The Risks of Carbon Capture – Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly

by Jordan Mason | Oct 21, 2023 | Archived

Carbon capture, also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon sequestration, is a process that captures carbon emissions from industrial processes or power plants and permanently stores it underground.¹ The Global CCS Institute, a think tank dedicated to researching and developing the technology behind CCS, calls the technology a “game-changer” that can build a path to a “zero-carbon economy.”² But it is not without risks. 

While proponents of the technology say it can reduce the effects of carbon emissions and play a crucial role in combating climate change, environmental justice organizations are speaking out in Louisiana, one of the states where a number of these sites are being proposed. The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) says that CCS allows the fossil fuel industry to skirt real responsibility on climate change; moreover, the state’s lack of oversight and accountability will create harmful impacts on communities already affected by environmental disasters. 

Illustrating CCS

There are three steps in the CCS process.³ The first step is “capturing” the carbon, often from the air, from places like power plants, by using post-combustion capture technology. After carbon is released from combustion, chemical solvents or adsorbents are often used to trap the carbon, allowing clean exhaust gasses to be released into the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel companies can say that they’re complying with environmental regulations [through carbon capture and storage] without having to fundamentally change their high-emission business practices.

The second part of the CCS process involves transporting the carbon from the capture site to the storage site. The transportation process typically involves pipelines, ships, or trucks. The choice of transportation method depends on the distance between the capture site and the storage site.

Third, the captured carbon is then permanently stored deep underground in geological formations—the most common sites being depleted oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, and un-mineable coal seams. When carbon is injected into these formations, it is trapped and stored securely over geological timescales, preventing its release into the atmosphere.

In the United States, ongoing monitoring and verification of the various sites and pipelines is done by regulatory authorities such as the EPA. Monitoring involves detecting any potential leaks or movement of the stored carbon. While CCS is a proposed climate solution, there is pushback with the belief that the process is another ploy from Big Oil.

Basav Sen, director of the Climate Policy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, says CCS projects are advocated by the business interests of the fossil fuel industry, which continues to make money off of gas.

“The push for carbon capture is really an attempt to reconcile continuing that business model with the imperative of having to cut greenhouse gas emission,” says Sen. In other words, fossil fuel companies can say that they’re complying with environmental regulations without having to fundamentally change their high-emission business practices.

Tax Codes and Fossil Fuel Companies

Monique Harden, director of law and public policy and community engagement program manager for the DSCEJ, says tax codes are another reason behind the sudden push for these sites in Louisiana and elsewhere.

“For every ton of carbon dioxide they put in the ground, they get $85. These projects that they’re proposing begin at five million tons. That’s [just] under half a billion [dollars],” says Harden. 

CCS is a money maker for the fossil fuel industry and approved by Congress under tax credit policies. Section 45Q is a tax code originally proposed in 2008 as part of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act that permits a credit for carbon sequestration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.⁴ This is a giant loophole of which the fossil fuel industry is fully taking advantage.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, expanded several provisions under the tax code. The expanded provisions increase the credit amount that emitters can get and reduce eligibility requirements so more power plants could qualify. 

Harden believes that the proposed carbon injection sites are stalling efforts to transition away from oil and gas. The injection sites also curtail efforts such as DSCEJ’s “renewable portfolio standard,” which requires electricity supplied to a jurisdiction to come from renewable energy sources. The organization worked with the city of New Orleans to enact a requirement that by the year 2040, all sources of electricity supply into the city of New Orleans come from renewable and non-carbon sources of energy. 

“We now have a Public Service Commission for the state of Louisiana that is looking to do more on renewable energy. And also developing a workforce that will have people install and maintain solar panels,” says Harden. 

However, building carbon injection sites across the state creates barriers to fully transitioning away from burning coal, oil, and gas. Fossil fuel companies and state officials are pushing forward with these sites despite community objections. It’s clear that the fossil fuel industry does not want to give up its business model.

Disproportionate Risk

There are two major factors under consideration in developing CCS projects in Louisiana: building locations and regulations. Fossil fuel companies are pushing for a new wave of gas-burning facilities mostly located in areas where the residents are predominantly Black, Indigenous, and poor.⁵  

At the same time, lobbyists are persuading policymakers that CCS projects are a way to preserve jobs and transition to low-cost models of climate friendly technology. In October of 2021, four oil executives testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to defend their companies’ practices over the years. The executives also attempted to reframe the narrative around burning fossil fuels, calling itself a “carbon management industry.” According to Sen, lobbyists are also persuading policymakers that CCS projects are a way to preserve jobs and transition to low-cost models of climate-friendly technology. 

