We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, so if you can, pitch in and let's make some hay.
We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, by being informed and taking action when it matters most.
Opinion, Steve Milloy (Washington Examiner) – Wall Street giant BlackRock just added the CEO of Saudi Arabia ’s national oil company, Saudi Aramco, to its board of directors. The New York Times headline announcing the move read, “BlackRock Forges New Ties With Big Oil,” giving the impression that BlackRock was reversing course on environmental, social, and governance investing and coming to its senses on fossil fuels.
The exact opposite is the case. This is just the latest chapter in the tragic and ongoing tale of America being sold out by the elites for the economic and geopolitical benefit of foreign competitors.
Part of Chairman and CEO Larry Fink’s strategy is to reposition BlackRock as oil-friendly by adding the Saudi Aramco CEO to BlackRock’s board. BlackRock and the rest of the ESG cartel have attracted much negative attention from red state attorneys general — attention that Fink is clearly trying to deflect.
But not only is Saudi Aramco not a U.S. oil company, it is actually hostile to the U.S. oil industry and its ability to dominate the global oil market. This should come as no surprise since an energy-independent U.S. means less profit and control for OPEC, of which Saudi Arabia is a founding member. So what we really have with ESG-loving BlackRock joining hands with the anti-U.S. oil Saudi Aramco is a potent merger of foes of the U.S. oil industry.
BlackRock’s scheme is not a novel one. It is already being implemented by Norway. While Norway and its state-owned oil company plan to produce all the oil they can, the state-run Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is pushing the anti-oil ESG agenda with U.S. oil companies, thereby undermining any effort to make Norway less dependent on foreign energy.
With BlackRock, OPEC, and the Biden administration’s crushing regulatory agenda lined up against the U.S. oil industry and its ability to keep oil prices low, America and its economy are in deep trouble.
Adding to the concern should be another problem spotlighted in a recent New York Times op-ed entitled, “America Can’t Build a Green Economy Without China.” Worse, we are not even trying to build one without communist China. Biden’s climate agenda requires dependence on China’s mines and processes for the necessary metals and minerals. We are already dependent on China for green technology, and our addiction is getting worse with no chance in sight of independence.
The U.S. needs to return to the policies introduced under former President Donald Trump, which helped wean our economy off the global oil market and restore America as a leading energy producer. We cannot afford to rely on nations that are financially or ideologically opposed to U.S. dominance.
Congress recently took an interest in Saudi Arabia’s effort to dominate professional golf. Maybe a hearing or two is in order concerning the four-headed beast at the gates of our economy and security.
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
Opinion, Rep. Doug Lamborn (Washington Examiner) – The Biden administration is systematically removing every acre of working land that it can. Historically, preservationists have been pleased with national parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments, while conservationists have relied on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land for their needs. If the current administration has its way, this balance will not last long.
In my home state of Colorado , the Bureau of Land Management has proposed removing 1.6 million acres of federal land from oil and gas leasing and is designating tens of thousands more acres as “Areas of Environmental Critical Concern” that will no longer be available for use. This rule would kill thousands of jobs, obliterate an entire industry, and spike energy prices for people across the country. Unfortunately, this draconian decision is not unprecedented for this administration.
In May, the Department of Interior released a proposed rule that would allow conservation groups to lease federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, effectively preventing all industry from accessing it. This rule stands in stark contrast to the bureau’s multiple-use policy. In June, the administration withdrew 336,404 acres of federal mineral estate surrounding the Chaco Canyon National Historic Park, and just days ago, the Biden administration announced it would lock up a staggering 1.1 million acres in Arizona to be a national monument. This has all occurred on top of the administration’s refusal to issue almost any off or onshore leases.
The administration has done all of this for two reasons. The first is supposedly to protect the sage grouse, which is an endangered bird that lives on the western plains. The second, and more underhanded, reason is to obliterate the fossil fuel industry in America.
Every environmental and energy policy that the administration has put in place is to fulfill President Joe Biden’s promise to end fossil fuels in the United States. This includes banning gas stoves , removing helium from the critical minerals list, stopping all oil and gas lease sales, and now removing working land from energy development. The Biden administration is actively doing everything it can to prevent fossil fuels from providing reliable, affordable energy to millions of people.
Yet oil and gas production has existed hand in hand with responsible environmental stewardship. Colorado’s elk herd is the largest in the nation and has increased from 40,000 elk in the early 1900s to 300,000 today. Colorado’s mule deer population has grown by 40,000 since 2018, and Colorado’s population of antelope has grown from 5,000 in the 1940s to 85,000 today.
