In November, we posted Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system. In early January, we noted Mother Jones: USDA Secretary Vilsack’s son works for a controversial ethanol pipeline project and Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them.
Here's more coverage on proposed carbon pipelines in the Midwest.
At the Star Tribune, Mike Hughlet reports in Carbon dioxide pipelines planned for Minnesota fall into regulatory black hole:
Two of the largest carbon dioxide pipelines in the world are slated to cross Minnesota, transporting the climate-poisoning gas for burial deep underground — yet also falling into a regulatory black hole.
CO2 is considered a hazardous pipeline fluid under federal law and in some states, including Iowa, but not Minnesota.
The pipelines — one of which would be more expensive than the Enbridge pipeline project across northern Minnesota — would primarily ship CO2 captured at ethanol plants across the Midwest.
Transporting and storing CO2 has never been done on this scale. Carbon-capture technology is still in a nascent stage. And a 2020 pipeline mishap in Mississippi caused an evacuation and dozens of injuries.
"CO2 is a hazardous material that can lead to absolutely disastrous ruptures," said Bill Caram, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a Washington state-based group. While CO2 isn't explosive like natural gas, it's an asphyxiant that can be fatal in large doses.
Right now, the CO2 pipelines don't require approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). But the PUC in December opened a proceeding on whether it should change state regulations to deem CO2 pipelines as hazardous. The Minnesota Departments of Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce and Natural Resources (DNR) all favor such a change.
"A developing body of research has raised concerns about the safety and environmental effects of pipelines transporting CO2," the DNR said in a PUC filing Monday. "Leaks or breaks in a pipeline can cause CO2 to accumulate in low-lying areas [including basements of area residences and building], thereby displacing oxygen." . . .
There's more at the Strib.
Via the Worthington Globe, Leah Douglas reports for Reuters in Carbon pipeline proposals trigger backlash over potential land seizures:
A flurry of proposed carbon pipelines in the Midwest has triggered a battle over whether companies behind the projects should be allowed to seize land from unwilling property owners to secure a route.
Hundreds of Iowa landowners, more than a dozen state counties and a handful of lawmakers are seeking to limit the use of eminent domain law by the projects, arguing property rights and other concerns outweigh the potential benefits of the pipelines to local industry and the climate, according to a Reuters analysis of regulatory documents and interviews with people involved.
The issue has come to the forefront as the companies behind the projects seek to negotiate voluntary easements with landowners that would give them the legal right to dig, install and maintain the lines — which would transport carbon captured at biofuel processing plants for injection underground.
If the landowners refuse easements, the companies would need to turn to eminent domain to gain access to the land.
U.S. eminent domain law allows private companies to take over property if their project is deemed in the public interest and landowners are compensated. It has been used often to ensure energy companies can complete projects, like pipelines and transmission lines, that move oil, gas and power to consumers.
But the law has not yet been applied to carbon pipelines, which are primarily regulated and sited by states, rather than the federal government, according to the Department of Energy (DOE), and few of which have been constructed to date. . . .
Read the rest at the Globe. Last week in the Aberdeen American, Alexandria Hardle reported in A carbon dioxide pipeline could be coming to South Dakota. Here's why landowners are concerned:
In July 2021, Ed Fischbach grabbed his mail before beginning the drive from his Spink County home to his niece’s wedding in Minnesota.
His wife told him he might want to look at a letter they had gotten from Summit Carbon Solutions. But not wanting to crash his car, Fischbach asked his wife to read the letter out loud to him — their property was on the route for a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline, and they might not have any say.
Since then, Fischbach has spent time learning about the company and the goals of the pipeline. And he’s become one of the project’s most vocal critics.
Summit Carbon Solutions is a company based in Ames, Iowa, that is proposing carbon dioxide pipelines in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa. In South Dakota, the project would take carbon dioxide emitted by ethanol plants. Carbon dioxide is a gas but it would be liquified to travel through the pipes. It would flow through the state before getting pumped a mile into the ground in North Dakota. The project is estimated to cost $4.5 billion. . . .
In 2020, a carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured in Satartia, Mississippi. About two dozen people collapsed within minutes. And because cars need oxygen to burn fuel, people could not drive away from the gas, according to a HuffPost article by Dan Zegart that came about from a 19-month investigation with Climate Investigations Center.
Just as in Summit’s proposed project, the carbon dioxide flowing through the pipes was liquid, according to the article. But it was contaminated with hydrogen sulfide, which gave the carbon dioxide a green color and rotten eggs smell. Hydrogen sulfide is a deadly gas.
But unlike the pipe that ruptured Satartia, Summit’s proposed pipelines would not include hydrogen sulfide, said Chief Operating Officer Jimmy Powell at Tuesday's meeting in Leola. Some symptoms of exposure to high carbon dioxide concentrations include: convulsions, asphyxia and coma, according to the CDC. Carbon dioxide is also a colorless and odorless gas. And because the pipeline will only be 4 feet underground, some landowners are concerned about rupturing it, even if that’s 20 years from now.
Landowners have also raised questions about the company’s integrity. Summit Carbon Solutions is currently proposing easements, although it does not yet have a permit to begin construction of the pipelines. If easements are not signed, Powell said on Tuesday that he’s confident the company will get a right to eminent domain.
And eminent domain is one of Fischbach’s main concerns: Summit Carbon Solutions is a private company.
“We don’t believe a private, unregulated company should be allowed to use eminent domain,” said Fischbach.
District 23 Rep. Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, told attendees at the Jan. 29 Legislative Cracker Barrel in Aberdeen that he's looking at the state's eminent domain regulations, but didn't expect to propose a bill on that topic this session, but he said he would continue to review the topic for future legislation. . . .
We'll post more about this project as we read
Related posts:
- Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system
- Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them
- Carbon capture in the news & an early March forum
- Reuters: Before being mothballed, problems plagued Petra Nova carbon capture project
- Project Tundra's clean coal; or, does Petra Nova project's tech really reduce carbon emissions?
- Cost of coal: Great River Energy to close Coal Creek power plant, wind power's gain.
Map: Two companies, Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator CO₂ Ventures, are proposing multi-billion dollar pipeline projects in the Midwest that would capture carbon dioxide – mostly from around 50 ethanol plants – and transport it for permanent underground storage. Via Star Tribune.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments