If you recall a press release which I had posted a week ago, the Argus has a story today referring to that study that was recently completed regarding what South Dakota could expect in terms of returns on the Summit and Navigator carbon sequestration pipelines once they are completed:
Among the key findings of the report are indications the pipelines could bring billions of dollars of revenue to the state, while farmers stand to see an increase in corn prices from 2024 to 2034.
The logic behind these findings is that ethanol producers would be able to gain substantial increases in revenue if they adopt carbon sequestration processes.
and..
According to the study, South Dakota would see about $3.30 billion in gross domestic product, or the market value of finished goods and services, and about $5.92 billion in gross output over the ten-year period.
To put these numbers in perspective, South Dakota’s largest industry, agriculture and forestry, represents 21% of the state’s total GDP at $11.68 billion ― forestry alone is 2% of this figure ― according to the state’s latest study on ag’s economic impact. If built to completion, carbon sequestration would increase GDP in the industry by 28% over a 10-year period.
and..
As part of the study, Summit Carbon and Navigator shared a “good faith” estimate for property tax expenses as part of their combined operating expense budget of $82.8 million. The companies expect to pay nearly $19.7 million in annual property taxes to municipalities once the pipelines are operational. Additionally, electricity costs, accounting for nearly $38.8 million, made up the majority of their operating costs.
and..
“I can share that the relationship we have with Summit is a very good relationship. You know, they didn’t require capital to help them build the plant,” Wendland said. “Summit’s been more closely related to the farmer-owned plants and the private plants … where Navigator is more involved with the oil companies and the pipeline companies, so, in general, I’ve always felt that that Summit’s a little more farmer friendly.”
While South Dakota lacks the petroleum resources our neighbor to the north has, we have it in our power to support our own energy production industry using resources grown by South Dakota’s farmers, and pump badly needed revenue into some of our rural counties that aren’t coming out of landowner’s pockets.
Food (and alcohol) for thought.
It could do a lot of things…….
I won’t support this unless it can be accomplished without the use of land takings (eminent domain). It is a private company, and using the government to force a sale of land is not a conservative principle.
Unless it is oil….right? Seems like that is the latest take for “conservatives”.
Exactly. Good ideas do not require force.
Makes sense in theory, but not in reality. I doubt there is a pipeline that has ever stretched across multiple states that didn’t need eminent domain. Libertarians just don’t live in reality. I love having small government but there are some things they just need to do if we are ever going to flourish as a country.
Oh, I’m sure we sometimes do err on the side of the utopian ideals of self-ownership and autonomy. And that’s OK. Somebody has to, because you know there are plenty in this world erring on the side of dystopian authoritarianism.
Anyway, I bet if you took a poll of the average South Dakotan, the libertarian stance on whether private companies should be allowed to FORCE landowners to give up access across their property would be pretty darn popular.
Then, ask if they support kxl or the co2 pipeline and I bet many would be proven hypocrites. Eminent domain is only an issue to conservatives when it grants the left a win.
Lies.
There’s no way to calculate any of those numbers, Summit just paid the Argus Leader to print that story.
There sure is. Look at existing production rates and constraints and it would be easy to tell. If your plant currently produces 100 million gallons that is sold for X amount with a carbon intensity score of 55 and now you are increasing production to 140 million gallons at 5 CI and selling for 30% more, I can tell a lot from that information. Increased taxes. Increased corn production. Increases all over the place. Why don’t you point out the number you are concerned about and how it can’t be calculated?
There actually are ways of calculating probable economic impact. Congressional Budget Office does it all the time, there’s literally a field of economics devoted to it. But you keep on smoking that uneducated everything is a conspiracy pipe.
If it’s such a good deal and it’s gonna make so much money if you come to someone that doesn’t want it just go around them. Duh, this isn’t rocket science.
If the Iowa company can make millions upon billions of dollars through the 50 to a hundred years the pipeline will operate, why can’t it negotiate the price of the easement with the landowner?? Why not meet the landowners sale price? Or, as the previous writer pointed out, go around the reluctant land owner. In the USA we build our business on the concept of willing buyer equals willing seller.
A study no doubt commissioned and paid for by Summit Carbon.
That’s how this game works.
That would be a false statement. A lie.
https://dakotawarcollege.com/study-carbon-pipelines-would-boost-corn-demand-add-nearly-6-billion-to-south-dakota-economy/
Proposed carbon pipelines would raise the premium on corn for South Dakota farmers and inject nearly $6 billion in gross output for the state over a 10-year period, according to a study released today.
The report, commissioned by the South Dakota Ethanol Producers Association, seeks to quantify the economic impact of the proposed Summit and Navigator pipeline projects, which together would cross 25 counties in eastern South Dakota and connect to 13 of the state’s 16 bioethanol plants.