Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Associated and Incremental Storage: Opportunities for Increased CO2 Removal with Enhanced Oil Recovery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance

Abstract

Carbon dioxide removal is essential to reaching emmission reductions goals. Enhanced oil recovery with CO2 has the potential to sequester significant amounts of carbon oxide though well-established and readily dispatchable technologies. Programs, including 45Q, encourage use of anthroprogenic CO2 in enhanced oil recovery. These assets also present an opportunity for additional injection and storage of CO2 following the conclusion of economic recoveries of oil and gas, not only advancing decarbonization but providing opportunities for economic development and employment. This chapter examines legal and regulatory opportunities to maximize the decarbonization potential of CO2-EOR and incremental storage.

Tara Righetti is a professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law and the UW School of Energy Resources. Professor Righetti’s research is supported in party by the National Science Foundation EPSCoR program (NSF EPSCoR grant OIA-1632899). Professor Righetti acknowledges Madeleine Lewis (JD/MA’19) for her research assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Global CCS Inst., The Global Status of CCS: 2017, at 7, 9 (2017).

  2. 2.

    Christopher Zahasky and Samuel Krevor, Global Geologic Carbon Storage Requirements of Climate Change Mitigation Scenarios, Energy and Environmental Science (2020).

  3. 3.

    Romany Webb & Michael Gerrard, Overcoming Impediments to Offshore CO2 Storage: Legal Issues in the United States and Canada, 49 Envt’l L. Rep. 10,634 (2019).

  4. 4.

    See The White House, United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization (2016), available at https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mid_century_strategy_report-final_red.pdf (designating to CCUS technology a significant role in reducing carbon emissions by 2050).

  5. 5.

    See infra notes 30 - 47 and accompanying text.

  6. 6.

    Anthony Chavez, A Napoleonic Approach to Climate Change: The Geoengineering Branch, 5 Wash. Lee J. Energy, Climate Env’t 111,124-125 (2013).

  7. 7.

    See generally Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Utility Comm’n’s, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration: Technology and Policy Status and Opportunities (Nov. 5, 2018), available at https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/8C07B393-A9A0-3F04-4832-D43790E10B91 (analyzing future of CCUS technology in the context of declining coal and rising natural gas usage).

  8. 8.

    Id. Although the vitality of traditional dominant energy sources like coal are declining, natural gas remains abundant and affordable to consumers of electricity. Id.

  9. 9.

    See James Hansen, Young people’s burden: Requirement of negative emissions. 8 Earth System Dynamics 577 (2017); International Energy Agency, Carbon Capture and Storage: The Solution of Deep Emissions Reductions, OECD/IEA (2015), available at https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CarbonCaptureandStorageThesolutionfordeepemissionsreductions.pdf.

  10. 10.

    Academic literature refers to both CCUS and CCS, often using the terms interchangeably. However, there are differences between projects where CO2 is exclusively stored and projects where CO2 is utilized for EOR, or the production of chemicals or other industrial products, see, Rosa M. Cuellar-Franca & Adisa Azapagic, Carbon Capture, Storage, and Utilization Technologies: A Critical Analysis and Comparison of Their Life Cycle Environmental Impacts, 9 J. CO2 Utilization 82, 83 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Joris Kornneeff, et al., Global Potential for Biomass and Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage up to 2050, 11 Int’l J. Greenhouse Gas Control 117, 119 (2012).

  12. 12.

    David Keith, Why capture CO2 from the atmosphere, 325 Sci. 1654, 1654 (2009).

  13. 13.

    See Marco Mazzotti, et al., Direct air capture of CO2 with Chemicals: Optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a countercurrent air-liquid contactor, 1 Climatic Change 118, 120 (2013) (“Direct Air Capture involves a system with an ‘air contactor’ where ambient air flows over a chemical sorbent that selectively removes the CO2 …[which is] then released as a concentrated stream for disposal or reuse.”)

  14. 14.

    R. Stuart Haszeldine, Can CCS and NETs Enable the Continued Use of Fossil Carbon Fuels after CoP21?, 32(2) Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol’y 304, 310 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Global CCS Inst., supra note 2 at 18, 20.

  16. 16.

    See Stephen Pacala & Robert Socolow, Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Program for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies, 305 Sci. 968 (Aug. 13, 2004), available at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5686/968.full.

  17. 17.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming of 1.5 °C An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty 134–35 (V. Masson-Delmotte, et al., eds., 2018); Some scientists have questioned whether bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration are viable at the scale forecasted by the majority of 2 °C models, see, Jeff Tollefson, Is The 2 Degree C World a Fantasy? Nature (November 24, 2015), available at http://www.nature.com/news/is-the-2-c-world-a-fantasy-1.18868

  18. 18.

    U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage: Climate Change, Economic Competitiveness, and Energy Security (August 2016), available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/DOE%20%20Carbon%20Capture%20Utilization%20and%20Storage_2016-09-07.pdf

  19. 19.

    Id.

  20. 20.

    U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, 15, (2007). In 2017, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2017 were approximately 5.14 billion metric tons, see U.S. Energy Related CO2 Emissions Fell Slightly in 2017, U.S. Energy Info. Admin. (Sept. 5, 2018), available at https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

  21. 21.

    Michael. J. Nasi & Jacob Arechiga, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technologies for Power Generation, RMMLF Special Institute, Climate Change Law and Regulations: Planning for a Carbon-Constrained Regulatory Environment ch. 9B (2015).

  22. 22.

    Stefan Bachu, Identification of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-EOR and CO2 Storage (CCUS) Using Reserves Databases, with Application to Alberta, Canada, 44 Int’l J. Greenhouse Gas Control 152, 153 (2016); Stephanie M. Haggerty, Note, Legal Requirements for Widespread Implementation of CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Oil Reserves, 21 Pace Envt’l L. Rev. 197, 200–01 (2003).

  23. 23.

    Sally Benson et al., Underground Geological Storage, in IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage 210 (Bert Metz et al. eds., 2005), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs wholereport.pdf

  24. 24.

    42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1) (West 2018).

  25. 25.

    Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015).

  26. 26.

    Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations, 84 FR 32520 (July 8, 2019). The EPA is currently finalizing implementing regulations for the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and future emission guidelines promulgated under CAA section 111(d).

  27. 27.

    See 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b) (West 2018).

  28. 28.

    See Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 83 FR 65617 (Dec. 21, 2018).

  29. 29.

    Ian J. Duncan, CO2 -EOR 101: An Overview of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, Enhanced Oil Recovery: Legal Framework for Sustainable Management of Mature Oil Fields, 2015-4 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Fdn. 4-1 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Id.

  31. 31.

    Id. at 4-2.

  32. 32.

    Id.

  33. 33.

    Figure provided via personal correspondence with Meltzer Consulting.

  34. 34.

    Robert C. Ferguson, et al., Storing CO2 with Enhanced Oil Recovery, Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 1989-1996; J. Greg Schnacke et al., Carbon Dioxide Infrastructure: Pipeline Transport Issues and Regulatory Concerns – Past, Present, and Future, Enhanced Oil Recovery: Legal Framework for Sustainable Management of Mature Oil Fields, 2015 RMMLF Special Institute 10, 10-8 (2015).

  35. 35.

    Stephen L. Melzer, Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR): Factors Involved in Adding Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) to Enhanced Oil Recovery 11 (February 2012) (report prepared for the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions) (hereafter “Melzer EOR Report”)

  36. 36.

    Philip M. Marston & Patricia A. Moore, From EOR to CCS: The Evolving Legal and Regulatory Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage, 29 Energy L. J. 421, 424–25 (2008) (“[t]he amount of CO2 that has been incidentally stored [as residual unrecoverable CO2 injected for EOR] over the last several decades dwarfs the volumes injected by CCS pilot projects around the world.”).

  37. 37.

