Safety Risks: What the Public Needs to Know

The Pronghorn H2 Project is not just an energy development—it is a massive industrial operation involving wind turbines, a solar farm, and a green hydrogen refinery intended to produce synthetic aviation fuel. While marketed as a clean and forward-looking initiative, the safety risks associated with the hydrogen component of the project are significant and far-reaching. Local residents, emergency responders, and environmental advocates are raising urgent concerns that must be addressed before construction moves forward.  With high flammability risks, complex chemistry, constant mechanical operations, and massive resource demands, the safety profile of Pronghorn H2 challenges the very definition of green energy. It is not just about emissions — it's about human safety, environmental integrity, and disaster preparedness. 

At the heart of the project is a hydrogen production and refining process that involves splitting water molecules using electricity to generate hydrogen gas. This hydrogen will then be combined with carbon dioxide to create synthetic aviation fuel (SAF).

Hydrogen is extremely flammable and explosive. It ignites easily, is difficult to contain, and leaks more readily than other gases due to its small molecular size. The industry itself acknowledges that 4–9% of hydrogen is routinely lost during production, storage, and transportation. These aren’t rare accidents — they are built-in inefficiencies that carry environmental and safety consequences.

 While less flammable than hydrogen, carbon dioxide (CO₂) poses its own set of dangers. In high concentrations, CO₂ can displace oxygen and cause asphyxiation. If released accidentally or through equipment failure, the buildup of CO₂ can be dangerous for workers and nearby communities, particularly in confined or low-lying areas where the gas can accumulate. 

The process of creating SAF from hydrogen and carbon dioxide is technically complex and not yet widely adopted at scale. That means there is limited historical data on the safety of these systems under real-world conditions. Failures in containment, pressurization systems, or refining components could have catastrophic consequences.

Furthermore, the proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, introducing constant risks of mechanical failure, chemical leaks, and human error. It would also increase industrial traffic in and out of the area, compounding risks to public safety.

 One of the most overlooked concerns is the increased burden on local emergency services. The Pronghorn H2 Project will require specialized response capabilities in the event of fire, explosion, chemical release, or electrical failure. Local fire departments and emergency personnel may not be adequately equipped or trained to respond to hydrogen or CO₂ incidents — a risk that would fall directly on nearby residents and first responders.

To date, there has been little public discussion about how these emergency resources will be upgraded, who will pay for them, or what response plans are in place.

Hydrogen leaks, though invisible and odorless, can still cause major environmental problems. Leaked hydrogen can lead to the formation of ground-level ozone and other harmful compounds, indirectly contributing to climate change. Ironically, while marketed as a clean energy project, hydrogen leakage may amplify environmental harm if not strictly contained.

In addition, the cumulative industrial activity from electrolysis units, compressors, cooling systems, and pipelines will contribute to air and noise pollution, both of which are known to impact public health and wildlife.

The Pronghorn H2 Project poses serious and unresolved risks that demand immediate and transparent evaluation. Before this facility is allowed to move forward, the community must receive answers to critical safety questions:

• What are the protocols for hydrogen and CO₂ containment? 
• How will local emergency services be supported and funded? 
• What safety training will be provided to workers and first responders? 
• What happens if there’s a leak, explosion, or system failure? 

Until these questions are answered publicly and comprehensively, the project remains not just speculative — but dangerous.