Backed by the promise of billions in federal dollars, energy companies are lining up to accept an invitation by Wyoming officials to collect industrial sources of carbon dioxide and pump it deep underground. 

Essentially, the vision is to build a new low-carbon energy industry that scrubs the planet-warming gas from fossil fuels, keeping those fuels in the energy mix and simultaneously helping to address the climate crisis in a way that pays dividends to developers and the state.

Wyoming, according to Gov. Mark Gordon and other state officials, is primed to launch the industry. Not only has the state spent years testing its subterranean capacity to permanently store carbon dioxide, it has devoted more than a decade to building a legal and regulatory framework to win the federal government’s approval. Only Wyoming and North Dakota have won primacy over the federal program to permit such activities.

Now, the state’s top environmental regulator is considering the first in what many expect to be a wave of permit applications to drill the deep wells necessary to launch the new industry.

This schematic depicts how carbon dioxide from industrial sources might be collected for geologic sequestration. (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality)

“Since 2010 [Wyoming has] been working on how to ensure this particular program could get off the ground and be protective of the environment with a lot of the risks that are involved with these kinds of projects,” said Lily Barkau, natural resources program manager at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

The agency is soliciting public comments on three carbon dioxide injection well permit applications submitted by Frontier Carbon Solutions. Two more “Class VI” permits are under review at the agency, but not yet ready for public feedback.

Sequestering CO2

Industry and regulatory officials eagerly note that pumping carbon dioxide underground isn’t fantasy. For decades, oil and gas developers have pumped the gas into oilfield formations to squeeze out more oil. Wyoming even has a “backbone” carbon dioxide pipeline that delivers the gas from southwestern and central Wyoming to multiple oilfields in the northeast corner of the state and into Montana.

While Wyoming still hopes to expand “enhanced oil recovery” via carbon dioxide injection, officials are also eager for companies to pump the gas deeper underground into saline formations. Here, at depths of 10,000 to 15,000 feet, carbon dioxide — compressed into liquid form — can be pumped and stored permanently, according to state and industry officials.

Assurances that the gas will remain underground are based on seismic surveys and deep geologic testing conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources.

There are skeptics, however, and many questions about the logistics of deep carbon dioxide “sequestration,” as well as whether all of the public resources invested are justified.

Skepticism and questions 

So far, capturing carbon dioxide from industrial smokestacks — be they attached to trona processing plants, cement factories or coal-fired power plants — hasn’t proven economical at large scale. However, industry officials point to the federal 45Q tax credit — which was expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act — for vastly improving the economics of carbon capture and storage.

Gov. Mark Gordon and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan met with University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources officials Aug. 9, 2023 in Laramie. (Dustin Bleizeffer/WyoFile)

Until industrial facilities in the southwest region of the state — including in corners of Colorado and Utah — are fitted with carbon capture, Frontier Carbon Solutions plans to collect its carbon dioxide from a “direct air capture” project still in development.

Other questions remain: 

How will facilities such as direct air capture farms get carbon-free power without sprawling renewable energy development on sensitive landscapes?

How much will it cost to safely manage highly saline water displaced by carbon dioxide in deep geologic formations?

And, is all the time and public resources merely a distraction from proven renewable energy and the declining costs of installing wind and solar energy? 

“Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, told the Associated Press in May. “And all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures.’’ 

Projects under review

Texas-based Frontier Carbon Solutions is a partner in the Sweetwater Carbon Storage Hub project in southwest Wyoming. The effort is part of the federal CarbonSAFE Initiative led by the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources, which won $40.5 million in support from the U.S. Department of Energy. UW and Frontier Carbon Solutions will contribute another $10.1 million to the project for a total of $50.6 million, according to DOE and university officials. 

“I think we’ve been able to prove that if the operator is willing to work collaboratively, it can be done in a very expedited time frame and still meet all of the rules and regulations and be protective of human health and the environment.”

Lily Barkau, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

The “storage hub” will have a minimum storage capacity of 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over the life of the project — about 20 years, according to Frontier Carbon Solutions. For context, Wyoming’s annual carbon dioxide emissions from industrial fossil fuel consumption — excluding motor vehicle pollution — was 54.6 million metric tons in 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration

The company is seeking three permits under the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality’s Underground Injection Control program. Public comment closes Oct. 19.

Click here for more information about the company’s permit applications. Comments can be submitted electronically via DEQ-online portals for each of the three permits: permit 242, permit 243 and permit 244. Comments may also be submitted by mail to: Ms. Lily Barkau, P.G., Groundwater Section Manager, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, 200 West 17th Street, 2nd Floor, Cheyenne, WY 82002.

DEQ will also hold a public hearing on the Class VI well permits, with dates yet to be announced. If the permits are approved, the company will still have to submit more information from initial drilling activities before DEQ can grant Frontier Carbon Solutions a permit to actually inject carbon dioxide, Barkau said.

Tallgrass Energy is also seeking a Class VI injection well permit for its Eastern Wyoming Sequestration Hub in Laramie County. That permit is not yet up for public comment. However, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comment regarding the company’s application for rights-of-way on federal surface in Laramie County. 

This diagram depicts how CO2 is injected deep underground for geologic storage. (U.S. Department of Energy)

Public comment has been extended to Oct. 10. More about the project and how to comment can be found on the BLM’s project website.

Tallgrass was awarded $4.1 million for the project from the Wyoming Energy Authority in 2022, which the company will match in full, according to the agency. The grant comes from a $10 million legislative appropriation for carbon capture, storage and utilization projects.

First round of carbon dioxide injection permitting

Wyoming is one of only two states with primacy over the federal Class VI injection well permitting process

The state won authority over the program after more than a decade of legislation to establish a legal and regulatory framework to allow for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. 

That framework includes settling the question of who owns the underground “pore space” where carbon dioxide will be stored. The state declared it belongs to the surface estate, which clarifies who gets paid for use of the pore space and who is liable. The state also set out to appease potential developers by giving them an opportunity to transfer their liability for carbon dioxide injections to the state if they meet post-closure requirements intended to protect water and human health, according to Barkau.

Wyoming, with primacy over the federal Class VI injection well permitting program, can shave years off the permitting process, Barkau said. And that makes Wyoming an attractive place to launch carbon dioxide storage projects.

“I think we’ve been able to prove that if the operator is willing to work collaboratively, it can be done in a very expedited time frame and still meet all of the rules and regulations and be protective of human health and the environment,” Barkau said.

UPDATE: A new link to the BLM project website has been added to this story, as well as information about an extended public comment period due to the BLM’s technical difficulties. -Ed

Dustin Bleizeffer is a Report for America Corps member covering energy and climate at WyoFile. He has worked as a coal miner, an oilfield mechanic, and for 25 years as a statewide reporter and editor primarily...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Whatever the technological method employed , Carbon Reduction from the burning of fossil fuels has but one certainty : the consumer will pay for it.
    And it won’t be cheap. The laws of thermodynamics can be bent a little but cannot be broken. If you must use a tremendous amount of additional external energy to mitigate the negative impacts of primary energy production ( read: grapple the carbon ), the end user will pay for all the energy , not just half of it, at the meter. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Yet Wyoming energy policy alchemists would have us believe that we can recycle-repurpose the CO2 in some kind of closed loop , all the while leaving it in the ground and somehow do it affordably. On the one hand that is a pipe dream, literally. On the other hand it is magical thinking. The only way to reduce carbon in energy production is to not produce the stuff in the first place. ( the question then becomes how do we monetize that ? )

    Policymakers love to use acronyms to sell their schemes. CCUS = carbon capture underground storage, for instance. I prefer another acronym to describe Wyoming’s belief they can leave CO2 in the ground or somehow magically extract it from the atmosphere cheaply , then imprison it into the dungeons of geologic strata: OOSOOM. ( pronounced ooh soom). It stands for Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind.

    Never mind CO2 was already colorless transparent and odorlessly invisible to humans when it freely existed above ground in the market … now we gotta hide it underground so those pesky satellites and hyperspectral sensors don’t detect it while we keep selling the stuff in perpetuity , or till Climatic Doomsday, whichever comes first.

    No matter how carbonaceous Wyoming tries to advance a favorable solution for Climate Change , if it means selling more fossil fuels , that leaves us squarely on the problem side of the equation. Fossil thinking.

  2. CO2 is expansive fluid and should not be moved thru pipelines. If anything it should be pumped underground right at source of CO2. Gathering it out of air is energy intensive. Very much so. Very high electric demands. One could eliminate a lot of CO2 by simply shutting down major source and that is the biofuel plants. Environmental demands created the problem by promoting the ethanol use. So plants were built. CO2 was released for years. So shut down ethanol plants. Cut Thousands to tons of CO2. It not hard to do. One eliminated the source of problem and saved a food crop.

  3. It may be good for a few select drilling and pipeline companies etc. but unless the scheme has positive economics, it will just be another wasteful government project with the hogs lining up at the troughs. Lord knows we have enough of them.

  4. The first question that Dustin Bleizeffer poses, about carbon-free power for direct-air capture, raises a larger question about CO2 injection: how much net CO2 reduction will injection projects achieve, after the CO2 emissions from the energy they require are accounted for? Pilot projects have shown that scrubbing CO2 from power-plant emissions takes a bunch of energy. Pulling CO2 from the atmosphere will take more, as will compressing CO2, pushing it through pipelines, drilling wells, and building new pipelines. So the net gain will be less than the amount of CO2 pumped into the ground. A carbon budget for a project will give a more realistic estimate, and help with deciding how much real benefit we’ll get from this industry.