Green New Deal

[JimmyinSD]

Trump is in danger of losing my support.  When he was campaigning he made a point of talking of killing Green New Deal funding.  One of the most recent uses of that funding is for carbon capture and sequestration ( injecting it into old oil wells to supposedly store it deep),  what this really is a way for the oil industry to increase profits to frac for oil with compressed CO2, and use our tax dollars to do so,  I dont blame big oil...they are just playing the game,  but I hold the politicians liable for this undeniable waste of tax dollars and the proposed legislation to steal private land to do so.

There is language in the recently passed out of committee House Reconciliation Bill that would give eminent domain rights to pipeline projects.  SD has recently voted to strictly and specifically deny eminent domain in CO2 projects,  this is bull shit and if this passes it will cost even more tax dollars as I am sure the lawsuits that will be coming will be endless.  Here in SD the devil is Summit Carbon Solutions,  but they are likely just the puppet for big oil interest in the name of green energy.

Summit has been pulling all kinds of shit and seems to have bottomless pockets ( which is why I am sure they are financed by oil, upstart green companies dont typically have the kind of money or lobbying that they have been parading)  They have been threatening eminent domain since they first starting working on SD over 5 years ago,  using armed personel on private ground to intimidate land owners and unlawfully entering peoples homes and private buildings... if Trump allows this shit to go through it would be inexcusable.

our Representatives need to be told to kill this thing, this is exactly the type of shit that every state should be concerned as it is a huge overreach of the federal govt.

https://www.venable.com/insights/publica...erc-siting

[badgervike]

Jimmy - I don't quite understand the whole issue for you in South Dakota and don't have time today to Google that shit..lol. Since it's an issue for you in East Central SD, I'm assuming that we're talking about capturing CO2 created from the Ethanol plants and/or the Big Stone coal plant and pipe it up to the Bakken field for sequester/use in fracking? Liquid CO2 when it leaks could turn into a combination of dry ice and a heavy gas that potentially could suffocate all life..although it would require it to be completely still wind...which doesn't happen much in your neck of the woods. So...the greenies pay to have the CO2 "sequestered" and the best place to do that is in oil producing areas which can than use the gas to frack oil and create more carbon energy? Seems a little perverse.

Where does Thune sit on the issue? It would seem to me that having the Senate Majority Leader is advantageous to South Dakota?

I'm guessing the Republicans are gearing up for some pipeline fights...both oil and LNG which the US has an abundance of if we can get it to a warm water port. I thought I read the Bakken field will be end of lifetime in the not too distant future if they can't get rid of the Natural Gas. It makes it difficult when you're in the center of the Country. The Alaskan oil fields need to pipe the LNG down to a warm water (and ECO friendly port) to sell it off. Good luck getting that through Washington without federal eminent domain.

[JimmyinSD]

Jimmy - I don't quite understand the whole issue for you in South Dakota and don't have time today to Google that shit..lol.  Since it's an issue for you in East Central SD, I'm assuming that we're talking about capturing CO2 created from the Ethanol plants and/or the Big Stone coal plant and pipe it up to the Bakken field for sequester/use in fracking?  Liquid CO2 when it leaks could turn into a combination of dry ice and a heavy gas that potentially could suffocate all life..although it would require it to be completely still wind...which doesn't happen much in your neck of the woods.  So...the greenies pay to have the CO2 "sequestered" and the best place to do that is in oil producing areas which can than use the gas to frack oil and create more carbon energy?  Seems a little perverse.

Where does Thune sit on the issue?  It would seem to me that having the Senate Majority Leader is advantageous to South Dakota?

I'm guessing the Republicans are gearing up for some pipeline fights...both oil and LNG which the US has an abundance of if we can get it to a warm water port.  I thought I read the Bakken field will be end of lifetime in the not too distant future if they can't get rid of the Natural Gas.  It makes it difficult when you're in the center of the Country.  The Alaskan oil fields need to pipe the LNG down to a warm water (and ECO friendly port) to sell it off.  Good luck getting that through Washington without federal eminent domain.

yes its the CO2 from the ethanol plants,  its a green energy scam,  the govt puts up all this green money to these green initiatives, when we know they are a farce.   

all our elected officials have been surprisingly quiet on this shit,  they forget who they work for far to often.  From our 3 in DC to our former governor Noem,  they have been bought and unfortunately its the private landowners that are getting screwed over here in SD.  This have been a huge issue over here the last 5 years and its a hill unfortunately many are willing to die on.  

