ExxonMobil's Rose Project Clears Texas, Cheek Residents Object

By Daniel Okafor

Texas regulators approved the state's first carbon storage project under newly won federal permitting authority in September, and the community next door has asked them to think again. ExxonMobil's Rose project outside Beaumont would compress carbon dioxide to an almost-liquid state and pump it thousands of feet underground near Cheek, a predominantly Black, working-class and elderly unincorporated community. The Railroad Commission approved the permit on a 2-1 vote. That is the operational fact. The rest is friction.

The stakes are straightforward. Companies have canceled or paused nearly a third of 19 proposed carbon storage projects in Texas. A Drilled and ProPublica investigation concluded that scaling the technology enough to avoid extreme warming would demand more resources than feasible. Texas nonetheless wants the business.

How did Texas get here?

Lawmakers passed the framework law in 2009. The state formally applied to the EPA for primacy in 2022 and won the authority late last year. The Railroad Commission approved Rose in September, making it the first project sanctioned under the state program.

The prize is economic. Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, which represents 90 percent of the state's fossil fuel production, called the permitting power "essential for our state's economic future and energy leadership." East Texas offers three advantages: ExxonMobil's existing CO2 pipeline network, suitable geology, and industrial customers willing to pay for disposal. ExxonMobil holds seven storage agreements, with injected volumes equal to emissions from 2 million cars. Federal tax credits support the buildout.

State Rep. Drew Darby, who leads the House energy resources committee, told the commission in September that projects must move at "utmost pace while protecting the public."

What does Cheek fear?

Douglas Cormier, 67, president of the Cheek Texas Community Association, put it plainly: "We're just shocked that they would want to do this so close to homes."

Residents cite three risks: CO2 acidifying groundwater and leaching metals, an underground plume migrating beyond the monitored area, and a pipeline rupture releasing a suffocating, colorless, odorless cloud that would stop both lungs and gasoline engines. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers wrote in 2007 that once any aquifer is contaminated, it will remain so.

The precedents do not help. A 2020 CO2 pipeline rupture in Mississippi, triggered by a rain-induced landslide, sent dozens to hospital; investigators found first responders had to guess at the hazards. An Illinois facility leaked injected fluid into unauthorized zones, and residents learned of it from a news article. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has paused new application reviews, citing safety and efficiency. Arizona has permitted no wells; North Dakota has eight across three projects; Wyoming five in one.

Cheek signed with Earthjustice attorneys in July 2025 and fought the permit to a March administrative hearing, arguing ExxonMobil had not assured water and public safety and monitored too small an underground area. Jen Powis, who leads Earthjustice's Gulf regional office, said: "It's the first one in an area so close to a community, and that's why the water issues and the safety issues are so paramount here." The examiner and administrative law judge recommended approval anyway. Commissioner Wayne Christian, a climate-science skeptic, voted no on safety grounds. Chair Christi Craddick scolded ExxonMobil the day before the vote — "Give them information. Be there for their safety. Give 'em a fire truck if that's what they want" — then voted yes.

What does the permit require?

The conditions are concrete: automatic shut-off systems on the three injection wells already built at Cheek's edge, plume monitoring, and a 24-hour operator phone line. The program requires coordination with local emergency officials, and ExxonMobil funds training through Texas A&M's Engineering Extension Service. Senior vice president Dominic Genetti wrote: "We want community members to know they can count on us to operate responsibly, communicate openly, and put safety first every day."

The Environmental Defense Fund's Nicholes Saunders split the difference: "The community's concerns around safety of any sort of an injection project are valid and real and need to be taken seriously. At the same time, the need for more carbon management infrastructure to get to where we want to go on climate is also real."

What happens next at Nome?

ExxonMobil's second project, Sunflower, sits near Nome, a short drive from Cheek, and entered public comment hearings this week. The contrast is instructive. ExxonMobil held an open house at Nome City Hall, served boudin balls and demonstrated a CO2 release — "let it rip, tater chip" — while paying for new firefighting equipment, according to resident and developer Mike Doguet, 72, whose home faces an injection well. Mayor Kerry Abney, 71, walked through the plume and declared: "Santa Claus came." A Cheek resident watching the same cloud crossed her arms.

Oxy, operator of the state's only other approved project, said in August it was coming online "as we look forward." Newly elected Commissioner Jon Rosenthal supports state regulation. Sophia Cunningham of the Greater Houston Partnership says community trust will "make or break" projects as the industry scales.

The watch item is Sunflower's permit decision, and whether the commission extracts concessions before voting rather than after.