    Life cycle analyses of the net environmental impacts of associated storage from CO2-EOR are unclear, see, Michael Godec et al., Evaluation of Technology and Policy Issues Associated with the Storage of Carbon Dioxide via Enhanced Oil Recovery in Determining the Potential for Carbon Negative Oil, 114 Energy Procedia 6563, 6573-74 (2017).

  38. 38.

    Bob Berwyn, Wait, They’re drilling for CO2 in Colorado? The Colorado Independent (March 10, 2015), available at https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2015/03/10/wait-theyre-drilling-for-co2-in-colorado/

  39. 39.

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Commercial EOR Projects using Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_eor.html (Sept. 2016).

  40. 40.

    Michael L. Godec, et al., Potential Issues and Costs Associated with Verifying CO2 Storage During and After CO2-EOR, 114 Energy Procedia 7399, 7402 (2017).

  41. 41.

    Hussain, et al., Comparative life-cycle inventory (LCI) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods using different CO2 sources, 16 Int’l J. Greenhouse Gas Control 129–144, (2013)

  42. 42.

    Michael Godec et al., supra note 38 at 6565.

  43. 43.

    See Godec, Potential Issues, supra note 41 at 7402.

  44. 44.

    Godec, et al., supra note 38 at 6566 (“[s]ince the purchased cost of injected CO2 was often the largest cost component of a CO2-EOR project, CO2-EOR operators attempted to optimize incremental oil production in individual CO2-EOR projects by minimizing the amount of CO2 injected per incremental barrel of oil produced.”).

  45. 45.

    Godec, et al., supra note 38, at 6567.

  46. 46.

    U.S. Dep’t of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL-2011/1504, Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR), (report prepared by Advanced Resources International, Jun. 20, 2011), available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NextGen_CO2_EOR_06142011.pdf

  47. 47.

    Data regarding incidents in CO2 wells may be difficult to study. See Porse, S.L., Wade, S., & Hovorka, S.D., Can We Treat CO2 Well Blowouts Like Routine Plumbing Problems? A Study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of Well Control, 63 Energy Procedia 7149 (2014).

  48. 48.

    Duncan, supra note 30, at 7-8.

  49. 49.

    Alexandra B. Klass & Elizabeth J. Wilson, Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Identifying and Managing Risks, 8 Issues L. Scholarship 1, 1 (2009).

  50. 50.

    U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, RCED-89-97, Report to the Chairman Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Drinking Water Safeguards Are Not Preventing Contamination from Injected Oil and Gas Wastes 19 (1989).

  51. 51.

    See S. Conley, et al., Methane emissions from the 2015 Aliso Canyon blowout in Los Angeles, CA, 351 Science 1317 (25 Feb 2016), available at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6279/1317.full. From October 2015 to February 201 a major blowout of natural gas from a storage reservoir beneath Aliso Canyon, near Los Angeles, caused leakage of gas and toxins harmful to human health. Id.; Wilson, E.J., Friedmann, S.J., & Pollak, M.F., Research for Deployment: Incorporating Risk, Regulation, and Liability for Carbon Capture and Sequestration, 41 Envt’l Science & Tech. 5945, 5946 (2007).

  52. 52.

    Klass and Wilson, supra note 50; Klaus Keller et al., Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: How Much and When?, 88 Climatic Change 267, 268 (2008).

  53. 53.

    Khoo, H.H. & Tan, R.B.H., Life cycle evaluation of CO2 recovery and mineral sequestration alternatives, 25 Envt’l Science & Tech. 208, 212 (2006).

  54. 54.

    Trae Gray, A 2015 Analysis and Update on U.S. Pore Space Law—The Necessity of Proceeding Cautiously With Respect to the “Stick” Known as Pore Space, 1 Oil & Gas, Nat. Resources & Energy J. 227, 326 (2015).

  55. 55.

    Kevin Anderson & Glen Peters, The Trouble With Negative Emissions, 354 Sci. 6309 (14 Oct 2014); Karsten Pruess et al., Numerical Modeling of Aquifer Disposal of CO2, 8 Soc’y Petroleum Engineers J. 49, 52–53 (2003).

