David Moch signed an easement agreement with Summit Carbon Solution allowing the carbon capture project developer to put a pipeline through his land, but he said signed only because of the threat of eminent domain — a court ordering him to provide a right-of-way for the pipeline.
Moch, of Hazelton, said he spent $9,600 on a lawyer to ensure he had the strongest agreement possible, but he is still opposed to the pipeline and its potential use of eminent domain.
Moch was among those who testified Thursday in favor of bills that limit the ability of Summit and other carbon pipeline developers to use eminent domain.
Summit Carbon Solutions is an Iowa-based company seeking to build a $9 billion five-state network of pipelines capturing CO2 emissions from ethanol plants. Summit’s pipeline would send the CO2 for permanent underground storage in western North Dakota.
Summit Carbon Solutions officials and representatives from the ethanol, coal and oil and gas industries testified against the bills.
“This will disqualify current projects in development and immediately stop the investment in the North Dakota CO2 industry,” said Charlie Adams, manager of agriculture and stakeholder relations with Summit.
Several opponents of the bills pointed to a study by the North Dakota tax commissioner projecting the tax revenue that could come from oil production if enhanced oil recovery — using carbon dioxide to force more oil out of wells — were adopted in North Dakota.
David Nehring, who also works as manager of agriculture and stakeholder relations with Summit, said Summit has not been approached about using its CO2 for enhanced oil recovery but could be in the future.
“I would like to see it be used in the Bakken for EOR,” he said.
Summit’s pipeline permit in North Dakota specifies that the carbon dioxide be stored permanently.
Moch and Nehring testified on House Bill 1292 that strips common carrier status from carbon pipelines. Being a common carrier pipeline — transporting goods for hire — is a factor in pursuing eminent domain.
Two other bills heard Thursday, Senate Bill 2322 and House Bill 1414, would also strip common carrier status from carbon dioxide pipelines and more specifically state that eminent domain could not be used for carbon pipelines.
Adams testified that Summit has signed about 85% of landowners to voluntary easement agreements.
Frances Robinson of Emmons County said Summit bullied landowners with the threat of eminent domain to obtain easements.
“If they tried the same tactics now, there would be a very different result,” she testified.
Sen. Jeff Magrum, R-Hazelton, the sponsor of the Senate bill, argued that it is too easy to claim common carrier status in North Dakota and that the only way to show a company like Summit is not a common carrier is to take the company to court, which is expensive for landowners.
He also cited a South Dakota Supreme Court ruling that said Summit has not shown that it is a common carrier.
Ron Ness, executive director of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said the bills are not just about the Summit project but other pipelines yet to be planned that could carry carbon dioxide to North Dakota oil wells.
“What are we going to need in two years, five years, 10 years down the road?” Ness asked. “It’s going to take a lot of gas to supercharge the Bakken.”
Zach Cassidy of the Dakota Resource Council, an environmental group, was among those who questioned the safety of such a large high-pressure hazardous materials pipeline.
“People’s lives are potentially at risk,” Cassidy said. “It should be their choice whether or not to take that risk for their family, for the paycheck that they get.”
No action was taken on the bills, which represent just a few related to carbon capture.
Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, R-Minot, and House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson, on Thursday issued a news release supporting carbon pipelines.
“Our baseload coal industry must capture and store its CO2 to stay viable. Our corn and ethanol industries must access low-carbon fuels markets to stay competitive and keep the internal combustion engine competitive,” Hogue said.
Also Thursday, the House voted 86-7 to advance House Bill 1258, which gives the state authority over setback rules for electric transmission lines, similar to the rules for pipeline regulation. The bill goes to the Senate for further consideration.