U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Dakota
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2008, 03:47 PM
 
Location: SD
59 posts, read 127,151 times
Reputation: 30
Default Refinery in Elk Point.

For those from our great state, what think ye of this refinery?

I see both sides of the coin. No doubt it could bring many jobs to SE SD. We know we can use the fuel but two issues concern me.

#1 The farmland the pipe will cross. They plan to come through my place. They refuse to put anything in black and white that says they will be responsible when a spill occurs. I say when because one will occur, they've admitted it is inevitable, the question is when and where.

I pray it won't be on my land as no doubt the Feds would hold the landownere responsible for cleanup and what about all the poor people whose water and land will be polluted and they will get no compensation?

#2 THIS IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION! This refinery will take millions and millions of gallons of water to operate. Where is it coming from????????
The Missouri River??? Have you seen it of late??? It's drying up. If we have a few more dry years it will really be in trouble. All the towns along the Big Mo have had to put out more pipe for their pumping stations because the river is drying up. And what about SOO FOO? They think they need the water. How about SW Minn. and NE Iowa. Some how they think we owe them water to. Go figure.

If this refinerey goes in, Soo Foo can kiss their water goodbye. So can Sioux City, Omaha, Council Bluffs, St. Joe, KC. and all other towns along the Missouri's way . Don't we have an obligation to those downstream? Or should we let a foreign company come in here, steal the water , pollute our land, and run us over? Not to mention giving them all kinds of other perks at the taxpayers of South Dakota's expense.

Let's hear what you have to say?

Egg man
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2008, 05:20 PM
 
Location: South Dakota
1,961 posts, read 4,323,460 times
Reputation: 912
I personally support the refinery and pipeline for more career opportunities for our workforce and younger people. It will bring in additional tax revenue.

I understand that the facility will use a great deal of water, but the coal and nuclear plants further south in the Missouri River use a great deal of water and one does not see the Missouri River go bone dry down by St. Jo, Missouri. The past few years have been a dry cycle for our region, but there are wet cycles that replenish the moisture. Sioux Falls and other larger cities missing out on water? That is a scare tactic used and the water used by the rifinery would be a very small percentage of the water that flows through in that area, similar to the Lewis and Clark pipeline (small percentage). With less water intensive processes developed, this would alleviate those concerns. It takes creativity and innovation to make it happen.

I think that the refinery would open up new opportunities and will be certainly a lot better and cleaner than the current and older refineries. It has to be due to stricter environment regulations in place now compared to the mid-1970s when the last refinery in the US was built. The oppenents of the refinery will use every trick in the book, even the unreasonable tree-hugger and environmental activist (anti-progress and non-common sense people), to prevent the refinery being built instead of working together with the promoters in seeing to that the refinery is clean and will set an excellent standard for others in the US and all over the world.

I can understand the concerns, but think that some of the opponents are just plain being unreasonable. Try cooperation, then everyone moves forward: more economic opportunities and a refinery built on environmental innovation and is more community friendly and sets a positive standard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2008, 05:25 PM
 
Location: So. Dak.
13,496 posts, read 24,688,721 times
Reputation: 14817
Yup, what Chris said. Seriously, I think that anything this huge that will make so offer so many employment opportunities is good for our entire state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2008, 11:08 PM
 
Location: South Dakota
1,961 posts, read 4,323,460 times
Reputation: 912
Even with alternative modes of powering our vehicles such as ethanol (cellulosic, corn-based, sugar-based), waste products, electric cars, fuel cell techonology, and hybrids, there will still be a need for oil, even if it may be a lessened one, in the next 20-40 years and the tar sands from Canada will prove to be a more political stable source of petroluem than the mixed-up oil ministers of the Middle East and Venezuela. Even with the use of alternative energy, there will be other uses for petroleum such as plastics.

The refinery will be a boon to the South Dakota universities and programs. SDSU would produce the engineers and scientists. Dakota State can train the IT professionals. USD would produce the managers, accountants, chemists, and biologists. The machine operators and more mechanical positions could be trained by the techinical institutions. It would bring more income and side industries to the state and will create a need for other services such as accountants, doctors, truckers, retail workers, bankers, and so on.

I would like to see the growth to happen, but it should be done right. Communities such as Elk Point, Vermillion, Beresford, Alcester, Sioux City, Sioux Falls, and Yankton need to work together to plan for the influx of workers and to work on getting at least some of the 1800 workers from the local workforce labor ready and the coming of people from outside the area. Planning should cover how growth, police protection, transportation, environment, education, and other areas will be addressed. Cooperation and foresight will help ensure strong but orderly growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2008, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
17,425 posts, read 21,651,985 times
Reputation: 10595
Yeah, let's open up some jobs. The hell with the environment. Who gives a crap where we're going to get water 10 years from now for farm irrigation and such. We can worry about that later.

Well, it's here. We have to worry about it now. Not later.

This thing should be planned out so that it provides service and doesn't impact the environment. Or at worst case, impacts environment minimally.

We can't just say, "Elk Point" 1000 jobs. We have to look at the consequences. That's what we teach our kids right? For every action, there's a reaction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2008, 09:46 AM
 
Location: South Dakota
1,961 posts, read 4,323,460 times
Reputation: 912
The people who are concerned with the environment need to work with the promoters and the company. The company needs to do better with working and appeasing concerns of those regarding water and environment. A suggestion would for the company to come up with processes in the refinery that would be less water-intensive. Yes, this is a challenge, but it would not hurt to bring the promoters and those with concerns to table to develop something even better.

