SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    North Dakota - Big Landowner Rights Win
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
North Dakota - Big Landowner Rights Win Login/Join 
Drill Here, Drill Now
Picture of tatortodd
posted
IMO:
  • all current and former oil producing states need to legislate that “pore space” belongs to the landowner and is different than mineral rights.
  • the AP staff writer misses the big picture of what “pore rights” is really about. “Pore rights” is about the future and it’s not very far off as every oil & gas supermajor has pledged net zero tier 1 & 2 emissions (their own plants’ as well as their portion of electric plant emissions generated for their plants) by 2050. This is rapidly evolving into stuffing greenhouse gases (eg CO2) into depleted reservoirs for eternity with no desire to produce oil & gas (ie the mineral in the mineral rights) from said reservoir.
    quote:
    State Supreme Court strikes key portions of 'pore-space' law

    By JAMES MacPHERSON
    Associated Press
    451 words
    4 August 2022
    19:00
    Associated Press Newswires
    APRS
    English
    (c) 2022. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota’s Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of a state law that a landowners group argued amounts to the unconstitutional taking of private property rights.

    The so-called pore space law passed the 2019 Legislature after supporters sought clarification on the use of voids or cavities in underground rock formations. Pore spaces are used when the petroleum industry injects saltwater from oil and gas production underground for permanent storage or for enhanced oil recovery.

    The Northwest Landowners Association sued the state arguing the law deprives them of their right to be compensated for the use of their pore space.

    A state district judge last year ruled the law unconstitutional because it gives the landowners’ value from pore space to the oil and gas industry for free.

    Justices, in their unanimous opinion made public Thursday, largely agreed.

    “In summary, we conclude that several parts of (the law) have been shown to be unconstitutional on their face,” the opinion said.

    “This is a big win — I mean, there is nothing in this opinion that we are not absolutely thrilled about and don’t agree with 100%,” said Derrick Braaten, a Bismarck attorney who represents the landowner group.

    Under the law, landowners couldn't be compensated for pore space when it is used for saltwater disposal or enhanced oil recovery, unless they had an existing contract. Landowners adjacent to a disposal well also could not make a claim that saltwater, a byproduct of oil production, had migrated into their pore space, nor could they sue for trespassing.

    The Supreme Court struck down those provisions.

    “North Dakota law has long established that surface owners have a property interest in pore space,” justices said. "Surface owners have a right to compensation for the use of their pore space for disposal and storage operations.

    “Government-authorized physical invasions of property constitute the ‘clearest sort of taking.’" the opinion said.

    North Dakota’s oil industry pushed for the law and Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed it, despite strong objections from landowners. It was one of the most controversial measures of the 2019 Legislative session.

    Some of the bill was salvaged. The Supreme Court did not find problems with the legislation’s new definition of “pore space” and “surface owner,” which the state had pushed for to provide clarity.

    North Dakota's Industrial Commission, headed by Burgum, said in a statement that it is "committed to ensuring that underground saltwater injection wells are managed for the benefit of landowners as well as the oil and gas industry.”
    Link

    This message has been edited. Last edited by: tatortodd,



    Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

    DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
  •  
    Posts: 21088 | Location: N. Houston, TX | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Legalize the Constitution
    Picture of TMats
    posted Hide Post
    Mining law has always been confusing to me. I did further research on this story and still don’t quite understand a couple of things. First, I thought mineral rights were just that, the claimed or purchased right to extract minerals, oil, or gas. It’s beyond my comprehension that O&G developers ever had the right to turn around and inject “salt water” under someone’s land. The phrase “salt water” is a new one to me. I always heard it referred to as “produced water” and it’s much more than just saline. It is contaminated with hydrocarbons, minerals and some radioactive material. Still and all, these pore spaces are sub-surface and I thought the landowners in the suit all just owned surface rights. This arena in the practice of law, is just one rich field for your sons and daughters considering law school. The other is easement law.

    You see you have the wrong Dakota in the title, right?


    _______________________________________________________
    There is pleasure in the pathless woods, there is rapture in the lonely shore, there is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar; I love not Man the less, but Nature more.
    - Lord Byron
     
    Posts: 11552 | Location: Wyoming | Registered: January 10, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Member
    posted Hide Post
    O.T. reply, the coldest I’ve ever been goes to Bismarck!
     
