The Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline hearings in Ft. Dodge this past week raised more questions than answers. This third week marked a new stage, bringing Summit Carbon Solutions executives and its witnesses to testify. Summit's five-state plan includes laying pipeline over 686 miles of Iowa to transport CO2 from 13 Iowa ethanol plants, ending near Bismarck, North Dakota, where it would be sequestered.
Here's a sampling of the most intriguing questions asked by attorneys, along with Summit's responses:
(1) Will the CO2 be permanently sequestered? Is there any other purpose? "Whatever is transferred from ethanol plants will be sequestered," responded Summit's Chief Operating Officer Jimmy Powell. "At present, all parties intending to ship on Summit's pipeline intend to permanently sequester the CO2 being shipped."
(2) Summit's North Dakota permit application doesn't say the CO2 would never be used, correct? "We're a common carrier, and will reserve 10% of our pipeline capacity for other commercial carriers," Powell replied. "It's possible another carrier could have a purpose of EOR [enhanced oil recovery}. It would be a segregated stream of CO2."
Brian Jorde, an attorney representing over 1,000 landowners opposing the pipeline responded, "If this is true, it completely contradicts the stated purpose of the pipeline."
Jorde entered into the record as an exhibit the recent comments of North Dakota State Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms, stating that more carbon dioxide will be needed in order to sustain oil production for the long term. Helms said current CO2 production only meets about 10% of what is needed for enhanced oil recovery (fracking). His statement followed closely on the heels of the North Dakota's Public Service Commission’s decision to deny Summit's permit application. Powell responded that he was unaware of Helms' statement, and did not see any connection.
In Powell's deposition for the IUB evidentiary hearing, filed on August 14, he agreed with an attorney's question: "No one is buying buckets of CO2, right?"
(3) What do you believe is the purpose of the pipeline? "The purpose is to help our ethanol plant partners capture CO2 before it's emitted, reduce their carbon intensity and give access to and be competitive in low carbon markets," Powell testified. Is the purpose to affect climate change? "Summit doesn't take a position on global warming," he said. ". . . if 18 million tons of greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, that's probably a benefit."
(4) Why won't Summit disclose its maps identifying the locations of critical CO2 valleys in case of a catastrophic leak? Summit's dispersion modeling has identified 1.13 of Iowa's 686 miles of pipeline with a high risk to residents in case of a leak. Interestingly, Summit didn't use its dispersion models to set the pipeline route.
'"The Federal government thinks it's a bad idea to release this information because someone with criminal intent might use it to impact public safety," Powell testified. SummIt also maintains that determining safety isn't the province of the IUB. Powell stated, "In time we will provide that information and additional resources needed by county first responders and fire departments to support them." Mid-week, these dispersal models were released to attorneys at the hearings after they signed nondisclosure agreements.
(5) If the 45Q credits are set to expire after only 12 years, why does Summit need "permanent, perpetual easements"? Would Summit pursue the pipeline without any tax credits?
Powell asserted, "We expect it to be more than 12 years." He did not directly respond to the question of whether Summit would pursue the pipeline without the tax credits. Powell did venture to say, the tax credits "contribute to our economics." (The 45Q tax credits require construction of the pipelines to begin before 2026.)
(6) Who is Summit Carbon Solutions? Who are its investors? Powell listed the following: Tiger Infrastructure Partners (private equity firm in New York, NY); TPG, Inc., (private equity firm in Ft. Worth); SK E & S (South Korean conglomerate); Continental Resources (Harold Hamm, oil and gas magnate); and Summit Carbon Solutions. Summit isn't publicly traded.
When pressed for Bruce Rastetter's involvement in Summit Carbon Capture, Powell replied that Rastetter is a board member who owns a "substantial, but minority" share.
(7) What is Summit Next Gen. Holdings, LLC? It's an aviation fuel production platform founded in 2023 and based in Alden, Iowa. It announced its plan in May to build an ethanol to jet sustainable aviation fuel facility somewhere along the Gulf Coast. "We're supportive of it on a high level," Powell said.
(8) What is a 40B tax credit? Created as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, it's a tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel used or sold after 2022 and before 2025. "It's currently under evaluation," Powell said. "Next Gen Fuels is separate from Summit Carbon Capture."
(9) Are you familiar with Cap CO2, a company capturing ethanol on site, without the use of pipelines?
