Went to the local forum here in Brookings last night on Referred Law 21. And it might have been the most painfully stupid thing I’ve ever attended in over 35 years of politics. And that says alot, because I’ve been to a lot of stupid events, where people say a lot of stupid things. But, I might have a new winner.
Arrived at the event outside, and had a burger with the pro-ethanol people who were set up in the parking lot handing out food left and right as catered by HyVee. Nice folks – a lot of ethanol producers and advocates.
And then it went downhill from there. If you walked into the event, you were instantly struck by the tables full of anti-pipeline merchandise, where sponsors were selling… er, trading for a donation of varying amounts t-shirts and signs. They were handing out sheets which had information about who was sponsoring the event, and who was speaking.
The event sheet says that the Forum Hosts were Craig Hoffman, Clint Hoyer and MeLisa Elijah without any other disclosure. I didn’t get a chance to look until I got home, but the nature of the sponsors might have been disclosed up front. Here’s Craig Hoffman actively opposing the pipeline, Here’s Craig Hoffman & Clint Hoyer on a podcast opposing the pipeline, and here’s MeLisa Elijah Opposing the pipeline here and here. And here. Obviously, the forum hosts are all anti-co2 pipeline, despite the fact the event was not advertised as such. And things didn’t improve from there.
Opponents and proponents were given 10 minutes per speaker.. except for the extra 20 minutes they gave geologist Tim Kenyon to go on and on to make claims about how c02 pipelines leak and kill prairie dogs. There was maybe 3 seconds where he mumbled that pipelines were safer than trucks.. but it was three seconds out of 20 mind-numbing minutes of fear-mongering over co2 pipelines. That was the set up for Nebraskan Trent Loos.. whom someone described to me as a “western shock jock.”
Are they importing opponents or self-promoters?
Here’s where we get to the painfully stupid parts with the opponents who were both hauled in from out of state. Trent Loos, who claims he’s broadcasted daily on 100 stations across the United States gave me pause to lament how stupid he is making his listeners with his angry pronouncements and ridiculous claims. Two of the big takeaways from Trent Loos – 100 people DIE every year from changing out co2 canisters on soda fountain machines. And sequestering carbon in the ground is causing volcanoes in other parts of the world.
What? Did I actually hear someone say those things? The soda machine claim in relation to the RL 21 debate was a huge red flag that we were on a bus to crazytown, but the volcano comment left no doubt that we’d arrived in the center square.
Opponent/Economist from Iowa Doyle Turner spent his time attacking Bruce Rastetter. Literally that was his biggest point. So he doesn’t like the guy. OK. That happens, but how is that the basis to travel to South Dakota to yell about a ballot issue? Offering crazy tales about exploding co2 canisters killing the masses might hold some people rapt…
State Rep. Karla Lems paying attention. Rep. Sjaarda, not so much.
…but it doesn’t do a lot for non-kool aid drinkers.
The event did feature a couple of actual people who actually live in South Dakota, both proponents. I thought they had good information, despite being invited into the viper’s den. But was anyone listening?
Prepared to discuss Legislation. Not prepared to discuss exploding soda fountains…
Proponent State Representative Roger Chase is a landowner actually affected by the pipeline, and has signed an easement to allow it’s construction on his land. As a legislator, he seemed in unfamiliar territory he was there to actually discuss Referred Law 21/Senate Bill 201, and not crazy conspiracies from the Internet.
However, in the time allotted, he did a good job explaining the Landowner Bill of Rights, and how it would provide for additional protections for landowners, revenue for landowners and counties, and the provisions of the bill as passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Noem.
Jim Seurer, CEO of Glacial Lakes Energy. Good info, but were opponents listening?
Jim Seurer, CEO of Glacial Lakes Energy provided a eye-opening industry perspective on why hooking to the pipeline is vial to the South Dakota Ethanol industry, and how they have been watching where the world is headed, towards de-carbonization, whether people like it or not.
Ethanol plants are not doing this because they want to, but they are doing it as driven by the consumer market, and industry trends. Seurer notied how decarbonization is coming, and those efforts are only going to continue to get stronger. He pointed to one specific presentation he attended where a white paper was discussed that he recommended that everyone look up. A Strategic Roadmap for Decarbonizing the U.S. Ethanol Industry notes the following:
Ethanol is a vital component of U.S. rural economies that contributed over $57 billion to the national gross domestic product (GDP) in 2022. Ethanol accounts for 28% of U.S. farming GDP alone while sustaining over 420,000 jobs. Not only is ethanol the most commonly produced and used biofuel in the United States, but the nation produces over half of the global ethanol supply.
While ethanol has much lower carbon intensity than conventional fuels, considerable room for decarbonization still exists.
and..
Current incentives provide a foundation for ethanol decarbonization but are not enough on their own. Additional policy measures will accelerate the adoption of the strategic decarbonization roadmap for the ethanol industry to reach net-zero carbon intensity and move beyond. This report makes thirteen recommendations to ethanol producers, Congress, the administration, USDA, DOE, IRS, EPA, and state governments
Seurer noted that these are the challenges the ethanol industry faces right now, and they are not going away. He also pointed out that whether ag producers like it or not, and speaking as someone who is on the front lines of agriculture – decarbonization is coming, and it is coming for not just ethanol, but for individual ag producers. And now is the time for ag to prepare to deal with it.
Not that this crowd wanted reality. From there it moved into Q&A Time, with the pipeline opponents who sponsored the event filtering them forward at their preference, predictably. The questions, and much of the discussion for the portion I hung around for did not have a lot (anything?) to do with the landowner bill of rights that people will actually note on, as much as opponent’s focus on carbon credits and pipelines, and crazy statements on carbon dioxide.
I exited around 8-8:30, as I had to get my dogs out. So I didn’t hear if we were in danger from anything else exploding. I think I had enough at that point.
So, my final assessment of the event last night was that despite a reasonable presentation of what the law actually says, and the challenges the ethanol industry faces, that was not the purpose of the forum last night, because they were after fear mongering and anything but what the measure actually does. When you fail to disclose it was organized by opponents for opponents at the get-go, it was an event that was biased as hell when it wasn’t being painfully stupid.
The Anti 201/ Doden disciples have been lying and scaring folks for a couple years now. The conspiracies are rampant! Did they mention how the earth is going to tip on its axis when all that co2 is pumped into the ground? I guess that’s means the earth will tilt back after all the oil was pumped out? 🤷♂️
They are stone cold crazy.
Anti-pipeliners are the kinds of people that Mark Twain had in mind when he said, “ Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Said no one EVER. Roger fraudulently violated his oath. He swore not to take money for personal gain and then got mega money from Summit during session. Naturally he was spokesman for this very sleazy group. He also swore to protect and serve ( not himself). Protecting people is not implementing a scam that just may blow people up.
Seurer gave away investor money to get people into office. He is a dunce. It will likely because of him that our Glacial Lakes plants will be owned by Ratstetter when everything falls apart by design.
If you’re gonna make those kind of bs claims you should at least sign your name. You’re a shining example of the crazy propaganda and smear machine that is the anti 201 and pipeline crew. Disgusting.
If he were so honest, Rep. Chase would have mentioned that RL 21 ends all local control over siting of pipelines, powerlines and electrc generating facilities. As he picked and chose what parts of the bill to read to his audience, he completely omitted that section. That is deceitful. It is also the biggest objection I have to this legislation.
Because of his personal involvement in the pipeline and his personal gain, he should have recused himself from the vote. He has a conflict of interest.
Why you folks anonymous? What you scared of?
Painfully stupid is the most appropriate description of the arguments made by the people opposed to referred law 21. Every time Trent, or that guy from Iowa said something stupid, the slack jaws and morons in the audience would clap without thinking twice.
Yes, there are a lot of fringe folks that are a part of the No on RL21. There are also a lot of sober minded people who are fed up with just another corporate welfare scheme diverting our tax dollars to support questionable science.
Anonymous at 3:18 p.m…. That’s where I’m at. I support ethanol and the farmers, but the CO2 sequester nonsense is a grift that will protect the industry and producers only until the enviro-crazies find a new phony concern and move the goalposts. We’ve seen this movie before.
What does that have to do with making sure ag producers have enumerated rights under the law? If it doesn’t pass, they have what they have now. It’s not going to stop the pipeline, and it’s not going to change consumer behavior.
As I understand it, the debate has been how best to reconcile issues involving pipelines and property-owners. In this case, the pipeline is a fed-approved project moving CO2 to a hole in the ground. Meantime, the Keystone pipeline was killed illegally on the first day of the Biden administration. No one gave a rat’s patoot about rights then.
It’s not consumer issues I’m worried about. It’s the utterly fraudulent subtext that a pipeline in service to “saving the environment” prompts the Legislature’s action, but no one did jack about a pipeline that would have moved billions of barrels of civilization’s most beneficial ingredient — oil.
What? That’s not even remotely true. Transboundary projects must have a presidential cross-border permit. And they can be revoked as part of the presidents authority to protect our borders integrity. You can be mad that XL was canned, but Christ at least have a valid and non-conspiratorial reason behind it.
Read what you just wrote….. “the president has the authority to protect the border’s integrity.” Think about what you just said about Biden. Now we know that Anonymous is not able to reason.
Anonymous at 7:41 p.m…. No conspiracy at all, just blatant partisan politics by the Biden administration. Keystone was a great project that would have benefited the U.S. and Canada and consumers immensely. All the contracts were legal and above-board. If there were corruption by the parties or default or reasons of convenience, then the feds could cancel, but none of those were the case. Biden killed the project as a reward to his whacked-out environmentalist base, period. End of story.
I keep seeing people missing the point of the legislation. I personally think carbon sequestration is dumb. But it’s also how things are moving right now. So the legislators did what they are supposed to do and legislated. The see where it’s headed and put in some safeguards and compensation for landowners. They didn’t change eminent domain laws. If this gets voted out, they will have nothing and when/if the carbon pipeline is deemed a common carrier, the landowner will have very little recourse. I’ve never seen this as a “pro” pipeline bill. These pipelines seem destined to happen regardless. Would be nice if there were established protections and requirements
Sounds like faulty logic to me, “If it’s going tp happen.” The point is, it doesn’t have to happen. And when you take away local control, you have no control of anything that happens to your community. So many objections until it happens to you, your family, your friends. Be honest, would you subject your family and community to a hazard like this if it were put in your front yard?
I voted early and Voted no. I’m an ethanol shareholder, but this is a scam. Ethanol will continue to prosper, and SD will continue to rake in the money.
So you think voting no means that there isn’t going to be a pipeline somehow? You aren’t voting on whether or not to allow the pipeline. Is that seriously what people think they are doing? Honest question as I’ve been confused by the no argument for a while now.
That is what people think because this seems like a back room quid pro quo. The landowners “get” this bill, and then the PUC approves the permit. I don’t want that deal so I’m voting No.
The puc that has always had the ability to approve the pipleline? So the legislature wants to get some compensation and protection in place before the inevitable happens? Not sure that qualifies as quid pro quo.
The ethanol industry will attempt to put a pipeline through SD with or without SB201. The so-called “bill of rights” was developed after 10 failures/amendments to pass the bill. In reality, the “bill of rights” confers no rights to property owers. Just read the bill. It’s obvious no rights are confered. On the other hand, the bill removes the longstanding tradition of local control. That’s been the intent of the bill from the beginning. The ethanol industry doesn’t want to contend with umpteen different county commissions.
When the voters tell the ethanol industry that property rights are still a natural, constitutional right that cannot be taken away, the industry will need to start over with a new bill, but this time will need to include property owners in its development.
I have always found it beneficial to take the amended bill and pull it up, side by side, with the current statute and compare. In this case, it becomes clear that the pic ALWAYS had the ability to override local zoning and ordinances. Not much really changed. Except now pipelines have to actually give notice and write a check for showing up on your property. Not to mention hold the landowner harmless, essentially pay for their property taxes and add an extra foot of depth to the pipeline placement. Not sure how all this plays out in the end. The legislation gets voted down and they declare a victory? But what happens when the pipeline gets common carrier status, gets the permits and actually uses imminent domain and there are zero statutory protections for the landowners? Do they all stand up and admit to being too dumb and shortsighted to understand the repercussions?
If Ethanol will prosper then why is it that EVERY Ethanol plant in the state on board? And why are they saying they don’t survive without this project?
So when the pipeline doesn’t go through, how do you expect ethanol plants to get their carbon intensity scores below 50? Most of our ethanol is sold to British Columbia so when they cant meet their requirements, then what? Good luck. The purchasers in Canada are demanding it be more carbon friendly. It’s not up to the ethanol plants that they have to comply if that is what the buyers want.
Interesting that I was accused of “fear mongering” yet none of the facts I presented were contested. As I said at the meeting, the balance between risk and benefit need to be considered and being informed of the risks is an essential part of that process.
Nobody really cares, Mr. Kenyon. grudznick knows they will just keep burying pipelines and wires all over the place, and wishes they would consider re-digging The Borehole one of these days.
Hey, glad to see it doesn’t just happen in my county. The opposition of solar held a “solar informational meeting” in regards to solar farms. It was legitimately just opponents there other than a few people looking for actual information and not getting any. One time a solar representative was allowed to speak and he just got booed or heckled.
Ended up the opposition barraged the county commissioners with phone calls and tanked any hope for a solar project.
You should be thankful those people saved your county. I know of a landowner who recently had a mechanics lien put against his property for $9-million, yes, $9,000,000. Also know of several landowners who have gone bankrupt because LLCs protect themselves and not the landowners. Many who have entered into lease agreements are having buyers remorse and can’t get out of them. Those that are successful only seem to benefit the landowner and not the county. The negative impacts are far greater and have been surfacing at an alarming rate since the solar industry is no longer able to hide or control the publicity. Just food for thought…your county is probably better off.
FACT – A DOT105J340/400W rail car holds 22,000 gallons of liquid CO2 (www.fra.dot.gov). A pipeline release from a 24″ pipeline with 15 miles between valves would release 2.1 million gallons. That is the equivalent of 95 rail cars. You evaluate the risk and make an informed decision.
Do the math. 15 miles between valves on a 24″ pipeline. Assume the valves close immediately. What is that liquid volume? At least I post my name instead of hiding behind “Anoymous”….
That’s the problem, many (like you) think everything is so safe–until it’s not! That said, why don’t you, your family, and friends be the first to allow the pipeline be buried in your front yard. It’s all about “RISK” and any engineer will tell you “SAFETY” comes first, that’s the first lesson they learn. Many of these companies are investment driven, people are just an obstacle in the way of profit. This project is no different, the ethanol plants have other alternatives for carbon reduction–this project is all about greed! Wake up…
I am torn between voting no, because if it isnt stopped that landowner bill of rights will make all our utilities more expensive, and voting yes, because if these yahoos are successful they will never sit down and shut up.
I don’t gove a hoot about carbon sequestration, but using it for fracking is a great idea
Tim: Yes I can do the math! What are the odds that a pipeline will leak say in the middle of Brookings vs a train car derailment in the same town. Didn’t ND go through the same thing with derailed oil cars?
You might want to develop some expertise since you are arguing comparative measures. It is the main alternative, after all. Ya know, helping people make informed decisions and all that.
Would be nice if you took some of your own advice, what do you base your absolute knowledge on, is it based on the hundreds of years of this particular technology? Just like many others, you regurgitate marketing information like its scientific fact–so uninformed to the dangers of this technology, but it’s really not about safety, is it?
Is Trent Loos a radio or podcast persona?
Trent Loose is just padding his pockets. What do you suppose his cut is from fund raising?
He’s a male version of Amanda Radke…using the pipeline to sell stuff & get speaking engagements…all based on the ridiculous lies they tell!
