EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 4/17/24

PIPELINE NEWS

• Iowa Capital Dispatch: Dickinson County leaders unanimously approve pipeline ordinance

• KDLS: Summit Carbon Solutions CEO Shares Updates on Underground Pipeline Permits in Greene County

• Iowa Capital Dispatch: As lawmakers seek to end session, some priority bills still lack consensus

• Capital Journal: The Price of a Mile: Carbon capture debate rages on as new regulations become law

• E&E News: FERC approves Northwest gas project after lawmakers’ push

• Reuters: Rupture on TC Energy’s NGTL gas pipeline sparks wildfire in Alberta

• Press release: TC Energy Responds to Incident in Yellowhead County

• Toledo Blade: Effort to overturn Line 5 tunnel permit is filed in Michigan court

WASHINGTON UPDATES

• E&E News: LNG export rider likely out of House foreign aid bills

• E&E News: Interior Finalizes Rule To Hike Offshore Drilling Cleanup Insurance 

• KMOT: Oil and gas companies to pay more to drill on federal lands

• InsideEPA: States Advance Variety Of Legal Claims Against EPA Methane Standards 

• The Center Square: Report: Biden Has Taken Over 200 Actions Against US Oil 

STATE UPDATES

• Cal Matters: Vital climate tool or license to pollute? The battle over California’s first carbon capture project

• Petroleum Economist: Gulf Coast CCUS draws new entrants as projects advance

• Montana Free Press: Should climate be in the PSC’s purview?

• Public News Service: Texas Faith, Environmental Groups Hopeful About New EPA Methane Rule 

EXTRACTION

• Reuters: Canada to give Indigenous groups loan guarantees for resource projects

• New Scientist: Our plans to tackle climate change with carbon storage don’t add up

• Carbon Herald: New Report: US Should Be Paying $100B Per Year For Carbon Removal

• Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA): CCUS will not play a major role in steel decarbonisation

• Caixin Global: China Should Do More to Drive Adoption of Carbon Capture Tech, IEA Official Says

• Heatmap: Climeworks Is Becoming a Carbon Trader

TODAY IN GREENWASHING

• Enbridge: Helping Louisiana Youth Bridge Gaps, Realize Potential in Life and Learning

OPINION

• InForum: Secret meetings on carbon capture projects are not a good look

PIPELINE NEWS

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Dickinson County leaders unanimously approve pipeline ordinance
JARED STRONG, 4/16/24

“Supervisors of Dickinson County voted unanimously Tuesday to implement new restrictions on the placement of carbon dioxide pipelines to create larger buffers between them and people and animals,” the Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. “We’ve tried to balance both sides,” said Bill Leupold, chairperson of the county’s five-member board of supervisors. “I think this ordinance does it.” By approving the ordinance — and waiving two other votes to make it effective immediately — the county faces the threat of litigation from Summit Carbon Solutions, a company that is on the cusp of potentially receiving approval for its project from Iowa regulators… “Dickinson’s ordinance includes less-restrictive separation distances, which county leaders have hoped will preclude them from litigation… “The courts see setbacks as safety standards, which fall under the exclusive authority of the federal agencies, not local ordinances,” Scott O’Konek, a Summit project manager, told the Dickinson supervisors before their vote. O’Konek said despite the adjustments to the Dickinson ordinance, it is still very similar to those adopted by Shelby and Story. Appeals of the injunctions for those ordinances are pending… “The board of supervisors is duty bound to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Dickinson County,” Bonnie Ewoldt, of Milford, said during the supervisors’ meeting. “So I urge you to pass this ordinance in spite of Summit’s stated intent to sue the county. This is simply evidence of the way Summit bullies its way through.” Ewoldt was among a handful of residents who spoke in favor of the ordinance, and none spoke against it. Vicki Beck, of Spirit Lake, said she lives near enough to Summit’s proposed route to be potentially affected by a pipeline break but not sufficiently close to take part in its permit proceedings as an affected landowner. “As far as Summit is concerned, I have no say,” Beck said. “But I live less than 1,600 feet from their pipeline. So, I should have a say, and this (ordinance) is doing that.”

