Google takes control of a Crusoe-launched 716-acre, 3.08-million-square-foot Cheyenne campus with four data centers, a 42-turbine natural gas fleet, fuel cells, and $7+ billion in power investment.
Would be keen to understand more on Tallgrass's plans for taking the CO2 from its power generation in this project and transporting into the CO2 Sequestration project it has brought online in and to wells throughout Laramie County. How will this be done and what disclosures and permits have been published regarding this activity?
Worth separating the two assets. The hub is a compression station. It captures nothing itself, taking CO2 from upstream emitters and pushing it to injection sites with their own permits.
The record I have seen: 6 WDEQ air actions on the hub since June 2024, separate air facilities for Juniper, Azalea, Spirea, Barberry and Cypress, and a Class VI file covering 6 wells designed for 5.1 million tonnes a year. Stated feedstock is ethanol, ammonia and power plants. Both connected emitters are in Nebraska.
Nothing contemplates a Laramie County power plant, and no filing (that I have seen) describes a line east from the campus.
Thanks for the information. We operate a ranch across from the pump station and have heard differently from contractors and current and former employees. Given the high level of federal subsidies (there's truly no rational reason to pump CO2 10-12k feet below the surface), adding CO2 from the power station for the data center is and has been part of the plan. The pump station itself has not been put through any permit process nor any state or federal oversight, only the wells and related sequestration. The plan is apparently to expand to new, additional wells north of I80 and expansion of the pump station is currently underway to facilitate this with no oversight or permits.
Thanks. I appreciate the local perspective, and you’re clearly much closer to what’s happening on the ground than I am. I can only speak to the public filings and disclosures I’ve reviewed, so I’m not in a position to verify what contractors or employees may have said about future plans.
Hopefully Tallgrass and the relevant authorities provide more clarity as the project develops, particularly if further expansion is contemplated. It sounds like these are exactly the kinds of questions worth raising when the project next comes before county officials.
Unfortunately country, state and federal officials all shrug their shoulders when it comes to oversight of the pumping station. There have been no public meetings, disclosures or oversight.
One would think Google/Alphabet might be a bit concerned about a 'partner', which has spent a significant amount in Pr trying to position itself as a good neighbor and community member, running an operation in tandem which potentially could increase opposition to its data center investment(s) locally and nationally. Nobody near Wells or pump stations is happy with their approach to operations or actions as a 'neighbor'.
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate the additional local context. I’ve probably taken this as far as I can from the public record, so I’ll leave it there, but hopefully the concerns you’ve raised receive more scrutiny and clearer answers from the relevant parties.
This ownership stack separates the physical asset from the economic risk more than a conventional lease does. Do the project documents show who bears fuel-price, curtailment, uptime and stranded-capacity risk before an energized MW becomes billable compute?
Three of the four, yes. Under the utility's Large Power Contract Service tariff the customer supplies capacity of at least 115% of its own peak, pays energy at actual cost outside the power cost adjustment, and is served only after every other retail customer. Fuel price, curtailment and stranding sit with the load. Uptime is not mentioned in the documents that I have seen. The contracted service level is filed confidentially.
That clarifies the allocation: the 115% self-supply requirement puts fuel, curtailment and stranding with the load, while uptime and the confidential service level remain the real unknowns. Very helpful—thank you!
Would be keen to understand more on Tallgrass's plans for taking the CO2 from its power generation in this project and transporting into the CO2 Sequestration project it has brought online in and to wells throughout Laramie County. How will this be done and what disclosures and permits have been published regarding this activity?
Worth separating the two assets. The hub is a compression station. It captures nothing itself, taking CO2 from upstream emitters and pushing it to injection sites with their own permits.
The record I have seen: 6 WDEQ air actions on the hub since June 2024, separate air facilities for Juniper, Azalea, Spirea, Barberry and Cypress, and a Class VI file covering 6 wells designed for 5.1 million tonnes a year. Stated feedstock is ethanol, ammonia and power plants. Both connected emitters are in Nebraska.
Nothing contemplates a Laramie County power plant, and no filing (that I have seen) describes a line east from the campus.
Thanks for the information. We operate a ranch across from the pump station and have heard differently from contractors and current and former employees. Given the high level of federal subsidies (there's truly no rational reason to pump CO2 10-12k feet below the surface), adding CO2 from the power station for the data center is and has been part of the plan. The pump station itself has not been put through any permit process nor any state or federal oversight, only the wells and related sequestration. The plan is apparently to expand to new, additional wells north of I80 and expansion of the pump station is currently underway to facilitate this with no oversight or permits.
Thanks. I appreciate the local perspective, and you’re clearly much closer to what’s happening on the ground than I am. I can only speak to the public filings and disclosures I’ve reviewed, so I’m not in a position to verify what contractors or employees may have said about future plans.
Hopefully Tallgrass and the relevant authorities provide more clarity as the project develops, particularly if further expansion is contemplated. It sounds like these are exactly the kinds of questions worth raising when the project next comes before county officials.
Unfortunately country, state and federal officials all shrug their shoulders when it comes to oversight of the pumping station. There have been no public meetings, disclosures or oversight.
One would think Google/Alphabet might be a bit concerned about a 'partner', which has spent a significant amount in Pr trying to position itself as a good neighbor and community member, running an operation in tandem which potentially could increase opposition to its data center investment(s) locally and nationally. Nobody near Wells or pump stations is happy with their approach to operations or actions as a 'neighbor'.
https://panhandle.newschannelnebraska.com/story/347710903/colorado-family-seeks-answers-to-odor-noise?fbclid=IwY2xjawTnF51wZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMVQ4U002TERxZkJsUWVUcG5zcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEem8yet2sEEhWdRktSUa3YqJV_vjOXai5HkZquShZJQaRLgJuvJoyymBSzON8_aem_AWzuJG_eyAkmuz9t_OhEZg
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate the additional local context. I’ve probably taken this as far as I can from the public record, so I’ll leave it there, but hopefully the concerns you’ve raised receive more scrutiny and clearer answers from the relevant parties.
Nice report, thanks.
Thanks Jeff, I appreciate that.
This ownership stack separates the physical asset from the economic risk more than a conventional lease does. Do the project documents show who bears fuel-price, curtailment, uptime and stranded-capacity risk before an energized MW becomes billable compute?
Three of the four, yes. Under the utility's Large Power Contract Service tariff the customer supplies capacity of at least 115% of its own peak, pays energy at actual cost outside the power cost adjustment, and is served only after every other retail customer. Fuel price, curtailment and stranding sit with the load. Uptime is not mentioned in the documents that I have seen. The contracted service level is filed confidentially.
That clarifies the allocation: the 115% self-supply requirement puts fuel, curtailment and stranding with the load, while uptime and the confidential service level remain the real unknowns. Very helpful—thank you!