The anti-pipeline crowd claim to be for family farms, but they just did more to hurt family farmers than any group in the history of South Dakota.
When young farmers lose their farms because they can’t make their land and operating payments, I hope they feel some comfort in knowing landowners in McPherson county don’t have a pipeline running through their pasture. God forbid.
Have you talked to farmers or just speak on their behalf with assumptions. At the end of the day, why is the point that eminent domain should not be used for pipelines that aren’t common carriers not understood? A common carrier is transporting energy etc for the general public, not a select few. That’s why we have eminent domain because the benefit for water and gas and electricity outweigh the risks of fire, etc if a gas line explodes. Carbon capture runs a pipeline for the benefit of a small few at the expense of property rights. Just because the whackadoddles happened to get this right isn’t a reason for the rest of the republicans to oppose it. It’s not good business policy to support exceptions for eminent domain. Explain that part and maybe then it won’t seem like Casey’s just helping out Peterson to get him a better deal for his farm when the rest of the farmers who aren’t directly tied to ethanol plants won’t benefit.
That assumes a lot and you know what they say about assumptions.
What we know is that the inflation reduction act increased carbon capture credits. It didn’t create then, it increased them. That was brought by Biden to promote the green new deal. Increased credits to benefit ethanol plants also assumed the farmers selling to the ethanol plants would receive higher payments on corn but that’s an assumption not a guarantee. Now Trump is saying he will eliminate the inflation reduction act possibly including these carbon capture credits though that’s not popular.
Talk about changing the rules midstream for all the arguments that SD is doing that, it is in fact federal policies changing constantly.
What isn’t an assumption is a policy review that is not justifiable to use eminent domain for carbon capture which puts gas in the ground and isn’t using the gas for public benefit. You can argue it reduces carbon for the public but you could further argue we don’t actually need ethanol for anything so if it’s eliminated there’s no carbon.
Summit could have said they were transporting carbon for sale and use, but they aren’t. And they could have incentivized the process appropriately instead of using eminent domain but they didn’t. If ethanol plants will close, then perhaps they’re not good business if inflated credits are all that is keeping them afloat. But that’s not likely and that’s the fear lingering that keeps this nonsense going.
What are you going to say now when Trump changes the rules back, decreases the credits, and the farmers wouldn’t benefit anyway? A better approach is to ask Trump and our congressional delegation to advocate for the removal of California’s rules that are impacting SD business.
the arguments that there is no commercial use planned for the CO2 could be applied to sewer lines.
They don’t carry anything anybody wants. Nobody should have their front yard dug up for the installation of a municipal sewer line. Blah blah blah
This argument doesn’t hold water. Ethanol, at this point, is about national security. If we do get involved in some sort of altercation, ethanol will be a means of energy production and it will be necessary. Shutting down all these plants at this point would be harmful to our independent needs in the event that our more efficient sources go away. Whine all you want, but Ethanol isn’t going anywhere. If their customers require carbon conscience production, then you do what they want if you want to sell it to them. Considering British Columbia and California are our greatest buyers, it doesn’t matter what we think, it matters what they demand if we expect them to purchase our goods. You give the customer what they want and they want carbon friendly ethanol produced with good ol SD Corn that benefits our entire state all the way down to main street.
Biden is NOT the one who started the 45Q grants…Bush did, Obama added to it as did Trump. It’s really very simple…Summit saw a need as well as a way to make some money from that need. That’s called good business. The funds are already taken out of our taxes & right now the battery powered vehicle makers are taking advantage of it. When your in the business of selling something, you have to supply what your buyers want…pretty simply our Ethanol buyers want lower CI scores. If we want to continue selling SD Ethanol we have to lower those scores. Everyone in SD would benefit from this pipeline project one way or another….It’s a proven fact when Farmers make money Everyone benefits
“Ethanol buyers want lower CI scores. If we want to continue selling SD Ethanol we have to lower those scores.”
Exactly. Its like these guys are trying to sell gas ice augers to ice fisherman because they hate electric. I don’t know an ice fisherman that would buy anything other than an electric auger so good luck with that.
The Corn Grower’s Association and The Farm Bureau both are in favor of the pipeline
A few selfish property owners didn’t want a trench dug across their land.
I think we should give them railroad tracks and move the CO2 that way instead
I assume the decisions by summit and gevo have already been made. Great for district 8.
Let’s hope its a decision to keep fighting the haters…we need these projects in. South Dakota!!
The anti-pipeline crowd claim to be for family farms, but they just did more to hurt family farmers than any group in the history of South Dakota.
