As the battles over pipelines continue in South Dakota, and advocacy group spring up on either side, I had the opportunity this week to sit down with a true expert on pipeline safety.
Brigham McCown has seen pipelines from all sides, and is one of the parties who has provided information as part of the PUC hearing on the Summit Carbon pipeline. Tremendously well versed on pipelines, Mc Cown is President & CEO of Noveau, a regulators consulting firm, founder of the non-partisan group Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, an adjunct Professor with Miami University teaching business and regulatory law, and a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute.
But he’s not some wonky professor from the coast – he’s a Midwesterner himself, and a retired Naval officer. He’s worked his entire life in the transportation sector; first in the military, then as a regulatory attorney, later still as a federal regulator, and ultimately as a pipeline operator.
McCown was the first acting administrator and first deputy administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and served as an advisor to the 2016 presidential transition as a core member of the president-elect Donald Trump’s infrastructure policy and agency action teams.
In other words, he knows what he’s talking about inside/out when it comes to energy transportation. And he’s very big on pipelines, referring to them as “the unsung hero of the economy.” As McCown told me, he’s had the opportunity to see it from all sides, and it’s an important topic.
So, with that introduction, here are 5 questions with pipeline expert Brigham McCown:
One of the special interest groups opposing the pipelines, Dakota Rural Action, tells its followers that “CCS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration) is a Dangerous and failed technology.” How old is this technology, and how long has this been used in practice?
The technology for carbon capture & sequestration has actually been around for 50 years, and is is improving all the time. In Europe, such as Germany, the UK, they’re very excited for this technology to capture and sequester carbon. In their view, if we have to change the way we do business, we can’t get from today’s types of energy production without intermediary steps, as we continue to rely on existing sources while we add new ones into the mix.
Carbon capture has implications for other industries besides ethanol, such as hooking up pipelines to large plants for steel and concrete. There’s worldwide recognition that the carbon capture technology is critical for the future.
Going back to some of the rhetoric, opponents also claim that people have been “gassed and poisoned in their own homes,” which comes off to me as a lot of fear-mongering. Have there been any fatalities during all this time?
No one in the US, and I don’t believe anyone in the world, has ever died as a result of a broken CO2 pipeline. There is a single pipeline break that opponents cite heavily, where there were people treated for exposure as a result of the break in Mississippi. However, the pipeline was one that piped CO2 and Hydrogen Sulfide together, and the injuries were from the Hydrogen Sulfide. That’s not being done in this project.
The break in that pipeline was as a result of the pipeline operator not doing their geology correctly, as the ground shifted from heavy rainfall.
How safe are CO2 pipelines in comparison to another pipeline, such as natural gas? In South Dakota, I believe we have four natural gas pipelines, and I don’t believe they’ve received the same level of anti-pipeline sentiment or pushback that CO2 pipelines do. Why is a pipeline better than rail or truck? Are those even practical for CO2?
For transporting materials, if a CO2 pipeline is a 1 out of 10 for a risk, trains are at a 15/10, and off the scale for the risk of something happening along the transport route.
When looking at pipelines, you have those that transport HVL’s – Highly volatile liquids. That’s your natural gas, etcetera, that are explosive or flammable. You don’t have those same issues with CO2 pipelines, and it’s considered safe. This is a product currently being released in the air as part of production.
When there are issues with pipelines, it is typically because someone dug where they weren’t supposed to, and they hit a pipeline. I’m proud to note that while at PHMSA, I introduced the national 811 system to help prevent pipeline damage.
Arguments over setbacks pushed by opponents arguments about safety are a big part of what is happening in South Dakota right now in terms of the Summit Project. Can you provide more background?
Setbacks are designed to keep people away from pipelines, not pipelines away from people. When pipeline routes are planned, regulations and safety concerns dictate that when creating routes, planners avoid houses and buildings are much as you can.
As opponents go to counties to create ordinances try to dictate setbacks, claiming they are improving safety, they need to understand that county ordinances are going to fail, as it is settled law that only the Federal Government, such as through PHMSA and the Department of Transportation have exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to pipeline safety. In Iowa, under 2 different cases, county ordinances were pre-empted, and it was specifically cited by the judge that counties can’t use the safety argument.
Any other thoughts when it comes to Carbon Capture Pipelines and the debates we’re currently having in South Dakota?
As I’ve taught in my US Energy Policy Class, pipelines are the unsung hero of the economy, and often taken for granted. In South Dakota, the Summit Pipeline will provide free money for counties, which can have a significant positive impact for their budget for rural counties with a limited tax base.
People should understand that the world’s energy mix will change over time. The concern is to provide as much as we need, and to keep it affordable. Ethanol has an important role to play. And more importantly, the Summit CC&S pipeline will extend the ramp for ethanol’s longevity, and keep it around for generations.
And there you have it. Thank you to Mr. McCown for a very informative and interesting discussion!
When I see Mr. McCown state that the pipeline will provide “free money” for the counties, I have a hard time thinking he knows what he is talking about. It is a pretty basic concept that nothing comes for free, especially when it is all tax-subsidized…
If this pipeline is so safe and needed run it in the ditches of the interstates and other highways and not take property rights away from landowners
Sure with that suggestion why not run in in the middle of towns and cities on or below city streets.
Perhaps because people are living, walking, and breathing the air along town and city streets to a much larger proportion than highways and interstates.
Because it’s easier and safer to build in as straight of line as possible? You want to design a pipeline that has the possibility of having multiple 90 degree turns in less than a mile and have it be economical?
My understanding is that these pipelines that we are talking about are to move CO2 and sequester it not use it. Fuel pipelines are transporting needed products. If ethanol is an economic benefit why is the government still supporting it with mandates, quotes, etc. If it is good get the government out of it and let it fly.