Does anyone recall what the South Dakota Supreme Court decision was??
The Anti 201/ Doden disciples have been lying and scaring folks for a couple years now. The conspiracies are rampant! Did they mention how the earth is going to tip on its axis when all that co2 is pumped into the ground? I guess that’s means the earth will tilt back after all the oil was pumped out? 🤷♂️
They are stone cold crazy.
Anti-pipeliners are the kinds of people that Mark Twain had in mind when he said, “ Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Roger Chase and Jim Seuer are two thoughtful, honest people.
Said no one EVER. Roger fraudulently violated his oath. He swore not to take money for personal gain and then got mega money from Summit during session. Naturally he was spokesman for this very sleazy group. He also swore to protect and serve ( not himself). Protecting people is not implementing a scam that just may blow people up.
Seurer gave away investor money to get people into office. He is a dunce. It will likely because of him that our Glacial Lakes plants will be owned by Ratstetter when everything falls apart by design.
If you’re gonna make those kind of bs claims you should at least sign your name. You’re a shining example of the crazy propaganda and smear machine that is the anti 201 and pipeline crew. Disgusting.
Says the anonymous respondent
If he were so honest, Rep. Chase would have mentioned that RL 21 ends all local control over siting of pipelines, powerlines and electrc generating facilities. As he picked and chose what parts of the bill to read to his audience, he completely omitted that section. That is deceitful. It is also the biggest objection I have to this legislation.
Because of his personal involvement in the pipeline and his personal gain, he should have recused himself from the vote. He has a conflict of interest.
Why you folks anonymous? What you scared of?
Nice Job Mary
Voted no on it.
” Voted no on it. ”
You just voted against landowners.
Painfully stupid is the most appropriate description of the arguments made by the people opposed to referred law 21. Every time Trent, or that guy from Iowa said something stupid, the slack jaws and morons in the audience would clap without thinking twice.
Yes, there are a lot of fringe folks that are a part of the No on RL21. There are also a lot of sober minded people who are fed up with just another corporate welfare scheme diverting our tax dollars to support questionable science.
Anonymous at 3:18 p.m…. That’s where I’m at. I support ethanol and the farmers, but the CO2 sequester nonsense is a grift that will protect the industry and producers only until the enviro-crazies find a new phony concern and move the goalposts. We’ve seen this movie before.
What does that have to do with making sure ag producers have enumerated rights under the law? If it doesn’t pass, they have what they have now. It’s not going to stop the pipeline, and it’s not going to change consumer behavior.
As I understand it, the debate has been how best to reconcile issues involving pipelines and property-owners. In this case, the pipeline is a fed-approved project moving CO2 to a hole in the ground. Meantime, the Keystone pipeline was killed illegally on the first day of the Biden administration. No one gave a rat’s patoot about rights then.
It’s not consumer issues I’m worried about. It’s the utterly fraudulent subtext that a pipeline in service to “saving the environment” prompts the Legislature’s action, but no one did jack about a pipeline that would have moved billions of barrels of civilization’s most beneficial ingredient — oil.
Are you suggesting that the state should have somehow overruled the Feds on Keystone? Pray tell, how would that have worked?
Anonymous at 10:53 a.m…. Feds have no power to break contracts. It was blatantly illegal. The states could have challenged it.
What? That’s not even remotely true. Transboundary projects must have a presidential cross-border permit. And they can be revoked as part of the presidents authority to protect our borders integrity. You can be mad that XL was canned, but Christ at least have a valid and non-conspiratorial reason behind it.
Read what you just wrote….. “the president has the authority to protect the border’s integrity.” Think about what you just said about Biden. Now we know that Anonymous is not able to reason.
The question at hand was the asinine claim that contract law supersedes everything. The Mexico border is a different can of worms, do try and keep up.
Anonymous at 7:41 p.m…. No conspiracy at all, just blatant partisan politics by the Biden administration. Keystone was a great project that would have benefited the U.S. and Canada and consumers immensely. All the contracts were legal and above-board. If there were corruption by the parties or default or reasons of convenience, then the feds could cancel, but none of those were the case. Biden killed the project as a reward to his whacked-out environmentalist base, period. End of story.
