For an in-depth view of the greater meaning of the potential failure of ethanol carbon pipeline projects, Bluestem suggests reading Corey Lavinsky's article at S&P Global Commodity Insights, Cancellation of Navigator CO2 pipeline raises critical issues for several industries.
A more cheery view (for Summit Carbon Solutions, at least) is found at the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, in Dominik Dausch's piece, Summit Carbon stands to benefit from Navigator's canceled pipeline project. He reports:
As one chapter of the Midwest carbon capture pipeline saga closes, another appears open, for now.
Navigator CO2 Ventures, a Nebraska-based company that planned to build a $3.5 billion carbon dioxide pipeline in South Dakota and four other Midwest states, axed its project on Friday, citing "the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa" in a statement.
This leaves Summit Carbon Solutions, a once-rival carbon capture company also seeking to build a multi-billion dollar, five-state sequestration pipeline, in a position to benefit from Navigator's fall.
In a statement to the Argus Leader, a Summit Carbon spokesperson said the company "is well positioned to add additional plants and communities to our project footprint." . . .
Read the full story at the Argus Leader.
Not that the route is clear of citizen opposition. Following up on a thread first published and explored in depth at Bleeding Heartland in Summit Carbon water permits spark dissent among landowners, Jared Strong picks up the story at the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
Pipeline opponents sue to block Summit Carbon water permit
By Jared StrongA carbon dioxide pipeline company’s request to withdraw more than 50 million gallons of water each year from the ground near an ethanol plant does not serve a “beneficial use” and should be denied, according to a lawsuit recently filed against the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
The department in May issued a water withdrawal permit to a subsidiary of Summit Carbon Solutions, which would use the water as a coolant in its carbon capture process at the Homeland Energy Solutions plant near Lawler.
The facility is one of more than a dozen ethanol producers in Iowa to which Summit proposes to connect its sprawling pipeline system. The five-state project would span about 2,000 miles and would transport the greenhouse gas to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
Three people whose drinking water is derived from the aquifer that Summit hopes to tap filed suit last week in state district court and asked a judge to vacate the permit the DNR issued. They are Kathy Carter, Kim Junker and Candice Brandau Larson.
Their concern is that the water withdrawals would “adversely impact the sources of their drinking water” and that the purpose of those withdrawals does not comply with a “beneficial use” requirement in state law, according to the lawsuit, which was filed by Wally Taylor, an attorney for the Sierra Club of Iowa.
The lawsuit points to internal discussions at the DNR that the Sierra Club obtained through a records request for department emails. Those documents show that Summit’s permit request was unlike any others the department had previously considered, but the DNR concluded that it fit the “beneficial use” requirement.
That phrase is defined by state law as an “application of water to a useful purpose.”
Summit’s permit allows it to withdraw nearly 56 million gallons of water each year, according to DNR records. That is more than nearby Lawler, a town of 400 people that can withdraw up to 18 million gallons annually. But it is considerably less than New Hampton, another nearby town of about 3,400 that can withdraw 313 million gallons.
The DNR has not yet responded to the lawsuit in district court. Summit is seeking another water withdrawal permit in Wright County.
It’s unclear when the wells might be drilled and used. Summit recently said its pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026 after utility regulators rejected its initial proposals in North and South Dakota.
Jurisdictional questions
The Iowa Utilities Board, which has the authority to grant a pipeline permit to Summit, recently declined to publicly decide whether that permit includes the equipment the company would use to capture and process carbon dioxide before it goes into the pipeline.
Harden County asked the IUB to issue a declaratory order that the board doesn’t have jurisdiction over the capture facilities because they are not pipelines and that the facilities are subject to local ordinances and permitting requirements.
Iowa counties have been unsuccessful in restricting the locations of pipelines because that is the purview of the board, but it’s possible that local leaders could block the construction of the capture facilities.
The IUB recently declined to issue a declaratory order about its potential jurisdiction over those facilities on procedural grounds. Hardin County filed the request for an order in Summit’s pipeline permit docket, and the IUB said it should have been filed separately as its own proceeding.
This article from Iowa Capital Dispatch is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Image: Tens of millions of gallons of water will be required each year by a pipeline company's carbon capture facilities. (Photo by John M Lund Photography Inc/Getty Images/ via Iowa Capital Dispatch).
Related posts
- Cancel culture: Navigator withdraws ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Iowa
- Navigator CO2 cancels multistate pipeline project
- Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
- Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
- Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Summit pipeline hearing will resume on Tuesday; Navigator asks Iowa regulators to pause its pipeline permit request
- Iowa Capital Dispatch: Local officials in Iowa have potential to block carbon capture projects
- IA Capital Dispatch: Summit permit process in North Dakota has reached ‘uncharted waters
- North Dakota Public Service Commission votes 2-1 to reopen Summit Carbon pipeline case
- Navigator CO2 has not ‘taken any state off the map’ after SD pipeline permit rejection
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: reaction to denial; water use in IA; rich guy resists subpoena
- Iowa utility regulators want to finish Summit pipeline permit hearing by month’s end
- State denies Summit permit; both ethanol carbon pipelines proposed in South Dakota now rejected
- Summit Carbon Solutions forges ahead despite SD PUC staff's motion to deny pipeline permit
- SD PUC staff motion: non-mysterious portents in the air about potential denial of Summit Carbon Solution's pipeline permit application
- South Dakota Navigator pipeline decision might jeopardize Summit Carbon Solutions proposal
- Breaking: South Dakota Public Utilities Commission unanimously denies Navigator ethanol CO2 pipeline project permit
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: permanent sequestration or enhanced oil extraction & more
- 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