KDLS: Summit Carbon Solutions CEO Shares Updates on Underground Pipeline Permits in Greene County
Coltrane Carlson, 4/17/24

“Summit Carbon Solutions is in a holding pattern on its first and second phases for its underground pipeline project in Iowa,” KDLS reports. “CEO Lee Blank tells Raccoon Valley Radio they are wanting to install underground pipelines in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and North and South Dakotas to capture carbon dioxide from several ethanol plants and travel through the pipeline where it will be stored underground in North Dakota forever. He explains why Summit Carbon Solutions is pursuing this project is because agriculture is adapting to new markets to sustain the overall industry. “And those new markets are emerging, and those new markets are low carbon products that people that do believe there is a change in the climate are willing to pay for those products, and pay a premium for those products. And so this is just agriculture adapting to go hit this new low carbon economy that is growing.” “…Blank says of the other four states considered for the pipeline project, Iowa is the closest to having a permit approved. He anticipates North Dakota to have its ruling mid to late summer and Nebraska to be done by the end of this calendar year. He notes they had a permit rejected in South Dakota, but will re-submit the permit this July and it takes up to one year for a ruling to be made when the application is turned in. Lastly, Blank states that Minnesota is going to take the longest and may take a few years to complete.” 

Iowa Capital Dispatch: As lawmakers seek to end session, some priority bills still lack consensus
ROBIN OPSAHL, 4/15/24

“Lawmakers have been able to act on many of Gov. Kim Reynolds’ and Republican legislative leaders’ top priority issues this session, but there are still several bills – and budgets – left to consider before adjournment,” Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. “…While a Senate subcommittee unanimously approved a bill that would give landowners more opportunities to challenge eminent domain requests from carbon dioxide pipeline companies earlier in April, there has not been further action on the bill… “Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, told the Dispatch he supports the bill, but that it would likely be amended before reaching the Senate floor to include changes such as limiting litigation so that pipeline projects could not be obstructed indefinitely in court, and so that the measure would only apply to carbon dioxide pipelines, instead of all hazardous liquid pipelines as is currently covered by the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Pam Jochum said in a news conference Thursday that Democrats have not heard from Senate Republicans on whether there are plans to continue advancing the bill, despite multiple requests for updates. “We’re still waiting to see if the Senate Republicans are even going to actually bring this bill to the floor, but I will say that we have heard loud and clear that Iowans want us to address eminent domain.”

Capital Journal: The Price of a Mile: Carbon capture debate rages on as new regulations become law
Liz Quinn and Iain Woessner, 4/17/24

“South Dakota is not for sale. That is the mission statement of a grassroots movement gaining traction across the state, working in opposition to Senate Bill 201, a regulatory bill that establishes new strictures and rules regarding the placement of carbon pipelines within the state,” the Capital Journal reports. “The group seeks to garner enough signatures to create a referendum on the bill and reignite an age-old and essential debate within the United States: is eminent domain, a usurpation of landowner rights, unconstitutional?… “One vocal opponent of carbon capture is Ed Fischbach, a farmer from the Aberdeen area. Fischbach has spoken out about carbon capture ever since he received a letter stating that the proposed pipeline would trespass onto his property. He protested the Senate Bill, but despite gathering a large number of volunteers, his protest failed – the bill passed. “We can’t match the big money behind these companies,” Fischbach told the Journal. “They are million dollar corporations, often foreign companies that are in support of this bill.” “…With the Legislature moving forward with the bill, Fischbach has had to turn to a petition to try and force a ballot referendum on the issue. “They don’t care about us out here,” Fischbach told the Journal. “We are made up of people that are telling the real story about this carbon capture and the problems with it.” “…Walt Wendland, the CEO of Ringneck, has been promoting carbon capture since the idea was presented to the area. Wendland is puzzled with the idea with the petition. He argues that there is little need for a vote. “Nearly everything in the bill was to protect the landowner so I don’t know why anyone would want to take away their rights?” Wendland told the Journal.

E&E News: FERC approves Northwest gas project after lawmakers’ push
Zach Bright, 4/17/24

“Federal energy regulators on Tuesday greenlighted the construction of a Pacific Northwest pipeline project following a push by three Republican members of Idaho’s congressional delegation,” E&E News reports. “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave the $75 million project the final go-ahead to begin construction, saying TC Energy’s Gas Transmission Northwest XPress project is necessary and has cleared environmental reviews. But Tuesday’s order came with a dissent from Commissioner Allison Clements, one of two Democrats on the three-person panel. Two FERC seats are vacant. Clements said in her dissent that sworn affidavits GTN filed in a pending rate case contradict “both the need for, and purported benefits of, the GTN Xpress Project.”

