Governor Kristi Noem has claimed she has stood “with the landowners” all along in their fight against Summit Carbon Solutions and its use of eminent domain to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. Noem as stood “with the landowners” all right—the landowners who have made money investing in the ethanol plants that stand to share in the CO2 pipelines’ windfall:
Gov. Kristi Noem is an investor in an ethanol plant that’s partnered with a company proposing a controversial carbon dioxide pipeline.
The ethanol plant is Granite Falls Energy in Granite Falls, Minnesota. Noem’s financial disclosures from her former service in Congress and her current time as governor reveal that she and her husband are investors in the plant. Summit Carbon Solutions, a company proposing a carbon pipeline through South Dakota, lists Granite Falls Energy as one of its partners.
Noem’s congressional disclosure forms, which require only an estimated range of income rather than an exact amount, say she made between $25,006 and $70,000 in dividends from the plant between her first run for Congress in 2010 until the end of her service as a U.S. representative in early 2019. The state-level disclosures she’s filed since then only require the identification of income sources, not amounts [Joshua Haiar and Seth Tupper, “Noem Is Investor in Ethanol Plant Partnered with Carbon Pipeline Company,” South Dakota Searchlight, 2023.06.30].
Noem’s ethanol investments put her in the same bind as corn farmers along the SCS pipeline route. Noem will get more dividends and corn farmers will get better prices for their crops if ethanol plants can ship their CO2 out toward North Dakota’s oil fields and get a cut of the tax credits that are boosting CO2-pipelines. But for those enhanced profits, farmers on the pipeline route have to give up some land rights and Governor Noem has to give up some political credibility.
Spokesman Ian Fury (again, not press secretary Amelia Joy—why have we no Joy?!) says Noem’s Granite Falls Energy holdings just she “she puts her money where her mouth is.” But aside from a few questionable claims about China’s involvement with Summit’s land grab, she’s not really putting her mouth in the way of where her money comes from.
How voluntary is a voluntary easement when you already know if you don’t sign, you property will be taken?
The landowners are making lots of money on the easements, the farmers are making more money on their corn, and the compressed CO2 will be used for fracking and will increase oil production and help keep gas prices down, and promote the national effort toward energy independence.
The only people with a credibility problem are the suckers who thought this was going to stop climate change.
Algebra
“…the compressed CO2 will be used for fracking…”
The legal stipulation for tax credits is permanent sequestration.
The subsidy for ethanol is needless and will be ended during the next Democratic Party congressional/presidential majority cycle.
Smart money is steering clear of the carbon sequestration fad.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2023/05/02/us-energy-independence-soars-to-highest-levels-in-over-70-years/?sh=5f119829977f
If the Democrats end the ethanol subsidy they will lose the Midwestern vote for the next twenty five years.
Arlo, you’re not paying attention. The democrats lost the flyover country vote 25 years ago . . . and keep losing it. The sheeple listen to AM radio and Faux entertainment pretending its news.
It would be grand if a democrat majority in congress and the president established a law of ‘one tax dollar in – yields one tax dollar out’ to the states. Then the rural whining welchers would have to pull themselves up by their boot straps.
@Arlo – Wrong. Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan will be Democrat without giving money to farmers.
There are several reasons why ethanol can be seen as a waste of subsidies.
Firstly, the production of ethanol requires a substantial amount of land and resources. This puts pressure on agricultural land and may lead to deforestation or conversion of land that could have been used for food production. Moreover, the excessive use of water, fertilizers, and pesticides in ethanol production can also have negative environmental impacts.
Secondly, the efficacy of ethanol as a renewable energy source is debatable. The energy output from ethanol is relatively lower compared to fossil fuels, meaning that it requires more energy input to produce the same amount of usable energy. Additionally, studies have suggested that the production and transportation of ethanol may result in higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels, undermining its supposed environmental benefits.
Furthermore, ethanol production also contributes to food price inflation. When crops like corn are diverted towards ethanol production, it reduces the availability of such crops for food production, causing prices to rise. This can have a disproportionate impact on low-income individuals who spend a significant portion of their income on food.
Lastly, government subsidies for ethanol can distort the agricultural market. With subsidies in place, the demand for crops used in ethanol production becomes artificially inflated, leading to higher prices and potential market imbalances. This can have unintended consequences for farmers, consumers, and the overall economy.
