For decades, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and widely cited media outlets suggested sea levels could rise three feet or more by 1500, of which just over 200 were found suitable for statistical treatment, with catastrophic consequences for low-lying energy hubs.
But a new peer-reviewed study, published August 27, 2025, in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering by Dutch engineer Hessel Voortman and researcher Rob de Vos, is challenging that assumption. Their analysis — the first global study of sea level rise based on localized, century-long observational data rather than models — found an average rise of about 1.5 millimeters per year, or roughly six inches per century. That is far lower than the 3 to 4 millimeters per year rate often cited in climate reports.
For an industry with billions invested in coastal infrastructure, the implications are worth examining.
Models vs. Measurements
Voortman’s central critique is straightforward: projections are not the same as real-world measurements. Using tide gauge data from 150,000 locations over 100 years, he and de Vos found no evidence that the rate of global sea level rise has accelerated in the modern era.
“The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is around 1.5 millimeters per year,” Voortman explains. “This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 millimeters per year often reported by climate scientists and the media.”
This contrasts sharply with the narrative many have planned around. In recent years, forecasts assumed 12 to 36 inches of sea level rise this century, leading to costly risk scenarios and, in some cases, investment shifts.
Why this matters for energy operators
For energy facilities, resilience against hurricanes, storm surge and chronic flooding is not theoretical; it is a business necessity.
Using tide gauge data from 150,000 locations over 100 years, the authors found no evidence that the rate of global sea level rise has accelerated in the modern era.
Voortman stresses that he does not deny the reality of sea level rise or the utility of models. Instead, he suggests that engineers, accustomed to designing assets with 50- to 100-year lifetimes, must test projections against empirical data. “Checking assumptions is second nature to engineers,” he notes.
That mindset resonates with the energy sector, where capital allocation depends on balancing long-term risks with reliable data. Overstating sea level rise could divert resources from more immediate resilience measures, such as protecting assets against hurricanes, modernizing drainage systems or elevating critical equipment.
A debate about risk framing
Not all experts agree with Voortman’s conclusions, but the study has sparked renewed discussion about how sea level risk is framed. Roger Pielke Jr., a longtime analyst of climate and policy, underscores that local context matters more than global averages. For Gulf Coast operators, subsidence, dredging and sediment flows may matter more than a uniform global number.
In this sense, the study may actually push the industry toward more site-specific planning. Instead of treating “sea level rise” as a single, globalized hazard, operators may sharpen their focus on local conditions, local tide gauge data and localized defense investments.
Lessons for risk managers
For decision-makers in the refining and chemical industries, three lessons emerge from the new findings:
1. Differentiate projections from observations. Global models can be useful for scenario planning, but site-specific data should carry more weight in operational and capital decisions.
2. Prioritize resilience where risk is demonstrably high. Storm surge, hurricane wind damage and electrical grid failures have historically caused greater losses to Gulf Coast assets than slow-moving sea level change.
3. Stay adaptable. Climate science is evolving. Today’s assumptions may be challenged tomorrow. Resilience strategies should be modular and flexible, allowing upgrades as conditions and knowledge change.
A more nuanced conversation
Voortman’s study does not dismiss climate change, nor does it imply that the Gulf Coast is free from risk. Instead, it challenges the narrative of accelerating sea level rise and reminds the industry that assumptions must be checked against evidence.
For energy leaders, the message is clear: don’t let alarmism dictate strategy, let data guide it. Energy industry assets will continue to face pressure from storms, subsidence and long-term ocean changes. But by grounding resilience planning in observed data and engineering rigor, operators can make smarter, more cost-effective investments.
As Voortman himself put it: “What you don’t want is for your assumptions to be incorrect.”
A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes, by Hessel G. Voortman and Rob De Vos
