We last visited the ethanol carbon pipeline issues just over a week ago in Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: trust & protest.
Since then, there's worthwhile reading. Late last week, the Washington Post editorial board noted in Biden gives in to the ethanol con:
Moreover, ethanol, which some hailed as a key piece of the country’s strategy to combat climate change, has turned out to be an environmental loser. Absent a waiver such as the one Mr. Biden just issued, the federal government restricts its use during summer months because the emissions from burning ethanol can promote smog in hot weather. The administration promised it would work with states to counteract any summertime rise in smog.
Instead of cutting planet-warming greenhouse emissions, many experts have concluded, the federal policy mandating that ethanol be blended into the gasoline supply has made things worse. A paper published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ethanol produced and blended under this policy likely has life-cycle emissions — those produced along the way from the farm to the tailpipe — greater than gasoline. It has spurred more corn farming — indeed, a third of all U.S.-produced corn is converted into ethanol — leading to the clearing of land and the release of the carbon stored in its preexisting plant life.
The study’s authors found that those who paint a rosier picture about ethanol, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, badly underestimate the sum of its effects. “Ethanol’s small contribution to the domestic fuel supply, while providing a sizable guaranteed market for corn farmers and ethanol producers, comes at substantial cost to the American public,” an expert commentary on the study concludes. Noted among those costs: higher taxes to subsidize crop insurance, more expensive food and fuel, and the consequences of climate change, reduced air and water quality, habitat loss and other environmental damage.
Mr. Biden should have used his presidential power to put an end to the ethanol con. Instead, he has become yet another politician trying to hoodwink Americans on its supposed benefits.
The Post doesn't even get into the permanent infrastructure being planned by ethanol CCS. Fortunately, the upper Midwest is paying attention.
Reporting for the Forum News Service's AgWeek, via the West Central Tribune, Jeff Beach reports from North Dakota in Counties taking action against eminent domain for carbon capture pipeline:
Todd McMichael looks out over pasture land that his family owns along the Sheyenne River expecting to see prairie chickens, deer and pheasants.
When it greens up, there will be cattle grazing on the land near Kindred, North Dakota, that has never been tilled.
What he doesn't want to see is workers sinking a pipeline into the ground.
McMichael describes himself as becoming a "mouthpiece" for landowners in the path of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline in North Dakota who object to the threat of eminent domain to gain right-of-way for the pipeline.
He made a presentation in front of his county board in March, which unanimously adopted a resolution: "That the Richland County Commission officially opposes eminent domain for the Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline within Richland County, North Dakota."
Neighboring Sargent County has passed a similar resolution. McMichael says there are presentations soon to be made in Dickey and Emmons counties and conversations taking place with landowners in Burleigh and Morton counties.
He said he and other landowners are making the case “knowing that it more than likely will not have the teeth … if the state decides to site this," McMichael said. "But we are hoping to get noticed in Bismarck; that a lot of landowners are against this project and how it’s being handled.”
The pipeline will stretch west to Mercer and Oliver counties, where Summit plans to pump liquid carbon dioxide underground for permanent storage. The carbon dioxide is to come from 31 ethanol plants across five states connected by 2,000 miles of pipeline.
Summit says the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help keep the ethanol industry viable as place for farmers to market their corn.
Widespread objections
McMichael says he's in regular contact with about 75 people on the pipeline issue. He's also made connections with pipeline opponents in other states.
Summit already has applied for permits in Iowa and South Dakota. The public dockets with the Iowa Utilities Board and South Dakota Public Utilities, where people can submit comments, are overwhelming against the pipeline.
In Iowa, 26 counties touched by the pipeline have filed objections to carbon pipelines. There also have been efforts in the Legislature there to limit the Iowa Utilities Board's ability to grant eminent domain authority.
In northern South Dakota, McPherson County has issued a moratorium on pipeline construction, but Bruce Mack, an organizer of opponents there, said that is part of county effort to upgrade its zoning and there are moratoriums against large hog barns and wind turbines also. But he added that there is "very stiff opposition" in the county.
"Bottom line is, nobody wants this thing," Mack said.
A letter of opposition filed April 5 by commissioners of Brown County, which includes Aberdeen, reads, in part: "The farmers who will be affected by this pipeline are refusing to sign easements that are being offered to them by SCS Carbon Transport. This company is using strong-arm tactics in response to the refusal to sign these easements. The affected farmers fear the inevitable use of eminent domain and the loss of private property rights.
"There is great concern about the safety of the SCS Carbon Transport pipeline. With the pipe being placed only four feet underground and at 2100 PSI, if this pipeline should happen to rupture, there could be serious human and animal consequences."
McMichael shares those concerns, with his property being very rugged and remote should there be a need for emergency access. . . .
There's more
at the Tribune.
It's not just landowners who are concerned about safety. At Grist, Emily Pontecorvo reports in CO2 pipelines are coming. A pipeline safety expert says we’re not ready.:
A year ago, a different kind of pipeline project was announced in the Midwest. Most pipelines pick up oil or gas from a well and deliver it to customers who burn it, emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This one would run almost in reverse. A company called Summit Climate Solutions planned to capture carbon dioxide from ethanol refineries in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, and then transport it via the proposed pipeline to a site in North Dakota where the CO2 would be buried deep underground.
In the months since, two more companies have proposed similar CO2 pipeline projects in the Midwest, and another wants to expand an existing pipeline in the South. The sudden boom is being driven by federal and state incentives for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, as well as a new low-interest loan program for CO2 pipelines passed by Congress last year and general support from the Biden administration to grow the “carbon management” industry in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.