In Louisiana, the state filed an application with the EPA to have regulatory authority over the wells that are used to inject carbon into deep rock formations and store them underground. DSCEJ opposed the state’s application in a public hearing before the EPA pointing to previous environmental failures. DSCEJ cited “a record of failure and mismanagement that resulted in destroying the Bayou Corne community, harming children and adults in Grand Bois [a predominantly Native American community] and leaving the state littered with leaking oil and gas wells,” according to a June 2023 press release. The press release also notes a 2020 carbon pipeline explosion in Satartia, MS, where 200 people were evacuated and 45 were hospitalized. 

Exposure to carbon can cause disorientation, heart malfunction, and even death in extreme cases.⁶ Clouds of carbon dioxide can displace oxygen and can hang in the air for hours. One 911 call obtained by the Climate Investigation Center paints a picture of what happened when the pipeline broke, the caller describing a victim stranded on the side of the highway: “She’s laying on the ground and she’s shaking. She’s kind of drooling out of the mouth. I don’t know if she’s having a seizure or not. Can you send somebody quick!”

Questionable Technology

There are clearly risks associated with CCS. The biggest concerns are the potential leakage of stored carbon and induced seismicity, which is earthquake activity caused by humans. Leakage could result from structural failure, geological instability, or poor containment integrity, leading to the release of large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere that can exacerbate climate issues and health problems.

Carbon corrosion can break down metals in pipelines and potentially contaminate the environment, including waterways and drinking water sources.⁷ Corrosion can also break down rocks and cause catastrophic shifts above ground.⁸ Penn State researchers point out the number of ways carbon dioxide can escape. ⁹ This makes CCS a questionable long-term solution for climate change if these sites become unviable.

Organizations like the Climate Justice Alliance see carbon capture as another form of geoengineering that manipulates efforts to stop climate change and continues our dependence on fossil fuels.

The economic viability of CCS projects is also in question. The capture of carbon can lead to reduced efficiencies in power and industrial plants, while simultaneously increasing their water consumption.¹⁰ This is a particular challenge for plants operating in regions already grappling with water scarcity. These additional expenses have the potential to render a CCS project economically unfeasible as well as environmentally harmful.

Fossil fuel companies continue to lobby for CCS sites in areas throughout the South. Communities and the surrounding environments face substantial risks with the unprecedented undertaking of permanently storing carbon dioxide underground.   Harden says the proposed site locations are intentional: “[The fossil fuel] industry has systematically located those polluting facilities in communities where they thought that people would not have the power to fight back,” says Harden. 

Organizations like the Climate Justice Alliance see carbon capture as another form of geoengineering that manipulates efforts to stop climate change and continues our dependence on fossil fuels. In early June, advocates for climate justice and carbon removal met in Wisconsin for the 2023 National Symposium on Climate Justice & Carbon Management. Although full details of the symposium could not be shared, Jean Chemnick reported for E&E News by Politico that participants said there was a realization “[the] US was going all in on carbon capture and carbon removal, with or without the support of the environmental justice community.” 

As of now, a holistic consideration for CCS is lacking and these projects come at the expense of already environmentally burdened communities. Environmental justice advocates continue to push back to protect those communities, and are making the case that these proposed “solutions” are anything but.

Notes:

1. Berend Smit et al., Introduction to carbon capture and sequestration (World Scientific, 2014), https://doi.org/10.1142/p911.
2. Global CCS Institute, Global Status of CCS Report: 2020, https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/publications-reports-research/global-status-of-ccs-report-2020/.
3. José C.M. Pires et al., “Recent developments on carbon capture and storage: An overview,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design 89, no. 9 (2011): 1446–1460, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2011.01.028.
4. Legal Information Institute, 26 U.S.C § 45Q – Credit for carbon oxide sequestration, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/45Q.
5. Lara J Cushing et al., “Up in smoke: characterizing the population exposed to flaring from unconventional oil and gas development in the contiguous US,” Environmental Research Letters 16, no. 3 (2021): 34–32, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd3d4.
6. Michael Drechsler and Jason Morris, Carbon Dioxide Narcosis (Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing, 2023).
7. Robin L. Newmark, Samuel J. Friedmann, and Susan A. Carroll, “Water Challenges for Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration,” Environmental Management 45 (2010): 651–661, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9434-1.
8. Joel Sminchak and Neeraj Gupta, “Aspects of induced seismic activity and deep-well sequestration of carbon dioxide,” Environmental Geosciences 10, no. 2 (2003): 81–89, https://doi.org/10.1306/eg.04040302009.
9. Penn State. “Carbon dioxide stored underground can find multiple ways to escape.” ScienceDaily, (2016), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211185935.htm.
10. Hisham Eldardiry and Emad Habib, “Carbon capture and sequestration in power generation: review of impacts and opportunities for water sustainability,” Energy, Sustainability and Society 8, no. 6 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0146-3.

Climate Campaigners Celebrate Cancellation of Multi-State Carbon Capture Pipeline

by Jordan Mason | Oct 21, 2023 | Archived

Climate action advocates and scientists joined residents of five Midwestern states in applauding Friday after a Nebraska firm canceled plans to build a carbon pipeline across five states, following outcry from the public and opponents of “dangerous, wasteful” carbon capture schemes.

Navigator CO2 Ventures said it was abandoning plans to build the $3.5 billion, 1,300-mile Heartland Greenway pipeline project—whose backers included investment firm BlackRock and Valero Energy—after South Dakota regulators denied a permit.

The company cited “the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved,” but advocates in the five states that would have been affected credited grassroots campaigning, including by residents who spoke out against the company’s plan to potentially use eminent domain to gain access to land.

“As soon as Iowans learned about CO2 pipelines we knew these were not pipelines we wanted in our communities,” said Susan and Jerry Stoefen, members of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. “Iowans organized to be heard: ‘No CO2 Pipelines, No Eminent Domain!’ Now is the time for Iowans to find reals solutions to reducing CO2 emissions that don’t degrade our land, water, and air.”

One Iowa resident summed up the victory as, “A bunch of elderly farmers without internet just took down BlackRock.”

Along with Iowa and Nebraska, the pipeline would have cut through parts of South Dakota, Minnesota, and Illinois, where Navigator CO2 planned to store liquefied carbon deep underground after capturing it and transporting it from 18 ethanol plants owned by Poet, the world’s largest ethanol producer, and Iowa Fertilizer Company.

The company is one of three firms that have planned to build carbon capture pipelines in the Midwest, promoting what climate advocates and scientists have decried as an energy-intensive, unproven false solution that diverts focus away from efforts to slash fossil fuel emissions and transition to renewable energy.

Summit Carbon Solutions and Wolf Carbon Solutions also have pipeline proposals, but Summit announced Thursday it was delaying construction of its $5.5 billion project by two years until 2026, citing permit denials similar to Navigator’s.

U.S. President Joe Biden has made carbon capture a focus of his climate plans, announcing an investment of up to $1.2 billion for two major direct-air carbon capture facilities in Texas and Louisiana earlier this year.

“While the federal government keeps trying to waste billions of dollars to promote these massive carbon pipelines, grassroots organizing is winning the fight to stop these egregious handouts to corporate polluters,” said Emily Wurth, managing director of organizing for Food & Water Watch. “These carbon pipelines will not reduce emissions—they are dangerous, wasteful schemes to prolong and expand polluting industries. Instead of throwing away money supporting polluters, the government should invest in proven clean energy solutions, not carbon capture pipe dreams.”

In addition to warning that carbon capture is a false solution to the climate crisis, critics warned that a rupture of a pipeline carrying highly pressurized CO2—an asphyxiant—could pose a major public health threat to nearby communities, as one accident did in the town of Sartartia, Mississippi in 2021.

Both Summit and Navigator initially warned residents living in areas that would be affected by the pipelines that they could resort to eminent domain—a legal process by which companies can gain access to land when a landowner refuses to grant it—and Summit has already pursued dozens of eminent domain orders for its proposed pipeline.

Although Navigator has not yet pursued the actions, the company’s vice president of government and public affairs, Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, said at a public debate in August that it couldn’t guarantee eminent domain wouldn’t be used to complete Heartland Greenway.

Biologist Sandra Steingraber, a vocal critic of carbon capture schemes, celebrated the demise of the proposed pipeline, whose “cause of death,” she said, was “citizen activism informed by science.”

“Piping pressurized supercritical CO2 all over creation,” said Steingraber, “endangers people, destroys farmland, [and] does nothing meaningful for the climate.”

Earlier this month, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.) led a call for Biden to place a moratorium on federal permitting for CO2 pipelines, citing public health concerns.

Proposed carbon pipeline project across Iowa is canceled

by Jordan Mason | Oct 21, 2023 | Archived

OMAHA, Nebraska – A company that planned to build a carbon pipeline through Iowa and four other states is canceling the project.

Navigator CO2 is blaming “the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa.”