Reuters: Rupture on TC Energy’s NGTL gas pipeline sparks wildfire in Alberta
Anushree Ashish Mukherjee and Anjana Anil, 4/16/24

“A section of TC Energy’s NGTL gas pipeline system in Alberta ruptured and caught fire on Tuesday, sparking a wildfire in a remote area, the company said,” Reuters reports. “An initial ignition of natural gas at the rupture site is now extinguished. We are working to support Alberta Wildfire in their response to contain a secondary fire,” the company said in a statement on its website. TC said there were no injuries and it was working closely with first responders in the region.”

Press release: TC Energy Responds to Incident in Yellowhead County
4/16/24

“We can confirm a rupture occurred today on a segment of our NGTL natural gas pipeline system. This occurred in a remote location approximately 40 kilometres northwest of Edson, Alta in Yellowhead County… We are working closely with first responders in the region, including RCMP, Yellowhead County and Alberta Wildfire. An initial ignition of natural gas at the rupture site is now extinguished. We are working to support Alberta Wildfire in their response to contain a secondary fire. We can confirm there were no injuries. As previously shared, the affected section of the pipeline has been isolated and shut down. The remainder of our system is operating normally and there are no commercial impacts at this time… “Alberta Wildfire has confirmed in an update at 7 p.m. (MDT) that the secondary fire is now being held… “We are committed to supporting Alberta Wildfire in its response going forward. We appreciate the ongoing support of first responders. We continue to work closely with regulatory agencies and authorities and will cooperate in an investigation of this incident.”

Toledo Blade: Effort to overturn Line 5 tunnel permit is filed in Michigan court
Tom Henry, 4/16/24

“A northern Michigan environmental group said it has appealed the state permit that the Enbridge pipeline company obtained last December to build its controversial Line 5 tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac,” the Toledo Blade reports. “The permit was issued by the Michigan Public Service Commission for a tunnel that would allow petroleum products to continue flowing across the Straits. Some of the products are delivered to area refineries, including the PBF Energy refinery in East Toledo. For Love of Water, a group known as FLOW, said it has filed a brief in the Michigan Court of Appeals to challenge the decision. The appeal was filed on behalf of it and other environmental groups, as well as some Native American tribes. FLOW contends in its brief that Enbridge should have looked for more alternatives and studied whether there was still a public need for the tunnel. Enbridge has had its Line 5 pipeline in Lake Michigan since the late 1950s.”

WASHINGTON UPDATES

E&E News: LNG export rider likely out of House foreign aid bills
Andres Picon, Kelsey Brugger, 4/17/24

“House Republican leaders are plowing ahead with a slate of contentious national security bills that appear poised to exclude a key Republican energy priority,” E&E News reports. “The four bills — to support Israel, Ukraine, allies in the Indo-Pacific and address miscellaneous GOP concerns — could be voted on before the end of the week without a provision popular among congressional Republicans that would undo, or at least roll back, the Biden administration’s pause on liquefied natural gas export approvals. While text of the bills had yet to be released Wednesday morning, a number of House Republicans whose home states rely on LNG export revenues have expressed a sense of defeat. “Of all the things that came up this morning, that wasn’t one of them,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, after a contentious meeting among House Republicans Tuesday morning, told E&E. Still, language reversing the pause could later get attached to the bill as an amendment, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing and Critical Materials, told E&E… “We’ve pushed and pushed and pushed for that. It does not appear that that’s going to happen,” Texas Republican Rep. August Pfluger told E&E… “On Tuesday, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing that the pause would conclude by the end of the year.”

E&E News: Interior Finalizes Rule To Hike Offshore Drilling Cleanup Insurance 
Heather Richards, 4/15/24

“The Biden administration Monday finalized an offshore drilling rule that could secure billions of dollars to clean up abandoned wells and platforms when offshore oil companies go bankrupt,” E&E News reports. “Developed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, it will force oil companies the agency considers financial risks to secure ‘supplemental’ insurance for the cost of plugging wells, removing pipelines, and deconstructing offshore oil and gas platforms. “The American taxpayer should not be held responsible when oil and gas companies are unable to clean up after their own operations,” said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in a statement. “This final rule updates, simplifies and strengthens outdated requirements to ensure that taxpayers are protected and current operators are held responsible.” The rule is the latest example of President Joe Biden’s push to finish reforms of the nation’s oil and gas program as he tries to woo environmental voters in the upcoming election against former President Donald Trump, the expected Republican nominee.”

