Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Drill Here, Drill Now |
IMO: LinkThis 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. | ||
|
Legalize the Constitution |
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? _______________________________________________________ despite them | |||
|
Member |
O.T. reply, the coldest I’ve ever been goes to Bismarck! | |||
|
Drill Here, Drill Now |
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. | |||
|
Member |
Tatortodd - your title is at least 80 miles off, Bismarck is in ND. I agree though, landowners should have the choice of saying no or being compensated for use of the pore space. | |||
|
Don't Panic |
The key fact is that it is not changed. Came out of the ground yucky, goes back in the same way. | |||
|
Member |
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 Springfield custom 1911 hardball Glock 21 Les Baer Special Tactical AR-15 | |||
|
Shall Not Be Infringed |
^^^Fact...Eggs ARE Good for you! And so is Bacon! ____________________________________________________________ If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !! Trump 2024....Make America Great Again! "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20 Live Free or Die! | |||
|
The Ice Cream Man |
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. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |