Comments on: Oil in America’s Breadbasket

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:11:47 +0000

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.

By: feliciabarnes

feliciabarnes — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:21:32 +0000

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.

By: kevinpaulmorris

kevinpaulmorris — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:32:49 +0000

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/

By: Kai Bosworth

Kai Bosworth — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:46:15 +0000

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.

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:50:17 +0000

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…

By: doug maurstad

doug maurstad — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:16:06 +0000

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..

By: Kai Bosworth

Kai Bosworth — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:25:13 +0000

yeah, the proposed pipeline from the tar sands to US refineries goes (you guessed it) right through eastern SD.

By: Felicia Barnes

Felicia Barnes — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:24:50 +0000

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?

By: JP Kemmick

JP Kemmick — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:17:28 +0000

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.