The Hyperion project: Voters get their say Tuesday
By Dave Dreeszen Journal business editor | Posted: Sunday, June 01, 2008
ELK POINT, S.D. -- Union County voters head to the polls Tuesday to uphold or reject a zoning ordinance approved in March by the county commission.
The ordinance rezones a 3,226-acre site, optioned for Hyperion Resources, from ag land into a new classification, called Energy Center Planned Development District.
The countywide vote is a de-facto referendum on the proposed $10 billion, 400,000-barrel-a-day Hyperion Energy Center that would process oil from the Alberta tar sands in Canada. Leaders of the Dallas, Texas-based energy firm insist they'll give up on the southeast South Dakota site if a majority of voters don't give their blessing.
The proposed refinery would be powered by a plant on site that would use a refining byproduct to produce electricity. The company has said it might also use coal or another material to fire the plant.
Hyperion officials estimate the project would have a nearly $14 billion annual impact on the tri-state region and pump more than $30 million in tax revenues into Union County alone.
Still struggling with how to cast your ballot? Here are some points those on either side of the issue want voters to consider:
Five reason to vote yes
1. Jobs
An average of 4,500 temporary construction jobs would be created during a 48-month period, with as many as 10,000 workers on site at the peak, according to Hyperion
Upon completion of the energy center, Hyperion pledges to create 1,826 full-time jobs -- nearly equal to the total population of the county seat of Elk Point -- in various skilled positions paying between $20 and $30 per hour, according to the company.
2. Economic growth
A Hyperion-funded study estimates the project would add $14 billion in annual economic activity for the state and region. In addition, $1.2 billion in new wealth would be created each year.
The massive project would spin off as many as 14,000 additional full-time jobs -- through the start-up of suppliers and refinery-related firms and increased transactions at scores of other businesses, from convenience stores to car dealers to professional offices.
3. Lower property taxes
With an assessed valuation of $2 billion, the energy center would nearly triple Union County's overall property tax base, according to projections. The increase would generate an extra $8.4 million in annual tax revenue for the county and as much as $20 million for the Elk Point-Jefferson school district. That would put local elected officials in position to cut property tax bills for homes, businesses and farms by as much as half or more.
Increased spending related to the energy center would also generate an estimated $50 million annually in state and local sales tax receipts.
4. Refining capacity/energy independence
No all-new U.S. refinery has been built in 1976. Hyperion's proposed refinery would produce enough gasoline and diesel fuel to meet the combined daily demands of every motorist in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds notes the region has faced repeated shortages in the past, with some of the state's major terminals running out of fuel for as much as 12 hours at a time.
By obtaining its crude from the vast tar sands fields of Alberta, Hyperion's project would lessen the nation's growing dependence on Middle Eastern sources of oil, according to supporters.
5. New technology
Proponents say Hyperion should be given the opportunity to deliver what it's promised -- a state-of-the-art refinery and power plant equipped with the latest pollution control technologies and methodologies. The zoning ordinance, supporters say, represents the first in a series of major regulatory hurdles the company would be required to clear before construction could begin.
Company and state officials also envision the Union County site would become a global showplace for the refining industry and attract other clean-energy operations, such as a biofuels and wind power.
Five reasons to vote no
1. Health risks
Oil refineries spew toxins into the air, opponents contend. In its own air-quality permit application, Hyperion plans to emit tons of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid mist, hydrogen chloride and benzene. The latter is considered a leading cause of cancer, including childhood leukemia.
Local residents living near the site also fear skin rashes and an increase in or worsening of respiratory diseases, especially asthma. In addition, they worry chemicals produced in the refining process could leak into their well water or contaminate the aquifers from which they draw their water and the water to irrigate their crops.
2. Decreased quality of life
Opponents warn the sprawling energy center, which would be built in what are now soybean fields, would forever change the character of the largely rural county, where many families have lived for generations and others opted to relocate primarily because of its tranquil way of life.
Along with environmental concerns, they worry the refinery and its legions of new workers would lead to traffic congestion, noise pollution, crowded schools, more crime and other social problems.
3. Higher property taxes initially
Local taxpayers, opponents predict, largely would be stuck with the bill for additional public services associated with the Hyperion project, including upgrades of roads and bridges, school expansions and more police and fire protection.
