BLACKSNAKE
Feds leave future of Dakota Access pipeline's controversial river crossing unclear in draft review
JACK DURA
Updated Fri, September 8, 2023
In this October 2016, file photo, construction continues on the Dakota Access Pipeline. Federal officials on Friday, Sept. 8, 2023, released a draft environmental review of the Dakota Access oil pipeline without a recommendation from five options for the future of the line's controversial river crossing in North Dakota, proposals which include an extensive reroute miles upstream.
JACK DURA
Updated Fri, September 8, 2023
In this October 2016, file photo, construction continues on the Dakota Access Pipeline. Federal officials on Friday, Sept. 8, 2023, released a draft environmental review of the Dakota Access oil pipeline without a recommendation from five options for the future of the line's controversial river crossing in North Dakota, proposals which include an extensive reroute miles upstream.
(Tom Stromme/The Bismarck Tribune via AP, File)
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Federal officials on Friday released a draft environmental review of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, but said they're waiting for more input before deciding the future of the line’s controversial river crossing in North Dakota.
The draft was released over three years after a federal judge ordered the environmental review and revoked the permit for the Missouri River crossing, upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The tribe is concerned a pipeline oil spill could contaminate its water supply.
North Dakota officials support a decision that ultimately allows the pipeline to continue operating as it has. The tribe is calling for a new review and a pipeline shutdown.
The environmental review is key for whether the federal government reissues the permit. The pipeline has been operating since 2017, including during the environmental review.
The draft environmental impact statement, which is dated in June but was made public Friday, noted that the Corps “has not selected a preferred alternative," but will make a decision in its final review, after considering input from the public and other agencies.
The draft details five options for the pipeline, including denying the easement for the crossing and removing or abandoning a 7,500-foot (2,286-meter) segment. Officials could also approve the easement with measures for “increased operational safety,” or grant the same easement with no changes.
A fifth option is a 111-mile (179-kilometer) reroute of the pipeline to north of Bismarck, over 38 miles upstream from the current crossing. The reroute would require new permits from federal, state and local authorities and regulators, which could take at least two years. The exact path of such a reroute is unknown, according to the draft.
“We are seeking public input on the environmental analysis of each alternative, and that input combined with the environmental analysis will help us to make an informed decision among the alternatives,” Corps Omaha District spokesman Steve Wolf told The Associated Press.
A comment period will end Nov. 13. Public meetings are scheduled Nov. 1-2 in Bismarck.
A final environmental impact statement will follow the public input and environmental analysis, and a formal decision will be made, Wolf said.
Republican U.S. Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota told the AP a final alternative is expected to come out in fall 2024. He said he hopes for a decision that allows the pipeline to continue operating.
“Clearly they should go ahead and approve it without any additional modifications. The safety measures are in place,” Hoeven said.
Tribal Chairwoman Janet Alkire on Friday said the draft review should be “invalidated” and the Corps should “start from scratch" on a new review, with the pipeline shut down. The tribe is furious, she said.
“The pipeline is an imminent threat to the Missouri River, sensitive habitat and sacred burial sites along the riverbank," Alkire said. "The oil company’s emergency response plans are inadequate, its safety track record is horrendous, and there’s been a stunning lack of transparency with Standing Rock throughout the environmental review process, including inaccurate characterizations of tribal consultation."
She also called on the public to submit comments supporting a new review and a shutdown of the pipeline.
North Dakota's governor-led, three-member Industrial Commission on Thursday heard of the draft's pending release. Republican Gov. Doug Burgum on Thursday called the selection of no preferred alternative “unusual if not unprecedented.”
Burgum in a statement Friday added his support for granting the easement as it was previously issued, citing the pipeline as a safe operation and better than rail.
Hoeven said an Army official had notified him that the Corps wouldn't make a recommendation in the draft, but the agency will do more consultation in addition to the public input. The senator said he emphasized that the Corps consult with the state and the oil-rich Three Affiliated Tribes, whose reservation shares geography with North Dakota's oil patch.
State and federal officials and the pipeline's company say the line is safe. It moves oil from western North Dakota to Illinois. Leaders in North Dakota’s oil industry and state government consider the pipeline to be crucial infrastructure, with far less oil now transported by rail.
The pipeline is moving about 600,000 to 650,000 barrels of oil per day. Its capacity is 750,000 barrels per day. North Dakota produces about 1.1 million barrels of oil per day.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year refused to take up an appeal of the tribe’s lawsuit over the pipeline. The tribe first filed the lawsuit in 2016. Thousands of people gathered and camped near the pipeline's river crossing for protests that lasted months and sparked hundreds of arrests in 2016 and 2017. More than 830 criminal cases resulted from the protests.
CO2 pipeline project denied key permit in South Dakota; another seeks second chance in North Dakota
JACK DURA and STEVE KARNOWSKI
Wed, September 6, 2023
A sign reading "No CO2, no eminent domain" stands along a rural road east of Bismarck, N.D., on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2023. The sign is in opposition to Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile pipeline network to carry carbon dioxide emissions from dozens of ethanol plants in five states to central North Dakota for permanent storage deep underground.
JACK DURA and STEVE KARNOWSKI
Wed, September 6, 2023
A sign reading "No CO2, no eminent domain" stands along a rural road east of Bismarck, N.D., on Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2023. The sign is in opposition to Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed $5.5 billion, 2,000-mile pipeline network to carry carbon dioxide emissions from dozens of ethanol plants in five states to central North Dakota for permanent storage deep underground.
