For those of you following the carbon pipeline which will connect state ethanol plants with solutions for Carbon Dioxide, as well as provide hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenues for South Dakota, Farm Bureau just held a forum at Dakotafest for Carbon Pipelines which is also available to watch on-line. The Summit Pipeline currently has 7 ethanol plants signed up in South Dakota.
Moderated by Scott VanderWal with South Dakota Farm Bureau, the panel also included representatives of Glacial Lakes Energy, Summit Carbon Solutions (who advertises on the right), and staff from the Public Utilities Commission.
LIVE NOW: This forum updates the status
of the proposed carbon dioxide pipeline and offers #Dakotafest attendees a chance to hear directly from project stakeholders. #dakotafest22 @SDFarmBureau @FarmBureau https://t.co/FtZm3Oygul pic.twitter.com/BjPmgWqkXy— Dakotafest (@Dakotafest) August 16, 2022
Carbon Pipeline Forum from American Farm Bureau on Vimeo.
Can someone qualified offer an opinion on this project?
It seems absurd.
California is the largest domestic consumer of ethanol. Canada is the largest consumer of exported ethanol. Both are willing to pay a premium if the ethanol carbon footprint can be reduced. A company will charge ethanol plants to sequester carbon in the soil. Farmers who allow the use of their ground will be paid based on initial core samples providing the current readings and then after pumping for so long. This will allow them to make money sequestering carbon. Ethanol plants will make more money selling ethanol which means they can pay to sequester the carbon and also pay more for corn. Environment wins. Ethanol producers win. Farmers win. Landowners win. About the only one who loses will be the person who loses to eminent domain.
Better to make a deal to grant an easement than go to court and get paid less after forcing eminent domain
It’s all fun and games until the pipeline leaks or ruptures and the CO2 escapes and suffocates every animal in its path.
The Lake Nyos disaster of 1986 shows how devastating a natural release of CO2 can be.
Landowners and their neighbors will need assurances the CO2 will not inadvertently be released.
Well if SD was all for an oil pipeline, I can’t imagine a CO2 pipeline will be that hard to get through.
Is it a pioeline, or are farmers expected to store CO2 in the soil? If stored in the soil, what happens to it? I am confused. Anything proposed by the greenies and liked by California is immediately suspect.
It’s actually being proposed by the ethanol producers so they can continue to produce and sell ethanol to the greenies. The greenies out in CA just want more accountability for production so whatever lowers the carbon score, they will support.
There are two general types of “carbon storage” being discussed: one is collecting CO2 emissions via (in this case) a CO2 pipeline and transporting that CO2 to a location where geology supports pumping it underground at a deep depth where it can be stored, with the intent that time, pressure, etc. will slowly transition the compressed gas back into a solid state of carbon. The second is what was referenced in an earlier comment where farmers, through various practices of land management and vegetative growth, could effectively store carbon in the soil by increasing the organic matter levels in the soil, which is ultimately storing more carbon below the soil surface as well.
Kind of a ‘point source’ versus a ‘non-point source’ approach, if you will. So yes, two different “carbon storage” options being discussed.
As to the reference to California/Canada and their willingness to pay a premium for ethanol: they are currently among the highest valued markets for carbon storage/carbon reduction/carbon sequestration/however you want to label it.
Corporate oligarchs sucking at the tax barrel teat in order to line their personal pockets. This is not about environmentalism. This is not about conservation. This is not about energy independence. This is simply the State of South Dakota’s political machine doing exactly the same thing it has always done; dating back to good old Pettigrew…..screw the little guy. Essentially the host of this website has walked away from true Republican principles in favor of some advertising money. Disrespect for landowners and producers, disrespect for local government, such ruse. Shameful.
Nonymouse, any time I see people accuse others of not adhering to “Republican principles” I know they are talking about the Republican principles which exist only in their own heads.
In this case, the plan is to run underground pipelines carrying something some people want, or don’t want. That’s what pipelines do, they carry stuff people want, like natural gas, water, oil, or things people don’t want, like sewage or runoff. Whether people want carbon dioxide or are trying to get rid of it is irrelevant to people who see that moving it from one location to another is a service somebody is willing to pay for. It doesn’t have to make sense.
Not to mention, this is all about environmentalism. California and its clean fuel standards will demand that this process be done. With this, the same technology will be used off coal plants in places like North Dakota.
Carbon capture is a product that the traditional, sustainable, and affordable energy providers have had to buy into in order to sustain their business against the environmental far-left.
The environment would *really* win if we’d stop with the silliness that is ethanol from corn.
?
How much does John get paid to support this pipeline? I’m sure with the current SCOTUS, they would classify CO2 as “national security infrastructure” under the patriot act. These landowners won’t have a chance