Let's get radical!
As we wrap up 2022, we’d like to share that the archives from the @MNSnarkDept twitter account can be found in this google drive folder. Our YouTube and Facebook pages will continue to host content. We wouldn’t want anyone to forget about all these great moments like our State Fair Exhibit!
Overview
As of June 2022, three large CO2 pipeline systems are proposed for the Midwest. The map below is speculative based on the facilities currently signed on, because the pipeline corporations have not finalized their routes yet. There is a clear lack of central planning and regulation for these systems overlapping each other across the region.
Summit’s proposed network would connect 33 mostly small ethanol facilities and a proposed fertilizer plant to a carbon sequestration site in North Dakota. They have partnered financially with North Dakota’s largest oil driller, Continental, and signed a carbon storage deal with Minnkota, a coal-heavy electric utility.
Navigator’s proposed network would connect 36 mostly larger ethanol and fertilizer facilities to a carbon sequestration site in Illinois. ADM/Wolf’s proposed pipeline would connect three massive corn processing facilities (ethanol and other products) to the same sequestration area.
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Captured CO2 is most commonly used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). EOR has been used at or very near the proposed sequestration sites of each project, in both North Dakota and Illinois.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) and industry groups claim that this process can produce “carbon negative oil”. However, their own methodology indicates that conventional EOR results in 1.8x more carbon emitted than is sequestered. They also claim that “advanced EOR+” methods can result in slight net reductions in carbon emissions, but they are evaluating these scenarios while assuming that all oil demand must and will be met, and that EOR oil mostly displaces other oil in the market.
In reality, there is a finite amount of oil on Earth, and much of it is only accessible by using EOR. While CO2 injection is not the only major method of EOR, any restriction in supply of CO2 used for EOR would increase the likelihood of more oil remaining in the ground. Research shows that over 60% of oil & fossil gas must remain in the ground in order for us to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Regardless of how advanced the EOR process is, there are better ways to do carbon sequestration (i.e. chemical storage or mineral storage) that don’t involve oil, and also have less risk of CO2 leakage. Speaking of leakage, CO2 pipelines pose tremendous risks to environmental and human health from rupture and leakage, which we won’t elaborate on here, but this piece on the Satartia Incident is essential reading.
Ethanol Lifecycle Emissions
The Midwest CO2 pipeline systems allow the ethanol, fertilizer, and potentially other polluting industries to collect tax credits for CCS, thereby subsidizing and enabling their continued operation. We attempt to represent the systems and feedback loops with a flowchart below:
Ethanol plant owners and operators who have signed on with a CO2 pipeline corporation have said that these CCS tax credits are necessary for them to continue to compete and operate in today’s markets. Ethanol producers are literally trying to stay in business by partaking. A Summit executive stated a goal of providing “longevity for the community’s ethanol plant.” The Ethanol Industry as a whole recognizes the need for CO2 pipelines to keep them competitive.
Yes, an ethanol facility can lower its carbon footprint by doing CCS via CO2 pipelines, but if those systems enable the continued existence of the ethanol industry, then they will overall be bad for the climate. This is mainly due to global land use change, fertilizer use, and the fuel market rebound effect.
The 68 ethanol plants that have signed onto the 3 Midwest CO2 pipeline systems thus far total 10.7 Million metric tons of annual CO2 emissions (3 year average), but their full capacity lifecycle emissions are calculated at 72.5 MMT/yr. If even 15% of these ethanol plants (in terms of production capacity) can attribute their continued operation to CO2 pipelines and tax credits, then that will mean CO2 pipelines cause a net increase in GHG emissions.
| Pipeline System | Ethanol CO2 Captured (MMT/yr) | Total Ethanol Emissions (MMT/yr) | % Emissions Sequestered |
| ADM/Wolf | 2.22 | 10.83 | 20.5% |
| Navigator | 5.11 | 35.28 | 14.5% |
| Summit | 3.40 | 26.42 | 12.9% |
| Total | 10.73 | 72.54 | 14.8% |
Lastly, there are several critical opportunity costs of growing corn for ethanol in the Midwest. An acre of solar panels in Iowa can produce 34 times more energy as an acre of corn grown for ethanol would. Maybe even 100 times more. Ethanol offsets just 6% of U.S. gasoline use, and just a 2 mpg increase in fuel economy would offset as much. Growing plants for fuel instead of food is worsening the global food crisis, in addition to the climate crisis.
