Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: Past & Present

With mass expansion plans underway, a constant refrain heard from the carbon capture industry is that pipelines are a safe, proven method of transporting a lethal chemical like carbon dioxide. After examining hundreds of records, reports, and research articles, it appears that carbon dioxide pipelines are proven… to fail. 

The industry points to the 5,000 miles of existing CO2 pipelines that have operated without fatalities as evidence of a reliable safety record. There are a few problems with this claim. For starters, carbon pipelines have been responsible for at least two deaths – both construction workers – and one significant injury. (Not included in these stats are the 49 people sent to the hospital, many of whom continue to suffer long lasting health effects, after a 2020 Satartia, MS carbon pipeline rupture. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [PHMSA] does not consider these injuries significant enough to record.)

The existing pipeline infrastructure is largely located in rural, uninhabited areas. As a result, when pipelines do leak, it is typically not in the presence of human beings. Although we have seen at least one instance where a number of wildlife were suffocated as a result of a carbon well blowout in Mississippi. And, of course, there are lessons to be learned from natural carbon dioxide releases like that of Lake Nyos in 1986 that asphyxiated nearly 1,700 people or the nearby Lake Monoun release in 1984 that killed 37. 

One thing we do know is that carbon pipeline incidents are underreported. For example, in 2021 and 2022, Dakota Gasification experienced three separate leaks on their 167 mile pipeline that required reporting to PHMSA. Dakota Gasification chose to ignore that requirement – a decision that has now resulted in a Notice of Probable Violation and a proposed fine of $78,600. A hearing will be held April 2, 2025 to determine the final outcome. 

In another example, longtime pipeline watchdog organization Earthworks visited publicly accessible segments of Kinder Morgan’s carbon infrastructure in Colorado’s McElmo Dome (where CO2 is extracted from a natural reservoir and shipped to Texas for enhanced oil recovery via the 500-mile Cortez pipeline). Earthworks discovered CO2 leaking from Kinder Morgan’s equipment at multiple different sites, including several leaks that had already been reported to the company on previous occasions.
The system of carbon pipelines deemed “mature” and “well-developed” by the industry amounts to 48 pipelines traversing 5,275 miles. In comparison, there are 84,290 miles of pipeline carrying crude oil and 300,457 miles of natural gas transmission lines.

Two issues have repeatedly been raised across state borders since carbon pipelines were first constructed back in 1972 – common carrier status and eminent domain. Now, a common carrier is an entity that is open to the general public and transports goods or passengers for a fee. Buses, trains, and in some cases, pipelines are broad examples. About half of all states have a common carrier or public utility requirement for pipeline companies to be vested with eminent domain powers. When it comes to carbon pipelines, it is an issue that has been litigated and legislated for decades with no end in sight. Michigan, for example, has deemed all CO2 pipelines common carriers which allows them to utilize eminent domain. The 2014 law, however, was hardly without critics and passed the Senate on a party line vote. Things are less clear in Nevada where carbon dioxide pipelines, unlike crude oil or petroleum pipelines, are not named as common carriers, but where pipelines have a relatively low bar to meet the definition of public use. 

Litigation is no stranger to the topic, either. In perhaps the most well known suit involving a carbon pipeline, Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury Green Pipeline, the Texas Courts went back and forth for more than half a decade before ultimately deciding that a pipeline company only had to prove that they could reasonably expect to transport a third party’s goods at some future point to be considered a common carrier. South Dakota, on the other hand, recently remitted Summit Carbon Solutions’ case back to the lower courts after finding that they had not proven they were a common carrier since the corporation is hoping to own the CO2 they would transport. Assuming the industry continues to expand, we will likely see more common carrier suits to come. 

While eminent domain and carbon pipelines are not strangers, they are not well acquainted with one another. In general, it appears that eminent domain has rarely been used for CO2 pipelines. Confirming an exact number has proven to be a challenge, but our research did find that the greatest number of condemnation proceedings for a single carbon pipeline is at least six. (Contrast this with Summit Carbon Solutions’ request for eminent domain powers over 859 parcels in Iowa alone to understand the unprecedented nature of their project.) In total, we could find records indicating nine of the 48 existing carbon pipelines required the use of eminent domain against a total of at least 25 landowners (though the number of landowners is likely higher.)

The legality of using eminent domain for carbon pipelines is up in the air in many states. Few states have statutes specifically providing carbon pipelines with eminent domain authority.  Colorado, for example, only provides eminent domain rights for pipeline companies transporting power, water, air, or gas. Given that carbon dioxide is almost always transported in a dense or supercritical state, it arguably does not meet the definition of a gas, or any of the other goods deemed eligible for eminent domain powers. Wyoming specifically notes that eminent domain cannot be utilized to obtain an area for underground storage, potentially opening the door to challenge the public use of carbon capture pipelines in conjunction. Despite the industry narrative of carbon pipelines being tested infrastructure, it’s evident that we are in uncharted territory in many ways. 

That uncharted territory extends beyond legalities and regulations into the equipment that runs this supposedly sound machinery. Following two monitoring well leaks at ADM’s Decatur injection site, it was publicized that the grade of steel that was once industry standard, chromium 13, is actually quickly corroded in the carbon sequestration process. This raises a greater issue with the claims that this technology is safe and proven. The fact of the matter is, the country’s first commercial carbon capture project dedicated entirely to sequestration did not begin injecting carbon underground until 2017. As of 2023, it had only injected 3.9 million tons of CO2. For perspective, Summit Carbon Solutions is proposing to sequester 18 million metric tons annually. For the industry to claim carbon will be safely and permanently stored after less than a decade of one full-scale operation injecting the emissions from a singular ethanol plant is absolutely ludicrous.Yes, we can look at older technologies like Enhanced Oil Recovery or even natural CO2 formations for insight, but that hardly provides a 1 to 1 comparison. The long-term implications of carbon storage, particularly when you consider the scale, the role of varying levels of contaminants, or the differences in “suitable” geologies, can hardly be measured for a technology still in its infancy. Any claim of absolute certainty regarding the permanence or safety of CO2 storage ought to raise eyebrows. 

The narrative crumbles under scrutiny. As a whole, the industry’s limited track record is marred by safety incidents, regulatory failures, and unresolved legal questions, while the infrastructure is far from mature and remains unproven at scale. So, let’s call it like it is: Carbon capture pipelines aren’t a proven solution – they’re a liability. They’re a liability to our land and livelihoods, to our families and communities, and to the future generations left to clean up the mess of our half-baked carbon capture experiment. 

Below, we’ve included a spreadsheet summarizing the data we have collected on existing carbon dioxide pipelines. We have factchecked the information contained within to the greatest extent possible, but acknowledge that due to the limited record keeping and secretive nature of the industry, the possibility of errors cannot be ruled out.