North Dakota considers 2 proposed natural gas pipelines that would stretch across the state
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A state official briefed regulators Thursday on two separate underground pipelines that companies plan to build across hundreds of miles of North Dakota, bringing natural gas from the oil fields in the west to mostly industrial users in the more populated east.
Both pipelines — one by Intensity Infrastructure Partners and Rainbow Energy Center, the other by WBI Energy — would span about 350 miles (563 kilometers) roughly from the Watford City to Fargo areas. Segments would come into service in 2029 and 2030. The companies didn't disclose the projects' costs.
The presentation to a state industrial panel of elected officials was among the first steps in a process for the state to sign on with a 10-year, $50 million-per-year line of credit. That is essentially a backstop so projects can proceed with the intent that the state back out one day when other users join. Companies won't build a pipeline without firm commitments from users.
North Dakota has a critical need for more natural gas transportation as oil wells age and produce more natural gas relative to oil, North Dakota Pipeline Authority Director Justin Kringstad said.
Republican Gov. Kelly Armstrong welcomed the projects for helping oil production, which is a huge driver of the state budget.
'If you can't move your gas and you have a finite amount of capital to invest in drilling, you're going to drill where you can market your gas, or you're going to do it in a different manner," the governor said. 'So being able to move gas out of the Bakken (oil region) will help produce more oil.'
North Dakota is producing a near-record 3.5 billion cubic feet (99.1 million cubic liters) per day of natural gas.
The state has long wanted such pipelines, but efforts never succeeded in the past because of developments that hurt demand, such as oil price declines and the COVID-19 pandemic, Kringstad said.
'Today we're seeing a much stronger pull on the demand side than we've ever seen in these efforts," Kringstad said. 'We've always seen the push and the need in the west, but today the appetite across the state for natural gas and for energy is at the highest that I've ever seen.'
The gas will mostly be used for industrial purposes but also growing residential needs, he said. The pipelines could carry as much as 1 million dekatherms per day, a volume he said would be 'extremely meaningful in addressing the challenges that North Dakota is facing."
Capturing and moving the gas out of the oil field has been an issue over the years as officials and industry have sought to boost infrastructure and reduce flaring, or the burning of natural gas into the air. Although the state captured about 96% of the gas in April, critics have long raised environmental and health concerns about flaring.
The Trump administration has pushed for increased domestic energy production, largely from fossil fuel sources. Doug Burgum, a former North Dakota governor and now the U.S. Interior secretary, has long called for raising energy extraction efforts.
Other pipeline projects in North Dakota have drawn enormous pushback in recent years, including huge protests of the Dakota Access oil pipeline and landowner resistance around the Midwest to Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed carbon dioxide network.
Armstrong said some degree of pushback is likely, 'but the reality is pipelines are the easiest way to move things.'
It's unclear whether eminent domain, or the taking of private property with just compensation, will come into play for the pipelines. A Rainbow Enegry Center leader said Intensity Infrastructure Partners has never utilized eminent domain in more than 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) of pipeline it has built in North Dakota. A WBI Energy spokesperson said he couldn't answer.
Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions has faced intense opposition over eminent domain for its proposed five-state carbon dioxide pipeline. Some landowners have opposed eminent domain as the company seeks to build the pipeline, and South Dakota's governor earlier this year signed a ban on eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Congo and Rwanda to sign US-mediated peace deal to end conflict in eastern Congo
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda are set to sign a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decadeslong deadly fighting in eastern Congo. The deal, to be signed in Washington Friday, would also help the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the conflict-battered, mineral-rich region. The Central African nation of Congo has been ripped apart by conflict with more than 100 armed groups. The most prominent is the M23 rebel group, backed by neighboring Rwanda, whose major advance early this year left bodies littered on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the U.N. has called it 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Lauded by President Trump last week as 'a Great Day for Africa and ... for the World,' the crucial deal comes as part of other ongoing peace talks to end the conflict, including ones mediated by the African Union as well as Qatar. The agreement involves provisions on respect for territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters on Thursday. U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric also said on Thursday that such a deal is welcomed, adding: 'We talk almost every day about … the horrific suffering of civilians, the hunger, the sexual violence, the constant fear, the constant displacement' in eastern Congo. The peace deal will likely not end the conflict quickly Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said it is defending its territorial interests and not supporting the M23. However, the M23 rebels have suggested the agreement won't be binding on them. The rebel group has not been directly involved in the planned peace deal although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance that includes the M23, told the Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' An M23 spokesman, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal does not concern the rebels. The US' role in ending the conflict Analysts say the U.S. government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under a separate minerals deal being negotiated. The mostly untapped minerals — estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion by the U.S. Department of Commerce — are critical to much of the world's technology. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the planned deal a 'major turning point' in the decadeslong conflict, but that the signing could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.' 'The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,' he said. 'This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.' In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe the peace deal will help resolve the violence but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold. 