Bluestem has been tardy in creating another carbon ethanol pipeline news digest, distracted as I've been by hot weather and Minnesota Republicans performative politics.
One thing I noticed in the news was the connection being made between the oil industry and Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline permit failure at the hands of the North Dakota Public Service Commission.
I'm so old, I can remember both Project Tundra and Summit Carbon Solutions stating that nether would be selling that carbon dioxide, sequestered in North Dakota's bedrock, to the petroleum industry for enhanced oil recovery. Indeed, Bluestem posted About that permanent carbon storage by the Summit ethanol pipeline & Project Tundra on April 30, 2022. noting:
Two days ago, Amy Sisk reported in the Bismarck Tribune article, Project Tundra, carbon dioxide pipeline developer to partner on storage:
The companies behind two carbon dioxide storage projects slated for west-central North Dakota have agreed to work together.
Summit Carbon Solutions is developing a multistate pipeline to pick up carbon dioxide from Midwestern ethanol plants. Under a new agreement with Minnkota Power Cooperative, it will have access to the storage site the co-op is planning for its Milton R. Young Station near Center.
Minnkota received a state permit in January to establish an underground storage facility to permanently hold climate-warming emissions from its coal-fired power plant. The Project Tundra site is meant to store up to 100 million tons, and Summit is planning to build a small pipeline branch that extends to the area.
The agreement signed Thursday also sets up the framework for the companies to jointly pursue developing another 200 million tons of carbon dioxide storage. . . .
Note the language "an underground storage facility to permanently hold climate-warming emissions." That seems to be the option for the 45Q tax credit to help coal producers that receives a higher return.
Back in March, Jeff Beach reported in AgWeek in Continental Resources ventures into carbon capture with 5-state ethanol project:
Continental Resources, which helped drive a resurgence in North Dakota’s oil industry, is investing in what is being billed as the largest carbon capture project in the world — taking greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol plants and storing it underground in North Dakota.
Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions on Wednesday, March 2, announced a $250 million investment from Continental Resources, which also will contribute it's expertise in North Dakota's geology.
In an interview, Harold Hamm, the founder of Continental Resources said the storage area in Mercer and Oliver counties west of Bismarck, is an "ideal place" for carbon storage, a key component of North Dakota's goal to be carbon neutral by 2030.
"We believe that this is the right thing to do for the right reasons, for the environment, for ag, for industry, for the country, and that's why we're here," Hamm said. . . .
Summit also is banking on a federal tax credit of $50 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is permanently stored. Summit says the 31 ethanol plants will provide about 8 millions tons of carbon dioxide and the project will have the capacity to store 12 millions tons with a possible expansion of up to 20 million tons. . . .
While liquid carbon dioxide can be used for enhanced oil recovery, Summit has said that is not in its business plan. ...
What brought me back to that 2022 text? Scott Hennen's opinion piece in the Forum Communications chain, Our 'sugar daddy' may be done, unless we embrace carbon management:
North Dakota is addicted to oil money. It's our "sugar daddy"! We literally have buckets of money from the bounty of our oil and gas industry. More than 50% of our tax revenue funds schools, roads, flood protection and so much more. Add in the tax revenue from lignite and ethanol production, and you have a juggernaut of money for the government to distribute.
But there is a huge storm cloud coming to take down these industries and our government coffers. The culprit? The radical environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement that is infiltrating nearly every federal rule related to energy as well as banking, our stock market and more. Our ag industry is a target as well.
But every storm cloud has an edge. There is hope to stop this freight train coming at us. Some very smart geologists and researchers, the team at EERC at the University of North Dakota and Kathy Neset of Neset Consulting in Tioga to name just two, tell us North Dakota could lead the nation in enhanced oil recovery and carbon management. Project Tundra and the Summit Carbon Solutions projects are the lynchpin to beating the ESG extremists at their own game.
But North Dakota’s Public Service Commission recently denied the siting permit application for Summit Carbon Solutions’ Midwest Carbon Express CO2 Pipeline Project. The project’s aim is to construct approximately 320 miles of carbon dioxide pipeline in North Dakota. The proposed route of the pipeline would cross through parts of Burleigh, Cass, Dickey, Emmons, Logan, McIntosh, Morton, Oliver, Richland and Sargent counties. . . .