(AP Photo/Jack Dura)
South Dakota regulators on Wednesday denied a construction permit for a carbon dioxide pipeline project, one month after a North Dakota panel did the same to a similar project by another company.
Navigator CO2 Ventures wants to build a 1,300-mile (2,092 kilometers) pipeline network across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota, to carry planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from more than 20 industrial plants to be buried over a mile underground in Illinois.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to deny Navigator's application for its Heartland Greenway pipeline. Chair Kristie Fiegen cited myriad reasons in her motion to deny, including the company's lack of promptness and several objections to commission staff questions as well as struggles to notify landowners of routes and meetings. She detailed concerns related to safety, community growth, landowners and emergency responders, among other issues.
The proposed South Dakota route encompassed 112 miles (180 kilometers) and would serve three ethanol plants. The panel’s decision came after evidentiary hearing sessions in July and August.
Navigator expressed disappointment that the permit was denied, and was weighing its options going forward.
"Our commitment to environmental stewardship and safety remains unwavering, and we will continue to pursue our permitting processes in the other regions we operate in,” the company said in a statement.
The decision comes just days before the South Dakota panel is set to begin an evidentiary hearing Monday for a separate CO2 pipeline project, proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions, with a final decision expected by Nov. 15.
Brian Jorde, an attorney for South Dakota landowners opposed to the Navigator and Summit projects, expressed hope that Navigator might now drop the South Dakota leg of the project, given that most of the plants it would serve are in Iowa and other states.
Similar projects are proposed around the country as industries try to reduce their carbon footprints. Supporters say carbon capture will combat climate change. Governments and companies are making big investments in it. But opponents say the technology isn’t proven at scale and could require huge investments at the expense of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power.
Landowners across the Midwest have opposed such pipeline projects, fearing their land will be taken and that the pipelines could break, spewing hazardous carbon dioxide into the air.
Other states continue to weigh Summit's project, which would encompass a 2,000-mile network from 30-some ethanol plants throughout Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to an underground storage site in North Dakota.
The Iowa Utilities Board began its evidentiary hearing for Summit last month. It's expected to last several weeks.
North Dakota's Public Service Commission last month denied Summit a siting permit. The company subsequently asked the panel to reconsider. The regulators have a work session set for Friday to discuss the request. A decision will come after the meeting.
Summit this week withdrew its applications to Oliver County for two permits related to construction of injection wells for its underground CO2 storage site in central North Dakota.
The company's move came after the county's planning and zoning board voted last week to forward a denial recommendation to the county commission. The board had cited a lack of information from Summit, safety concerns and no financial or economic benefit to the county or residents, Oliver County Auditor Jaden Schmidt said.
Summit spokesperson Sabrina Ahmed Zenor said the company would work to address Oliver County's questions and concerns and that it was confident of securing the necessary permits from the county.
South Dakota regulators on Wednesday denied a construction permit for a carbon dioxide pipeline project, one month after a North Dakota panel did the same to a similar project by another company.
Navigator CO2 Ventures wants to build a 1,300-mile (2,092 kilometers) pipeline network across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota, to carry planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from more than 20 industrial plants to be buried over a mile underground in Illinois.
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to deny Navigator's application for its Heartland Greenway pipeline. Chair Kristie Fiegen cited myriad reasons in her motion to deny, including the company's lack of promptness and several objections to commission staff questions as well as struggles to notify landowners of routes and meetings. She detailed concerns related to safety, community growth, landowners and emergency responders, among other issues.
The proposed South Dakota route encompassed 112 miles (180 kilometers) and would serve three ethanol plants. The panel’s decision came after evidentiary hearing sessions in July and August.
Navigator expressed disappointment that the permit was denied, and was weighing its options going forward.
"Our commitment to environmental stewardship and safety remains unwavering, and we will continue to pursue our permitting processes in the other regions we operate in,” the company said in a statement.
The decision comes just days before the South Dakota panel is set to begin an evidentiary hearing Monday for a separate CO2 pipeline project, proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions, with a final decision expected by Nov. 15.
Brian Jorde, an attorney for South Dakota landowners opposed to the Navigator and Summit projects, expressed hope that Navigator might now drop the South Dakota leg of the project, given that most of the plants it would serve are in Iowa and other states.
Similar projects are proposed around the country as industries try to reduce their carbon footprints. Supporters say carbon capture will combat climate change. Governments and companies are making big investments in it. But opponents say the technology isn’t proven at scale and could require huge investments at the expense of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power.
Landowners across the Midwest have opposed such pipeline projects, fearing their land will be taken and that the pipelines could break, spewing hazardous carbon dioxide into the air.
Other states continue to weigh Summit's project, which would encompass a 2,000-mile network from 30-some ethanol plants throughout Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to an underground storage site in North Dakota.
The Iowa Utilities Board began its evidentiary hearing for Summit last month. It's expected to last several weeks.
North Dakota's Public Service Commission last month denied Summit a siting permit. The company subsequently asked the panel to reconsider. The regulators have a work session set for Friday to discuss the request. A decision will come after the meeting.
Summit this week withdrew its applications to Oliver County for two permits related to construction of injection wells for its underground CO2 storage site in central North Dakota.
The company's move came after the county's planning and zoning board voted last week to forward a denial recommendation to the county commission. The board had cited a lack of information from Summit, safety concerns and no financial or economic benefit to the county or residents, Oliver County Auditor Jaden Schmidt said.
Summit spokesperson Sabrina Ahmed Zenor said the company would work to address Oliver County's questions and concerns and that it was confident of securing the necessary permits from the county.
No comments:
Post a Comment