Guest Column: Don’t apply different pipeline rules to ethanol, our most important state energy industry.

@SoDakCampaigns

Carbon Capture pipelines are common carriers. Don’t apply different pipeline rules to ethanol, our most important state energy industry.
by Walt Wendland, CEO, Ringneck Energy

Recently, Representative Will Mortenson (R-Pierre) wrote an editorial outlining his thoughts regarding eminent domain and carbon pipelines. Rep. Mortenson believes the legislature should look at changing decades old policies to pick and choose which projects should have the right to use eminent domain, despite the harm such changes may bring to our state’s number one industry. While I appreciate the House Majority Leader’s self-professed warmth for ethanol, I find his premises don’t meet the facts and his conclusions to be missing some accurate considerations.

The proposed Carbon Capture pipelines are common carriers under the law. They are transportation entities which have contracted with others to transport goods for a fee. They conduct open seasons and maintain capacity for walk up shippers with goods to transport which meet the specifications of the pipeline. In all respects the proposed pipelines are organized and proposed like the many other pipelines which transport gas and oil for a fee. Why would we apply different rules to these pipelines which compete with them and support our most significant industry? We wouldn’t.

Rep. Mortenson professes to be for eminent domain for other uses but against the use of eminent domain for the carbon capture pipelines. South Dakota has had laws on the books for the use of eminent domain for more than 100 years. The laws are critical for the viability of such projects and for the fair treatment of landowners.  The SD House of Representatives wouldn’t function well if each member had a complete veto over legislation. Pipelines can’t be constructed in that situation either.

The ethanol industry is important to South Dakota and I’m glad to agree with him in that respect. More than one of every two rows of corn grown in this state is sold for use in renewable fuels. Corn prices and land prices have been built upon and depend upon this market.

Yet the ethanol industry is under tremendous pressure going forward. Fuel markets worldwide are demanding a less carbon intensive product. And renewable fuels produced elsewhere are seeking to meet that demand squarely. Carbon capture and sequestration represent the most economical way, by far to lower carbon scores and meet the developing demand. Without carbon capture and sequestration, our state’s renewable fuel industry is at a disadvantage and future opportunities at risk. One can’t be for ethanol and be against carbon capture at the same time. That is a position which doesn’t exist in the real world.

Sincerely,

Walt Wendland, CEO
Ringneck Energy

19 thoughts on “Guest Column: Don’t apply different pipeline rules to ethanol, our most important state energy industry.”

  1. Walt is correct. The Summit project benefits all SD citizens. Ethanol promotes higher grain prices quality feed products and eco friendly fuels. High paying jobs and tax revenues are also created. Now the same farmers who benefit from ethanol are in a panic over a pipeline crossing their property in spite of being paid for access. The Summit project addresses one of todays most pressing issues , carbon capture. Might be time to put personal issues for the greater gain of all.

    2. I would disagree with you! In fact if this benefited farmers the ethanol company should pay the actual land owners with a carbon capture scheme that way all land owners could benefit. The simple fact is this is a made up scheme to transport a made up commodity and many hurt society by depriving the corn plants the much needed co2 the produce the corn you write about. But who cares about science. Let just make stuff up.

      1. Umm…sorry to burst your bubble but carbon sequestration into grasslands is part of this plan. Once the main line is done to ND, they will be connecting the various ethanol plants to supply that line. They are then going to do core sampling on land to determine if the ground is suitable for carbon storage. Farmers will be able to store carbon in their ground and be paid, as well as have strong buyers of their corn yo produce ethanol. Higher prices for Carbon neutral ethanol will translate to more money for farmers.

  4. When did South Dakota become the state for red tape and economy-killing regulation? Aren’t we supposed to roll out the red carpet for economic development projects, especially the ones that help our ag economy?

    1. Donate your backyard for methane generation from feedlot waste. If you say no, you obviously hate America and are a job murderer.

      1. Sure. I’ve worked at numerous rng sites. It’s pretty cool to watch animal waste or cheese waste power their manufacturing. Why wouldn’t a cheese company haul off waste water for free instead of having to treat it? Win-win for all parties involved. They are dropping anaerobic digesters all over the place where they make sense. Instead of a smelly lagoon, you have a smell free rubber bag generating power.

  5. Whether people use ethanol or not, South Dakota cannot go back to the days without it. Everyone would be worse off. Everyone. Not just the ethanol plants. Not just the farmers. It would trickle down to everyone.

  6. I find it funny that ethanol companies would steal land from the very people they say they want to help. Lol

  7. I find it hard to believe that a state run by Republicans would trample personal property rights to perpetuate the fake climate scam in order to comply with the fuel standards of California that banned the combustion engine.

    3. A fake climate scam that even oil companies are in on? They see the writing on the wall but you cling to your conspiracy theories. You might as well join the anti-vaxxers because your logic is on par with theirs.

    4. I’m with Doug! We need to ban Science books and teachers from our schools and universities too! Science is Socialist and a Socialist is a Communist!

  8. If you cannot win on the merits, you can always buy the legislators and the votes. Roger Chase’s check must have cleared, and Hugh Bartels is looking for a bonus. Further, Brett Koenecke’s push to have the PUC grant a permit this April is a masterful stroke to eviscerate landowner’s of their property rights. Walt, you are a heck of a guy!

    1. after thousands and thousands of miles of pipeline currently in place in SD, why all of a sudden are the eminent domain laws now unfair? and were they unfair to the 60% that have already signed in SD. after decades of agreements signed over those thousands of miles of pipeline, why are they now all of a sudden against the landowner? Why now?

  9. Where are those who keep saying Carbon Dioxide is good for us and helps our plants grow? Ah yes! Carbon Dioxide is good for us!

Comments are closed.