Conclusion
Both EOR and ethanol lifecycle emissions on their own are reason enough to declare that CO2 pipelines are very likely to cause a net increase in GHG emissions. When we combine those two main factors, and add the electricity sector emissions from pipeline compressor stations, it’s not even close. Obviously, anyone in the Midwest who cares about climate change should oppose these CO2 pipeline systems.
Let’s clear the air on how the Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline really impacts Minnesota:
| MYTH | FACT |
|---|---|
| The ongoing Line 3 construction is a simple replacement project. | The new Line 3 takes a new route through previously undisturbed waterways, and would more than double its current capacity. |
| We need to double the capacity of Line 3 to meet demand for oil. | Enbridge tried to use a supply forecast instead of a demand forecast. Their mainline volume has actually decreased in the past year (S&P). |
| Line 3 is necessary because we will keep using oil for a long time. | Even conservative projections from the IEA forecast oil demand growth to end sometime this decade. |
| If this pipeline isn’t built, there will be thousands of dangerous oil trains going through Minnesota. | There’s no evidence that it’s possible to transport 915 kbpd of oil by rail thru MN’s rail network. Overall tar sands oil transport by rail was much lower than that in recent years. |
| Building a new pipeline would protect the environment and the economy long-term. | A newly built Line 3 would transport tar sands oil long past the time of economic unviability. This infrastructure lock-in would lead to increased costs and emissions for Minnesota. |
| The new Line 3 would be much safer than the old Line 3. | There is no evidence for this claim. Safety is not related to age as much as it is to operator commitment to safety, which Enbridge lacks. |
| The permitting process for Line 3 was scientific and robust. | The Line 3 permitting process was flawed on many levels, and the Walz Administration failed to take responsibility for it. |
| Line 3 creates many local jobs for hardworking Minnesotans. | Enbridge promised over 75% local jobs, but has only delivered on 23% of them. The vast majority of these jobs are temporary and dangerous. |
| Line 3 is boosting local economies in Northern Minnesota. | Enbridge went to court to avoid paying taxes in Minnesota, leading to a ‘worst case scenario’ for 13 Northern Minnesota counties. |
| The influx of pipeline workers is good for local communities. | Enbridge workers were caught in child sex trafficking rings in Northern MN. Pipeline construction causes the MMIWR epidemic. |
This video follows the broken process of Enbridge’s Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline in northern Minnesota. The issue and permitting of Line 3 has been a “hot potato” between Enbridge and different federal and state regulatory agencies. A flowchart and sources for all the facts cited in the video can be found below our statement of solidarity.
Despite massive public opposition to the project, Enbridge started construction in late 2020. To support the fight against Line 3, please share and follow the organizations through this link tree: https://linktr.ee/stopline3, sign up to be involved and support the movement in many ways (near and far!): http://bit.ly/2NWQdxs
We are organized around the principle that science is a set of tools that can and should be used to advance human and environmental justice, rather than corporate profiteering resulting in ecocide and genocide. Acting on this principle has brought us into the Line 3 struggle and the fight for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives, where powerful state institutions and actors use the veneer of science to shield themselves from accountability, while failing to take action consistent with what we know about the science of climate, land, and water. Governor Walz justifies his lack of action by saying he’ll listen to “science and the data” — and the Science for the People-Twin Cities Chapter is committed to demonstrating that the science and data clearly show we must reject Line 3. We recognize that the coordination of scientific research to support the movement against Line 3 does not add new information about the devastating impacts of this pipeline, but instead supports and upholds the knowledge held by the original caretakers and stewards of this land, the Dakota and Anishinaabe peoples. Our focus is to articulate the failures of the regulatory process, use our expertise to support legal challenges to permits, coordinate with and support community organizations, and participate in direct action and protest.
Black arrow = pushing off responsibility to another entity. Red arrow = putting constraints on another entity.
Walz
DEED
MDH
MPCA
PUC
DOC
AG
Legislature
Federal
DNR
21. Commissioner Strommen cited the PUC’s granting of a Certificate of Need, and the MPCA water permit as why they couldn’t deny Enbridge’s permits.
22. Commissioner Strommen cited a lack of new legislation as why they couldn’t deny the permits.