Audrey Streb
Contributor
Republican South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill Thursday banning the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, ensuring land protections for farmers across the state.
The bill, HB 1052, prohibits the government seizure of land for C02 pipelines. This leaves the fate of Summit Carbon Solutions’ $9 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline project potentially hanging in the air, as South Dakota was a key player in the plan. Summit’s pipeline was to transport captured C02 from five Midwest states to an underground storage spot in South Dakota, which has been referred to as the world’s largest carbon capture project. (RELATED: ‘No, Thank You’: Red State Regulators Reject Green Pipeline Opposed By Many Rural Landowners)
“South Dakota landowners feel strongly that the threat of involuntary easements for the proposed carbon dioxide pipeline infringes on their freedoms and their property rights,” Rhoden wrote in a letter to the legislature and to the people of South Dakota. “I have said many times that Summit needs to earn back trust from South Dakota landowners. Unfortunately, once trust is lost, it is a difficult thing to regain.”
“Here is my open message to Summit Carbon or anyone else who wants to try to come abuse our fellow South Dakotans,” Republican South Dakota House Speaker Jon Hansen wrote on X. “Your green new deal boondoggle; your lawsuits; your threats; and your intimidation against our people, our counties, and our grassroots commissioners ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.”
Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor said in a statement that “it’s very unfortunate that, despite our approvals in Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota, South Dakota changed the rules in the middle of the game.”
“The governor has made it clear that HB 1052 targets one company – Summit Carbon Solutions,” Zenor continued. “It’s unfortunate that a piece of legislation has been framed around a single company rather than addressing broader infrastructure and economic policy.”
“This is definitely a win for the little guy,” Steve Milloy, a Senior Legal Fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF.
“Carbon capture is economically, politically and physically impossible.” He said, referring to carbon capture as “totally bogus” and that “the only reason it’s happening is because oil companies can get taxpayer subsidies for it.” (RELATED: Dem Gov Signs Bill Putting Brakes On Green Energy Tech Being Pushed By Biden Admin)
Milloy pointed to how carbon capture’s expensive price tag, the unpopularity of eminent domain and underground storage issues make it an extraordinarily difficult practice. He also noted that the government can only seize land for public use, and that there is “no legitimate public use” for C02 pipelines.
The author also referenced both the Mississippi C02 pipeline rupture, as well as the Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon in 1986 that both destroyed land and livestock. The Cameroon pipeline explosion even left 1,700 people dead.
“So, good for South Dakota,” Milloy stated.
Summit Carbon Solutions did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment in time for publication.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
That’s right, CO2 capture and sequestration is entirely without merit.
Merits of CO2 pipelines capture aside….pipeline companies generally pay full price for their “right of way” at the cost per acre of land in that area. They reserve the right to be able to drive vehicles down the right of way but also pay the farmer for any crop damage. The government forces the pipeline company to be responsible for any leaks or environmental damage in perpetuity. Municipal governments often tax the pipeline owner for right of way, so collect property taxes from both the farmer and the pipeline company. The pipeline is several feet underground and is zero hindrance to farming operations, probably less hindrance than the neighbor’s cattle. A bit of annual lease money for the right of way would be nice for farmers, maybe that would cover the property tax they have to pay on the land taken up by the pipeline right of way, would make pipelines a very popular in rural areas, instead of their current “myeh..” value that allows some groups to occasionally rally landowners into “no way” activists. But really a pipeline has close to zero impact…it’s electrical transmission lines that are eyesores and inconvenient on your property.
My front yard has 3 pipelines across it in one ditch, 4 if you count the rural gas co-op line. No problems at all, in the last 25 years…now the field has been depleted and the lines are legally “abandoned”, with inhibitor solution inside, with a view to being used for other purposes someday. I always found it peculiar that the leases for gas wells on my property increase the value of the land, yet the pipelines through my yard decrease the value of the house and building, in the eyes of the same real estate agents. Totally based on whether there are annual lease payments, possibly some perceived safely blowout issues, which are statistical nonsense.