When young farmers lose their farms because they can’t make their land and operating payments, I hope they feel some comfort in knowing landowners in McPherson county don’t have a pipeline running through their pasture. God forbid.
Actually, a pipeline running several feet underneath their pastures.
The haters club has hurt SD Agriculture far worse than they ever thought… When the farmers fall under, they have the pipeline haters to thank for it!
Have you talked to farmers or just speak on their behalf with assumptions. At the end of the day, why is the point that eminent domain should not be used for pipelines that aren’t common carriers not understood? A common carrier is transporting energy etc for the general public, not a select few. That’s why we have eminent domain because the benefit for water and gas and electricity outweigh the risks of fire, etc if a gas line explodes. Carbon capture runs a pipeline for the benefit of a small few at the expense of property rights. Just because the whackadoddles happened to get this right isn’t a reason for the rest of the republicans to oppose it. It’s not good business policy to support exceptions for eminent domain. Explain that part and maybe then it won’t seem like Casey’s just helping out Peterson to get him a better deal for his farm when the rest of the farmers who aren’t directly tied to ethanol plants won’t benefit.
How do farmers NOT benefit from the Ethanol plants staying open??
That assumes a lot and you know what they say about assumptions.
What we know is that the inflation reduction act increased carbon capture credits. It didn’t create then, it increased them. That was brought by Biden to promote the green new deal. Increased credits to benefit ethanol plants also assumed the farmers selling to the ethanol plants would receive higher payments on corn but that’s an assumption not a guarantee. Now Trump is saying he will eliminate the inflation reduction act possibly including these carbon capture credits though that’s not popular.
Talk about changing the rules midstream for all the arguments that SD is doing that, it is in fact federal policies changing constantly.
What isn’t an assumption is a policy review that is not justifiable to use eminent domain for carbon capture which puts gas in the ground and isn’t using the gas for public benefit. You can argue it reduces carbon for the public but you could further argue we don’t actually need ethanol for anything so if it’s eliminated there’s no carbon.
Summit could have said they were transporting carbon for sale and use, but they aren’t. And they could have incentivized the process appropriately instead of using eminent domain but they didn’t. If ethanol plants will close, then perhaps they’re not good business if inflated credits are all that is keeping them afloat. But that’s not likely and that’s the fear lingering that keeps this nonsense going.
What are you going to say now when Trump changes the rules back, decreases the credits, and the farmers wouldn’t benefit anyway? A better approach is to ask Trump and our congressional delegation to advocate for the removal of California’s rules that are impacting SD business.
the arguments that there is no commercial use planned for the CO2 could be applied to sewer lines.
They don’t carry anything anybody wants. Nobody should have their front yard dug up for the installation of a municipal sewer line. Blah blah blah
This argument doesn’t hold water. Ethanol, at this point, is about national security. If we do get involved in some sort of altercation, ethanol will be a means of energy production and it will be necessary. Shutting down all these plants at this point would be harmful to our independent needs in the event that our more efficient sources go away. Whine all you want, but Ethanol isn’t going anywhere. If their customers require carbon conscience production, then you do what they want if you want to sell it to them. Considering British Columbia and California are our greatest buyers, it doesn’t matter what we think, it matters what they demand if we expect them to purchase our goods. You give the customer what they want and they want carbon friendly ethanol produced with good ol SD Corn that benefits our entire state all the way down to main street.
Biden is NOT the one who started the 45Q grants…Bush did, Obama added to it as did Trump. It’s really very simple…Summit saw a need as well as a way to make some money from that need. That’s called good business. The funds are already taken out of our taxes & right now the battery powered vehicle makers are taking advantage of it. When your in the business of selling something, you have to supply what your buyers want…pretty simply our Ethanol buyers want lower CI scores. If we want to continue selling SD Ethanol we have to lower those scores. Everyone in SD would benefit from this pipeline project one way or another….It’s a proven fact when Farmers make money Everyone benefits
“Ethanol buyers want lower CI scores. If we want to continue selling SD Ethanol we have to lower those scores.”
Exactly. Its like these guys are trying to sell gas ice augers to ice fisherman because they hate electric. I don’t know an ice fisherman that would buy anything other than an electric auger so good luck with that.
The Corn Grower’s Association and The Farm Bureau both are in favor of the pipeline
A few selfish property owners didn’t want a trench dug across their land.
I think we should give them railroad tracks and move the CO2 that way instead
Farm Bureau does not have a position on the CO2 pipeline.
https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/sd-farm-bureau-takes-stance-on-carbon-pipelines
Correction says “Farm Bureau does not have a position on the CO2 pipeline.”
Was the above comment an intentional falsehood or a post from ignorance?
Or maybe from the hope that nobody would fact check it.