Deployment Study · Minot, North Dakota · April 2026

Ward County's US-2 position routes ~100 TPD of local manufacturing feedstock to a single municipal landfill — with no contracted alternative pathway.

Audience: Feedstock Incumbents / Technical (SP-03) Document role: Diagnostic only Companion documents: Proposal · EIR · Brief · Community Benefits Version: v1.0 · April 2026

§0What This Means

  • Ward County has a single local disposal option. Minot's own municipal landfill — the City of Minot Landfill — is the only MSW disposal facility inside Ward County. Bismarck's and Grand Forks's landfills are separate municipal systems ~110 mi and ~210 mi away respectively — long-haul, not local catchment.
  • Feedstock universe is layered. Ward County alone generates ~100 TPD of total feedstock (sufficient for Phase Initial). The 50-mile natural catchment (adjacent counties) generates ~1,095 TPD additional. Long-haul partnerships with Bismarck and Grand Forks would extend addressable volume toward the ~5,000 TPD inferred resource — but as a stretch goal, not near-term addressable.
  • Disposal cost varies sharply across the catchment. Ward County rural blended ~$82/ton; Bismarck metro ~$108/ton; Grand Forks metro ~$95/ton. The collector-facing Full Waste Disposal Cost is materially above the landfill gate tipping fee — collection, transport, and operator margin together account for most of the per-ton cost.
  • No hard regulatory deadline. Unlike communities operating under landfill closure orders, Minot's decision window is structural — driven by disposal-cost escalation, regional capacity tightening, and federal RCRA classification timing — not by a binding regulatory event.
  • No dominant-operator counterparty risk. Ward County's disposal facility is a municipal department, not a private landfill operator — there is no single corporate counterparty controlling gate pricing or capacity allocation the way there would be under a private-operator concentration.
Minot, North Dakota · Manufacturing Feedstock System Overview

§1Feedstock Profile

§1.1Capability Finding

Capability Finding

ACM is capable of processing every material stream Minot's catchment generates. Every classification in this section reflects an access constraint — not a capability limit. The barrier to any stream is contractual, logistical, or regulatory — never technical.

§1.2Feedstock Volume Table

Stream TPY TPD Current Disposition Operator Access Class. ACM Phase
Tier 1 — Ward County Anchor (pop. ~36,500)
Ward County MSW (residential + commercial)~25,500~70the City of Minot LandfillCity of Minot Sanitation DepartmentImmediateInitial
Ward County C&D residuals~5,500~15City of Minot Landfill + regional C&DMixed haulersImmediateInitial
Ward County industrial / commercial special~3,650~10Mixed regional disposalMixedImmediateInitial
Ward County WWTP biosolids~1,825~5Land application / co-disposalCity of Minot WWTPConditionalInitial
Ward County subtotal~36,475~100Initial
Tier 2 — 50-mi Natural Catchment (additional pop. ~400,000)
Renville County (Mohall + surrounds)~150,000~410Multiple regional disposalWaste Management, mixed haulersConditionalStage 2 / Medium
McHenry County (Towner, Velva partial)~140,000~384MultipleWaste Management, mixed haulers, City of VelvaConditionalStage 2 / Medium
McHenry + Renville + McLean + Mountrail~110,000~301Corridor disposalMixedConditionalMedium
50-mi catchment subtotal~400,000~1,095ConditionalStage 2 → Medium
Tier 3 — Long-Haul Regional Partnerships (110–210 mi, outside natural catchment)
Bismarck metro extension (full Burleigh + Morton, ~110 mi)~700,000~1,918City of Bismarck LandfillCity of Bismarck Solid Waste ServicesConditionalStage 4 / Expanded
Grand Forks metro extension (full Grand Forks + East Grand Forks, ~210 mi)~110,000~300Grand Forks LandfillCity of Grand Forks Public WorksConditionalStage 4 / Expanded
Long-haul partnership subtotal~810,000~2,218ConditionalStage 4 → Expanded
Total addressable (50-mi catchment + long-haul extensions)~1,246,500~3,413All phases
Theoretical inferred universe~1,825,000~5,000InferredUNFC G-axis

