CO2 Pipeline Projects Struggle to Gain Traction

by Christopher E. Smith (Oil & Gas Journal) A much larger pipeline network than that already used for enhanced oil recovery would be needed for carbon capture, storage, and sequestration (CCS) to meet national greenhouse gas reduction goals. Estimates published in April 2023 suggest that 30,000-96,000 miles of pipe could be required to meet net-zero goals by 2050, describing pipelines as the most cost-effective high-volume CO₂ transportation option ($5-25/tonne).¹ CO₂ pipelines near the Gulf of Mexico and in other areas can be repurposed to deliver manufacturing-sourced emissions instead of those occurring geologically, but that will only meet part of this demand. READ MORE

Excerpt from Congressional Research Service: Carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines are an essential part of carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems, promoted by the Biden Administration and some in Congress to reduce emissions of CO2—a greenhouse gas—from power plants and industrial facilities. Approximately 5,000 miles of CO2 pipeline already operate in the United States, primarily linking natural CO2 sources to oil fields for enhanced oil recovery. However, a much larger pipeline network would be needed for CCS to meet national goals for greenhouse gas reduction. Several large CO2 pipeline projects recently have been proposed in the Midwest, but these projects have encountered public opposition and regulatory challenges, including denial of state siting permits. One project has already been cancelled. These development challenges raise questions about the future availability of CO2 pipelines for CCS and the federal role in CO2 pipeline expansion. READ MORE

While court fights could restore pipeline builders’ legal rights to move forward, justice delayed is justice denied, and the longer the delay, the less likely projects can be completed in time to receive federal incentives—a key piece of the economics of building CCS pipelines to reduce carbon pollution and keep ethanol relevant in future fuels discussions.

The public face of pipeline opposition has been farmers concerned about landowner rights, along with some carefully stoked fears about pipeline leaks. But after Navigator’s cancelation, the most visible grave-dancer and credit-taker was the Sierra Club, whose Iowa organizer announced, “The people united to resist Navigator at every level in every corner of every state, and we won.” The Sierra club has a long history of opposing energy infrastructure projects by employing any available argument and co-opting any sympathetic cause to stall or prevent construction, even when those arguments and causes don’t match theirs. If “landowner rights” has traction to slow CO2 projects, the Sierra Club hopes you’ll accept their support and ignore their strong opposition to “modern agriculture” and desire to control what farmers do with their land. They’re not holding “We support ethanol, not pipelines” signs, either. They oppose both. They know ethanol and CCS pipelines reduce carbon intensity, making ethanol competitive with electric cars, so they call both “false solutions” that extend petroleum use.

The most damaging piece of anti-CCS pipeline rhetoric, however, may be the one casting projects as tax grabs creating extra profits for plants that will be just fine without them. In the real world, ethanol plants that can sequester or utilize CO2 without a pipeline will, and they’ll earn credits up to a buck per gallon or more. At three gallons of ethanol per bushel, do the math—how cheap would a plant without CCS have to buy corn to compete and stay in business? This issue doesn’t start and stop at the ethanol plants. READ MORE

Excerpt from Public News Service: A pipeline project to transport carbon dioxide captured from ethanol and fertilizer production to a permanent storage site in Illinois is raising concerns about safety and potential damage to surrounding land.

Last month, members of the Illinois Farm Bureau adopted policies supporting a temporary moratorium on the project until the Hazardous Materials Safety Administration can update its safety regulations. They include automatic notifications for pipeline leaks and training for emergency first responders.

Bill Bodine, the Farm Bureau's director of business and regulatory affairs, said his group opposes another condition.

"They expressed concerns about the use of eminent domain for these projects and do not support the use of eminent domain," he said, "and then want to see the developers reaching willing agreements, making some progress in reaching those willing agreements before the pipeline portions of those projects are approved."

Two more pipeline proposals to connect Iowa and Illinois are also being reviewed by the Illinois Commerce Commission, the agency that oversees these projects.

The Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hopes to have its safety revisions completed this year. If this happens, Bodine said, the Farm Bureau would lift its support of a temporary moratorium. But he isn't sure whether these other pipeline projects are on state lawmakers' minds. READ MORE

Excerpt from Inside EPA: The Biden administration is continuing to defend its support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) part of its multi-pronged climate mitigation strategy, even as it faces mounting pushback from many environmentalists due to concerns about the technology’s safety and efficacy. “We simply cannot get to net zero emissions by midcentury if we do not deploy carbon management at-scale, economy wide, and globally,” argued Energy Department (DOE) carbon management chief Brad Crabtree in a Dec. 15 Politico podcast READ MORE