The North Dakota Industrial Commission recently approved Summit Carbon Solutions' plan to permanently store millions of tons of carbon dioxide underground, marking a significant step for both the company and the state's approach to carbon emissions management. This initiative, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases from ethanol production, has sparked both interest and concern among local stakeholders.
On December 12, 2024, the commission, comprised of outgoing Governor Doug Burgum, Attorney General Drew Wrigley, and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring, unanimously granted the permits required for the project. Summit Carbon Solutions, based out of Iowa, seeks to create a comprehensive pipeline network transporting carbon emissions collected from ethanol plants across five states: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The goal is for these emissions to be injected deep underground, effectively sequestering them from the atmosphere.
The proposed CO2 injection will occur at three wells located approximately 5,500 feet beneath the surface, primarily beneath private property. This process involves utilizing pore space—holes and voids between rocks—where the carbon dioxide will be stored. Although Summit compensates landowners for the use of their pore space, legal challenges remain, particularly from those who raised concerns about the accuracy of Summit's geological models.
Despite the support from over 92% of landowners, some property owners have voiced objections. An attorney representing this minority group has questioned the reliability of Summit's projections on CO2 behavior once injected underground. Notably, only about 2% of the land within the proposed storage area falls under objection, but these concerns echo larger apprehensions about property rights and environmental safety.
The Industrial Commission approved the permits using North Dakota’s amalgamation rule, which allows permits to be granted if at least 60% of landowners consent. This rule has faced scrutiny, and the Northwest Landowners Association has filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.
Wade Boeshans, Summit’s executive vice president, emphasized the project's potential benefits, stating, “These sequestration permits are the result of years of rigorous scientific study, engineering design, and input from regulators, landowners, and local leaders.” With these permits, he believes Summit is closer to establishing infrastructure beneficial to farmers, ethanol producers, and communities across the Midwest.
Summit projects it will inject approximately 18 million tons of CO2 annually, aiming to take advantage of federal tax credits, currently set at $85 per ton of sequestered carbon. This could promote the production of low-carbon ethanol, potentially facilitating farmers to secure premium prices for their products, as markets increasingly favor sustainable practices.
Out of the 57 ethanol plants supplying carbon for this initiative, only the Tharaldson Ethanol facility near Casselton operates within North Dakota. Two other plants, located elsewhere, already engage in carbon capture and sequestration but do not fall under Summit’s project.
Concerns among project opponents primarily stem from fears surrounding potential environmental hazards, citing recent incidents where CO2 leaked from storage facilities, such as the corrosion-induced leak reported at Decatur, Illinois. Critics assert these incidents reveal gaps in the technology and urge the state to reconsider its approach before adopting such significant measures. Scott Skokos, executive director of the Dakota Resource Council, emphasized these dangers by stating, “Even Summit has stated they cannot know the impacts of carbon dumping until they do them.”
Official assessments from the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources contend the proposed wells pose no risk to public health or the environment, affirming Summit's commitment to engage with landowners. Nonetheless, the contention surrounding property rights and how CO2 storage might influence future land use remains contentious.
Kurt Swenson, one of the landowners opposing the project, expressed frustration over the negotiation process, stating he has waited for three years for Summit to respond to his inquiries about the usage of his land for CO2 storage. "I tried for a long time to negotiate with Summit," Swenson remarked, emphasizing the anxiety some local residents feel about their land rights being overridden.
The North Dakota carbon storage project sits at the forefront of the broader carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology movement, which proponents argue is key to combating climate change. The initiative aligns with growing priorities for renewable energy and sustainable practices within the energy sector.
While the approval from North Dakota's commission marks progress, the project still faces obstacles. Summit Carbon Solutions must obtain permits from South Dakota, where its earlier applications have encountered denials. Nebraska does not possess state-level regulatory measures for such projects, leading to individual county rejections of Summit's proposals. Delays and objections suggest the path forward may remain strewn with challenges and roadblocks.
Residents, environmental advocates, and industry stakeholders will undoubtedly be watching as the actions surrounding this pipeline project continue to evolve. The balance between carbon management and local interests could define the future of North Dakota's energy policies.