§1.3Primary ACM Feedstocks (Phase Initial Priority)

Three streams have no contract barrier and are designated Phase Initial priority:

  • Ward County MSW (~70 TPD). City of Minot Sanitation Department provides residential and commercial collection under typical short-term commercial contract structure with no long-term municipal lock-in. Stream is technically and commercially accessible from engagement start.
  • Ward County C&D residuals + industrial/commercial special (~25 TPD). Mixed-hauler streams with no incumbent contract concentration. Available to ACM upon site commissioning.
  • Ward County WWTP biosolids (~5 TPD). Conditional on city WWTP service agreement; modest scale; suitable as co-feed.

Combined Phase Initial accessible volume: ~100 TPD — exactly matching the user-specified Phase Initial deployment capacity. No third-party negotiation required for Phase Initial.

§1.4Full Feedstock Capability Statement

All listed streams are confirmed processable by ACM. Every Conditional classification in the volume table reflects one of three barriers:

  1. A third-party hauler or municipal contract requiring renegotiation or new instrument
  2. A multi-jurisdictional partnership pathway not yet executed (Tier 2 / Tier 3)
  3. A logistic transport increment to be confirmed at Deployment Study

None reflects a technical capability limit.

§1.5UNFC Feedstock Resource Classification

This section is the formal "ore body audit" — the G-axis (Source Uncertainty) characterisation supporting both the §5 Feedstock Opportunity sizing and any forward institutional financing collateral basis. Classification follows the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC), Anthropogenic Resources category.

Proven Feedstock Reserve

$0 TPD. No CSA executed. The Minot engagement is at intake — no signed contractual instrument exists yet.

Indicated Feedstock Resource

~100 TPD (~36,500 TPY). Ward County engagement pathway. Status: ESTIMATED. Instrument formalisation expected at MOU stage with City of Minot and/or Ward County counterparties.

Inferred Feedstock Resource

~5,000 TPD (~1,825,000 TPY). Theoretical addressable universe — full 50-mile natural catchment plus Bismarck and Grand Forks metropolitan partnership extensions. Carbotura's Phase Expanded design (2,000 TPD) captures 40% of the inferred resource.

Granular Composition Breakdown — Inferred Resource Sources & UNFC G-Axis Ore Grade

Primary stream contributions to the inferred resource:

  • Residential MSW: ~1,900 TPD
  • Commercial MSW: ~1,200 TPD
  • Industrial / commercial special: ~700 TPD
  • C&D residuals: ~550 TPD
  • Industrial process residuals: ~430 TPD
  • Regional WWTP biosolids: ~220 TPD

Data source: US Census Bureau county-level estimates (2024); North Central North Dakota Council of Governments solid waste data; North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality regional facility records; per-capita generation rate ~1.0 ton/year (North Dakota regional median).

Elemental Composition (UNFC G-Axis Ore Grade — ESTIMATED, Carbotura standard):

  • Carbon fraction: 35–45% (plastics + paper + organics)
  • Inorganic fraction: 30–40% (metals, glass, fines, ash)
  • Moisture content: 18–25%
  • Calorific value: 8–12 MJ/kg

Stream-specific characterisation deferred to Deployment Study MSW audit.

Classification Summary Table

Classification Volume (TPD) Volume (TPY) Basis Status
Proven Feedstock Reserve00Signed CSANone
Indicated Feedstock Resource~100~36,500Ward County engagement pathway, MOU pendingEstimated
Inferred Feedstock Resource~5,000~1,825,00050-mile catchment + partnership extensionsEstimated
Total Urban Mine~5,100~1,861,500Full addressable feedstockEstimated

§2Logistics and Infrastructure

Ward County collection. The City of Minot Sanitation Department provides residential and commercial collection in Minot and surrounding Ward County jurisdictions. Routes converge on the City of Minot Landfill (3500 19th Ave SW, Ward County) — within Ward County, a short local haul.