  56. 56.

    Dominic Lenzi, The ethics of negative emissions, Global Sustainability 2 (18 July, 2018); Albert C. Lin, Does Geoengineering Present a Moral Hazard?, 40 Ecology L.Q. 673, 676–77 (2013).

  57. 57.

    William Burns, Geoengineering the Climate: An Overview of Solar Radiation Management Options, 46 Tulsa L. Rev. 283, 297 (2010).

  58. 58.

    Paul Baer, An Issue of Scenarios: Carbon Sequestration as Investment and the Distribution of Risk, 59 Climatic Change 283, 287 (2003); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming of 1.5 ° C 4-21 (2018).

  59. 59.

    Alexandra B. Klass & Elizabeth J. Wilson, Climate Change Carbon Sequestration and Property Rights, 2010 U. Ill. L. Rev. 363, 371–72 (2010), but see, Jesse Reynolds, A Critical Examination of the Climate Engineering Moral Hazard and Risk Compensation Concern, 2 Anthropocene Rev. 174, 185 (2015) (for the argument that evidence of moral hazard is “inconclusive”).

  60. 60.

    Jay Michaelson, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project, 17 Stan. Envt’l L.J. 73, 132–34 (1998) (discussing deep environmentalist approaches to climate change, which anticipate a structural shift in consumer habits and technology).

  61. 61.

    Christine Merk, et al., Do climate engineering experts display moral hazard behaviour?, 19 Climate Pol’y 231, 232 (2018).

  62. 62.

    Troy H. Campbell and Aaron C. Kay, Solution Aversion: On the Relation Between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief, 107 J. Personality & Social Psychology 809, 811 (2014); Klass and Wilson, supra note 60, at 364–65.

  63. 63.

    David Biello, Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution, Yale Env’t 360 (September 8, 2014).

  64. 64.

    Anthony E. Chavez, Using Legal Principles to Guide Geoengineering Deployment, 24 N. Y. U. Envt’l L. J. 59, 70 (2016); Reynolds, supra note 60, at 183.

  65. 65.

    Anthony E. Chavez, A Napoleonic Approach to Climate Change: The Geoengineering Branch, 5 Wash. & Lee J. Energy, Climate, & Env’t 93, 105–06 (2013) (“[c]onversion to new energy technologies occurs [slowly] … On average, energy technologies have required 30 years to advance from being technically available to reaching materiality. This pattern was consistent across all technologies, including nuclear power, natural gas, biofuels, wind, and solar photovoltaic.”).

  66. 66.

    Michaelson, supra note 61, at 102–05.

  67. 67.

    Alexandra B. Klass & Elizabeth Wilson, supra note 60, at 423.

  68. 68.

    Jeremy David & Howard Herzog, The Cost of Carbon Capture, Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies at MIT 2 (Sept. 30, 2016), available at http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/David_and_Herzog.pdf

  69. 69.

    Jonas J. Monast, et al., A Cooperative Federalism Framework for CCS Regulation, 7 Envt’l & Energy L. & Pol’y J. 1, 6 (2012).

  70. 70.

    See Int’l Org. for Standardization, Standards Catalogue, ISO/TC 265 Carbon dioxide capture, transportation, and geological storage, available at https://www.iso.org/committee/648607/x/catalogue/p/1/u/1/w/0/d/0 (last visited July 8, 2019).

  71. 71.

    Int’l Org. for Standardization, ISO/DIS 27916: Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transportation and Geologic Storage—Carbon Dioxide Storage Using Enhanced Oil Recovery, available at https://www.iso.org/standard/65937.html (last visited July 7, 2019).

  72. 72.

    Id.

  73. 73.

    Id.

  74. 74.

    National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-113, § 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996); Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 63 Fed. Reg. 8546, 8549 (Feb. 19, 1998) (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119); Emily S. Bremer, On the Cost of Public Standards in Private Law, 63 U. Kan. L. Rev. 279, 296 (2015

  75. 75.