And where did he come up with this notion about ethanol carbon being piped into North Dakota being the saving grace of the oil industry, despite earlier statements about Summit Carbon Solutions business plan?
Bluestem is guessing it's material like this at Prairie Public Newsroom in mid-August, Helms: ND will need more CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Dave Thompson reports:
North Dakota Mineral Resources director Lynn Helms said the state’s oil industry will eventually need carbon dioxide from out of state sources for enhanced oil recovery.
The North Dakota Public Service Commission rejected an application by Summit Carbon Solutions to build a pipeline that would bring CO2 from ethanol plants in the Upper Midwest to be stored underground in North Dakota.
Helms would not comment on the PSC’s decision directly. But in his monthly “Director’s Cut” briefing, he talked about the importance of bringing CO2 from out of state to North Dakota for enhanced oil recovery.
"Carbon dioxide has got to come to North Dakota from somewhere, if we're going to stabilize and sustain Bakken oil production," Helms said. "So, we've got to find a way for carbon capture and utilization to become a part of North Dakota's economy, or we will leave billions of barrels of oil in the ground."
Summit had said it would re-apply for the permit. The PSC said it has not yet received anything from Summit on that.
In a statement, Summit said its plans are only for CO2 to be stored safely underground, and it has no plans to use the stored CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.
There are CO2 storage and utilization projects in North Dakota — at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, at the Rainbow Energy Coal Creek Station and "Project Tundra" at the Milton R. Young power station. A pipeline also brings CO2 from Wyoming to the southwestern part of the state, for enhanced oil recovery.
That sort of thing led Bleeding Heartland's Nancy Dugan to explore the question in August 27's Summit Carbon’s pledge to permanently sequester CO2 is fraying at the edges.
It's an in-depth look at the issue and Bluestem recommends reading her case there.
At the Des Moines Register, there's Kevin Virgil's Opinion: Carbon capture plan benefits 'rich men from Des Moines':
I read the essay in the Aug. 24 Register from Lee Blank, the CEO of Summit Carbon Solutions, where he defended his company’s intentions to build its controversial carbon capture pipeline. Blank argued that Summit and its pipeline are indispensable to Iowa’s farmers and the ethanol industry, and that economic disaster will fall upon us if his pipeline is not approved.
This argument commits the classic logical fallacy of conflation — treating two distinct subjects as if they were actually one. Blank claims that the success of Iowa’s ethanol industry is inextricably linked to a carbon capture pipeline from which he and his politically connected team stand to claim billions in newly-created federal tax credits. How convenient!
In reality this claim is doubtful. Even Blank’s own statement (“Without such projects, Iowa’s ethanol industry could lose $10 billion annually and farm income could drop by $43,000”) relies heavily upon the word “could” and is far from certain. Additionally, the cited figures are from a study that itself contains highly questionable assumptions — one of which is that if Iowa does not step up to claim this grand giveaway from Washington, D.C., then other states will claim them and render Iowa’s ethanol plants less competitive. . . .
Recently the country music world has been transfixed with the story of Oliver Anthony, an unknown singer whose hit song “Rich Men North of Richmond” protests the sad state of America’s working class at the expense of rapacious D.C. elites. Today we are watching a perfect example of those conditions playing out here in the heartland, as Blank and his team of “Rich Men From Des Moines” conspire to build a pipeline that benefits no one but themselves.
In Minnesota, Summit Carbon Solution made the case before the Public Utilities Commission that a geographical limited environmental review should be done, At the Star Tribune, Christopher Vondracek reported on August 31 in Minnesota regulators push Summit carbon dioxide pipeline forward to environmental review:
State regulators approved for environmental review a proposed pipeline that would ferry carbon dioxide from an ethanol plant outside Fergus Falls some 20 miles to the North Dakota border.
