The latest episode in North Dakota's chapter of the ethanol carbon pipeline saga.
From the North Dakota Monitor.
Summit CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
by Jeff BeachNorth Dakota Industrial Commission meets Thursday
North Dakota is poised to allow millions of tons of carbon dioxide to be permanently stored underground, but an attorney representing landowners argues the process has been unfair and he is already laying the groundwork for an appeal.
North Dakota’s Industrial Commission is expected to vote at its Thursday meeting on plans for underground storage wells operated by Summit Carbon Solutions that will take in carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five Midwest states.
The Industrial Commission is composed of Gov. Doug Burgum, Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring.
Summit’s plan is for three injection wells in Mercer and Oliver counties. Once the CO2 is injected, it will spread into the pore space — gaps and voids deep underground where the gas can be held permanently.
Attorney Derrick Braaten of Bismarck represents landowners in the sequestration area, which also includes part of Morton County. He said North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources, which falls under the Industrial Commission, failed to provide landowners with a computer-generated model for how the CO2 would disperse underground.
Braaten said he eventually obtained the model from the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks.
Braaten said his clients deserve the right to examine the dispersion model because that is what is used to determine how many landowners will be compensated for storing CO2 beneath their land and how much they will be paid.
“If you’re going to do this, there’s a fair way to do it,” Braaten said.
With the help of a petroleum engineering company, he said he was able to replicate the results of the EERC model, but that it took 20 days for the computer to generate the report.
He said he believes the EERC model is flawed and it would take two to three months to generate and submit a model that he thinks would be more accurate.
He said the appeal would be based on a lack of due process when he and his clients were not provided Summit’s model before a hearing in June.
Former North Dakota Director of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms called the June hearing “one of the most contentious” he’s ever endured.
Helms has since retired and Braaten said he is encouraged his replacement, Nathan Anderson, has been more forthcoming with information.
But Braaten, in a November filing with the Industrial Commission, still requested more time to create a model for his clients.
A Summit letter filed in response to Braaten’s request argued that further modeling was “an exercise in futility.”
“The modeling information merely provides a ‘best prediction’ of plume migration based on the variables put into the model. No party will know or understand the actual migration until after injection operations have commenced,” Summit’s letter said.
Summit said it will notify the commission if monitoring activities indicate that the plume is reacting or migrating other than as predicted, including if the data suggests that the plume may travel outside of the horizontal boundaries of a storage facility.
Summit’s filing said it is required to submit injection data on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis, and to submit Summit’s seismic data by the end of the second, fourth and ninth years after injection begins.
Before it can begin injecting CO2, Summit needs to build its pipeline to the injection sites. It recently obtained a pipeline permit from the North Dakota Public Service Commission and has a permit in Iowa.
Summit faces a permitting challenge in South Dakota, where it already has been denied a permit once.
The project also faces legal challenges in North Dakota, including from the Northwest Landowners Association, represented by Braaten.
The Northwest Landowners Association has asked the state Supreme Court to rule on a lawsuit challenging the state’s laws that cover underground storage as being unconstitutional. State law allows for forcing landowners to allow pore space storage if 60% of the affected landowners have agreed to the storage plan.
Summit has said it has about 90% participation in the storage area.
The provision, known as amalgamation, does not allow landowners the right to appeal the decision in the court system, unlike the use of eminent domain. Summit is among the energy companies that has intervened in the case.
Burgum, during a discussion of the lawsuit at the November Industrial Commission meeting, said one landowner should not be able to veto a carbon storage project. He noted that, unlike a pipeline route, where a company may be able to route around a dissenting landowner, there is no way to exclude a landowner who doesn’t want their pore space used for storage.
Photo: Attorney Derrick Braaten asks a question June 11, 2024, in Bismarck during a hearing on the Summit Carbon Solutions project. Braaten also represents landowners in a lawsuit that challenges state laws related to carbon dioxide storage. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor).
This North Dakota Monitor article is republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
- Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
- U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
- Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
- North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
- North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
- SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
- In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters
- CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
- Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
- Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question
- Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
- Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
- Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
- VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
- Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
- Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
- Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota
- Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
- Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
- South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
- Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
- Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
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