KMOT: Oil and gas companies to pay more to drill on federal lands
Crystal Kwaw, 4/15/24

“The price to drill oil and gas on federal lands is about to go up. The Biden Administration finalized the rule as part of the Inflation Reduction Act,” KMOT reports. “For the first time in a century, royalty rates for federal drilling rights will rise from 12.5 percent to more than 16 percent, according to the Associated Press. The minimum leasing bond will also go up from the $10,000 it was roughly 60 years ago to $150,000. The report indicates the change is to discourage too much drilling on public lands, the abandoning of wells and to pay for poor clean-up jobs falling on taxpayers. Brady Pelton, vice president for ND Petroleum Council, told KMOT these reasons are unjustified because poor reclamation and abandoned wells are extremely rare in North Dakota. “We feel that the increase from $10,000 to $150,000— it’s just quite frankly, it’s unrealistic to address a problem that really isn’t occurring,” Pelton told KMOT.

InsideEPA: States Advance Variety Of Legal Claims Against EPA Methane Standards 
4/15/24

“States are advancing a variety of legal arguments against EPA’s oil and gas sector methane rule, including long-running claims that the rule is unlawful as a threshold matter due to a lack of a source-specific “endangerment” finding, as well as assertions that the rule tramples on state authority to set unique limits for existing sources in the sector,” InsideEPA reports. “The legal pitches surface in both an April 12 request from two dozen GOP-led states that an appellate court stay EPA’s rule, as well as court filings in the consolidated case from Texas and other states.” 

The Center Square: Report: Biden Has Taken Over 200 Actions Against US Oil 
Bethany Blankley, 4/16/24

“President Joe Biden and his administration have taken over 200 actions against the U.S. oil and natural gas industry as energy prices have gone up, according to a new report,” The Center Square reports. “President Biden and Democrats have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase,” the Institute for Energy Research states in a new report. “Since Mr. Biden took office, his administration and its allies have taken over 200 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America.” The analysis highlights actions Biden took on his first day in office, listing them chronologically through March of this year. The first act was canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, issuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and revoking Trump administration executive orders that decreased regulations in order to expand domestic production.”

STATE UPDATES

Cal Matters: Vital climate tool or license to pollute? The battle over California’s first carbon capture project
ALEJANDRO LAZO, 4/16/24

“Rural Latino communities are divided about the project, which would capture carbon from an oilfield and power plant — and allow an oil company to keep operating as the state struggles to slash greenhouse gases,” Cal Matters reports. “…The proposal has split this region, known as California’s oil country: Some want a future for oil and gas with less carbon emissions, while others insist that the polluting industries must go altogether… “In California alone, federal officials are reviewing 13 proposals to build projects — most in the Central Valley — that would capture carbon dioxide spewed by oil operations, power plants and other facilities or remove it from the atmosphere, then inject it underground into wells… “Many residents and environmental justice groups oppose these projects because they allow oilfields, power plants and other industrial operations to keep emitting dangerous air pollutants in their communities. At the Kern County project, emissions of fine particles and gases that form smog would be “significant and unavoidable,” according to the county’s environmental impact report. “You’re locking in pollution infrastructure that should be phased out,” Daniel Ress, an attorney with the Delano-based Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, told Cal Matters. “This was designed by fossil fuel companies so that they can continue to profit off the climate crisis. They set this trap.” “…Sonia Sanchez, who lives a half hour drive to the north, in Buttonwillow, on the other side of the company’s oilfields, is more worried about the health of her son than the plight of coal plants overseas… “At a recent government hearing for the project held in Buttonwillow, Sanchez and others sported lime green T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Stop the Carbon Capture Scam.” “…The EPA will require the company to monitor the wells for the rest of the century to guarantee that no groundwater is polluted. Initial examinations suggest there are no drinking water sources threatened by injecting carbon into the reservoir. But the project would use significant amounts of groundwater in a basin that already is overpumped, according to the environmental impact report.” “…Pavel Molchanov, an analyst with investment bank Raymond James, recently called carbon capture “niche” and said it only reduced greenhouse gases by a “rounding error,” with 0.1% of global emissions captured and stored last year. He told Cal Matters it’s quicker and easier to shut down fossil fuel facilities and shift to cleaner electricity.”

