Discover more from The Dakota Scout
Letter: Take Summit Carbon Solutions up on its offer to be open with South Dakota farmers
Thank you Mr. Lee Blank of Summit Carbon Solutions for the offer of "being open and answer any questions about Summits CO2 pipeline," per his letter in the Viewpoints section in the print edition of The Dakota Scout’s July 13-19, 2023, edition.
The benefit of recapture and sequestering of CO2 is a debatable issue from other articles I’ve read. It is a dangerous gas and no pipeline is guaranteed to "not" rupture at some time.
First responders and emergency crews publicly state that they are not prepared for such an event. To prepare they need money for equipment and training.
Eminent Domain should be for projects of public use such as highways, electric lines, etc. This project is a a private project funded by big money people looking to harvest $3.2 billion dollars of federal tax credits to offset their enormous income taxable money.
So, first question: Would you disclose who and what big money is behind this project?
The Dakota Scout is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support a locally owned, operated and printed newspaper with the state’s most robust VIEWPOINTS section, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The organization, LEDR (Landowners for Eminent Domaine Reform), claims that Summit has South Korean money involved. Navigator, another CO2 pipeline company, has Black Rock funding, which has significant foreign money. Lobbyist Dan Lederman, the former chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party. has disclosed he is also lobbying for Saudi Arabia and Summit, according to both this newspaper and the Argus Leader.
I have not read Summit’s easement agreement, but I have read Navigator's. They must be similar in many ways. These easements are "permanent." So basically forever. Navigator’s contract reads that they can "abandon" this pipeline. Does Summits read the same?
If so. the question is: If this CO2 pipeline is abandoned, who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep? Who is liable for any losses that could result from an abandoned CO2 pipeline?
The liability insurance policy that I read states that there is "no" coverage for a landowner for losses due to the release or dispersal of pathogenic or poisonous biological or chemical materials.
Openness and transparency please, Mr. Blank, on this issue.
This is exactly why landowners need protection by a regulatory body: The enormous potential risk forced upon them.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is working on it, but is not done yet. So basically there is no protection for landowners.
Another question: If this is such a great project for landowner's and economy, why the rush? Why not do it right? Why the heavy handed tactics by Summit, as documented in newspapers and on TV, being used on people not willing to sign voluntary easements? Why the threats to county commissioners in the Spink, Edmunds, Brown and MacPherson areas for trying to establish set back rules and increase fees to companies that handle hazardous materials?
Really the core of this whole issue appears to be money, money, money.
So my last question to you: How many millions or billion dollars of federal income tax credits are the owners of Summit and Navigator hoping to harvest before the federal deadline?
There are many more questions to be answered. This is just a start. I urge anyone reading this that has questions about these pipelines to ask Mr. Blank. He has offered to be open and answer all questions. Take him up on this offer to come clean of go public.
Dennis J. Jarabek,