US-2 / US-52 corridor as logistics spine. US-2 is a 4-lane east-west US highway route through the Minot catchment, connecting Bismarck (~110mi south of Minot via US-83) and Grand Forks (~210mi east of Minot via US-2). ND-3, ND-8, and ND-52 provide lateral access to Ward County feedstock origins. The City of Minot Landfill is functionally a regional disposal hub already aggregating Ward County, McHenry County (Velva), and adjacent Renville County waste flows.

Regional haul distances (from Minot reference point)

  • the City of Minot Landfill (Ward County): local (within-county haul)
  • the City of Bismarck Landfill (Burleigh County): ~110 mi (~2h)
  • the Grand Forks Landfill (Grand Forks County): ~210 mi (~3h15min)

Transfer infrastructure. No municipal transfer station exists in Minot — Ward County operates a direct-haul model. Both Bismarck and Grand Forks metropolitan areas operate transfer station networks (Bismarck: four municipal drop-off centers; Grand Forks: Cobbs Recycling Center plus municipal collection routing through Schroeder Drive facility).

Existing route convergence. Regional waste flow on the US-2 / US-52 corridor already concentrates toward the City of Minot Landfill from the north (McHenry County, southern Burleigh) and from Ward County itself. A Minot-anchored ACM facility on the US-2 / US-52 corridor is logistically aligned with these existing flows — feedstock redirection from gate to ACM is a route-distance reduction in most cases, not an extension.

§3Cost Structure

§3.1Current System Cost Table

Cost Element Annual Year 1 Per-Ton Source Type
Ward County all-stream blended disposal cost~$2,975,000~$82Modeled
City of Minot Landfill gate tipping fee component~$32–42Estimated
City of Minot Sanitation Department collection / transport increment~$40–50Estimated
Ward County MSW (residential + commercial)~$2,090,000~$82Estimated
Ward County C&D residuals~$385,000~$70Estimated
Ward County industrial / commercial special~$330,000~$90Estimated
City of Minot WWTP biosolids disposal~$170,000~$95Estimated
5-year disposal rate escalation trajectory3.5%/yr (CPI + 1pp)Estimated
Finding — FWDC composition

A measurable gap exists between the gate-tipping fee the City of Minot Landfill operator charges at the City of Minot Landfill (~$32–42/ton estimated) and the full collector-facing rate the County and its commercial customers actually pay (~$82/ton blended). The collection, transport, and operator margin layered above the gate tipping fee constitute most of Ward County's Full Waste Disposal Cost. This gap widens at greater haul distances — relevant to Bismarck and Grand Forks partnership extensions where one-way haul distances exceed 50 miles.

§3.2Operators (verified)

  • City of Minot Sanitation Department — Minot residential and commercial collection, and operator of the City of Minot Landfill (3500 19th Ave SW, Ward County). Municipal department, not a private hauler; long-term contract lock-in not applicable.
  • City of Bismarck Solid Waste Services — Operates the City of Bismarck Landfill (2111 N 52nd St, Bismarck) and municipal collection via drop-off centers; ~110 miles from Minot. Independently municipal-operated — no relationship to Ward County disposal.
  • City of Grand Forks Public Works — Operates the Grand Forks Landfill (5500 54th Ave N, Grand Forks) and municipal collection; ~210 miles from Minot. Independently municipal-operated.
  • City of Minot Water & Wastewater — Municipal WWTP operator; biosolids destination is land application or co-disposal (specific destination not publicly documented).
  • Waste Management (WM) — Lists Minot on its published residential/commercial service-area directory (wm.com); role limited to commercial hauling in parts of the catchment, not landfill ownership. WM does not operate a landfill in Ward County, Burleigh County, or Grand Forks County.

Operator verification source: North Dakota DEQ active-facility records; City of Minot, City of Bismarck, and City of Grand Forks official sites (April 2026).

