Dispute shows Hyperion considering Kansas for refinery
GOP lawmakers say Democratic governor sent project to S.D.
By Michele Linck Journal staff writer | Posted: Friday, March 21, 2008
ELK POINT, S.D. -- A spat in Kansas over two coal-fired power plants has revealed that Hyperion Resources is also looking at that state as a possible site for the oil refinery for which it recently received zoning in southern Union County.
The company has long claimed it is looking at other sites, but Thursday's revelation is the first time any has come to light publicly.
Four Republican Kansas legislators say the Democratic governor's stand against the coal plants has cost the state the $10 billion, 400,000-barrel-per-day Hyperion project.
However, some Kansas officials say the Texas company's refinery location in South Dakota isn't a done deal.
"We have been in discussions (with Hyperion) as recently as this week," Joe Monaco, spokesman for the Kansas Department of Commerce, told the Journal on Thursday. "They've been very positive conversations."
A story published Thursday in the Kansas City Star puts a possible site in northeast Kansas. One observer said he thinks it may be just 20 to 30 miles west of the capital city, Topeka. That's not far from where the planned TransCanada Keystone pipeline, which will run through South Dakota, splits to go east to Illinois as well as continue southward to Oklahoma. Hyperion has said the pipeline's capacity is already spoken for, but industry experts say the right of way is plenty wide enough to accommodate a second pipe.
Joe Blubaugh, spokesman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, confirmed that his department has reviewed the massive air-quality permit Hyperion submitted to South Dakota.
Blubaugh said department Secretary Roderick Bremby sent a letter to Hyperion on Feb. 11 saying he "didn't think it would be a problem" for the company to get a permit for the project in Kansas if it were based on the same criteria as the South Dakota application.
Blubaugh said those criteria include the proposed ICGC, or integrated gasification combined cycle power plant -- which ultimately converts a refinery byproduct to steam to produce electricity -- and sticking to Hyperion's own "green charter" as found on the company's Web site.
Hyperion, based in Dallas, Texas, has continued to maintain that it has at least two Midwestern sites in addition to the site in southern Union County. Company spokesman Eric Williams would not comment Thursday on whether any of the possible sites are in Kansas. "We're looking at multiple sites in multiple states and continue on that path," he said in answer to several questions, once adding, "pretty much all in the Midwest."
The matter came to light Thursday in Kansas when several state representatives held a news conference to say their state was once a serious contender for the refinery but that its "regulatory uncertainty" made Hyperion decide to take it to South Dakota.
The House members blamed the "uncertainty" on Bremby's denial in October of an air-quality permit for two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas, a $3.2 billion project, due to their expected carbon dioxide emissions, despite the state's lack of environmental standards for CO2.
Critics of an energy bill Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is expected to veto were skeptical of the four legislators' statements about Hyperion's reasons for apparently choosing South Dakota over Kansas.
Sebelius's spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said, "We understand that South Dakota has been the company's first choice since June 2007, which was well before the (coal plant) decision."
On March 11 Hyperion got the Union County zoning it needed for the project. But the new zoning is being challenged in court by opponents, and a plethora of regulatory hurdles lies ahead. A countywide referendum on the zoning is all but certain.
The company has said from the beginning that it wants a referendum on the project and that it will not build in Union County if residents don't want it.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The company has long claimed it is looking at other sites, but Thursday's revelation is the first time any has come to light publicly.
Four Republican Kansas legislators say the Democratic governor's stand against the coal plants has cost the state the $10 billion, 400,000-barrel-per-day Hyperion project.
However, some Kansas officials say the Texas company's refinery location in South Dakota isn't a done deal.
"We have been in discussions (with Hyperion) as recently as this week," Joe Monaco, spokesman for the Kansas Department of Commerce, told the Journal on Thursday. "They've been very positive conversations."
A story published Thursday in the Kansas City Star puts a possible site in northeast Kansas. One observer said he thinks it may be just 20 to 30 miles west of the capital city, Topeka. That's not far from where the planned TransCanada Keystone pipeline, which will run through South Dakota, splits to go east to Illinois as well as continue southward to Oklahoma. Hyperion has said the pipeline's capacity is already spoken for, but industry experts say the right of way is plenty wide enough to accommodate a second pipe.
Joe Blubaugh, spokesman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, confirmed that his department has reviewed the massive air-quality permit Hyperion submitted to South Dakota.
Blubaugh said department Secretary Roderick Bremby sent a letter to Hyperion on Feb. 11 saying he "didn't think it would be a problem" for the company to get a permit for the project in Kansas if it were based on the same criteria as the South Dakota application.
Blubaugh said those criteria include the proposed ICGC, or integrated gasification combined cycle power plant -- which ultimately converts a refinery byproduct to steam to produce electricity -- and sticking to Hyperion's own "green charter" as found on the company's Web site.
Hyperion, based in Dallas, Texas, has continued to maintain that it has at least two Midwestern sites in addition to the site in southern Union County. Company spokesman Eric Williams would not comment Thursday on whether any of the possible sites are in Kansas. "We're looking at multiple sites in multiple states and continue on that path," he said in answer to several questions, once adding, "pretty much all in the Midwest."
The matter came to light Thursday in Kansas when several state representatives held a news conference to say their state was once a serious contender for the refinery but that its "regulatory uncertainty" made Hyperion decide to take it to South Dakota.
The House members blamed the "uncertainty" on Bremby's denial in October of an air-quality permit for two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas, a $3.2 billion project, due to their expected carbon dioxide emissions, despite the state's lack of environmental standards for CO2.
Critics of an energy bill Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is expected to veto were skeptical of the four legislators' statements about Hyperion's reasons for apparently choosing South Dakota over Kansas.
Sebelius's spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said, "We understand that South Dakota has been the company's first choice since June 2007, which was well before the (coal plant) decision."
On March 11 Hyperion got the Union County zoning it needed for the project. But the new zoning is being challenged in court by opponents, and a plethora of regulatory hurdles lies ahead. A countywide referendum on the zoning is all but certain.
The company has said from the beginning that it wants a referendum on the project and that it will not build in Union County if residents don't want it.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 14 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
PA wrote on May 23, 2008 5:50 PM:
Former SESD Resident wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:14 PM:
FNG wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:21 AM:
the diamond cutter wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:04 AM:
Driving Miss Daisey wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:42 AM:
you can drive their limos around,
while they spend their Oil Money.
The pollution will double. Live clean
use Simple green. You know rents will
go up if this becomes reality. So
better get a second job. "