BISMARCK, N.D. North Dakota regulators approved permits Thursday for underground storage of carbon dioxide delivered through a sprawling pipeline proposed for the Midwest, marking another victory for the project that has drawn fierce opposition from landowners.
The states governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission voted unanimously to approve the permits for Summit Carbon Solutions three proposed storage sites in central North Dakota. Its unclear when construction of the storage sites would begin, but its expected that resistant landowners in that area will file lawsuits seeking to block the storage plans.
Summits proposed 2,500-mile, $8 billion pipeline would transport planet-warming CO2 emissions from 57 ethanol plants in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska for underground storage in central North Dakota. Among those plants is Valero in Aurora.
The company has permits for its route in Iowa and North Dakota but cant yet begin construction. Also on Thursday, Minnesota utility regulators approved a permit for a28-mile leg of the projectin western Minnesota. Summit also recently applied in South Dakota, where regulators denied the companys previous application last year.
Summit still faces several lawsuits related to the project, including a state Supreme Court appeal in North Dakota over a property rights law related to the underground storage plan.
Approval from the governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission is another victory for Summit Carbon Solutions’ controversial project, though further court challenges are likely. Last month, the company gainedapproval for its North Dakota route, and Iowa regulators also havegiven conditional approval.
North Dakota Republican Gov.Doug Burgumchairs the Industrial Commission, which includes the state attorney general and agriculture commissioner and oversees a variety of energy topics and state-owned enterprises.
Burgum is President-elect Donald Trump’schoice for Interior Secretaryand to lead a newNational Energy Council.Burgumsupports Summit’s projectand has frequently touted North Dakota’s underground carbon dioxide storage as a geologic jackpot. In 2021, he set a goal for the No. 3 oil-producing state to be carbon-neutral by 2030. His term ends Saturday.
Summit applied for permits for three storage facilities, which would hold a combined, estimated maximum of 352 million metric tons of CO2 over 20 years. The pipeline would carry up to 18 million metric tons of CO2 per year to be injected about 1 mile underground, according to an application fact sheet.
Summit’s documents detail a well site layout encompassing a pump/meter building, gas detection stations, inlet valves and emergency shutoff valve.
Carbon dioxide would move through the pipeline in a pressurized form to be injected deep underground into a rock formation.
Jessie Stolark, who leads a group that includes Summit and supports the project, said the oil industry has long used similar technology.
We know that this can be done safely in a manner that is protective of human health and underground sources of drinking water, said Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition.
Summit’s projecthas drawn the ire oflandownersaround the region. They oppose the potential taking of their property for the pipeline and fear apipe rupturereleasing a cloud of heavy,hazardousgas over the land.
A North Dakota landowners group is challenging a property rights law related to the underground storage, and attorney Derrick Braaten said they likely would challenge the granting of permits for the storage plans.
The landowners that I’m working with aren’t necessarily opposed to carbon sequestration itself, Braaten said. They’re opposed to the idea that a private company can come in and use their property without having to negotiate with them or pay them just compensation for taking their private property and using it.
Carbon capture projects such as Summit’s are eligible for lucrative federal tax credits intended to encourage cleaner-burning ethanol and potentially result in corn-based ethanol beingrefined into jet fuel.
Some opponents argue the amount of greenhouse gases sequestered through the process would make little difference and could lead farmers to grow more corn despite environmental concerns about the crop.
In Minnesota, regulators granted a route permit that would connect an ethanol plant in Fergus Falls to Summits broader network. They attached several conditions, including requirements that Summit begin construction in North Dakota before it starts in Minnesota.
An administrative law judge who conducted hearings concluded in November that the environmental impacts from the Minnesota segment would be minimal and noted that Summit has secured agreements from landowners along most of the recommended route.
Environmental groups that oppose the project disputed the judges finding that the project would have a net benefit for the environment.
In addition to North Dakota, Summit has a permit from Iowa for its route, but regulators for that state required the company to obtain approvals for routes in the Dakotas and underground storage in North Dakota before it can begin construction. The Iowa Utilities Commission’s approval sparked lawsuits related to the project.
Last year, South Dakota regulatorsrejected Summit’s application.The company submitted another permit application last month.
In Nebraska, where there is no state regulatory process for CO2 pipelines, Summit is working with individual counties to advance its project. At least one county has denied a permit.
Leave a Reply