By: John Kubal, The Brookings Register

BROOKINGS — The issue to be debated was “Property Rights & CO2 Pipeline.”

It was billed by the South Dakota Federation of Republican Women and the Sioux River Republican Women as a debate to “delve into the pros and cons, seek to inform but not to influence and to provide the public with as much information as possible in a fair and orderly manner.”

The venue was the Dacotah Bank Event Center, Brookings, on Tuesday evening. About 500 people were in attendance. The debaters were State Rep. Jon Hansen (R-Dell Rapids) and Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, Navigator CO2 vice president of Government and Public Affairs.

Sara Frankenstein, public relations chair of SDFRW served as moderator. Over the course of the 1-hour debate the key topics were government subsidies, safety and eminent domain, with an add-on brief look at “climate change.”

A coin toss had determined that Burns-Thompson lead off.  In her very brief introduction, noting her first-generation ties to agriculture, she welcomed the “opportunity to start a dialogue.”

Hansen, a land owner and fifth-generation farmer, in his opening remarks cited government subsidies as “everything to this project. I would characterize this project as a boondoggle.

“This wouldn’t be happening without 45Q tax credit that’s funding the sequestration of carbon. That’s just the reality of it, folks. You might hear something different, but the reality is there’s no free market that’s driving this. This is being driven by massive federal subsidies.”

He added that “with a different administration that might change. I’d be grateful for a different administration, frankly. That would put an end to the 45Q tax credit and we could restore the free market. “

“I think we’re going to have our first opportunity to agree to disagree,” Burns-Thompson said in rebuttal. She noted that 45Q tax credits have been around since 2008 and were a product of the second-Bush administration.

“It was further expanded by the Trump Administration in 2018. It was expanded again in 2022.” She did admit that federal subsidies were “a driver” on CO2 sequestriation; but the market place’s biggest users of all types of fossil fuel products — such as California, Washington state, Oregon and Canada — are making investments tied to CO2 sequestration.

Burns-Thompson then pointed out the value of the various byproducts that spin off for corn growers in addition to ethanol itself — such as corn oil and distillers dry grain — and that an infrastructure needs to further grow to support those byproducts: “to further crack that last kernel.”

As to his supporting the additional byproducts tied the production of ethanol, Hansen cited his voting record during his eight years in the state House: he cast “not a single negative vote when it comes to ethanol. I’ve always been very pro ethanol. And I’ve always put ethanol in my gas tank.”

However, he noted that “when it comes to the future viability of ethanol, I think what we’re actually doing by following these policies that are set forth in California, Washington, Oregon and Canada … are going to long-term decimate, destroy the ethanol industry.”

He added, “Those policies that we’re chasing after in those markets aren’t free-market policies either. Those are sort of climate-crazed regulators and legislators in those jurisdictions that are setting these policies.”

Additionally, he noted that those states are looking at banning the sale of new combustion engines by 2035.

“Chasing those markets and appeasing those regulators is the last thing that ethanol should want to do. … It’s a terrible long-term strategy for ethanol. We should be defeating those policies.”

Sparring over safety

When the topic shifted to safety, Hansen did admit that in many situations, pipelines can be the safest mode of transportation. However, pressure is a big factor.

Hansen noted that natural gas moving in a pipeline exerts 500 to 700 psi. A carbon sequestration pipeline can exert 2,200 psi.

He explained that “plume studies,” that are key to safety issues of pipeline safety, have not been released to the counties that would have carbon pipelines running through them or been released to the public.

“Maybe Miss Burns-Thompson tonight will commit to disclosing them to the counties and to the people,” Hansen said. “I think that would be good.”

Burns-Thompson said that research shows that “pipelines are absolutely the safest and most reliable mode of transport, in large part because of the variables that are within our control, as compared to rail and trucks.” Moving CO2 moving via pipeline could replace a half-million trucks and 100,000 rail cars.

As to the release of plume studies data, she noted the need for security of some information being released because “there are some bad actors out there.” And there are some “homeland security concerns” not unique to CO2 pipelines but also applicable to infrastructure and other modes of transportation that preclude release of certain types of information.

“I think you just heard it,” Hansen responded. “Toward the end of my last response, I did ask Miss Burns-Thompson if she would be willing to release those plume models. That’s the most significant piece of information when it comes to your security next to that pipeline. They won’t release it; and they haven’t released it to the counties. I don’t think we’re too dumb to understand safety modeling.”

Eminent domain: Heart of the issue

Burns-Thompson was first to respond when the question shifted to voluntary cooperation versus eminent domain: “We want to do this project in as voluntary a fashion as is possible. Can I guarantee to you tonight that we can do every single mile of this without some application necessary … . No, I can’t make that commitment tonight. And I don’t think there has been a pipeline built that can make that pledge.” She did note that to date no application to use eminent domain has been made.

Hansen responded that the first page of a letter that Navigator CO2 sent to landowners said they “were already threatening to use eminent domain.”

He noted: “Eminent domain is the heart of the issue. … We talked about what is public use. The bottom line here is that this is not in the public use and should not be eligible for public domain.”

As to the going on to landowners’ property in violation of their rights, Burns-Thompson said, “We are trying to be accommodating as far as that survey work. … We are trying to follow not just the letter of the law.”

Burns-Thompson was also first to respond to a question about the impact of CO2

on “climate change” by the ethanol industry. “Regardless of your personal opinions — for, against, neutral, strongly — on climate change, you can still be a supporter of economic value … of what we are doing.” She added that “no one industry can solve the global problem.”

Hansen responded that while the Navigator project would be good for “capturing 45Q tax credits, it would do nothing for overall global temperatures. … This aint going to do anything.”

As the debate neared its end, he referenced a “leftist climate agenda … wasteful federal spending but I can’t get in the way. But it comes down to being voluntary. That’s what it’s really all about. Don’t take these peoples’ land without their consent.”

Any common ground?

The final question was: “Is there common ground between both positions and if so, where is it?” Burns-Thompson was first to answer. She did see things that were agreed upon: “Overall we want the Midwest to be successful. … Change is necessary. There is a right way to develop infrastructure: in a voluntary fashion; in a transparent fashion.”

Hansen responded: “I think if you did this voluntary and if you did it safely, I don’t think you’d see very many people in this room tonight. But when you start coming into South Dakota and try to take people’s land without their consent and subject them whether they like it or not to safety risks.

“That’s where the problem is. Commit to doing it voluntarily. We didn’t get that at tonight; we got the opposite. … Let’s be honest; they’re going to have to use eminent domain.”

In her closing statement, Burns-Thompson said she hoped this “was the start of a collective dialogue. I want to have a conversation.”

Hansen noted that Navigator CO2 was 84 percent owned by Blackrock, a multinational investment company out of New York City. “Some states won’t even do business with Blackrock because of some of their policies.” And 14 percent is owned by a fund out of the United Arab Emirate. Less than 2 percent is owned by South Dakotans and others.

His ending words: “And at the end of this, the landowners are going to prevail.”