CO2 capture is a for profit enterprise that does not serve the people of SD best interest and as such,  eminent domain should not be permissible,  it is not an energy product that serves the general publics good,  its is a for profit boondoggle that needs to get shut down hard.

right now its my neighbors land getting taken for a co2 pipeline,  next time it might be your land for a solar farm or wind farm,  if they can sell eminent domain for a pipeline to sequester CO2 ( a good and necessary gas to sustain life ) what will they dream up next to steal land from private Americans.  This trampling of private rights has to stop in this country.  If there is so much money to be made, then they need to up their offers for leases until the landowners cant say no,  or their neighbors say yes and they go around them.

and actually  a co2 rupture does not require completely still air, even the pipeline people acknowledge that, and despite the wind towers and notoriety for our wind,  we do have times where it just lays flat and that could really be an issue there is a family's home or a town nearby.  they are wanting setbacks that are terribly small.

If they want to move their NG, then make it super cheap and sell it off locally,  people would be much more willing to sign up for a pipeline if they could get free or nearly free heat for their homes.  its sad that they need our land to sell their products,  but they dont want to pay us a fair price despite them making billions in profits.  IMO, if you need my land to sell your product,  it makes my land just as valuable as the land you are getting your product from.

[badgervike]

Jim - As I said, I didn't have time to do much research today. Getting ready to head out of town. I was just trying to figure out what the issues were. Where's Thune in all of this?

The sequester term is a scam...much like carbon offsets. Doesn't the Bakken field need the CO2 to better access the oil deposits?

[JimmyinSD]

Jim - As I said, I didn't have time to do much research today.  Getting ready to head out of town.  I was just trying to figure out what the issues were.  Where's Thune in all of this?

The sequester term is a scam...much like carbon offsets.  Doesn't the Bakken field need the CO2 to better access the oil deposits?

yes,  that is exactly what its about,  they can inject compressed CO2, when it expands it force the oil through the shale and increases production without all the shipping costs that come from using sand and water.  they are just using the green sequestration crap to try and win favor from those in the blue ties that dont do their homework, and like I mentioned,  the free money.

Like I said, none of our elected officials have much to say, they have been bought off to be silent.  Hell we had a big rally here in Pierre a couple years ago to raise awareness and our Governor was conveniently absent,  she was in DC lobbying for ranchers in the western US.  We have seen this from the feds, to the state, to the county levels,  the pockets for this shit are bottomless and they are buying the officials.

[Waterboy]

yes,  that is exactly what its about,  they can inject compressed CO2, when it expands it force the oil through the shale and increases production without all the shipping costs that come from using sand and water.  they are just using the green sequestration crap to try and win favor from those in the blue ties that dont do their homework, and like I mentioned,  the free money.

Like I said, none of our elected officials have much to say, they have been bought off to be silent.  Hell we had a big rally here in Pierre a couple years ago to raise awareness and our Governor was conveniently absent,  she was in DC lobbying for ranchers in the western US.  We have seen this from the feds, to the state, to the county levels,  the pockets for this shit are bottomless and they are buying the officials.

Sad commentary on a topic I didn't know about.  I'll have to look into this.  The more I learn the more it becomes obvious that you better be a conspiracy theorist or you're missing the entire ball game.  Things don't just happen as often as people like to say when they don't understand things.

[BigAl99]

As an Iowan, I'm curious how this is a blue side problem, it's localized to the Dakotas and Iowa, very red states.  Bruce Rastetter, is the guy behind the whole pipeline, sequestration and ethanol business in the state, has owned Iowa politics since Terry Branstad first got into politics.  Seems like a greed issue, not so much a  green issue.  We just went through a big fight about giving carte blanche eminent domain to Summit AG group for the project.  Wasn't one Dem vote in favor and don't know any that are in favor of fracking.    Rastetter is an aspiring one man Koch Brothers.


Update;
Just did some reading and Summit expressly says they will not use the CO2 for oil recovery. 

" The Summit Carbon Solutions project will not be used for enhanced oil recovery. The permits we have filed, which specifies exactly what we are requesting from regulators, note clearly that our project is about the permanent sequestration of CO2.

    Iowa Permit: “The Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline System (“Pipeline”) will transport carbon dioxide (“CO2”) from participating ethanol plants in Iowa and other midwestern states to North Dakota for permanent sequestration.”
    South Dakota Permit: “The Applicant proposes to build a carbon capture and sequestration Project that will initially move up to 12 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA) of carbon dioxide (CO2), with the potential for further expansion, from participating industrial facilities in South Dakota, as well as CO2 from facilities in Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska to a sequestration site in North Dakota, where the CO2 will be safely and permanently stored.