“As good stewards of capital and responsible managers of people, we have made the difficult decision to cancel the Heartland Greenway project,” says Matt Vining, CEO of Navigator CO2.  “We are disappointed that we will not be able to provide services to our customers and thank them for their continued support.”

The proposed 1,300-mile (2,092-kilometer) project would have carried planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from more than 20 industrial plants across South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois. The company recently withdrew its application for a key permit in Illinois.

“I am proud that throughout this endeavor, our team maintained a collaborative, high integrity, and safety-first approach and we thank them for their tireless efforts,” says Vining.  “We also thank all the individuals, trade associations, labor organizations, landowners, and elected officials who supported us and carbon capture in the Midwest.”

Tom Buis, CEO of the American Carbon Alliance, issued the following statement in regard to the news of Navigator CO2 ceasing their pipeline project:

“The decision by Navigator CO2 to cease their carbon capture pipeline project is incredibly disappointing. We know that carbon capture is the future for farmers, rural communities, and our country. 

“Just as bioethanol doubled farm income in the last two decades, carbon capture projects are the next step in bringing even more value to farmers nationwide. These projects will create higher corn and land values and bolster our nation’s energy security.” 

“The American Carbon Alliance will continue to stand arm-in-arm with the commodity groups, industry leaders, and American farmers to help transform the ag and energy economy through carbon capture technology. This is an opportunity of a lifetime, and we cannot afford to let it slip away.”

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw made the following statement:

“IRFA supports CCS projects as the best way to align ethanol production with the increasing demand for low carbon fuels both at home and abroad. CCS is the essential key to unlocking the 100-billion-gallon sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) market for agriculture, in the long term. If realized, the SAF market would trigger the largest rural economic boom since the introduction of corn hybrids. It is not an overstatement to say that decisions made over the next few months will likely place agriculture on one of two paths. One would lead to 1990s stagnation as corn production exceeds demand, and the other opens new market opportunities larger than anything we’ve ever seen before. IRFA will fight for a prosperous farming future.”

“Over the last year, we have been disappointed with the amount of disinformation that has been spread among the public and the regulators across multiple states. That does not happen by accident. Rather, it is being pushed by groups who oppose modern agriculture and whose stated mission is to destroy farming as we know it. While we respect Navigator’s decision, IRFA will continue to support multiple other CCS projects and we expect ultimate success.”  

Barb Kalbach, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Board Chair and family farmer from Dexter issued this statement:

“This is a huge victory for Iowans! It’s refreshing to have someone listen to everyday folks. 80% of Iowans don’t want CO2 pipelines, and the reasons to oppose them just keep stacking up – first they take public money, then they come for farmland, now they want our water – all so they can make a buck at our expense. Now we need the Iowa Utilities Board to start listening and deny Summit Carbon Solutions permit. These pipelines are a bad deal, and the IUB has no business approving a permit for Summit, especially without adequate safety regulations.

A spokesperson for Summit Carbon Solutions also issued a comment:

“Summit Carbon Solutions welcomes and is well positioned to add additional plants and communities to our project footprint. We remain as committed to our project as the day we announced it. It’s not often you get the opportunity to positively impact an industry that touches every farmer and rural community across the Midwest. We have reached voluntary agreements along nearly 75% of our proposed route – we are pleased that the vast majority of landowners and farmers across the Midwest embrace the project. We look forward to building a generational asset that will create new markets for the ethanol industry and farmers.”

Summit pushes carbon pipeline project back; Cedar County’s Sheriff hopes they give up altogether

by Jordan Mason | Oct 21, 2023 | Archived

Navigator cancels proposed Midwestern CO2 pipeline

by Jordan Mason | Oct 21, 2023 | Archived

A major Midwestern carbon dioxide pipeline project has been canceled. Navigator CO2 Ventures today (Fri) announced the cancellation of its proposed 1,300-mile Heartland Greenway project.

The pipeline would have carried CO2 emissions from more than 20 industrial plants across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota, to be buried underground in Illinois.

The cancellation comes soon after the company withdrew its application for a crucial permit in Illinois, and also said it was putting its other permit applications on hold.

South Dakota regulators last month denied Navigator a construction permit for its pipeline.

In a written statement, the company said the “unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa” were key to the decision to cancel the project.

Regulatory panels in North and South Dakota recently dealt blows to Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile interstate pipeline network.

It would carry CO2 emissions from more than 30 ethanol plants in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska…to be buried underground in central North Dakota.

North Dakota regulators denied Summit a siting permit, but granted the company’s request for reconsideration.

The South Dakota panel denied the company’s permit application, but Summit intends to reapply.