If they cared so much about it before they got tax credits they would have done it then.
It’s a scam.
I keep seeing people missing the point of the legislation. I personally think carbon sequestration is dumb. But it’s also how things are moving right now. So the legislators did what they are supposed to do and legislated. The see where it’s headed and put in some safeguards and compensation for landowners. They didn’t change eminent domain laws. If this gets voted out, they will have nothing and when/if the carbon pipeline is deemed a common carrier, the landowner will have very little recourse. I’ve never seen this as a “pro” pipeline bill. These pipelines seem destined to happen regardless. Would be nice if there were established protections and requirements
Sounds like faulty logic to me, “If it’s going tp happen.” The point is, it doesn’t have to happen. And when you take away local control, you have no control of anything that happens to your community. So many objections until it happens to you, your family, your friends. Be honest, would you subject your family and community to a hazard like this if it were put in your front yard?
From your picture it seems this Sjaarda individual has OK legs. We’re not talking Bosworth or Hubbel legs here, but they seem OK.
https://rapidcityjournal.com/mellette-couple-charged-with-cattle-fraud/article_070f5127-ddbc-5fdf-91e3-c4134f23f0b8.html
The guy is really in love with himself.
Now, follow up with the rest of the story from this article posted in 2002. Or did you just conveniently leave it out?
Why did YOU leave it out, given your passion about the topic? If you have relevant information, share it, and stop whining like a child. Good lord.
I voted early and Voted no. I’m an ethanol shareholder, but this is a scam. Ethanol will continue to prosper, and SD will continue to rake in the money.
So you think voting no means that there isn’t going to be a pipeline somehow? You aren’t voting on whether or not to allow the pipeline. Is that seriously what people think they are doing? Honest question as I’ve been confused by the no argument for a while now.
That is what people think because this seems like a back room quid pro quo. The landowners “get” this bill, and then the PUC approves the permit. I don’t want that deal so I’m voting No.
The puc that has always had the ability to approve the pipleline? So the legislature wants to get some compensation and protection in place before the inevitable happens? Not sure that qualifies as quid pro quo.
The ethanol industry will attempt to put a pipeline through SD with or without SB201. The so-called “bill of rights” was developed after 10 failures/amendments to pass the bill. In reality, the “bill of rights” confers no rights to property owers. Just read the bill. It’s obvious no rights are confered. On the other hand, the bill removes the longstanding tradition of local control. That’s been the intent of the bill from the beginning. The ethanol industry doesn’t want to contend with umpteen different county commissions.
When the voters tell the ethanol industry that property rights are still a natural, constitutional right that cannot be taken away, the industry will need to start over with a new bill, but this time will need to include property owners in its development.
What world are you living in? This is not remotely accurate
https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/267346.pdf
I have always found it beneficial to take the amended bill and pull it up, side by side, with the current statute and compare. In this case, it becomes clear that the pic ALWAYS had the ability to override local zoning and ordinances. Not much really changed. Except now pipelines have to actually give notice and write a check for showing up on your property. Not to mention hold the landowner harmless, essentially pay for their property taxes and add an extra foot of depth to the pipeline placement. Not sure how all this plays out in the end. The legislation gets voted down and they declare a victory? But what happens when the pipeline gets common carrier status, gets the permits and actually uses imminent domain and there are zero statutory protections for the landowners? Do they all stand up and admit to being too dumb and shortsighted to understand the repercussions?
In what world does a foreign company get common carrier status to use imminent domain in the US?
If Ethanol will prosper then why is it that EVERY Ethanol plant in the state on board? And why are they saying they don’t survive without this project?
BS, its $$$$ for the shareholders
So when the pipeline doesn’t go through, how do you expect ethanol plants to get their carbon intensity scores below 50? Most of our ethanol is sold to British Columbia so when they cant meet their requirements, then what? Good luck. The purchasers in Canada are demanding it be more carbon friendly. It’s not up to the ethanol plants that they have to comply if that is what the buyers want.
