🧵CO2 Pipeline v Property Rights Debate🧵

By Breeauna Sagdal Policy Analyst and Journalist for America Mission

"A boondoggle of inflationary debt spending," Rep. Jon Hansen (R-Dells Rapids) said of the proposed CO2 pipeline, Tuesday evening.

BROOKINGS, SD- The first ever debate on eminent domain reform, in South Dakota, was held Tuesday evening at the Dacotah Bank Event Center.

Hosted by the Republican Women's Federation and The Dakota Scout, the event was well-attended. Moderator Sarah Frankenstein asked questions of Elizabeth Burns-Thompson representing Navigator CO2 Pipeline, and Dell Rapids lawmaker Jon Hansen, representing landowners. 

The issue revolves around the following key issues:

A. Surveys, Safety and Environmental Impacts

B. Eminent Domain v Voluntary easement

C. Prosperity, and 

D. Long term viability of ethanol use

---

Surveying 

Summit Carbon Solutions drilling on private property to survey for their proposed CO2 pipeline 

For several weeks, photos have circulated across social media of surveying done for the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. The surveying has included unlawful entry into homes and property, and the alleged destruction of crops.

Many have asked how it's possible to drill on private property, without consent, and ahead of the pipeline application being approved by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission? 

During the debate, Rep. Hansen cited the passage of a 2017 policy, allowing common carriers to survey private property, for the purpose of mapping and studying lands ahead of infrastructure development. 

According to Navigator CO2 vice president of government and public affairs, Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, "geotechnical surveys,"  are needed to properly conduct plume studies, Environmental Impact Studies, and identify problematic areas that could lead to ruptures in the pipe. 

Summit Carbon Solutions has sued 120 landowners for survey rights, and protection orders, in order to "conduct surveying unmolested." Yet, an Environmental Impact Study has not been submitted by either Summit or Navigator, despite urgent requests from lawmakers. In addition, a clear or exact route has not been made publicly available by either company. 

Navigator has conducted a plume study, but the company is refusing to disclose it publicly, or with anyone who hasn't signed an NDA first. 

In the past, these surveys and studies were required by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). In the case of the now closed Keystone pipeline, created to bypass America's dependency upon "dirty" crude from Venezuela, these studies took years to complete and review. 

Under recent changes to NEPA, categorical exclusions can be granted for designated green infrastructure. Under the Biden Administration's bold steps to combat climate change, "Climate-Smart Commodities," and carbon sequestration, appears to fall under this category of excluded infrastructure that requires an Environmental Impact Study. 

Screenshot taken from the Federal Register shows NEPA has not required Environmental Impact Studies from their private partners, developing "Climate-Smart Commodities."

Despite heavy federal regulations, ironically pointed to as a form of fail-safe for landowners during the debate, clear regulatory gaps still exist. 

Burns-Thompson alluded to the Denbury pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi, as being the company's failure.

"These geotechnical surveys were not conducted on the pipeline in Satartia."

But it's unclear how Denbury was able to submit its pipeline proposal, and have it approved, without Environmental Impact Studies properly addressing geohazards. 

According to the government report, the Denbury pipeline, primarily used for enhanced oil recovery, ruptured after a landslide. 

PHMSA’s investigation also revealed several contributing factors to the accident, including but not limited to,

"Denbury not addressing the risks of geohazards in its plans and procedures, underestimating the potential affected areas that could be impacted by a release in its CO2 dispersion model, and not notifying local responders to advise them of a potential failure."

In the small town of Satartia (about 50 people), the report indicates that 45 were treated for injuries.

---

Eminent Domain

The currently proposed Summit and Navigator CO2 pipelines are privately owned, as will be the CO2 they're proposing to pipe through five states for sequestration.

In fact, 80 percent of the Navigator CO2 will be owned by Blackrock.

14 percent owned by the United Arab Emirate, and less than 2 percent would be owned by farmers and US shareholders.

Hansen contends that a privately owned commodity, serving foreign interests, doesn't meet the legal requirements for common carrier status—or use of eminent domain.