Petroleum Economist: Gulf Coast CCUS draws new entrants as projects advance
Anna Kachkova, 4/16.24

“The CCUS industry on the US Gulf Coast is evolving as projects slowly progress and new players move in,” Petroleum Economist reports. “Their entry could help spur development of the industry, which is already advanced on the Gulf Coast compared with most other parts of the world, with the exception of the North Sea. One of the most recent examples of a new player moving into Gulf Coast CCUS is that of TotalEnergies. In mid-March, the French major acquired 100% of Talos Low Carbon Solutions (TLCS), a subsidiary of Talos Energy, for $148m including customary reimbursements, adjustments and retention of cash. The acquisition includes Talos’ interests in three CCUS projects along the Gulf Coast…”

Montana Free Press: Should climate be in the PSC’s purview?
Amanda Eggert, 4/15/24

“The Montana Public Service Commission last week fielded comments from more than 80 people weighing in on a petition that asks the PSC to incorporate climate impacts into its regulatory oversight of monopoly utility companies,” the Montana Free Press reports. “Most comments came from Montanans who packed the commission’s chambers last Monday to ask the state’s utility board to factor in the social, economic and environmental costs of greenhouse gas emissions as it regulates shareholder-owned power companies. Proponents, many citing a district court judge’s ruling for the plaintiffs in the Held v. Montana youth climate lawsuit, pointed to climate change’s impacts on their livelihoods, health and recreational traditions… “Jeff Smith, with climate advocacy group 350 Montana, argued that the barriers to clean energy adoption in Montana are not “technical or economic, but political and social.” “…Amanda Frickle with the Montana AFL-CIO said the heart of the matter “is not about climate change — whether it’s happening or whether it’s destructive,” but rather “who should pay for the cost of climate change.” Frickle said shifting away from fossil fuels would result in massive job losses and urged the commission not to accept the petition on those grounds. Other opponents, however, suggested that carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas, is a “miracle molecule” that should be celebrated for its ability to spur crop growth and increase soil moisture rather than “demonized” and regulated.  Gregory Whitestone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, further argued that Montana’s snowpacks are not shrinking and that wildfire activity in the state has not increased over the past 100 years. That assessment contradicts findings by, among others, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Montana Climate Office.”

Public News Service: Texas Faith, Environmental Groups Hopeful About New EPA Methane Rule 
Freda Ross, 4/15/24

“Oil and gas companies have until 2025 to reduce the emissions they release into the air through the practices known as venting and flaring,” Public News Service reports. “You may have seen a large plume of fire coming from smokestacks at oil-producing sites but you may not have considered how it is affecting your life. Oil and gas producers use venting and flaring to burn off excess gas. The process releases methane into the air, and environmental groups pointed out it is not only wasteful, but dangerous. Becca Edwards, climate action fellow for the advocacy group Texas Impact and the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, said the practice has two major negative effects.”

EXTRACTION

Reuters: Canada to give Indigenous groups loan guarantees for resource projects
4/16/24

“Canada will provide up to C$5 billion ($3.6 billion) in loan guarantees to help Indigenous groups invest in natural resource projects, the Liberal government said in its annual budget on Tuesday,” Reuters reports. “The program could give the groups major investment opportunities, from the government-owned Trans Mountain oil pipeline to TC Energy’s Coastal GasLink pipeline, power lines and wind and solar projects… “A federal loan guarantee would allow First Nations to borrow at favorable rates, enabling them to reap larger profits. The loan guarantee program is sector-agnostic, indicating that it will be available for all forms of resource projects, including those involving oil and gas, Niilo Edwards, CEO of First Nations Major Projects Coalition, an Indigenous-owned organization that advises First Nations on project investments, told Reuters… “For energy companies, Indigenous partnerships provide capital infusions and a way to speed projects through approval from provincial governments that in some cases require First Nations investment.”

New Scientist: Our plans to tackle climate change with carbon storage don’t add up
Madeleine Cuff, 4/16/24