But that review will not encompass — at least for now — potential future Minnesota-crossing legs of the massive multistate pipeline envisioned by Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, according to a unanimous 4-0 vote by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
The PUC also will not wait for other states considering permits for the so-called Midwest Carbon Express, such as North Dakota, whose regulators denied the company a permit at the beginning of August. Summit Carbon has requested a reconsideration of its request after making routing changes near Bismarck.
"There were routing concerns about the city of Bismarck," said Christina Brusven, attorney for Summit. "And they are very local [and] specific to that community."
In documents filed with the PUC, environmental advocacy groups, including CURE (Clean Up the River Environment), had asked for a stay on any review until the project demonstrated "some proof" that it was viable in North Dakota.
"There's the real possibility ... that this will be denied outright," Sarah Mooradian, government relations and policy director with CURE, told the commission on Thursday.
But Brusven responded that North Dakota's regulatory review takes a fraction of the time such reviews take in Minnesota. When pressed by Commissioner John Tuma whether the company would construct an expensive pipeline if North Dakota ultimately rejects a permit application to store the carbon, Summit's attorney did not mince words.
"If there's no place to put it [CO2]," Brusven said, "we wouldn't be building here."
The commission on Thursday also approved route alternatives, including two proposed by CURE, and regulators also approved studying a possible pipeline rupture. The environmental impact study will also consider broadly whether other technologies, such as electric vehicles, might accomplish the same greenhouse gas goals as pipelines.
Proponents argue carbon scores will improve the fuel additive's standing in markets, such as California, adopting low-carbon fuel standards. While Summit's attorney didn't openly oppose staff's description of the project's scope, the company had suggested such an investigation was beyond the commission's scope. . .
Jeepers, I can remember when Minnesota Republicans complained endlessly about California's fuel standards.
Moving on to Iowa, the Iowa Capital Dispatch's Jared Strong reported Monday in Summit will present its witnesses this week for pipeline permit:
A new phase of Summit Carbon Solutions’ evidentiary hearing for its pipeline permit is poised to begin Tuesday.
The company plans to call its 15 witnesses to testify over the course of four days, according to the Iowa Utilities Board.
The hearing is a final component of the IUB’s process for weighing the company’s application for a hazardous liquid pipeline permit. Summit intends to construct more than 2,000 miles of pipe to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five state to North Dakota for underground sequestration. More than 680 miles of the system would be in Iowa.
The hearing began Aug. 22, and its first two weeks featured testimony from some of the landowners who are subject to the company’s eminent domain requests to get land easements for the project.
There were a few landowners who had anticipated testifying in the past two weeks but were unable because of schedule conflicts, said Melissa Myers, an IUB spokesperson. They can testify later this month.
Witnesses testify about evidence the board will consider from the company and others as it weighs Summit’s permit request. They are subject to cross-examination.
The landowners who have already testified object to the project on numerous grounds. They are convinced construction of the pipeline will cause irreparable damage to their farmland. They worry about having to repay money they have received by setting aside the land for federal conservation programs, which require the land to go untouched. They are concerned about the wellbeing of people and livestock should the pipeline break and release carbon dioxide, which under certain circumstances and form a dense plume of gas that can asphyxiate them. Some have future commercial or residential projects that could be impeded by the project.
Most of them decry the use of eminent domain to get the easements, which would allow Summit to construct and operate the pipeline on property it doesn’t own. Opponents argue the project doesn’t fit an eminent domain requirement that it promotes “the public convenience and necessity” in the same way of a natural gas pipeline.
There are about 950 parcels of land in Iowa for which Summit seeks the forced easements.
The project hit a roadblock last month in North Dakota, where state regulators rejected its proposed route. The company has retooled its proposal to move the pipeline farther away from Bismarck and asked the North Dakota Public Service Commission to reconsider. A decision on the request is pending.
Summit has argued that its $5.5 billion pipeline system would be a boon to the ethanol industry, ensuring its long-term viability and increasing producers’ profits. That is also important for the income of farmers because the industry is a major market for them — more than half of Iowa’s corn is used to produce ethanol.
Ethanol producers who capture and sequester their carbon are eligible for generous federal tax credits, and they also have the ability to earn more money in low-carbon fuel markets. Summit has tentative profit-sharing agreements with 13 ethanol plants in Iowa.