On the other hand I always worked in the energy industry and would be branded an oil and gas biased shill by envo-activists.
“But really a pipeline has close to zero impact”
other than to the land owner who doesn’t want it
A fair deal is only a fair deal when the parties involved agree.
Whatever someone else comments, even if true, is still only a comment.
Ask the enviro-activist this question? What fuel do you propose for firetrucks if you phase out fossil fuels?
Exceptions for military, police, fire and wealth.
“Responsible in perpetuity” doesn’t mean much when you’re talking about companies that will go bankrupt in an eyeblink the moment the government subsidies for their boondoggle get cut off.
Without merit AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
This is interesting. CO2 pipelines are definitely much more dangerous, in terms of killing everything non-plant nearby, in rupture cases.
However, the reason why people want to build CO2 pipelines into ND is because of EOR – Enhanced Oil Recovery. Apparently only 10% of the hydrocarbons in a fracked reservoir are being recovered now – the lightest 10% i.e. natural gas and NGLs. In conventional wells, there are many methods used to increase the recovery percentage but these don’t seem to work for fracked wells. Many different surfactants are being tested to see what might increase yields, but realistically only CO2 and propane have the scale to even matter. Bio, water, artificial chemicals are simply too expensive/not scalable.
The ginormous Biden subsidies for carbon capture don’t hurt either…
So for North Dakota in particular – the Bakken field operators were looking to get a CO2 pipeline built to bring CO2 from Wyoming coal plants to EOR. EOR using CO2 is also carbon sequestration…!
But, of course, North Dakota has its urban/rural divide as well even though the entire state has less people than the “city” of San Francisco. The CO2 pipelines apparently have to cross Fargo and Bismarck to get to the Bakken… which is ironic given that pipelines to bring natural gas to Fargo and Bismarck are apparently going to get approved because then they can build the AI data centers in the “cities” as opposed to places like Ellendale.
“It’s unfortunate that a piece of legislation has been framed around a single company rather than addressing broader infrastructure and economic policy.”
One wonders how many other companies are proposing CO2 pipelines in South Dakota.
One also wonders how many companies would be proposing them without a “market” for something nobody wants, asked for, or needs, which was created by government fiat.
https://www.louisianafirstnews.com/news/louisiana-news/lawsuit-challenges-louisianas-approval-of-co2-pipeline-in-maurepas-swamp/
“The lawsuit targets Air Products’ Blue Hydrogen Clean Energy Complex…” Such pipelines are of course not new since used for enhancing well production. Another example of environmental concerns colliding? One might argue that the Louisiana coast already has enough gas bubbling into the atmosphere and too many cracks and faults in the sediments to trust this.
CO2 is not a problem – can’t they get that through their thick heads ?
Whaddayamean, “no legitimate public use” for CO2 pipelines? Saving the planet is certainly a public use! Is the argument they’ll use.
Small error in the Daily Caller source article. They indicate “The Cameroon pipeline explosion event left 1,700 people dead”. The 1986 lake Nyos event in Cameron was a limnic eruption (sudden overturn of the lake), and to my knowledge not pipeline related.
You are correct. I posted the same thing.
You want CO2 capture? Plant trees.
Then shellac them when they die. Or helicopter-drop them in Antarctica.
No, just kill termites. Termites emit 10X the CO2 humans do, so we can offset ALL human emissions by just killing ten percent of them. Think of all the employment opportunity while saving the earth. Win win.
That’ll work until they burn up in megafires. How about If you want CO2 capture, then hold your breath?
The Lake Nyos disaster wasn’t a pipeline explosion. It was a limnic eruption. Dissolved CO2 suddenly erupted from the deep lake waters, forming a gas cloud the killed 1700 people and about 3500 livestock.
O/T Then again, maybe not.
Donald Trump and the empty suit.
When you have someone with no hint of a coherent ideology, no ideas even, you have an empty suit that needs filling. And by a weird quirk of nature that special prime ministerial suit is labelled left to left-of-centre – meaning it alone can do right wing things.