The tactics used by those against the refinery make the people and their cause look silly and foolish. Their threats of lawsuits making them as wacky as the far left wing elements found in places such as Berkely and the east coast. With these people barking they are detracting from the planning and it does not have to be that way. How about cooperation? These people need to, in a civilized but critical thinking fashion, work with the promoters to make sure that their concerns are understood and find ways to make the refinery as environmentally and water friendly as possible and allowing the refinery to set a new gold standard for other refineries to follow.

Elk Hunter, you brought up some good points to consider. I support the refinery, but there will be time to plan. I agree that the plant should not proceed in a hasty fashion and the plant should be well-planned and the concerns to the environment and water get ironed out. I think that there is middle ground in the debate and it can be attained if the promoters and oppenents open up their minds. If they do, along with the refinery company, all can work towards a common purpose and everyone can benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2008, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
17,425 posts, read 21,651,985 times
Reputation: 10595
You are absolutley correct. There has to be some middle ground. We can't just throw industry into the mix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2008, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,179 posts, read 5,457,011 times
Reputation: 9186
Seems like egg man has some personal concerns here that aren't being answered. Egg man, are they not (or, are they?) paying you for the land outright as well as an easement on the property so that they can access it, work on it, and to have room for problems like leakage? I would definitely get an attorney experienced in environmental matters to negotiate this. Perhaps you and the other people whose property it traverses can get together and ensure that your rights are protected.

As for potential leaks and damage, that would be a concern to me. I wouldn't want my pasture or my produce land damaged by leaking fluid. Demand that they have a mitigation plan, with firm declarations in place, before they even start building. You might insist that they have a shed on site with "pigs" or some other absorbent material that can be immediately thrown over any spill as soon as it's spotted. ("Pigs" are absorbent tubes that emer services use to absorb fuel spills, they even work on the surface of the water).

As for the water usage, I would be cautious about this. Round here, we didn't have a drought for over 100 years - but when we did, it was pretty severe. For that reason the water authority tapped into the river, rather than depend on wells that dried up or suffered intrusion, and we were assigned a per-day gallonage for this area's use. The water in this river is required to keep flowing by the Corps of Engineers, because of who's on it slightly upstream as well as downstream from us - and the people above the flow-controlling reservoir have to do without if they go into a drought status. Water is increasingly becoming a valuable concern, and concerns about not only safety but availability both downstream and upstream are valid. If they build the refinery, and water must be kept flowing to it as well as to cities downstream (by their allotted gallonage) then cities upstream may do without in a drought situation as well.

All of these points need to be considered and answered. Yes, jobs are necessary and wonderful - but property rights, environmental impacts, and impacts to water resources must be carefully eyed and planned for. In my experiences, developers and industries - and sometimes governments - will get away with exactly what you let them. As a government dweeb, who has hired private consultants and attorneys to ensure that my constituents are protected, I know this all too well.

Last edited by SCGranny; 01-27-2008 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2008, 06:15 PM
 
47 posts, read 154,880 times
Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by egg man View Post
For those from our great state, what think ye of this refinery?

I see both sides of the coin. No doubt it could bring many jobs to SE SD. We know we can use the fuel but two issues concern me.

#1 The farmland the pipe will cross. They plan to come through my place. They refuse to put anything in black and white that says they will be responsible when a spill occurs. I say when because one will occur, they've admitted it is inevitable, the question is when and where.

I pray it won't be on my land as no doubt the Feds would hold the landownere responsible for cleanup and what about all the poor people whose water and land will be polluted and they will get no compensation?

#2 THIS IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION! This refinery will take millions and millions of gallons of water to operate. Where is it coming from????????
The Missouri River??? Have you seen it of late??? It's drying up. If we have a few more dry years it will really be in trouble. All the towns along the Big Mo have had to put out more pipe for their pumping stations because the river is drying up. And what about SOO FOO? They think they need the water. How about SW Minn. and NE Iowa. Some how they think we owe them water to. Go figure.

If this refinerey goes in, Soo Foo can kiss their water goodbye. So can Sioux City, Omaha, Council Bluffs, St. Joe, KC. and all other towns along the Missouri's way . Don't we have an obligation to those downstream? Or should we let a foreign company come in here, steal the water , pollute our land, and run us over? Not to mention giving them all kinds of other perks at the taxpayers of South Dakota's expense.

Let's hear what you have to say?

Egg man
Absolutely, Egg man. They are doing the same thing just west of Brittton. Farmers tried to confront the pipeline people and got stiff-armed. Gadzookers! Elk Point! That's a nice town. Great farmland. They put a natural gas line through the northern suburbs here in Minnneapolis. Every so often somebody's house is blown up from the gasline. It's like a small nuclear bomb in that zap, you are DEAD!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2008, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
15,127 posts, read 20,399,319 times
Reputation: 7606
Water concerns along the Missouri River are a HUGE concern. The Upper Missouri River basin has been in an eight year drought. I just read an article that they want to divert some of the Missouri River water in North Dakota to the Red River Valley. States downstream like Missouri are concerned about this potential diversion.
I would be very concerned about the total WATER consumption that a refinery like this would have. Power plants also consume large quanities of water upstream in ND.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Dakota
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top