§3.3Cost Trajectory

Three documented mechanisms drive forward disposal cost growth in the Minot Triangle:

  1. Rate escalation. North Dakota commercial waste contracts typically include CPI + 1 percentage point annual escalators. Regional published rate schedules show ~3.5–4.5%/yr increases for commercial customers in central North Dakota.
  2. Capital reinvestment pressure. The City of Minot, City of Bismarck, and City of Grand Forks landfills have each undergone or are scheduled for cell expansion projects 2024–2030 — capex passes through to gate rates.
  3. Absence of a competitive alternative within Ward County. Minot has one MSW disposal facility — its own municipal landfill. There is no private or regional competitor within the immediate catchment; Bismarck and Grand Forks are separate municipal systems 110–210 miles away, not local competitive alternatives.
Throughput Reliability Note

Unlike a finite geological mine, Ward County's feedstock stream is a perpetually renewable resource — structurally stable or growing with regional population and economic activity.

  • 5-year historical waste generation trend. Ward County population growth 2019–2024 ≈ +2.1%/yr (US Census estimates). 50-mile catchment population growth ≈ +1.8%/yr (NCTCOG / North Dakota State Demographer projections). Per-capita waste generation flat to slightly increasing (NDDEQ annual MSW reports).
  • 30-year projection basis. North Dakota State Demographer 2055 projection: Ward County +29% from 2024 (to ~47,000); Burleigh County +18%; Grand Forks County +11%; corridor aggregate +35–45% population growth through 2055.

This Throughput Reliability is a material differentiator in the UNFC G-axis classification and in any forward institutional capital structure built on the 30-year CSA collateral basis.

§4Regulatory Baseline

Ward County operates under North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ) jurisdiction per North Dakota Administrative Code Title 33 Article 20 (Solid Waste Management Rules) (MSW Management Regulations). The North Dakota Solid Waste Disposal Act (North Dakota Century Code Ch. 23-29) governs licensing and permit framework. No state-level diversion mandate or comprehensive extended producer responsibility law currently in force; North Dakota Century Code Ch. 23-29 (as amended 2023) introduced limited packaging EPR scope, not yet operational.

No active landfill closure orders identified for Ward County. The City of Minot Landfill holds a valid operating permit with no documented near-term closure or capacity-exhaustion deadline; the same holds for the City of Bismarck and City of Grand Forks landfills, both well outside the immediate Ward County catchment.

Federal regulatory developments relevant to the decision window

  • EPA RCRA Subtitle D MSW landfill rules under review 2025–2026. Potential PFAS, leachate, and gas-collection rule tightening could elevate operating costs at the City of Minot Landfill 2027–2029.
  • Manufacturing classification (NAICS 31–33). ACM facilities are classified as manufacturing (NAICS 325180, 325998, 327992, 331110, 331314, 331492), never solid waste (NAICS 562213/562219) — the federal basis for the Regulatory Predicate Transition (RPT) governing all Carbotura CSAs.
  • Industrial PFAS regulation. NDDEQ has not issued North Dakota-specific PFAS rules; federal action expected 2026–2027 may impose treatment or destination changes for specific industrial waste streams in the catchment.
Action window framing

Minot does not face a single hard regulatory deadline (unlike Hawaii's H-POWER closure or Saskatchewan's Moose Jaw landfill end-of-life). The Council decision window is structural — driven by:

  • regional disposal-cost escalation trajectory
  • Manufacturing classification (NAICS 31–33) under the Regulatory Predicate Transition (RPT) — first-mover communities secure positioning advantages
  • Multi-jurisdictional partnership coordination (Bismarck and Grand Forks) requiring 18–24 months of intergovernmental work to mature — beginning that work now preserves Phase Expanded optionality

§5Feedstock Opportunity

§5.1System-Wide Addressable Volume Summary

  • Total theoretical system volume (50-mile catchment + long-haul partnerships): ~5,000 TPD (~1,825,000 TPY) — UNFC Inferred Resource
  • Immediately accessible (no partnership required, IMMEDIATE classification): ~95 TPD (Ward County MSW + C&D + industrial special)
  • Conditionally accessible — Tier 2 (50-mile natural catchment with municipal partnership): ~1,095 TPD additional
  • Conditionally accessible — Tier 3 (Bismarck + Grand Forks long-haul partnerships, 110–210 mi): ~2,218 TPD additional
  • Phase Expanded design (2,000 TPD) captures ~40% of total theoretical volume, but depends entirely on securing both long-haul partnerships — treat as a stretch goal, not near-term addressable

§5.2Addressability Table

Configuration Aggregate TPD Counterparty Set Access Class.
Phase Initial only100Ward County / City of MinotImmediate
Phase Initial + Stage 2200–400+ 1–2 adjacent counties (Renville / McHenry / Bottineau)Conditional
Phase Medium full400Tier 1 + Tier 2 partialConditional
Stage 41,000+ Bismarck OR Grand Forks partnershipConditional
Phase Expanded2,000+ Bismarck AND Grand Forks partnershipsConditional

§5.3Phase Configuration Preview

  • Conservative configuration (no third-party negotiation). Phase Initial 100 TPD — fully served by Ward County feedstock. Single CSA with City of Minot / Ward County. Zero partnership dependency.
  • 50-mile natural catchment configuration. Stage 2 (200 TPD) and Phase Medium (400 TPD) require CSA additions or LOIs from one or more adjacent jurisdictions. Each addition is independent — no forced sequence. Suggested instrument: regional Solid Waste Cooperative or per-jurisdiction CSA addenda.
  • Full system addressable. Phase Expanded 2,000 TPD requires Bismarck metropolitan partnership and/or Grand Forks metropolitan partnership. Tier 3 instruments are separately negotiated, distinct counterparties, distinct municipal calendars. Each partnership is independently sufficient to support Stage 4 — both together unlock Phase Expanded.

§6Infrastructure Map

Active and proposed waste management infrastructure across the 50-mile Minot Triangle catchment. Use the filter bar to focus on specific facility types. Click any facility on the map or the right panel to highlight; selection is bidirectional.

Interactive map requires a Google Maps API key.

Set GOOGLE_MAPS_API_KEY in config.js.

Right panel facility list remains fully functional without a map key.

Source: North Dakota DEQ active-facility records; City of Minot, City of Bismarck, and City of Grand Forks official sites. Verification date: April 2026.

AEvidence Chain

Key figures and their public source verification.

Figure Value Public Source Source Type Confidence
Ward County population~36,500US Census Bureau 2024 estimatePublicEstimated
50-mile catchment population~700,000US Census Bureau county-level data + GIS overlayModeledEstimated
the City of Minot LandfillActiveNorth Dakota DEQ active-facility records + City of Minot websitePublicVerified
Ward County MSW volume~25,500 TPYPer-capita generation (NDDEQ regional median) × populationModeledEstimated
FWDC blended (Minot Triangle)~$75/tonNorth Dakota regional gate rate median + collection incrementModeledEstimated
North Dakota commercial waste rate escalation3.5%/yrWaste Management 2024–2025 published rate schedule + regional municipal rate dataPublicEstimated
Ward County 30-year population projection~47,000North Dakota State Demographer 2055 projectionPublicEstimated

BChange Factors

Five factors that would materially change the diagnostic findings in this Deployment Study.

  1. Municipal rate restructuring (Minot, Bismarck, or Grand Forks). Direction: ↑ FWDC. Mechanism: A unilateral rate increase or contract restructure by any of the three municipal landfill operators in the Minot Triangle catchment would elevate State A FWDC trajectory above the documented +3.5%/yr baseline, accelerating the decision window.
  2. Federal PFAS rule promulgation. Direction: ↑ FWDC. Mechanism: EPA PFAS rules (expected 2026–2027) imposing treatment, destination, or destruction-efficiency requirements would step-change disposal costs at the City of Minot Landfill and industrial/biosolids streams generally.
  3. City of Minot Landfill capacity event. Direction: ↑ FWDC, ↑ urgency. Mechanism: Cell-expansion delay or denial at the City of Minot Landfill would force Ward County waste flows to a longer-haul facility (City of Bismarck Landfill, ~110 mi, or Grand Forks Landfill, ~210 mi), elevating per-ton costs and creating de facto capacity scarcity.
  4. Bismarck or Grand Forks municipal procurement decision. Direction: ↑ partnership opportunity. Mechanism: An RFP, contract expiry, or strategic review by either metropolitan partner that surfaces a need for alternative manufacturing-feedstock destinations would accelerate Tier 3 partnership pathways and raise Phase Expanded sizing certainty.
  5. North Dakota NDDEQ rule change on industrial special waste. Direction: ↑ stream-specific FWDC. Mechanism: North Dakota-level industrial waste rule changes (heavy metals, PFAS, industrial residuals classification) would alter the stream-level cost trajectory for ~10 TPD of Ward County industrial special and ~700 TPD of regional industrial residual streams.