The Biden administration claims to protect the sage grouse through this drastic action, but this species has experienced a 24% increase in its Colorado population since 2019. Not only has gas production not impeded the restoration of these birds, but they have flourished in a shared environment. Colorado is the fourth-largest producer of oil and eighth-largest natural gas producer in the country. This supply is crucial in keeping energy prices down for people across the country and must continue while we restore our natural areas.
If Biden officials were serious about mitigating harm to wildlife, they would look closely at how we use our land acreage. The U.S. has lost over 24 million acres of natural areas and 11 million acres of farmland since 2001 due to urban development, which has hurt endangered species far more than oil and gas production. According to the Interior Department, in 2018, U.S. oil and gas hit a record production high while using the smallest amount of surface acreage disturbance in our nation’s history by utilizing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. In contrast, the Bureau of Land Management recently announced a whopping 1,000-acre solar farm in the De Tilla Gulch region of Colorado, which takes up far more critical habitat than oil and natural gas while producing less electricity. This is an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars and inappropriate stewardship of our nation’s wild areas.
The reality is clear: Oil and gas production does not hinder wildlife restoration, but irresponsible land use does. By locking up 1.6 million acres from mineral production in Colorado, the Biden administration will reduce the supply of energy, which will increase prices for people across the country. We have seen this happen under the Biden administration for the last three years, and the time has come to re-implement realistic and responsible policies.
Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Republican, represents Colorado’s 5th Congressional District.
Cedar Rapids, IA (The Gazette) – Summit’s proposed route in North Dakota is part of a 2,000-mile, five-state Carbon Storage and Sequestration (CCS) plan to carry hazardous liquid CO2 from 17 ethanol plants in South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota and Iowa to North Dakota where it would be permanently buried underground in abandoned oil wells west of Bismarck. When operational, investors in the $5.5 billion project would reap billions of dollars profit in carbon capture with 45Q federal tax credits. However, without the PSC permit and access to North Dakota’s underground storage sites, the Midwest Carbon Express is a pipeline to nowhere.
An ethanol refinery in Chancellor, S.D., one of many in the midwest, is shown, July 22, 2021. North Dakota’s biggest oil driller says it will commit $250 million to help fund a proposed pipeline that would gather carbon dioxide produced by ethanol plants across the Midwest and pump it underground for permanent storage. Billionaire oil tycoon Harold Hamm’s Continental Resources was scheduled to make a formal announcement of the investment into Summit Carbon Solutions’ $4.5 billion pipeline Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at an ethanol plant in North Dakota. (AP Photo/Stephen Groves, file) North Dakota’s Public Service Commission threw a major roadblock in the path of Summit Carbon Solutions’ Midwest Carbon Express on Aug. 4 when it voted unanimously to deny the company’s hazardous CO2 pipeline permit. According to PSC Chair, Randy Christmann, Summit “failed to meet its burden of proof to show that the location, construction, operation and maintenance will produce minimal adverse effects on the environment and on the citizen of North Dakota.”
The Midwest Carbon Express is on shaky ground all along its multi-state route. Summit is seeking a permit in Iowa with little more than two-thirds of easements voluntarily signed. Hundreds of Iowa landowners refuse to sign and choose instead to face the prospect of eminent domain. Minnesota requires an Environmental Impact Study (EPS) and will not allow eminent domain to be used for this project. South Dakotans are outraged by the lack of action in their Legislature, and thousands have signed a petition demanding Gov. Kristi Noem call a special session.
Summit’s risky CO2 pipeline faces strong opposition. Environmentalists, conservatives, Indigenous Peoples, Republicans, Democrats, independents, and civic groups have joined with impacted landowners to stop one of the biggest land grabs in American history. A recent Iowa Poll by Selzer & Co. in The Des Moines Register found that 80% of Iowans across all demographics oppose the use of eminent domain for the dangerous CO2 pipelines being built by a private company for profit.
In Iowa, Summit-impacted landowners, the Sierra Club, and other interested parties have been frantically preparing for the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) hearing for Summit’s permit, scheduled to begin in two short weeks on Aug. 22. Recently, the date was unexpectedly moved ahead from an anticipated start in October. This move by the IUB was a suckerpunch to intervenors who suddenly have four months less time to prepare testimony and consult with legal counsel.
Now that Summit has no way to get to the sequestration site in North Dakota, and the Midwest Carbon Express has no endpoint, the IUB hearing should be postponed indefinitely. Without a CCS storage location, there is no reason to waste time, resources, and taxpayer money to hold a hearing on a half-baked proposal for Summit’s permit.
The Iowa Utilities Board needs to put the brakes on the Midwest Carbon Express. There is no urgent need to approve a permit for a dangerous CO2 pipeline to nowhere.