“Plans to tackle climate change by sucking carbon dioxide from the air and storing it underground are wildly unrealistic, according to a new analysis, calling into question our ability to meet climate goals,” New Scientist reports. “…But IAMs seem to have massively overestimated one carbon storage method, known as geological storage, which involves capturing CO₂ and pumping it underground into places such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Currently, around 9 million tonnes of CO₂ are stored in this way each year, but to stay below 1.5°C, most IAMs assume this rate of storage will need to increase 1000-fold to around 9 gigatonnes by mid-century. Some go even further, requiring double or triple this expansion. Such rapid scaling is unfeasible, Samuel Krevor at Imperial College London told New Scientist. He and his colleagues used a new approach to assess the likelihood of delivering gigatonne-scale carbon storage by 2050, taking into account geological, economic, technological and geographic constraints on growth. They conclude that the maximum geological storage possible by 2050 is 16 gigatonnes a year, but such a scenario is unrealistic, relying on huge growth, sustained over decades. It also requires the US to deliver 60 per cent of the total annual storage – 10 gigatonnes per year – by 2050, far beyond the 1 gigatonne it has promised by that date. “It’s just really hard to envision a situation where the US would incentivise that much,” Krevor told New Scientist. A more realistic scenario, which takes into account the US’s stated goal, sees the world hit around 6 gigatonnes of annual geological storage by mid-century. “The projections that are above 6 gigatonnes, certainly above 10 gigatonnes… it’s difficult to see how that would work,” he told New Scientist… “Some of the projections made for carbon storage in China and Indonesia by 2050 assume such massive increases in deployment that it “boggles the mind”, he told New Scientist.

Carbon Herald: New Report: US Should Be Paying $100B Per Year For Carbon Removal
Violet George, 4/16/24

“According to a new report by the Rhodium Group, the US government needs to be spending $100 billion annually on carbon removal,” the Carbon Herald reports. “While headlines announce new carbon capture and removal projects every other week, the US government’s current investment of just under $1 billion annually falls far short of what’s needed. The report titled ‘The Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Removal and US Policies to Scale Solutions’ estimates a staggering $100 billion per year by 2050 is necessary for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to become a viable weapon against climate change. “The current level of policy support is nowhere near what’s needed for CDR,” Jonathan Larsen, a report author, told the Herald… “Currently, we remove roughly 5 million metric tons, mostly through nature-based solutions like tree planting. Even with current policies, Rhodium estimates this could rise to 50 million metric tons by 2035. The Rhodium Group report attempts to narrow this uncertainty by analyzing various decarbonization roadmaps, it concludes that a minimum of 1 gigaton (1 billion metric tons) of carbon removal is needed by 2050 to compensate for residual emissions. This represents a 20-fold increase from current policies and roughly 20% of US emissions in 2023… “The investment required is equally daunting. Through a back-of-the-envelope calculation, the authors arrive at $100 billion annually by 2050 – a figure that hinges on removing a minimum of one billion tons and the Department of Energy‘s goal of a $100-per-ton removal cost… “The key, it argues, lies in recognizing CDR as a public service… “Additionally, extending tax credit applicability and deadlines for capturing and storing carbon is recommended, alongside expanding the program to encompass a wider range of removal methods.”

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA): CCUS will not play a major role in steel decarbonisation
4/17/24

“A new report by the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has shown that carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) will not play a major role in steel decarbonisation despite support for the technology at the 2023 COP28 climate conference. Direct reduced iron (DRI)-based steelmaking, which can run on green hydrogen, is gaining momentum in the steel sector. IEEFA’s research found that this technology – along with electric arc furnaces (EAFs) powered by renewable electricity – offers steelmakers a far more promising pathway to reduce their emissions than CCUS. Despite this, many major steelmakers around the world still maintain that CCUS will play a role in decarbonising their operations… “CCUS is susceptible to significant financial, technological and environmental risks, made worse by uncertainty over the long-term effectiveness of geological CO2 storage. The uniqueness of each CCUS project limits technological learning and cost reductions. The cost of carbon capture implementation has hardly reduced in decades, while the cost of technologies like renewable energy and battery storage has plunged, with further reductions to come… “The steel sector’s first and only commercial-scale CCUS plant, the Al Reyadah CCUS facility in the UAE, captured less than 20% of the total Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions from Emirates Steel Arkan’s DRI-based steel plant in 2020 and 2021. Furthermore, the captured CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), enabling the production of more fossil fuels and the release of additional carbon emissions… “Where better and more cost-competitive alternatives exist, CCUS is unlikely to play a role in decarbonisation. Using green hydrogen in DRI and renewable energy to power EAFs enables the production of truly low-carbon steel, a feat CCUS looks unable replicate.”