Additionally, Summit Carbon Solutions’ sequestration site outside of Bismarck, North Dakota is entirely separate and apart from the Bakken or other areas where enhanced oil recovery is possible. The company is investing $100 million in its permanent storage locations in North Dakota."


https://summitcarbonfacts.com/enhanced-oil-recovery/

I agree with Jimmy, this is a boondogle that supports the ethanol industry, which is one big tax handout.

[JimmyinSD]

As an Iowan, I'm curious how this is a blue side problem, it's localized to the Dakotas and Iowa, very red states.  Bruce Rastetter, is the guy behind the whole pipeline, sequestration and ethanol business in the state, has owned Iowa politics since Terry Branstad first got into politics.  Seems like a greed issue, not so much a  green issue.  We just went through a big fight about giving carte blanche eminent domain to Summit AG group for the project.  Wasn't one Dem vote in favor and don't know any that are in favor of fracking.    Rastetter is an aspiring one man Koch Brothers.


Update;
Just did some reading and Summit expressly says they will not use the CO2 for oil recovery. 

" The Summit Carbon Solutions project will not be used for enhanced oil recovery. The permits we have filed, which specifies exactly what we are requesting from regulators, note clearly that our project is about the permanent sequestration of CO2.

    Iowa Permit: “The Summit Carbon Solutions Pipeline System (“Pipeline”) will transport carbon dioxide (“CO2”) from participating ethanol plants in Iowa and other midwestern states to North Dakota for permanent sequestration.”
    South Dakota Permit: “The Applicant proposes to build a carbon capture and sequestration Project that will initially move up to 12 million metric tons per annum (MMTPA) of carbon dioxide (CO2), with the potential for further expansion, from participating industrial facilities in South Dakota, as well as CO2 from facilities in Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska to a sequestration site in North Dakota, where the CO2 will be safely and permanently stored.

Additionally, Summit Carbon Solutions’ sequestration site outside of Bismarck, North Dakota is entirely separate and apart from the Bakken or other areas where enhanced oil recovery is possible. The company is investing $100 million in its permanent storage locations in North Dakota."


https://summitcarbonfacts.com/enhanced-oil-recovery/

I agree with Jimmy, this is a boondogle that supports the ethanol industry, which is one big tax handout.

I apologize if I made this sound like it was a Dem thing, its is far from it,  the green new deal crap I say is more dem supported,  but I am not going to believe for a second that those oil lobbyists arent lining the pockets of red ties to get them  on board with this, I have seen it repeatedly in ND and SD.

My contact in ND politics have said they only will permit up there as long as it can be used to enhance oil production.

My contacts with Summit have told me directly that they werent allowed to acknowledge the oil aspect,  but say that is what this is about.

My friend in the oil industry that I contacted said this is 100% about oil production,  they have been doing it since the 80s to rehab slow producing wells and oil fields.

I also think this pipeline will be used the other way in the future,  once the 45Q credits pay for it and run out,  they will turn around and use it the other direction to pump natural gas directly back to these ethanol plants and cut out the local providers.

I figured eventually we would find something we can agree on.

[BigAl99]

I apologize if I made this sound like it was a Dem thing, its is far from it,  the green new deal crap I say is more dem supported,  but I am not going to believe for a second that those oil lobbyists arent lining the pockets of red ties to get them  on board with this, I have seen it repeatedly in ND and SD.

My contact in ND politics have said they only will permit up there as long as it can be used to enhance oil production.

My contacts with Summit have told me directly that they werent allowed to acknowledge the oil aspect,  but say that is what this is about.

My friend in the oil industry that I contacted said this is 100% about oil production,  they have been doing it since the 80s to rehab slow producing wells and oil fields.

I also think this pipeline will be used the other way in the future,  once the 45Q credits pay for it and run out,  they will turn around and use it the other direction to pump natural gas directly back to these ethanol plants and cut out the local providers.

I figured eventually we would find something we can agree on.

Yeah, common thing that happens, grab a term use it for camouflage so someone else catches the blame.  I am not a fan of the mono-culture ag approach here, we are growing fuel and manufacturing livestock and it all subsidized from planting to failing.  Corn under 5 a bushel and 10 dollar beans can't cover the cost raise it, farmers contract it and the big guys, Rastetter, profit because they own the infrastructure and supply chem and seed.

[JimmyinSD]

Yeah, common thing that happens, grab a term use it for camouflage so someone else catches the blame.  I am not a fan of the mono-culture ag approach here, we are growing fuel and manufacturing livestock and it all subsidized from planting to failing.  Corn under 5 a bushel and 10 dollar beans can't cover the cost raise it, farmers contract it and the big guys, Rastetter, profit because they own the infrastructure and supply chem and seed.

They hate to hear it, but the American farmer is just the latest victim to the welfare scam.