South Dakota denies permit for carbon dioxide pipeline

[Korner6]

Homeowners put up a fight and have won the battle against two pipelines scheduled to be built near their properties. The counties in the area had laws forbidding pipelines from being built near homes and the state has upheld those laws with the rejection of the permits by the pipelines. It appears as if two separate companies attempted to get permits, and both were denied.

State denies Summit permit; both carbon pipelines proposed in SD now rejected - Iowa Capital Dispatch

South Dakota utility regulators denied a permit application Monday for Summit Carbon Solutions' multistate carbon-capture pipeline.

iowacapitaldispatch.com

 

[Jake]

These pipelines worry me, I'm glad to hear these homeowners were able to win this battle, but my guess is this is far from over. I'm sure these companies are aiming to get right back to it and will try to find a way to put those pipelines in. And I hope these homeowners and the state help keep fighting it.

 

[Eric]

I'm glad to hear these homeowners were able to win this battle, but my guess is this is far from over. I'm sure these companies are aiming to get right back to it and will try to find a way to put those pipelines in.

You're definitely right about that. The article quotes one of the pipeline company's lawyers as saying the following:

“I suspect that this project is ultimately going to be built,” Koenecke said. “Carbon capture is the future of agriculture.”

It's interesting because this permit denial pertains to a carbon storage/sequestration project in conflict with NIMBY groups. As described in the article, the project would "capture carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol plants in multiple states and transport it in liquid form to underground sequestration sites – North Dakota for Summit, and Illinois for Navigator." Because of the environmental benefit the pipeline would provide, I'm actually inclined to agree with the pipeline company's claim about the inevitably their project (or something like it).

Overall, it seems like it would be in South Dakota's long-term best interest to support the project considering their economy's reliance on agriculture, despite the fact that the pipeline would encroach on a lot of private land. If I were a South Dakota resident concerned about the competitiveness of ethanol as a fuel source, I think I'd be hard pressed to reject this project. I would think that any project that could help secure the state's ethanol economy by reducing carbon emissions would be desirable for most of the state's residents.