign direct investment. However, several organizations argue that the benefits to Mexican communities would be minimal.
In Campero’s words:
“These jobs are often filled by foreign workers. The local economic spillover is minimal, as most supplies are imported.”
Promises of development, according to independent assessments, do not translate into sustainable growth for the affected populations.
Consultation and Science Sidelined
Fishers, Indigenous communities, and social organizations have expressed that the project was not adequately consulted, as required by law. Scientists from the Northwest Center for Biological Research and other institutions have also raised concerns about the lack of comprehensive studies on the project’s cumulative impacts.
Claudia Campero emphasizes:
“The Gulf of California represents over half of the country’s marine biodiversity. Projects of this magnitude could jeopardize an invaluable resource that belongs not only to Mexico, but to the entire world.”
Experts are therefore calling for the relocation of the pipeline, avoidance of protected areas, and application of the precautionary principle, given the irreplaceable value of the ecosystems at stake. This is not just another energy infrastructure project, but a potential ecological loss on a global scale, with repercussions for biodiversity, local economies, and the environmental balance of the region.
Finally, it is worth noting that the debate remains open, but technical and community voices converge on a common demand: that decisions be guided by science, genuine participation, and a sustainability-focused approach to territorial development.