Update 2/22 11:57: The Bismarck Tribune has published a North Dakota News Cooperative article by Michael Standaert that's a good companion piece to the North Dakota Monitor piece below. He reports in Carbon capture potential hot button issue for 2024 election cycle:
Political decisions on carbon capture are making strange bedfellows in North Dakota.
From environmental rights activists on the left, to property rights advocates on the right, a motley coalition has formed to push back against efforts to build a pipeline to pump carbon dioxide from ethanol plants across the Midwest to store deep below the ground in central North Dakota.
A new North Dakota Poll released Feb. 20 found that only 16% of eligible voters in the state believe capturing CO2 will reduce the impacts of climate change. Another 40% are unsure, and 27% believe it won’t work. The poll was conducted by WPA Intelligence in Washington, D.C., for the North Dakota News Cooperative.
Looking ahead toward the election cycle in November, the questions around whether it is an appropriate climate change solution and whether North Dakotans support CO2 pipelines and other efforts to capture and store carbon dioxide appear set to become even more contentious. . . .
Read the entire article at the Tribune. [end update]
Years ago, Bluestem first explored the connections between North Dakota energy councils and the state's Industrial Commission in a post Horse hockey: who's pushing the puck for new Coalition for a Secure Energy Future TV ad?
From the North Dakota Monitor:
Carbon education consultant recommended; critic sees effort as government lobbying
By Jeff BeachA campaign to educate the public about carbon capture advanced through a selection process Wednesday, but one environmental group questions why state government is backing the effort.
A group of North Dakota energy councils on Wednesday recommended that Bismarck-based AE2S Communications be awarded a $300,000 contract to help educate people in the state about how carbon dioxide emissions can be captured and stored and potential uses for carbon.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission will vote on the recommendation Feb. 27.
AE2S was one of two firms that submitted proposals for the $300,000 grant, presenting what it called a strategic communications and marketing plan to be finalized by the end of the year.
AE2S was approved by votes from three state energy councils – the Lignite Research Council, the Oil and Gas Research Council and the Renewable Energy Council. The councils receive their funding from taxes paid by the energy industry. AE2S was selected over Public Affairs Company of Minneapolis.
The AE2S presentation to those groups highlighted using the Western Dakota Energy Association, which represents local governments, and Fargo-based Fieldstone Group, co-owned by conservative talk radio host and columnist Scott Hennen.
Other partners identified were the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University Dakota and North Dakota State University Extension.
David Ripplinger is a bioenergy economist with North Dakota State University Extension. He wrote a letter of support for the AE2S proposal to help people in the state understand the topic through “science-based education.”
He said the carbon capture topic is controversial, especially with some landowners faced with the possibility of a hazardous liquid pipeline on their property.
“It’s delicate, but it is an important issue to the state, to agriculture, to rural communities, to everybody in the state,” Ripplinger said in an interview. “So even though it can be touchy, it doesn’t mean it’s not important, it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be education.”
He said education is one thing, but promotion is another.
“It’s not our job to promote things,” he said.
Agriculture has a tie to carbon capture and storage through the ethanol industry and the farmers who grow corn to supply the ethanol plants.
Two North Dakota ethanol plants are already pumping carbon into underground storage – Red Trail Energy at Richardton and Blue Flint Ethanol at Underwood.
A controversial carbon capture pipeline proposal by Summit Carbon Solutions would link ethanol plants in five states – including one plant in North Dakota – to an underground storage site northwest of Bismarck.
Scott Skokos is the executive director of the Dakota Resource Council, which is helping organize landowners who oppose the Summit pipeline, citing issues such as safety and damage to property values and cropland.
Even though the money for the education effort is coming from the energy industry, he says government shouldn’t be involved.
“You’re taking tax dollars and doing the job of private industry,” Skokos said.
He said the public generally puts more trust in government sources than from private industry, and this is the energy industry taking advantage of that government trust.
“This, essentially, is the state lobbying for carbon capture,” he said.
The Summit project was not mentioned in the Wednesday meeting.
Summit’s application for a pipeline route with the North Dakota Public Service Commission says the carbon it captures is specified for permanent sequestration in Mercer and Oliver counties. But Summit also has said the pipeline could be used to transport CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.
Some in the oil and gas industry see enhanced oil recovery as key to keep North Dakota’s oil and gas industry humming in the future, though the technology to use it in the Bakken oil formation is still being tested, according to North Dakota geologist Kathy Neset.
There are other industrial uses for carbon dioxide, including in construction materials and carbonated drinks.
There also are federal tax credits as incentives for carbon storage and utilization.
A public opinion poll released Tuesday by the North Dakota News Cooperative that included questions about the benefits of carbon capture on the environment showed that 40% of North Dakotans have yet to form an opinion on the issue.
Skokos said from looking at the details of the poll, as well as anecdotal evidence, that people in areas outside of the Summit pipeline corridor are largely undecided.
“Some people are very well informed,” Skokos said, including pipeline opponents.
Summit says it has about 80% of the voluntary easements it needs in North Dakota but has fallen behind its original project timeline of being operational in 2024. The company is still working on obtaining permits, including in North Dakota.
“I thought that the path to permitting and construction and operation would have gone a bit smoother,” Ripplinger said of carbon capture pipelines. “Obviously that hasn’t happened.”
This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: The Tharaldson Ethanol plant at Casselton is the only ethanol plant in the state of North Dakota that is part of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project. The North Dakota Industrial Commission will consider at its next meeting a recommendation for a carbon capture educational program. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor).
Related posts
- Climate action digest: North Dakota dollars continue to fight Minnesota clean energy future
- DeSmogBlog on Project Tundra: expensive greenwashing for fossil fuel
- Fact check: is the Coalition for a Secure Energy Future "hard hat labor" lobbying group? Well, no
- Is putting a smile on Tom Bakk's face the best thing ND lignite research fund has ever done?
- ND state/lignite industry partnership continues funding for Coalition for Secure Energy Future
- North Dakota's coal marketing campaign to give lignite sales pitch at MN electric co-op offices
- Horse hockey: who's pushing the puck for new Coalition for a Secure Energy Future TV ad?
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