They point out the additional property tax revenues from the energy center would cover only a percentage of the total costs and that collection would lag behind immediate expenses the county would incur, such as increased wear and tear on roads near the refinery site.
4. Limited future for oil
The use of fossil fuels such as oil is more a part of the nation's past than its future, opponents point out. U.S. policymakers increasingly focus on cleaner-burning energy sources with fewer greenhouse emissions, such as solar, wind and hydrogen-based technologies.
Instead of destroying thousands of acres of productive farm land for the refinery, anti-Hyperion forces argue the tri-state region would be better off increasing its development of ethanol and biofuels that consume corn, soybeans and crop residue.
5. Questions about technology
No refinery, no matter how well run or regulated, could truly be green, critics argue. Especially one like Hyperion's, which plans to refine the heavier Alberta sands crude oil, which contains a higher sulfur content and more toxic compounds.
Opponents also have considered the open pit mining practices in the tar sand fields as an environmental disaster.
In addition, though Hyperion has pledged to employ "Best Available Control Technology," opponents point out that the company opted not to adopt an even more stringent set of pollution control standards.
Don't bother looking for the word "Hyperion'' on Tuesday's primary ballot in Union County. It's not there.
The county state's attorney provides the following explanation for the ordinance that accompanies the June 3 referendum on a zoning change that would establish an Energy Center Planned Development District:
"On March 11, 2008, the Union County Commission passed by majority vote to enact an Ordinance establishing the Energy Center Planned Development District. Ordinance No. 2008-001 would create the Energy Center Planned Development District. The Ordinance would amend the subject property from Agricultural District (AG) to Planned Development (PD). The Ordinance would change the Official Zoning Map to reflect the zoning change. The Ordinance provides regulations for uses and structures, performance standards and open space. The Ordinance also sets forth the procedures for plan approvals. The Ordinance modifies certain zoning requirements and specifies the zoning guidelines within the Planned Development District.
"A majority (50 % plus 1) is required for passage."
A vote "Yes" will allow the Ordinance to become effective.
A vote "No" will reject the ordinance.
The ordinance rezones a 3,226-acre site, optioned for Hyperion Resources, from ag land into a new classification, called Energy Center Planned Development District.
The countywide vote is a de-facto referendum on the proposed $10 billion, 400,000-barrel-a-day Hyperion Energy Center that would process oil from the Alberta tar sands in Canada. Leaders of the Dallas, Texas-based energy firm insist they'll give up on the southeast South Dakota site if a majority of voters don't give their blessing.
The proposed refinery would be powered by a plant on site that would use a refining byproduct to produce electricity. The company has said it might also use coal or another material to fire the plant.
Hyperion officials estimate the project would have a nearly $14 billion annual impact on the tri-state region and pump more than $30 million in tax revenues into Union County alone.
Still struggling with how to cast your ballot? Here are some points those on either side of the issue want voters to consider:
Five reason to vote yes
1. Jobs
An average of 4,500 temporary construction jobs would be created during a 48-month period, with as many as 10,000 workers on site at the peak, according to Hyperion
Upon completion of the energy center, Hyperion pledges to create 1,826 full-time jobs -- nearly equal to the total population of the county seat of Elk Point -- in various skilled positions paying between $20 and $30 per hour, according to the company.
2. Economic growth
A Hyperion-funded study estimates the project would add $14 billion in annual economic activity for the state and region. In addition, $1.2 billion in new wealth would be created each year.
The massive project would spin off as many as 14,000 additional full-time jobs -- through the start-up of suppliers and refinery-related firms and increased transactions at scores of other businesses, from convenience stores to car dealers to professional offices.
3. Lower property taxes
With an assessed valuation of $2 billion, the energy center would nearly triple Union County's overall property tax base, according to projections. The increase would generate an extra $8.4 million in annual tax revenue for the county and as much as $20 million for the Elk Point-Jefferson school district. That would put local elected officials in position to cut property tax bills for homes, businesses and farms by as much as half or more.
Increased spending related to the energy center would also generate an estimated $50 million annually in state and local sales tax receipts.
