by Mari Radtke
Kaylee Langrell and Grant Terry representing Summit Carbon Solutions attended the Tuesday March 19 regular O’Brien County Supervisors meeting. Summit partners with 57 ethanol plants for this project across Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota. Thirty of those plants are in Iowa.
Langrell was there to up the supervisors with the project progress and additions to the project. The project began with 32 ethanol plants. She reported that number has risen to 57 plants “that we are partnered with,” and includes Poet near Ashton and Valero in Hartley plus a few single additions in South Dakota and Iowa. Langrell went straight to the “new” map. It shows the original main line of the Summit pipeline which runs across the approximate center of O’Brien County, east to west. It shows the new proposed 6-8” lines connecting the Valero and Poet plants to their main line. Both proposed lines drop south from the proposed ethanol site to connect into the main line. The map included a shaded area referred to as the “notification corridor.” Notifying each landowner within a parcel on both sides of the proposed pipeline route is the first step required by Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) for holding informational meetings in each county. The notifiation corridor, according to Langrell, is expanded from the first project allowing the company more room to work and more flexibility with landowners. She added, “It doesn’t necessarily mean we plan to cross their land. It means we could potentially, if one landowner doesn’t want it and they do.” Outreach by Summit or a land agent cannot happen until after the informational meetings are held. Those are expected to begin in June.

The additional routes and lines are separate from the original project. It will have to have its own hearings, everything, its own timeline. The new routes are separate for the original Summit project unless IUB changes its mind.
Summit still expects to be operational by 2026 but are hoping to move a little quicker this time around.
Supervisor Dennis Vanden Hull asked why the main pipeline continued west. The proposal adds 15 miles of pipeline into O’Brien County for just 1 ethanol plant and only 3 miles in Osceola County. Lanagrell stated, “All of our product is going into the main line and up. This is the most efficient.” Grant Terry supported that claim adding that this route has the least impact. Langrell promoted the property tax benefit to O’Brien County. She said they are 82% acquired on the current route, even adding the new 25.74 miles they already have 42% acquired for the project even though land acquistion cannot begin until after the information meetings are completed. For O’Brien County they are at 48%. She recounted the dollars spent on easements in the state and in O’Brien County. Overmire addressed this later stating that acquisiton had slowed a lot since the last visit. He asked of negotiations were continuing. Terry noted that some of that is due to a hold up of the project in South Dakota. He said they are still trying to obtain voluntary acquisition. Statewide the easements obtains so far is at just under 75%. Payment for an easment would be held for 7 business days as required by state law and then paid immediately.
Supervisor Dan Friedrichsen asked about plume models being made to the public. Langrell responded, “We do not have – we are not making it available to the public. However we have made the decision that, y’know the emergency response, they’re going to see it anyway when they do their trainings once we get to construction. So we’ve made the decision to, if they want to have a meeting where we go through those models. Now we can do that with like county officials like yourselves.” Both Friedrichsen and Board Chair Tim Overmire said they’d like to see it, with Friedrichsen saying, “I think the public would like to see it too.” Langrell explained the controversial reasoning as not standard practice or procedure and categorized releasing the plume modeling as a security risk, “per the federal government.” She says it’s not responsible and not practical to release that information to the public. She recongnized the big demand and said that was why they were willing to sit with officials and emergency management over the myriad potential results of a pipeline rupture and the release of liquefied CO2 into the atmosphere. According to Grant Terry said no one would be under an NDA (non disclosure agreement) by attending. They don’t want recordings or photos of the maps. It was clear that the disbursion models are not going to be easily available unless Summit deems their location need to know.
The construction timeline was approached by Overmire. He asked if they planned to do it all at one time. Terry responded that he expected that to be the case was hedged his answer a bit. He also asked about how the additional ethanol plant was sufficient to transport all the additional CO2. At first the answer was yes, but then the answer was qualified. The pipeline diameter is sufficient but hydraulics and pump stations would have to be added to maintain the pressure and speed.
Loren Flaugh asked about total mileage of the pipeline which sits at just under 2700 miles according to Terry.
Questions about the plume modeling and whose security did not get a clear answer but Summit personnel took the position that the results of the plume studies are a matter of national security. Terry covered his response that person’s with a specific area would be given a personalized response plan. He was clear that a person given a response plan is not sworn to secrecy but the disbursion models will not be made available to the public.
Depth of the pipeline and setback were discussed. Terry said where possible a 500’ setback would be used but federal law requires a minimum of a 50’ setback.
Chuck Virgil asked when the CO2 leaves the ethanol plant and enters the pipeline, “who owns it?” The response did not directly answer the question but went into some discussion of tariffs and the federal tax credit as a way to make money for building and operating the pipeline. Neither Langrell or Terry could answer that question. Friedrichsen later asked for contact information to follow up on the question of ownership.
Jim Thomas asked about water use for the project. Terry explained that only water use was for the conversion of the CO2 from gas to liquid. The amount of water use was not immediately answered.
Installation process was asked about. Terry said as much would be trenched as possible. Safety would be a deciding factor is trenching or excavation. Tiled fields is a major concern. He talked up the benefit of Ellison, who would be doing the repair work of tile. Vanden Hull addressed the concern that if the tax credit goes away the project could also go away which would end repair work on the tile. He claims a lifetime warranty on tile. Terry advocated strongly that Summit would repair be responsible for damage they caused. He felt that sinkage would be the most probable cause of drain tile damage. Inspection records required by the state would also be kept.
Flaugh asked if the entire project could be built in a single construction season. Terry replied, “Yes, we just have to staff up enough.”
Vanden Hull described conditions causing reduced yields caused by boring and other affects on productivity. He wanted a price/yield guarantee from Summit for more than 3 years and greater than the propsoed 85% rate. Terry stated that the owner needs to have the preconstruction yield map and could protect his or her interest for all years that follow.
Summit and its supporters promote the benefits of sequestration. The carbon capture technology is said to “sustain and strong agricultural market, drive job creation and job growth in critical Midwest-based industries and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Summit promotional material says it will also “provide opportunities for existing or new sources of CO2 such as ethanol plants, fertilizer plants, renewable aviation fuels, and blue hydrogen to decarbonize.”
Reducing carbon releases into the atmosphere is one strategy to reduce greenhouse gasses. Proponents of the project say ethanol prices, therefore corn prices, are supported or increased with more markets for the ethonal.
Opponents of the project don’t believe in the greenhouse gas theory fueling the carbon pipeline industry, opposed the use of eminent domain and question the safety of transporting pressurized CO2 across 3 states through a pipeline.