Summit has said the safety concerns about carbon dioxide pipelines are overblown, and that a major pipeline breach is unlikely to happen.
The evidentiary hearing in Fort Dodge could go for weeks or months. It is set to resume Tuesday at 10 a.m. and is broadcast live by the IUB.
Bluestem will try to keep up on the federal carbon tax credit profiteer news as we wind into autumn.
Map: Summit Carbon Solution pipelines' routes.
The Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republlished here under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- Iowa governor denies influence over Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline project process
- SD PUC Navigator CO2 Ventures update: Pipeline permit, overruling counties decision by Sept. 6
- Ethanol carbon pipeline update: Navigator asks SD PUC to shoot down county pipeline rules
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Iowa Utilities Board evidentiary hearing for Summit Carbon Solutions begins in Fort Dodge
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: action picking up on Summit Carbon Solutions
- After North Dakota's pipeline permit application denial, Summit Carbon Solutions asks again
- Iowa administrative judge: Summit should reveal communities threatened by pipeline leaks
- South Dakota PUC expresses concerns as Navigator CO2 carbon pipeline hearing ends
- ND Public Service Commission denies Summit Carbon Solutions permit for ethanol carbon pipeline
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest, SD edition
- Thanks to federal tax credits, it’s boom time in the Midwest for carbon dioxide pipelines
- South Dakota Governor Noem is investor in ethanol plant partnered with carbon pipeline firm
- Commentary: Governor Noem’s actions speak louder than words on eminent domain
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
- South Dakota Searchlight: Environmental groups seek Biden moratorium on ethanol CO2 pipelines
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Landowner battles against ethanol CO2 pipelines vary by state
- Ethanol CO2 pipeline news digest: PUC hearings in Minnesota; South Dakota lawsuits; IA setbacks
- CURE files appeal with MN PUC on Summit Carbon pipeline environmental review
- News digest: South Dakota and Minnesota PUCs deal with Summit carbon pipeline issues
- In Iowa, ethanol carbon pipeline opponents want pause until new safety regulations are ready
- Summit Carbon Solutions files permit for risky CO2 pipeline in Otter Tail and Wilkin Counties
- Will ethanol carbon capture pipelines fracture brittle unity of South Dakota Republicans?
- South Dakotans & others get fantods over Summit Carbon Solutions' sketchy 10% owner
- Matt Birk loves the ethanol carbon dioxide pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: from the Guardian to the Aberdeen American News
- Navigator CO2, POET sign letter of intent for carbon capture, utilization, and storage service
- Carbon capture pipeline blues: SD landowners call for dismissal of pipeline permit application
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Group seeks end of ethanol carbon pipeline ‘harassment’
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline digest: farmers, students, greenwashing, safety, law enforcement
- Storm Lake Time Pilot's Art Cullen: Ripping up CRP is a terrible signal for the planet
- Minnesota Public Utility Commission claims regulatory authority for carbon pipelines
- CO2 pipelines could affect the land, lives and livelihoods of South Dakota property owners
- SD News Watch: Proposed CO2 pipelines thrust SD into billion-dollar climate change debate
- About that permanent carbon storage by the Summit ethanol pipeline & Project Tundra
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: political power and big money edition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: trust & protest
- South Dakotans, Iowans don't hug CO2 pipeline
- Keloland: mostly negative public comments to SD Public Utilities Commission on CO2 pipeline
- Strib: Ethanol's per-gallon carbon output shrinks, but greenhouse gas from plants remains high
- We agree: It's time to move on from ethanol
- Another IA newspaper editorial board questions ethanol industry, carbon capture pipelines
- Ethanol CCS pipeline update: Reuters & Agweek
- Not a lot of easements for Midwest carbon pipeline, but plenty of political connections
- 2 ethanol CO2 headlines that make us go hmmm
- CO2 pipelines: who wins & who loses?
- Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system
- Mother Jones: USDA Secretary Vilsack’s son works for a controversial ethanol pipeline project
- Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them
- Digest of news about carbon dioxide pipeline
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