Interesting that I was accused of “fear mongering” yet none of the facts I presented were contested. As I said at the meeting, the balance between risk and benefit need to be considered and being informed of the risks is an essential part of that process.
Nobody really cares, Mr. Kenyon. grudznick knows they will just keep burying pipelines and wires all over the place, and wishes they would consider re-digging The Borehole one of these days.
You might be right, but I gotta at least try.
To clarify….by “try” I mean to try to educate folks on the risks so they can make an informed decision.
Hey, glad to see it doesn’t just happen in my county. The opposition of solar held a “solar informational meeting” in regards to solar farms. It was legitimately just opponents there other than a few people looking for actual information and not getting any. One time a solar representative was allowed to speak and he just got booed or heckled.
Ended up the opposition barraged the county commissioners with phone calls and tanked any hope for a solar project.
You should be thankful those people saved your county. I know of a landowner who recently had a mechanics lien put against his property for $9-million, yes, $9,000,000. Also know of several landowners who have gone bankrupt because LLCs protect themselves and not the landowners. Many who have entered into lease agreements are having buyers remorse and can’t get out of them. Those that are successful only seem to benefit the landowner and not the county. The negative impacts are far greater and have been surfacing at an alarming rate since the solar industry is no longer able to hide or control the publicity. Just food for thought…your county is probably better off.
What pray tell are those people going to do if the ethanol plants decide to load the CO2 onto rail cars and rail it up to ND?
FACT – A DOT105J340/400W rail car holds 22,000 gallons of liquid CO2 (www.fra.dot.gov). A pipeline release from a 24″ pipeline with 15 miles between valves would release 2.1 million gallons. That is the equivalent of 95 rail cars. You evaluate the risk and make an informed decision.
Scare-mongering at its worst.
You really think there are not safeguards in place to shut off the flow in case of a rupture.
If so you really don’t know a thing about protection systems.
Do the math. 15 miles between valves on a 24″ pipeline. Assume the valves close immediately. What is that liquid volume? At least I post my name instead of hiding behind “Anoymous”….
That’s the problem, many (like you) think everything is so safe–until it’s not! That said, why don’t you, your family, and friends be the first to allow the pipeline be buried in your front yard. It’s all about “RISK” and any engineer will tell you “SAFETY” comes first, that’s the first lesson they learn. Many of these companies are investment driven, people are just an obstacle in the way of profit. This project is no different, the ethanol plants have other alternatives for carbon reduction–this project is all about greed! Wake up…
I am torn between voting no, because if it isnt stopped that landowner bill of rights will make all our utilities more expensive, and voting yes, because if these yahoos are successful they will never sit down and shut up.
I don’t gove a hoot about carbon sequestration, but using it for fracking is a great idea
Tim: Yes I can do the math! What are the odds that a pipeline will leak say in the middle of Brookings vs a train car derailment in the same town. Didn’t ND go through the same thing with derailed oil cars?
Shhhh, don’t bring up the fact that pipelines are safer than rail cars. It’ll spoil their fear-mongering narrative.
Good question. I do not know the answer. maybe an expert in trail derailments can respond.
Facts and hard data are a fickle thing to argue against. Something that anti-pipliners might yet just learn.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2023/02/24/your-friendly-reminder-that-pipelines-are-safer-than-rail/
Does this include CO2 pipelines?
Does this include CO2 pipelines?
You might want to develop some expertise since you are arguing comparative measures. It is the main alternative, after all. Ya know, helping people make informed decisions and all that.
Would be nice if you took some of your own advice, what do you base your absolute knowledge on, is it based on the hundreds of years of this particular technology? Just like many others, you regurgitate marketing information like its scientific fact–so uninformed to the dangers of this technology, but it’s really not about safety, is it?
Did you just create a conspiracy in this post? Do you attend the John Dale school of debate?
Trent “I got 6.1% in the 2022 Nebraska GOP Governor’s Primary running with Theresa Thibodeau” Loos.