Alarming News from Rural South Dakota
Guest post from Felicia Barnes of the University of South Dakota
For the past few years, the University of South Dakota has used the term ‘extraordinary’ as part of its advertising campaign, used to describe the kind of educational environment that produces famous alumni such as Tom Brokaw and Al Neuharth. What may soon be most extraordinary about USD, however, is not its academic credentials, but its dubious distinction as being just 9 short miles from the first oil refinery built since 1976. A little over a month ago, 58% of voters in Union County, South Dakota voted to approve a rezoning ordinance that will help clear the way for this 400,000 barrel-a-day refinery to be built. Though June’s vote in no way ensures the building of this refinery, it is one fewer hurdle that need be cleared for it to become a reality.
As a current USD student and an all but born-and-raised South Dakotan (having lived in nearby Yankton since I was 6), I was terribly disappointed by the results of this vote. Using thousands of acres of farmland to build what would become the nation’s 6th largest oil refinery is a step in the wrong direction for South Dakota, the United States, and the world. First, without even invoking climate change, hitching your wagon to the falling start that is fossil fuels may not be the most strategic move. Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it must be admitted that the world must move away from fossil fuels at some point- the only question is when. Why can’t South Dakota be ahead of the curve, investing in clean sources of energy such as wind, instead of 50 years behind it? Moreover, what is the United States doing with such a backwards project that will transform precious farmland into the site of heavy industry in its- and the world’s- breadbasket?
Then there’s the obvious climate change aspect to this issue. Though Hyperion parades the project around as a “green refinery,” what they say they could do and what will actually happen may very well be dramatically different. For example, the assertion that the refinery will be “carbon-sequestration ready” says nothing about whether greenhouse gases will actually be sequestered and who will ensure the reported figures are accurate. The last estimate I saw found that the refinery itself would emit more greenhouse gases than the entire state of South Dakota, thus invalidating the noble efforts of all South Dakotans to reduce their carbon footprints. Additionally, South Dakota has little in the way of relevant environmental protection laws and even less in terms of oversight capacity. Simply put, we are sitting ducks, without the necessary legal protections and important infrastructure to handle a project of this size. And given its recent record, I cannot say I have much confidence my state government will provide them in time.
Now admittedly, saying that SD could have the first refinery built in over 30 years is somewhat deceiving as additional refining capacity is regularly added to existing refineries around the nation. In fact, Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying, “Some of these expansions are as large as the typical refinery used to be in the U.S.” Of course, we battling climate change would prefer neither option, as both feed our nation’s current addiction to fossil fuels and increase. But with gas prices rising and suitable alternatives not necessarily immediately around the corner, I think we should keep in mind the possibility of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. This is an area that requires much more analysis than I can give, but I think given the huge environmental and health risks and the additional infrastructure that is required to handle those risks, it may make more sense to prefer expansion over breaking new ground.
But regardless of the expanding old vs. creating new debate, I think we can all agree that Hyperion’s proposed refinery is definitely worth stopping. So while June’s vote did not go how I had hoped, it’s certainly not the end of the fight. Along with additional opportunities to challenge the project through the legal system (various permits, etc.: see here), there’s also the possibility that lack of funding will be an issue. Back in April, Hyperion went to South Dakota’s national representatives and asked for a $10 billion federal loan.
Ultimately, the direction of the US may also play a part in halting this project. With the election of more climate-conscious national leaders, the less appealing investments in dirty energy will become, and the less likely this refinery will slip through the cracks while the rest of the nation tries to move toward a saner national energy policy.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I can imagine that this new re3finery would be seeing some tar sands oil too which is another reason this new refinery infrastrucutre must be stopped. We can’t make any more wrong moves. If we do, we’re sunk.
JP, you are absolutely right. Most likely, the source of oil for this project will be sour crude from the tar sands in Canada, which is generally far nastier than sweet crude because of its high sulfur content. Oddly enough, some proponents of the refinery view the use of tar sands oil as a positive thing because it will reduce our dependence on ‘foreign’ sources of oil… but since when is Canada not a foreign country?
yeah, the proposed pipeline from the tar sands to US refineries goes (you guessed it) right through eastern SD.
i have said since the beginning that this is anything but an oil refinery. Hyperion does not have the money ($31 million net worth); the manpower (68 employees) or the resources (zero) to build a refinery. they are a real estate development corporation. now that they have options on the land lord only knows what will happen, but i can assure you that it won’t be a refinery.
there are 2 refineries in the world that use IGCC that i know of, one in iceland and the other in norway. it ain’t gonna happen folks..
the biggest tale of the story is that the application says they will be carbon capture ready. that is next to impossible since they will have to run the co2 somewhere else to be sequestered because there is noplace around here to bury it for thousands of years…
keep the faith, it is nothing but a land grab and a fantasy..
Nobody likes refineries. Still, I so often hear that people want cheap gasolene (generally, not on this blog…) but don’t build the refineries near OUR homes, we want cheap electricity but no power plants or high voltage transmission near OUR homes, etc. etc. My guess is that China is the largest maker of PV cells because folks in the US do not want the chemical processing plant near them. Sooner or later we will have to “pick our poisons” and accept the tradeoffs.
After all, even windmills need steel smelters…
I don’t know if you’re accusing us of being NIMBY, but if you are, you’re very, very wrong. It’s not about this being in OUR backyard or in this particular place. It’s about the fact that it’s being built at all.
I think most of us recognize what will be needed for renewable development, but this refinery is NOT renewable development and comparing the two are ludicrous.
I don’t understand how the thinking like this can be SO the opposite of what this country (and world) needs.
They do drug tests before you can get a job at Wal-Mart, but they can’t check world leaders for addictions before they take power?!!?!?! We need to get off this stuff. What about that natural resource they call Innovation of the American People?
Mr Bush, Addicted to Oil:
http://thekevblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/mr-bush-addicted-to-oil/
Kai makes a great point- we don’t want *any* new refineries to be built. Doing so to make gas cheap now will only ensure it is way more expensive later. We’re eventually going to have to switch to a different source of energy, so why not sooner (with fewer environmental and health side-effects) than later? Affordable energy does not need to come at the cost of the health of ourselves and our environment. Believing it is a zero-sum game in which you must “pick your poison” ignores the possibilities that exist for sastisfying both needs at the same time.
Moreoever, it does make some difference where these things are located. Not only is the land being used productive farmland (which as rising food prices might indicate, will only become more valuable over time), but also South Dakota is probably the LEAST prepared state in the union to handle this sort of thing. Other places, like California, have substantially more laws on the books to protect its citizens as well as the infrastructure to enforce those laws. We don’t.
I wasn’t accusing anyone here of being NIMBY. After all, I know that most of the folks here want to get away from oil permanently.
Just trying to make the point that undesirable aspects exist for all energy sources and that somebody has to live nearer to them than others. Solar cells require chemical processing plants and wind turbines need steel mills. Such facilities will be needed even for a renewables economy. I was attempting to point out there is no free lunch in the energy business.