Bonnie Ewoldt is a Milford resident and Crawford County landowner.
The Sangamon County Board voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on carbon dioxide pipeline sequestration sites through the end of the year.
In a public meeting held at the Bank of Springfield Center, members of the board said too many questions remain unanswered as Sangamon along with 11 other counties in Illinois could see construction on a multi-state pipeline carrying and storing liquified carbon dioxide underground in Montgomery or Christian County.
Nearly 300 miles of a CO2 pipeline from Navigator CO2 Ventures will run through, now being considered by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Already petitioning to be involved in the commission’s 11-month review of Navigator’s pipeline, the board moved forward with a resolution opposing any state or federal approval of a pipeline or sequestration site in the county.
Navigator CO2 Ventures filed a new application with the Illinois Commerce Commission on Friday, Feb. 24, 2023. The filing expands the carbon dioxide pipeline into Montgomery.
What the county is wanting to secure from Navigator is a guarantee to help provide training and equipment in case of a pipeline burst. The need for electric vehicles has been emphasized since they do not rely on internal combustion – how a gas-powered car’s engine starts requiring oxygen to be present in the air.
“We still haven’t fully heard everything that we need to hear, especially on the safety,” Greg Stumpf, District 16, said after the meeting. “If we’re going to ever approve a program, a pipeline that comes through like this, if we get that authority to do that, if the ICC doesn’t take that out of our hands, well we want to make sure that all these questions can be answered.”
Navigator, a Nebraska-based company, has stood by the safety measures that it will take with its pipeline – Navigator Heartland Greenway. Still, opponents remain concerned for the potential of a pipeline burst close to communities like New Berlin and Glenarm.
The fear has led many to not give Navigator access willingly to their property. As of June, Navigator has also only received 13.4% of the right-of-way easement agreements statewide and 5.2% in Sangamon County according to its own data.
Selling the project has meant scheduling countless meetings with landowners and emergency response teams, Navigator representative James Prescott said.
“It’s fair to say the burden of truth is on us to present the facts, present the data,” he said.
The vote follows a July 17 hours-long forum held by the county Zoning and Land Use Committee also attended by Navigator representatives and hundreds of community members mostly in opposition.
There, Navigator pledged to meet and exceed standards set by the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
“This project is not for the good of Illinois without risking our citizens’ lives for their profit, which will be paid by our tax dollars,” Glenarm resident and pipeline opponent Kathleen Campbell said during a public comment section of the meeting.
Contact Patrick Keck: 312-549-9340, pkeck@gannett.com, twitter.com/@pkeckreporter
Sioux Falls, SD (Argus Leader) – Sen. Mike Rounds did not mince words when talking about Summit Carbon Solution’s controversial carbon dioxide pipeline that’s planned to run through eastern South Dakota.
“[Summit Carbon] had some people in there basically blowing their way through, and that irritated a whole lot of people, and I don’t blame them,” Rounds told Rotarian Tony Nour, during Rotary Club of Downtown Sioux Falls’ weekly meeting on Monday.
The Republican U.S. senator commented on the company’s proposed pipeline while taking a part in a dialogue with club members.
A portion of his comments referred to a series of controversial land surveys conducted by the company. Summit Carbon’s actions are considered particularly notorious in the eyes of landowners opposed to carbon dioxide pipelines.
This included Brown County farmer Jared Bossly, who told Argus Leader in June he suffered damage to his some of his corn crop when surveyors drove a large drilling machine through his farmland.
South Dakota Fifth Judicial Court Judge Richard Sommers issued a court order in April that allows Summit Carbon to perform the surveys necessary to build its proposed $4.5 billion Midwest Carbon Express pipeline.
The order came a few weeks before allegations arose that Bossly had threatened the lives of Summit Carbon surveyors who came to perform land surveys on May 3. Bossly has since denied the incident took place.
Bossly was never held in contempt for the alleged threat, and Sommers, who presided over a hearing on the matter, allowed the company to continue its survey work on a mutually-agreed date in June.
Rounds told the club members he had since spoken with representatives of Summit Carbon “to hear their side of the story.” The South Dakota senator said he brought up the unresolved public relations problem to the company in this conversation.
“You have really created a black eye for yourself because of the method in which you went after landowners, trying to get them to allow for their property to be accessed,” Rounds said, paraphrasing his comments to the company. “I said that part is now one you have to solve because the public relations on that are not good for you.”
Summit Carbon’s public relations problems are also going to cost them money, Rounds added.