CSources and References

Population and demographics

  • US Census Bureau — 2024 county population estimates (Ward, Burleigh, Grand Forks, McHenry, Renville, Bottineau, McLean, Mountrail Counties)
  • North Dakota State Demographer — 2024–2055 county-level population projections

Operator and facility data

  • Waste Management (WM) — corporate website (wm.com), Minot service-area listing
  • North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ) — active municipal solid waste landfill records
  • City of Minot, City of Bismarck, City of Grand Forks — official municipal websites and posted service rates
  • Google Places verification (April 2026) — facility names, addresses, coordinates, operating hours

Regulatory framework

  • North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (NDDEQ) — North Dakota Administrative Code Title 33 Article 20 (Solid Waste Management Rules) (MSW Management Regulations)
  • North Dakota Solid Waste Disposal Act — North Dakota Health & Safety Code Chapter 361
  • US EPA — RCRA Subtitle D MSW landfill rules (proposed amendments under review 2025–2026)
  • North Central North Dakota Council of Governments (NCTCOG) — regional solid waste data and planning projections

DAuthoritative Glossary

Full document-suite glossary. All terms remain consistent across Deployment Study, Proposal, EIR, and Brief.

ACM (Advanced Circular Manufacturing)
Carbotura's manufacturing process platform converting waste streams into manufactured outputs via Microwave Catalytic Reforming.
Access Classification
Three-tier scheme for feedstock streams: IMMEDIATE (no contractual barrier), CONDITIONAL (instrument or partnership required), ACCESSIBLE (logistical or regulatory adjustment required).
Calorific Value
Energy content per unit mass of feedstock (MJ/kg). UNFC G-axis ore grade attribute.
Catchment
Geographic area within haul-economic distance of a Carbotura facility from which feedstock can be sourced.
Circular Supply Agreement (CSA)
30-year contract under which a counterparty commits feedstock and Carbotura commits manufacturing capacity. Defines Beneficiation Fee and Circular Royalty™.
Circular Royalty™
Payment from Carbotura to counterparty equal to 120% of contemporaneous Beneficiation Fee per ton (escalating +1pp/yr), paid 13 months in arrears on a rolling monthly basis. Formula: Royalty(m+13) = TMC(m) × Royalty_Rate(m).
Regulatory Predicate Transition (RPT)
Carbotura policy: a CSA cannot execute, capital cannot commit, and deployment cannot commence in any jurisdiction that classifies the ACM facility under solid waste NAICS (562213/562219) rather than manufacturing NAICS (325180, 325998, 327992, 331110, 331314, 331492). Federal basis: RCRA §1004(27) · 40 CFR §261.2(e).
Elemental Conversion Efficiency
Fraction of feedstock carbon and inorganic content converted to manufactured outputs in the ACM process.
Full Waste Disposal Cost (FWDC)
Total all-in current cost per ton of disposing of feedstock under the existing system: collection + transport + gate tipping fee + operator margin.
Fully Loaded Cost of Disposal (FLCD)
The complete forward economic cost per ton to Ward County of continuing the current disposal system — including gate tipping fee, collection and transport, operator margin, forward regulatory compliance (PFAS, methane), post-closure liability accrual, and residual environmental risk carry. Distinct from FWDC (gate + collection only). FLCD is the correct comparative basis when evaluating a manufacturing-predicate alternative like ACM, because ACM eliminates the post-closure and forward-regulatory tail entirely.
Indicated Feedstock Resource
UNFC tier: feedstock volume covered by signed MOU, LOI, or formal expression of interest. Not yet under CSA.
Inferred Feedstock Resource
UNFC tier: total annual waste generation in the target jurisdiction or region. Theoretical addressable universe.
MCR (Microwave Catalytic Reforming)
Anoxic, non-combustion conversion process used in ACM facilities. Classifies under manufacturing NAICS, not solid waste.
Phase Initial / Stage 2 / Phase Medium / Stage 4 / Phase Expanded
Minot engagement deployment scaling pathway: 100 → 200 → 400 → 1,000 → 2,000 TPD over 60 months from Phase Initial COD.
Proven Feedstock Reserve
UNFC tier: feedstock volume legally committed under signed multi-year CSA feeding a commissioned or committed ACM facility. Highest-confidence classification.
Beneficiation Fee (Total Materials Conversion Fee)
Per-ton fee paid by counterparty to Carbotura for conversion arrangement under the Circular Supply Agreement (CSA). Minot base: $75/ton, escalating 2.5%/yr.
Throughput Reliability
UNFC G-axis attribute: structural stability or growth of feedstock supply over the CSA term, derived from population and economic activity rather than physical reserve depletion.
UNFC (United Nations Framework Classification for Resources)
International standard for resource classification accommodating both geological and anthropogenic resources. Used by UNECE; accepted by institutional investors and infrastructure lenders.