Summit chief commercial officer, James Pirolli stated he was "not aware" of this competing company.
(10) Will Bruce Rastetter testify? Former Office of Consumer Advocate attorney Anna Ryon is representing various landowners. After questioning James Pirolli at length, she stated: "I would like to move to have the board require Bruce Rastetter to attend to testify in person. Mr. Pirolli has testified that markets for ethanol including international markets and sustainable aviation fuel markets influence the price of ethanol, and Mr. Pirolli also testified that Summit Ag owns competitors in international ethanol markets as well as large future domestic purchaser of ethanol which could give Summit Ag the ability to control the price of LC Carbon index ethanol in U.S.. In the meantime, Summit Carbon Solutions could continue to make a profit off 45G tax credits. The fact that Summit Ag Group would own both the ethanol plants and sustainable aviation fuel purchaser and could impact market prices, looks like a vertically integrated monopoly that would, violate Iowa Code Chapter 553 (Subsection 5) . . . Whether or not Summit's Carbon Solution's proposed pipeline is part of a corporate enterprise that violates Iowa's anti competition law is highly relevant to whether a proposed pipeline promotes the public convenience and necessity. Therefore, It's necessary for IUB to hear testimony from Mr. Rastetter about the overall business model of Summit Ag and how various other companies, including Summit Carbon fits into that business model."
Summit's attorney Bret Dublinske responded: " . . .that was sort of an ambush. . . a grandstanding ploy, there's been a long period of time to have done that. The applicant is Summit Carbon Solutions, not Summit Ag Group. The testimony has been that Summit Ag Group is a minority investor, that Mr. Rastetter is one of many board members, he is not the CEO of the company, there's simply no evidence he has the type of control Ms. Ryon is speculating about. It's certainly a reach to anything in the evidence suggesting it can be vertically integrated monopoly when not one of the 12 Iowa ethanol plants currently contracted for the project is a Summit Ag affiliate or plant. . . It's a highly frivolous motion and I urge board to deny it, but if the board has any inclination to do otherwise, I ask it to require Ms. Ryon to put it in writing."
Ms. Ryon: "I would be happy to put that in writing." After a five minute IUB recess, Anna Ryon was given two days to respond in writing.
A bad trip to the surreal world of carbon capture
Fifteen witnesses were scheduled to appear for Summit this past week, but only about half were there. On Wednesday, the board and attorneys spent time in confidential session discussing the protective order regarding contracts between Summit and the ethanol plants; Thursday's hearing was cut short when a Summit witness failed to appear; Friday's hearing was unexpectedly added to the schedule.
For those readers seeking more in-depth coverage, Nancy Dugan, an online editor, and contributor to Bleeding Heartland, has uncovered alarming efforts by entities associated with Summit to obtain water permits in Iowa. She writes that the Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources issued a water use permit to Lawler SCS Capture, LLC in Chickasaw County. The permit, which would withdraw 55.9 million gallons per year "for carbon capture-related purposes" expires in 2033. The land is owned by Homeland Energy Solutions, an ethanol plant and a Summit Carbon partner, in Lawler. Another water use permit application near Goldfield by Goldfield SCS Capture on land owned by Corn LP will be published in the Eagle Grove Eagle on September 13, Dugan reports. The public will have 20 days to respond.
To date, Summit has not received approval in South Dakota or North Dakota. A final evidentiary hearing begins in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota on Monday, Sept. 11, and runs through September 16.
Following the conclusion of this week’s hearings in Ft. Dodge, I have to admit that I felt in dire need of a cleansing shower. It was as if a slimy substance was clinging to my skin. It almost seemed oily. What do you think it could be?
I’m delighted to be a member of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. Please consider reading and supporting our members:
I am confused about what it is that North and South Dakota have already rejected.
https://kiwaradio.com/local-news/south-dakota-officials-reject-navigators-pipeline-permit/
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/north-dakota-regulator-rejects-summit-carbon-solutions-carbon-pipeline-2023-08-04
If there are no permits to store the CO2, then why bother with the Iowa portion of the pipeline? Can you help me understand??
There will always be attempts to have new pipelines as corporations are primarily securing right of ways for what ever they deem profitable at the time. With the climate crisis, which they deny, they will next be offering to save us all by moving water to drought areas from flooded areas caused by the climate catastrophe.