Caixin Global: China Should Do More to Drive Adoption of Carbon Capture Tech, IEA Official Says
Kelsey Cheng and Lu Yutong, 4/16/24

“While China hasn’t made “big strides” in developing carbon capture technology yet, it offers major opportunities for the country and deserves policy attention, according to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) energy technology chief,” Caixin Global reports. “China embraces pretty much all of the clean energy technologies that you can think of, but I’ve always been wondering about the comparative lack of progress in the carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) space,” Timur Gül told Caixin in an exclusive interview in Beijing on Monday.

Heatmap: Climeworks Is Becoming a Carbon Trader
EMILY PONTECORVO, 4/17/24

“Climeworks made a name for itself as the first company to launch a commercial-scale facility that sucks carbon out of the air and buries it deep underground,” Heatmap reports. “…But on Wednesday, Climeworks made a surprising move away from hard tech and into carbon trading with the launch of an offshoot called Climeworks Solutions. Under the new banner, it will purchase carbon removal credits from other providers, package them into portfolios that include its own direct air capture credits, and sell the bundles to buyers looking for “high quality” carbon removal. The credits will have “the stamp of Climeworks quality,” Adrian Siegrist, the company’s vice president of climate solutions, told reporters this week. “It is a very, very selective vetting process.” Corporate demand for carbon removal is growing. In the past, companies primarily bought a different kind of carbon credit to support their sustainability strategies. These credits came from projects that prevented emissions by protecting forests or distributing cleaner cookstoves, and they were cheap. But they came under fire after countless investigations into the projects turned up flimsy methodologies and inflated claims. Meanwhile, there’s been a growing consensus in the world of corporate sustainability that even if these credits were based on real emission reductions, they shouldn’t be part of a net-zero strategy… “But Climeworks is entering a crowded field. There are already more than half a dozen companies — Patch, Supercritical, Ceezer, Carbon Direct, Watershed, Cur8, Lune — promising to source only the highest quality carbon removal credits for buyers… “But he did share some general principles the company would use to tailor its portfolios for buyers: Fossil fuel emissions should be neutralized with carbon removed and stored for thousands of years, on par with how long carbon stays in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, a company’s emissions from land use could be offset using nature-based approaches that are still effective but inherently less enduring.”

TODAY IN GREENWASHING

Enbridge: Helping Louisiana Youth Bridge Gaps, Realize Potential in Life and Learning
4/16/24

“Erin Davison, CEO of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) of Southwest Louisiana, has been in her role for almost seven years,” according to Enbridge. “…A recent Enbridge Fueling Futures grant of $5,000 to BBBS of Southwest Louisiana helps to support 400 youth needing mentoring and 80 youth waiting to be admitted into BBBS mentoring programs.”

OPINION

InForum: Secret meetings on carbon capture projects are not a good look
Rob Port, 4/16/24

“I support carbon capture projects,” Rob Port writes for InForum. “I feel the infrastructure — the pipelines that will transport the carbon dioxide and the wells where it will be injected underground — should be built with the utmost concern for property rights and safety. Despite what is, at times, hyperbolic exposition against this sort of infrastructure, it should be built… “Also, the future of oil production in North Dakota hinges, in no small part, on our ability to bring carbon to our state for enhanced oil recovery efforts… “Still, even as a supporter of this nascent industry, I am frustrated with the way some of its players are making their case. Back in February, the Republican-controlled North Dakota Industrial Commission approved a $300,000 grant to promote carbon capture projects. One of the recipients was a marketing company called the Fieldstone Group, run by hyper-partisan talk radio host Scott Hennen and his business partner Steve Hallstrom. More recently, Hennen got caught organizing what were initially intended to be closed-door meetings between big-time carbon capture investors, including oil tycoon Harold Hamm, and Republican state lawmakers. Only Republican lawmakers were initially invited. Democrats weren’t on the list, something Hennen has claimed in statements to the Bismarck Tribune was an oversight… “Hennen also claims that the public dollars his company received to promote carbon capture weren’t used to organize these meetings, which is about as believable as Hennen’s claim, as a right-wing talk radio host, that he merely forgot to invite Democratic lawmakers to these closed-door meetings… “No, what’s more concerning is how poorly major players in the carbon industry are running their public and government relations efforts. Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind the controversial Midwest Carbon Express pipeline, which counts Hamm as a major investor, has created no small amount of acrimony around itself with aggressive tactics targeting landowners. The company has made enemies where it didn’t need to have enemies… “Now, the public has good reason to believe that Summit is not engaging in a public debate about this project with openness and honesty… “The public deserves better than this. The cause of the carbon capture industry deserves better, too.”