Considering these reasons, it can be argued that government subsidies for ethanol are not an efficient and sustainable allocation of resources. Instead, it may be more beneficial to invest in alternative renewable energy sources and technologies that have a greater potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting long-term energy needs.
Mrs. Noem is a hypocrite? Who knew? North Dakota is unlikely to even allow this thing into the state so drilling that deep borehole under Aurora makes more sense than ever.
East River is already a dead zone so why build a pipeline to North Dakota to bury poison?
Call a special session to allocate the resources to dig a deep-ass hole because taxpayers already see through the illusion of local control. Economic development borehole: see how easy?
Load the CO2 on barges at Sioux City then float that stuff to the Gulf of Mexico where hypoxia created by industrial agriculture is already killing every living thing.
One must assume the Council on research for the Legislatures is advising many in the governments how best to invest. Would that we all have that perk.
I doubt the LRC is in the financial advising business…That would be as far astray from its’ Legislative Mandate as building an elaborate shooting range by the GFP is. But, you never know, in South Dakota, government has lost its’ way.
Mr. Aitch–Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota not exactly the Midwest I’m talking about as Illinois and Michigan have very large Metro areas whose vote can overwhelm their farm belt..The Twin Cities also have a substantial share of the vote in Minnesota and little vested interest in ethanol. I was speaking of the corn belt including Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota. Illinois and Indiana grow a lot of corn as does Ohio, but urban interests can dominate at the polls. All four of the states I mentioned as lost have traditionally been Republican anyway, but eliminating ethanol subsidies would put that tradition in stone.
Dave FN, “permanent” sequestration is a joke. The compressed CO2 will be pumped into the ground, which just happens to be an oil field, where it will expand and push the oil out of the shale.
Thanks to plate tectonics, nothing in the earth’s crust is permanent. No matter how deep we might bury something, eventually it will be brought to the surface, and even pushed a mile high into a mountain range. No matter how high a mountain is, eventually it will be at sea level or even subducted under another continental plate.
There is no such thing as permanent sequestration unless we send it off into deep space. That might work. .
Unions are bad. This is why they have reached a historic low in South Dakota, and have fallen to 10% of worker representation nationwide. They are very bad, and are dying.
Republican is simply another word for Earth hater.
These so-called “representatives” of the working class are nothing but troublemakers. They claim to fight for workers’ rights, but all they really do is create divisions and hinder progress. Unions breed laziness and entitlement among employees, encouraging them to demand more and more without considering the consequences. They make it nearly impossible for employers to make necessary changes or implement reforms, resulting in inefficiencies and stifled growth. And don’t get me started on strikes and collective bargaining—it’s just a never-ending cycle of disruption and extortion. Unions may have served a purpose in the past, but in this modern age, they’re nothing but a relic that hampers productivity and holds businesses hostage. We should be focusing on individual merit and free-market principles rather than allowing these unions to dictate terms and protect underperforming workers. Unions are bad. They are very bad.
If you haven’t guessed it, the Conservatives with Common Sense breakfasting will feature an Opening Rant about the coffee Union Bosses and their attempted bolstering of their presence in the union town of Aberdeen.
Non-tribal Democrats should flee South Dakota as soon as humanly possible and let the Earth haters wallow in their own messes.
Noem is a hypocrite like most Republicans. Why does all this not surprise me?
Hey Grudz, unions are bad unless they’re for farmers, police, and fire fighters?
Unions, federations, and associations should represent all workers in this country. That’s why we work longer hours/weeks/years than most developed nations, without health care and safety and for such little pay. And of course, in S.D. and Republican states, one job is not enough to make ends meet.
grudz, sitting in front of his computer in his sodden diaper, shows his disdain for what made the middle-class the strength of the nation that became “the greatest” as he and others proclaim (Rome-remember). Perhaps he should partake of his own braggart “self-merits” and change into something dry, more comfortable instead of expecting society to provide him the comforts of which he thinks he is so entitled!!
Dave FN the tax credits are higher for “permanent” sequestration but are still available for fracking. They seem to be calling it “enhanced oil recovery” which makes it sound like they are just cleaning up oil spills. But it’s really fracking.