Although they do not have enough votes to initiate a special session, a bicameral contingent of lawmakers are working to clarify South Dakota Codified Law regarding "common carrier" status. As it currently stands however, SDCL does not differentiate between private or public ownership. 

If the PUC approves the pipeline application, private corporations would be given the same rights to use eminent domain, as if a common carrier. 

According to Burns-Thompson, Navigator will do everything they can to obtain voluntary easements, but said at the end of the day,

". . . eminent domain is a function of the state. . .
No, I can't say tonight that we will not use eminent domain."

---

Voluntary Easement

According to Rep. Hansen, even if landowners agree to an easement voluntarily, insurance could still be an issue. 

Due to the dangers of a possible containment breach, farmers and landowners are being told they may not be able to insure future crops, or their homes. 

Regardless of being a voluntary easement, or built involuntarily via eminent domain, pipelines could lead to high monthly premiums, or even future foreclosures, as insurance is mandatory for home loans.

It's also unknown if the USDA and the Biden administration are planning a work-around for crop insurance. Without publicly disclosing the plume study, the exact route, or potential environmental impacts, risk assessment is nearly impossible for landowners and insurance companies alike.  

In states like California, where carbon credits will be offset by the pipeline's sequestration, there's currently a moratorium on CO2 pipeline development, due to related concerns. 

---

Prosperity

CO2 pipelines, and CCS technologies are the last ditch efforts of the fossil fuel industry, with hopes it would allow continued production, so long as the emissions are buried underground.

According to Burns-Thompson, each commodity is already issued a carbon index. Corn e.g. has a C.I of between 60-70 carbon credits, but using corn-based ethanol from Midwestern plants, sequestering that carbon, would reduce the C.I by 30 points.

Burns-Thompson pointed to this as being a win for the longevity of ethanol producers, as it would allow for sales in net-zero markets like California, Oregon and Washington. 

Hansen was just as quick to point out that California, Oregon and Washington have all passed recent laws outlawing combustion engines by 2035—about the same time the pipeline will be operational. 

"It's a boondoggle of Inflationary debt spending.
This is not the free market that's being chased, but 45Q tax credits." 

According to Hansen; methanol, on-site sequestration, renewable fuels and allowing "the plant food to feed the plants," are better alternatives.

---

Longevity 

Currently, CO2 is being shipped by rail and truck. With the pipeline having an estimated reduction of half a million trucks on the road each year, both sides agree that pipelines are the most efficient means of transportation. 

Common ground exists on both sides related to the potential for prosperity and the longevity of small town vitality. 

Many of the 120 farms, currently being sued by the Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline project, produce ethanol crops and support renewable fuels via production. 

According to Rep. Hansen, South Dakotans support ethanol growers, and said more would likely support the pipelines if eminent domain was taken off the table. 

---

Conclusion 

"But you've heard here tonight that Navigator intends to use eminent domain."

As Hansen gave his final remarks, he shared that Americans are already paying for wasteful federal spending, already paying for inflation, now they're being told they'll pay for more, this time with their family farms.

"We do not have to cave to the market regulators of California.
Bottom line, do not take people's land without their consent." 

Hansen concluded by quoting and underscoring the importance of South Dakota's State Motto.

"Under God, The People Rule!" 

---

Make sure to follow AmericaMission_ on X, subscribe to our SubStack, and
ring the tip jar for America Mission's policy analyst Breeauna Sagdal
(Breeauna9 on Twitter), if you have appreciated this analysis. 

Breeauna Sagdal is a former policy analyst who turned a love of the legislative process into a career in policy journalism. 

“Passionate about local control, Sagdal has cultivated a readership based upon trusted reporting of state and local policies. With a firm belief that the "inside baseball," helps to empower informed voters, Sagdal launched The Dakota Leader in January of 2022 to cover each bill of South Dakota's 97th Legislative Session. Since then, The Dakota Leader has laid the foundation for transparency in government with original source reporting, while giving a voice to those who have been silenced by today's media apparatus.   
The Dakota Leader can be found at the DakotaLeader.com.”

---