But as the number of pipeline proposals multiplies, a new report commissioned by the Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit advocacy group, warns that CO2 pipeline regulations aren’t up to the task of keeping communities safe.
“The country is ill prepared for the increase of CO2 pipeline mileage being driven by federal CCS policy,” writes report author Richard Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety consultant hired by the Pipeline Safety Trust. “Federal pipeline safety regulations need to be quickly changed to rise to this new challenge, and to assure that the public has confidence in the federal pipeline safety regulations.” . . .
The most concerning finding in the new report, according to Bill Caram, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, is that regulations for assessing the potential impacts of a CO2 pipeline rupture were not developed specifically for CO2. Every pipeline developer has to identify potential “high consequence areas” where an accidental release would have significant negative impacts on human health or the environment. High consequence areas for oil and gas pipelines are well defined, but the report notes that CO2 has different considerations and likely a much larger radius of concern. CO2 is heavier than air, and a plume of CO2 can travel for miles, depending on wind and terrain, and settle into low-lying areas. The report warns that such an event would be difficult for people in the vicinity and first responders to detect, since CO2 is colorless, odorless, and nonflammable.
“If I had to pick one finding of the report that would keep me up at night as a public safety advocate, it’s that one,” said Caram.
The residents of Satartia, Mississippi, learned this the hard way in 2020 when a CO2 pipeline ruptured and a plume of CO2 settled over the town, causing people to feel dizzy, nauseous, and disoriented. Many passed out. Forty-nine people went to the hospital. PHMSA has yet to release an incident report detailing the cause of the rupture.
Read the article at Grist.
On a more local note, Jennifer Kotila reported in the West Central Tribune, Bushmills Ethanol of Atwater partners with Summit Carbon Solutions to reduce carbon emissions, mostly press releasey material, though there's this final sentence:
There has, however, been growing opposition to the proposed carbon pipeline's development and construction, especially in some parts of Iowa and North Dakota.
We think it's more widespread than that. At the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Nicole Ki reported Thursday, Residents plead with Lincoln County to fight Summit CO2 pipeline, protect ‘unsuspecting landowners.’
Dakota Rural recommends that visitors to its website Get The Facts on CO2 Pipelines. A taste:
South Dakota currently has two proposed Carbon Dioxide pipelines proposed through the state.
Summit Carbon Solutions is an Iowa-based company whose pipeline will span five states and 2000 miles. The South Dakota section includes nearly 460 miles crossing sixteen East River counties and connecting to seven ethanol plants.
Navigator CO2 Ventures is a Texas-based company that has a feeder line connecting one SD ethanol plant to the main pipe in Iowa, which passes through Brookings, Moody, and Minnehaha Counties.
Carbon Dioxide is classified as a hazardous material by the federal government. It is commonly used as a euthanizing agent for livestock, and there are reported deaths from industrial CO2 leaks every year. These pipelines will have the liquidized CO2 highly pressurized around 2000psi, and any natural or mechanical accident could cause a significant rupture, releasing an enormous cloud of CO2 over the surrounding landscape.
Currently, federal guidelines only mandate a 50 foot setback and a 3 foot minimum depth. We know that these are terribly inadequate, and have great need for county commissioners and zoning boards to pass better safety ordinances.
In addition to multiple CCS projects cancelled for economic failure, there has already been significant failures of these systems resulting in highly dangerous ruptures. For the residents of Satartia, Mississippi, this meant being gassed and poisoned in their own homes and community
Together, CO2 and water form carbonic acid, which can leach toxic metals out of rocks. CO2 seeping into water supplies from deep underground has been shown to make water dangerous to drink. With these pipelines slated to cross so many waterways, there is concern for water contamination of people and animals. . . .
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is a ‘greenwashing’ scheme developed by Big Oil and Gas companies lobbying our government to support its development. The technology pretends to support climate change mitigation by reducing carbon emissions, while its true intent is to receive tax credits and subsidies to continue making money for fossil fuel giants. CCS does not address other emissions or forms of pollution from fossil fuel extraction and industrial agriculture, and every dollar of public money spent subsidizing CCS is a dollar that could have been spent supporting REAL solutions . . .
Not that there aren't naysayers in Iowa, too. On Sunday's op-ed section at the DesMoines Register, Anuradha Mittal, founder and executive director of the Oakland Institute, writes in Opinion: Bruce Rastetter is no climate hero:
As the fight to stop the Midwest Carbon Express heats up in Iowa, a diverse coalition of Indigenous groups, environmentalists, landowners, and farmers is fiercely opposing Summit Carbon Solution’s proposed $4.5 billion, 2,000-mile-long, carbon capture and storage pipeline.
Reasons for their opposition are several. First carbon capture and storage (CCS) is widely discredited as an effective climate solution. CCS projects have systematically overpromised and under delivered. Despite billions of taxpayer dollars spent to date, CCS technology has failed to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, as it has “not been proven feasible or economic at scale.” Second, given it will carry highly hazardous materials, farmers and landowners are rightfully resisting such a pipeline to cross their land and threaten the health of their families and the environment.
Resistance to the pipeline is also based in lack of faith in Bruce Rastetter — the man at the helm of Summit’s parent company — to prioritize the public good over his own profits. Given lofty promises of potential benefits from the Midwest Carbon Express, especially as they relate to a “world demanding more sustainability,” it is essential to examine Rastetter’s sustainability record on projects he has helmed.
Comments