4. Refining capacity/energy independence
No all-new U.S. refinery has been built in 1976. Hyperion's proposed refinery would produce enough gasoline and diesel fuel to meet the combined daily demands of every motorist in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds notes the region has faced repeated shortages in the past, with some of the state's major terminals running out of fuel for as much as 12 hours at a time.
By obtaining its crude from the vast tar sands fields of Alberta, Hyperion's project would lessen the nation's growing dependence on Middle Eastern sources of oil, according to supporters.
5. New technology
Proponents say Hyperion should be given the opportunity to deliver what it's promised -- a state-of-the-art refinery and power plant equipped with the latest pollution control technologies and methodologies. The zoning ordinance, supporters say, represents the first in a series of major regulatory hurdles the company would be required to clear before construction could begin.
Company and state officials also envision the Union County site would become a global showplace for the refining industry and attract other clean-energy operations, such as a biofuels and wind power.
Five reasons to vote no
1. Health risks
Oil refineries spew toxins into the air, opponents contend. In its own air-quality permit application, Hyperion plans to emit tons of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen sulfide, sulfuric acid mist, hydrogen chloride and benzene. The latter is considered a leading cause of cancer, including childhood leukemia.
Local residents living near the site also fear skin rashes and an increase in or worsening of respiratory diseases, especially asthma. In addition, they worry chemicals produced in the refining process could leak into their well water or contaminate the aquifers from which they draw their water and the water to irrigate their crops.
2. Decreased quality of life
Opponents warn the sprawling energy center, which would be built in what are now soybean fields, would forever change the character of the largely rural county, where many families have lived for generations and others opted to relocate primarily because of its tranquil way of life.
Along with environmental concerns, they worry the refinery and its legions of new workers would lead to traffic congestion, noise pollution, crowded schools, more crime and other social problems.
3. Higher property taxes initially
Local taxpayers, opponents predict, largely would be stuck with the bill for additional public services associated with the Hyperion project, including upgrades of roads and bridges, school expansions and more police and fire protection.
They point out the additional property tax revenues from the energy center would cover only a percentage of the total costs and that collection would lag behind immediate expenses the county would incur, such as increased wear and tear on roads near the refinery site.
4. Limited future for oil
The use of fossil fuels such as oil is more a part of the nation's past than its future, opponents point out. U.S. policymakers increasingly focus on cleaner-burning energy sources with fewer greenhouse emissions, such as solar, wind and hydrogen-based technologies.
Instead of destroying thousands of acres of productive farm land for the refinery, anti-Hyperion forces argue the tri-state region would be better off increasing its development of ethanol and biofuels that consume corn, soybeans and crop residue.
5. Questions about technology
No refinery, no matter how well run or regulated, could truly be green, critics argue. Especially one like Hyperion's, which plans to refine the heavier Alberta sands crude oil, which contains a higher sulfur content and more toxic compounds.
Opponents also have considered the open pit mining practices in the tar sand fields as an environmental disaster.
In addition, though Hyperion has pledged to employ "Best Available Control Technology," opponents point out that the company opted not to adopt an even more stringent set of pollution control standards.
Don't bother looking for the word "Hyperion'' on Tuesday's primary ballot in Union County. It's not there.
The county state's attorney provides the following explanation for the ordinance that accompanies the June 3 referendum on a zoning change that would establish an Energy Center Planned Development District:
"On March 11, 2008, the Union County Commission passed by majority vote to enact an Ordinance establishing the Energy Center Planned Development District. Ordinance No. 2008-001 would create the Energy Center Planned Development District. The Ordinance would amend the subject property from Agricultural District (AG) to Planned Development (PD). The Ordinance would change the Official Zoning Map to reflect the zoning change. The Ordinance provides regulations for uses and structures, performance standards and open space. The Ordinance also sets forth the procedures for plan approvals. The Ordinance modifies certain zoning requirements and specifies the zoning guidelines within the Planned Development District.
"A majority (50 % plus 1) is required for passage."
A vote "Yes" will allow the Ordinance to become effective.
A vote "No" will reject the ordinance.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 5 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
george wrote on Jun 4, 2008 1:47 PM:
union wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:41 PM:
Sensible wrote on Jun 1, 2008 4:02 PM:
ER wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:53 AM:
DakotaCowboy wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:53 AM:
It also looks like ol" Dave if afraid to take a stand. VOTE YES. "