Summit responds to Rounds’ statements
Summit Carbon Solutions was not immediately available for comment, but a company official later responded to Argus Leader late Monday evening with the following statement:
“We respect Senator Rounds and other South Dakota policymakers for their service to the state. We will continue to meet with the Senator and all policymakers — keep them updated — and respond to any questions they have about the project. Additionally, we will continue hosting safety information events throughout the state to answer questions and hear feedback from landowners and stakeholders, while highlighting the longstanding record pipelines enjoy as the safest form of transporting materials,” the company said.
Summit Carbon also pointed to the company’s progress in acquiring signed voluntary easement agreements, writing that it has secured 75% of its proposed route through these partnerships.
Nour brought up Summit Carbon’s number of signed agreements, which the company often touts as a supporting evidence of the popularity of their Midwest Carbon Express pipeline. Rounds said he had heard they acquired about 70% of their easements ― it is unclear if he was referring to a South Dakota-specific or overall figure.
Nour suggested the remaining 30% would be the most challenging.
“Safety is going to be the key factor,” Rounds responded. “[The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission] is going to look at this, and you’re going to have the obligation to show that you can actually do this pipeline and do it safely, or it won’t get built.”
Rounds: ‘I think carbon is a commodity’
Rounds also provided his opinion on the issue of eminent domain, which is the process Summit Carbon could use to acquire land easements from uncooperative landowners against their wishes.
The company has taken the preliminary steps toward utilizing eminent domain by filing dozens of condemnation proceedings against said landowners in April.
“You have some folks that talk about whether or not this should be identified as far as a taking and whether or not you can legally come in and say, ‘I get to put this pipeline on your land,'” Round said. “That’s going to be decided in the courts where it should be.
The process of utilizing eminent domain requires a company to qualify as a common carrier, or a group that holds itself out to the public to transfer goods for a fee.
The question of whether Summit Carbon fits that description, however, is one pipeline opponents have levied at the company.
South Dakota’s legislature took it up, in part, during the most recent legislative session after Rep. Karla Lems introduced a bill to specifically exclude carbon dioxide as a commodity when delivered by carbon capture companies for sequestration or to qualify for tax credits. However, this attempt failed after the state Senate Commerce and Energy Committee unanimously voted to kill the bill in February.
Rounds was the most recent voice to renew the topic Monday after giving his “message to landowners”: “I think carbon is a commodity.”
“I think the courts will tell you that there is, through this public pipeline … it is an allowed item to be transported, and they can use a right of way,” Rounds said. “Now, that’s my opinion. I think the courts are going to go that direction, but the safety is totally on the company.”
Argus Leader Political Reporter Annie Todd contributed to this article.
Dominik Dausch is the agriculture and environment reporter for the Argus Leader and editor of Farm Forum. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook @DomDNP and send news tips to ddausch@gannett.com.
Map of the proposed pipeline route is presented at an Empower ND event.
BISMARCK, ND (KFGO) – The North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) denied a siting permit for the Midwest Carbon Express CO2 Pipeline Project on Thursday but the company behind the project says it will revisit its application and reapply.
Summit Carbon Solutions (SCS) filed an application last fall to construct approximately 320 miles of carbon dioxide pipeline in the state. The proposed route of the pipeline would originate at facilities in Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota and cross through parts of Burleigh, Cass, Dickey, Emmons, Logan, McIntosh, Morton, Oliver, Richland and Sargent Counties. The CO2 would then be injected into pore space for permanent sequestration northwest of Bismarck.
Prior to denying the permit, PSC held five public hearings around the state which included hours of testimony and public comment during which concerns from landowners and citizens regarding eminent domain, safety, the policy of permanent CO2 sequestration and storage, setback distances, potential harm to drain tile systems, impacts on property values, and the ability to obtain liability insurance due to the project were raised.
PSC Chairman Randy Christmann said Summit failed to follow some of the steps in state law, when it comes to siting pipelines.
“SCS has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of the project will produce minimum adverse impacts upon the welfare of the citizens of North Dakota with the existing record,” he said.
In its release announcing the permit denial, the PSC said the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) raised concerns about the pipeline which were not addressed. In addition, the PSC said the U.S. Geological Survey noted 14 areas of potential geological instability within the project corridor, and Summit did not submit information demonstrating how it would address these concerns.
Summit Carbon Solutions said in a statement that it respects the decision by the PSC.
“We will revisit our proposal and reapply for our permit. We’re committed to understanding and incorporating the considerations outlined in the decision. We are confident that our project supports state policies designed to boost key economic sectors: agriculture, ethanol, and energy,” a statement from the company read.
The issues of eminent domain, safety compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration construction and operation, and permanent sequestration and storage of CO2 were outside the jurisdiction and consideration of the Commission.