    Posts: 5074 | Location: west 'by god' virginia | Registered: May 30, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Drill Here, Drill Now
    Picture of tatortodd
    posted Hide Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by TMats:
    Mining law has always been confusing to me. I did further research on this story and still don’t quite understand a couple of things. First, I thought mineral rights were just that, the claimed or purchased right to extract minerals, oil, or gas. It’s beyond my comprehension that O&G developers ever had the right to turn around and inject “salt water” under someone’s land. The phrase “salt water” is a new one to me. I always heard it referred to as “produced water” and it’s much more than just saline. It is contaminated with hydrocarbons, minerals and some radioactive material. Still and all, these pore spaces are sub-surface and I thought the landowners in the suit all just owned surface rights. This arena in the practice of law, is just one rich field for your sons and daughters considering law school. The other is easement law.
    If you produce oil & gas without putting something back in the ground you create subsidence and sinkholes. First oil well in Texas is Spindletop and nothing can be built near it any more due to subsidence. It’s in landowner’s and society’s best interest to reinject plus make up for the o&g.

    Produced water is the correct term for the water that comes out of the reservoir along with the oil and gas. Separating and reinjecting makes sense from subsidence standpoint, recovery standpoint (societal benefit), and environmental standpoint (why treat it and discharge it?).

    Salt water is a misleading term. Water injected into reservoir needs to match reservoir’s chemistry because if it doesn’t then it’ll change the reservoir which increases costs which are passed along to consumer. In other words, society’s best interest that water injected into reservoir matches chemistry regardless of whether it’s a brine or fresh water.

    Personally, I have no problem with enhanced/secondary/tertiary oil recovery via water flooding, fracking, or CO2 inject for the purpose of extracting o&g from the ground. It’s the main reason the US is a bigger oil producer than the Saudis or Russians. It’s in national interest to recover the hydrocarbons, and the mineral rights were bought to extract those hydrocarbons. I’m on o&g’s side for this type of “pore space.”

    However, the reason for my post is that I have a big problem with stuffing CO2 in the ground to store it and not extract hydrocarbons. Landowners should have the choice of saying no or being paid for the “pore space” for green house gases to be stored eternally. For example, my county is currently about 750,000 people but it used to be in the middle of nowhere and a large oilfield. It’s depleted except a few miniscule pockets. We should be able to say no to living over billions of cu ft of high pressure CO2 for eternal storage or be paid for the “pore space” since no minerals will be extracted. I think states need to act in favor of landowners for this type of “pore space.”



    Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

    DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
     
    Posts: 21088 | Location: N. Houston, TX | Registered: November 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Member
    Picture of ShouldBFishin
    posted Hide Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by TMats:
    You see you have the wrong Dakota in the title, right?


    Tatortodd - your title is at least 80 miles off, Bismarck is in ND. Wink


    I agree though, landowners should have the choice of saying no or being compensated for use of the pore space.
     
    Posts: 1701 | Location: MN | Registered: March 29, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Don't Panic
    Picture of joel9507
    posted Hide Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by TMats:
    I always heard it referred to as “produced water” and it’s much more than just saline. It is contaminated with hydrocarbons, minerals and some radioactive material.

    The key fact is that it is not changed. Came out of the ground yucky, goes back in the same way. Wink
     
    Posts: 14356 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: October 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Member
    posted Hide Post
    Is injecting CO2 into the ground a good idea? We humans tend to fuck everything up that we change. We still can’t decide if eggs are good or bad for you.
    What happens if there is an earthquake? Will towns be at risk?


    P226 9mm CT
    p226 40 S&W/ 22 kit
    p2022 9mm
    Springfield custom 1911 hardball
    Glock 21
    Les Baer Special Tactical AR-15
    Now P226 x5 L-1!
     
    Posts: 859 | Location: Vermont | Registered: March 24, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    Shall Not Be Infringed
    Picture of nhracecraft
    posted Hide Post
    ^^^Fact...Eggs ARE Good for you! And so is Bacon! Wink


    ____________________________________________________________

    If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
    Trump 2024....Save America!
    "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
    Live Free or Die!
     
    Posts: 6056 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
    The Ice Cream Man
    posted Hide Post
    With enough CO2 release, yes.

    It’s like the lake inversions which happen in Africa, on occasion.

    The CO2 increase is, overwhelming, the result of loss of soil depletion.

    That’s in everyone’s interest to address, and is being addressed by everyone serious in Ag.

    If y’all know any serious ranchers looking to get carbon credits for their grazing land, I have a friend working in that. Can result in a decent increase in the profit per acre.
     
    Posts: 4888 | Location: Republic of Ice Cream, Myrtle Beach, SC | Registered: May 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
      Powered by Social Strata  
     

    SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    North Dakota - Big Landowner Rights Win

    © SIGforum 2022