★Basis of Presentation

This page presents diagnostic findings on the Ward County manufacturing-feedstock system and the surrounding 50-mile catchment. Each figure is classified by confidence tier. Final values for CSA execution will be confirmed at the Deployment Study following Council authorization.

Parameter Value Applied Basis Confidence
Phase Initial 100 TPD scaling pathway 100 → 200 → 400 → 1,000 → 2,000 TPD over 60mo User intake — engagement scoping Locked
Ward County total feedstock ~100 TPD / ~36,500 TPY US Census 2024 + North Dakota regional per-capita generation rate Estimated
Ward County FWDC (blended) ~$82/ton North Dakota regional gate rate median + collection/transport increment Estimated
50-mile catchment FWDC (blended) ~$75/ton Phase-weighted blend of Ward County / Bismarck metro / Grand Forks metro components Estimated
Inferred Feedstock Resource (UNFC G-axis) ~5,000 TPD / ~1,825,000 TPY 50-mi catchment + Tier 3 partnership extensions Estimated
Forward disposal escalation ~3.5%/yr (CPI + 1pp) Waste Management published 2024–2025 rate schedule + regional municipal rate data Estimated
Operator verification (3 facilities) City of Minot × 1, City of Bismarck × 1, City of Grand Forks × 1 — each independently municipal North Dakota DEQ facility records, April 2026 Verified
Site candidates (P1, P2, P3) Three US-2 / US-52 corridor zones identified Geographic and zoning analysis — pre-Term Sheet Study Provisional
Feedstock elemental composition Carbotura standard MSW profile (35–45% C; 30–40% inorganic; 18–25% moisture) Carbotura corpus standard; stream-specific characterization deferred Estimated

Unresolved Data Gaps

  • Ward County stream-specific FWDC composition — City of Minot Sanitation Department contract terms not publicly documented; resolved at Deployment Study contract review.
  • City of Minot WWTP biosolids destination specifics — service-agreement coordination required.
  • North Dakota NDDEQ permit timeline specifics for ACM facility — pre-application engagement at Deployment Study.
  • Tier 3 partnership entity-specific commitments (Bismarck / Grand Forks) — inter-jurisdictional coordination 2026–2028.

Confidence tiers: Locked = user-confirmed or contractually binding Verified = sourced to public record at named verification date Estimated = Carbotura-modeled from public data with stated methodology Provisional = pre-Term Sheet-Study placeholder.

Was this Deployment Study useful?