After all, the Tories did only left wing things for the previous 14 years.
No sooner had the US DOGE got up and running – and cutting – than we began to see headlines telling us the dear leader had said the Civil Service were sitting in a tepid bath of managed decline. It sounded tough enough, but where the tool maker’s (factory owner’s) son is concerned U-Turns are never far behind…
Starmer’s Civil Service Reform Plan Means Raising Salaries and No Staff Cuts
https://order-order.com/2025/03/13/kyle-starmers-civil-service-reform-plan-means-raising-salaries-and-no-staff-cuts/
This guy revolves way faster than any Pulsar I’ve heard of.
Bottom line: Trump has a vision and a destination in mind. We have an [expensive] empty suit. Cerebral donations welcome.
Milloy’s quote is not logically correct. Here’s the quote: ‘He said, referring to carbon capture as “totally bogus” and that “the only reason it’s happening is because oil companies can get taxpayer subsidies for it.”’ Here is the logical statement: “The Federal government grants taxpayer subsidies to all companies, not just oil companies, that pump ‘carbon’ into underground caverns. This form of carbon capture is demonstrably bogus, which makes the subsidies useless.”
Our government specializes in all kinds of bogus subsidies in the name of saving our planet from “carbon emissions”, which are actually carbon dioxide emissions.
BTW, the use of the word “carbon” itself is bogus. The term is “carbon dioxide”, not carbon. The use of the word “carbon” is itself is a sneaky way of obfuscating the issue. If you read science books that were written before 1980, they ALL talk about the reality of carbon dioxide, which is that it is absolutely necessary in our atmosphere. Not just beneficial. It is absolutely necessary.
But the powerful are not interested in letting the rank and file know the truth about carbon dioxide, so they have gotten us sheep accustomed to using the word “carbon” instead of “carbon dioxide”.
You see, ‘carbon’ is nasty black stuff that comes down chimneys while CO2 is an odorless beneficial trace gas. People who say ‘carbon’ are lazy or have an agenda or are lying
every day I see in the MSM, “carbon pollution”- yuh, people see that and they imagine themselves choking on filthy black carbon
I think “have an agenda or are lying” should read “have an agenda and are lying to support it”.
“He also noted that the government can only seize land for public use, and that there is “no legitimate public use” for C02 pipelines.”
This is the sticking point for me. Eminent Domain for the benefit of a private corp. Isn’t that Fascist?
off topic a bit, but in Las Vegas decades ago a whole neighborhood was bought through Eminent Domain for the expansion of the airport. I wonder if the homeowners could have brough suit as the reason for the expansion wasn’t a bigger terminal, or more or longer runways or anything directly related to the actual functioning of the airport as an airport, but was rather for the vendors and car rentals and such, all private entities.
“Another famous eminent domain case occurred in 2005, when the city of New London, Connecticut was granted the right to take private homes, and then transfer the ownership to a private developer to develop a local economic project.
In this controversial case, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that eminent domain allowed a city to take away homes and give them to private parties for a “public purpose.”“
So much for private property rights.
CO2, the gas of life.
Carbon, the stuff of life.
Organic Definition and Examples – Biology Online Dictionary
Until they concentrate it to “sequster” it and it escapes…
Once any pipeline can be considered “Bad”, then all pipelines can also be considered “Bad”.
Be careful what you wish for when pursuing your agenda. It might come back to bite you.
The difference is that pipelines carrying fuels are a public benefit, since the fuels must reach the customers somehow.
Nobody will receive the slightest benefit from CO2 pipelines but the companies who build them while sucking on the government teat the whole time.
More good news.
CCUS is not only without merit, it is decidedly dangerous.
“there is “no legitimate public use” for C02 pipelines”
Aiui, the US has something like 2,500 miles of CO2 pipelines which are mostly used to transport the gas for Enhanced Oil Recovery, as others have mentioned. That surely qualifies as a legitimate public use. Indeed, under Trump’s energy agenda, there will probably be increased demand for EOR.