Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Carbon Capture Eor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on carbon capture, enhanced oil recovery
Summary
Lawmakers and industry groups told the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee that carbon capture and CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) could extend Bakken production and state revenue, while landowner and safety advocates warned pipeline and public-safety risks.
Representative Anna Novak, chairing the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, told lawmakers that House Concurrent Resolution 30 16 recognizes the potential of enhanced oil recovery and encourages state and federal policies that favor carbon-capture technology and use of CO2 as a commodity. “Implementing EOR techniques, particularly those utilizing CO2, has the potential to unlock several billion additional barrels of oil,” Novak said, naming the Bakken formation and citing a figure she gave for current production.
Industry witnesses urged the committee to support the resolution. Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, told the panel the timing is right and said recent federal tax-law changes created a disincentive for EOR that Congress should correct. “That was done intentionally to try to discourage enhanced oil recovery utilization through the use of carbon,” Ness said, urging federal action to “normalize the differential.” Jonathan Fortner of the Lignite Energy Council argued coal-fired facilities and lignite-based capture could supply abundant CO2 and help extend Bakken production, saying carbon capture “will be instrumental in unlocking billions of dollars in future oil revenues through EOR.” Jeff Simon of the Western Dakota Energy Association described state-funded outreach to inform landowners and responders and called CO2 a “valuable commodity.”
Opponents raised safety and land-rights concerns. Zachary Cassidy of Dakota Resource Council said the resolution would encourage more carbon pipelines and risk eminent-domain conflicts for landowners; he said questions about pipeline safety come from engineers and longtime industry workers as well as environmental advocates. Gerald Gorek, who identified himself as a local official, told the committee he fears pipeline depth and construction standards and said some formations are not well suited to CO2 injection. Cassidy and Gorek urged caution and more study before promoting policy that would accelerate pipeline construction.
Committee members asked about nearby projects and commercial ties. Novak referenced the Dakota Gasification pipeline that has sent CO2 to Canadian oil fields for 25 years and noted that lease expirations in 2026 could create local EOR opportunities. Ness and other industry witnesses described existing CO2 flows to Canada and said taps along those lines could serve North Dakota fields, but that federal financial incentives currently tilt economics away from EOR.
No formal amendments or fiscal details were proposed at the hearing. Representative Novak moved a due-pass recommendation for HCR 30 16; the motion carried in committee later in the session.