'I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100%,' said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. 'It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.' —- AP writers Edith M. Lederer in New York, Justin Kabumba in Goma, Congo, Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Rules on Birthright Citizenship: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court is meeting on Friday to decide the final cases of its term, including one concerning President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. Why It Matters The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that all children born in the United States are automatically American citizens. But the issue before the justices in Trump v. CASA is not the lawfulness of Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for some people. Rather, they are weighing whether judges have the authority to issue the nationwide, or universal, injunctions, that have blocked Trump's order from being implemented. The Trump administration has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of only the parties involved. Such orders have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past decade, but they have emerged as an important check on Trump's agenda, increasingly frustrating the president and his allies. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Trump signed an executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily shortly on his first day back in office on January 20. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's order, with one calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." The Trump administration then made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented his executive order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. At oral arguments in May, the high court appeared highly skeptical on how Trump would implement the changes to birthright citizenship. But justices also showed signs they wanted to limit nationwide court orders. What People Are Saying Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, previously told Newsweek: "It's very possible, maybe even likely, that the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA. Some of the conservative justices, like Justice Gorsuch, have expressed concern that such injunctions give district judges the power to block federal laws nationwide. The Supreme Court may establish a rule to limit injunctions to the parties in the case or the district or circuit where the case is filed. Or it may require a higher standard to grant nationwide relief. Though the criticism of nationwide injunctions may be warranted, having inconsistent immigration holdings in different states may be its own problem. Immigration law needs to be uniform and applied consistently across the country." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social ahead of oral arguments in the case in May: "Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are! "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America." Ama Frimpong, Legal Director for immigrant rights nonprofit CASA, said in a statement after oral arguments in the case: "This is not a law or policy that needs to be changed. Let's be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at white supremacy. This is an assault on Black and brown families. On our very existence. "What Trump and the administration are trying to do is erase our communities and our families from this country entirely. They want to deny citizenship to children born here—our children, our babies—just because their parents are immigrants." What's Next The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on October 6. This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Iran's top diplomat says talks with US ‘complicated' by American strike on nuclear sites
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran's top diplomat said the possibility of new negotiations with the United States on his country's nuclear program has been 'complicated' by the American attack on three of the sites, which he conceded caused 'serious damage.' The U.S. was one of the parties to the 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to limits on its uranium enrichment program in exchange for sanctions relief and other benefits. That deal unraveled after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out unilaterally during his first term. Trump has suggested he is interested in new talks with Iran, and said that the two sides would meet next week. In an interview on Iranian state television broadcast late Thursday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left open the possibility that his country would again enter talks on its nuclear program, but suggested it would not be anytime soon. 'No agreement has been made for resuming the negotiations,' he said. 'No time has been set, no promise has been made, and we haven't even talked about restarting the talks.' The American decision to intervene militarily 'made it more complicated and more difficult' for talks on Iran's nuclear program, Araghchi said. Israel attacked Iran on June 13, targeting its nuclear sites, defense systems, high-ranking military officials and atomic scientists in relentless attacks. In 12 days of strikes, Israel said it killed some 30 Iranian commanders and hit eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. More than 1,000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people. The U.S. stepped in on Sunday to hit Iran's three most important strikes with a wave of cruise missiles and bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 bombers, designed to penetrate deep into the ground to damage the heavily-fortified targets. Iran, in retaliation, fired missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar on Monday but caused no known casualties. Trump said the American attacks 'completely and fully obliterated' Iran's nuclear program, though Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday accused the U.S. president of exaggerating the damage, saying the strikes did not 'achieve anything significant.' There has been speculation that Iran moved much of its highly-enriched uranium before the strikes, something that it told the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that it planned to do. Even if that turns out to be true, IAEA Director Rafael Grossi told Radio France International that the damage done to the Fordo site, which was built into a mountain, 'is very, very, very considerable.' Among other things, he said, centrifuges are 'quite precise machines' and it's 'not possible' that the concussion from multiple 30,000-pound bombs would not have caused 'important physical damage.' 'These centrifuges are no longer operational,' he said. Araghchi himself acknowledged that 'the level of damage is high, and it's serious damage.' He added that Iran had not yet decided upon whether to allow IAEA inspectors in to assess the damage, but that they would be kept out 'for the time being.'