    42 U.S.C. §§ 300f –300j-26 (West 2018); Elizabeth Wilson, et al., Regulating the Ultimate Sink: Managing the Risks for Geologic CO2 Storage, 37 Envt’l Sci. & Technology 3476, 3478 (2003).

  76. 76.

    Arnold W. Reitze Jr., Federal Control of Carbon Capture, 41 Envt’l L. Rep. 10,796, 10,803 (2011).

  77. 77.

    See Marston & Moore, supra note 37, at 467; Susan Zachos, Overview of Class II Underground Injection Control Program, 35A RMMLF-INST 4, 4-1 (1994).

  78. 78.

    40 C.F.R. § 146.23 (West 2018).

  79. 79.

    See, e.g.,N.M. Stat. Ann. § 70-2-12 (West 2018); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 30-5-104(d)(v) (West 2018).

  80. 80.

    62 Ill. Adm. Code 240.796 (West 2018); Okla. Corp. Comm’n, Statement on Proactive Approach to Seismic Activity, (Dec. 1, 2014), available at http://www.occeweb.com/SeismicStatementB.pdf

  81. 81.

    42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370 h (West 2018).

  82. 82.

    42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (2012).

  83. 83.

    42 U.S.C. § 6901 (West 2018).

  84. 84.

    42 U.S.C. § 4332(c) (West 2018).

  85. 85.

    Lin, supra note 57, at 2555; Tara Righetti, Siting Carbon Dioxide Pipelines, 3 Oil & Gas, Nat. Resources & Energy J. 907, 931-933 (2017).

  86. 86.

    Cal. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21,000–21189.57 (West 2018); N.Y. Envtl. Cons.. Law Ann. § 8-0109 (McKinney 2006); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15,064 (West 2018); California Carbon Capture and Storage Review Panel, California Draft Report A Review of Carbon Capture and Storage In California 14 (2010).

  87. 87.

    See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (2012).

  88. 88.

    40 C.F.R. 9, 260, 261.4(h) (2014).

  89. 89.

    Jeffrey W. Moore, The Potential Law Of On-Shore Geologic Sequestration Of CO2 Captured From Coal-Fired Power Plants, 28 Energy L.J. 443, 445 (2007); Marston & Moore, supra note 37 at 471.

  90. 90.

    See Tara Righetti, Environmental Considerations in Oil and Gas Conservation and Permitting, 64 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst. 5-1 (2018).

  91. 91.

    Marie Durrant, Preparing for the Flood: CO2 enhanced oil recovery, 59 RMMLF-INST 11-1 (2013).

  92. 92.

    See, e.g., Wyo. Oil and Gas Conservation Comm’n Rules, ch. 4, § 10 (2018).

  93. 93.

    40 C.F.R. 98.232 (West 2019); 40 C.F.R. §98.422 (West 2019); 40 C.F.R. §98.470 (West 2019).

  94. 94.

    Steven Melzer, Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR): Factors Involved in Adding Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) to Enhanced Oil Recovery, Report to National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 8-9 (2012).

  95. 95.

    Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, Initial Report to the President on Empowering Workers Through Revitalizing Energy Communities (April 2021).

  96. 96.

    Id.

  97. 97.

    26 U.S.C. 45Q (West 2018).

  98. 98.

    The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-123, 132 Stat. 232

  99. 99.

    Id.

  100. 100.

    Energy Act of 2020, div. Z, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.

  101. 101.

    Marston & Moore, supra note 37 at 437.

  102. 102.

    Id.

  103. 103.

    Sylvia L. Harrison, Disposition of the Mineral Estate on United States Public Lands: A Historical Perspective, 10 Pub. Land L. Rev. 131, 134 (1989).

  104. 104.

    Chartiers Block Coal v. Mellon, 25 A. 597, 598 (1893).

  105. 105.

    Jean Feriancek, Resolving Ownership of Pore Space, 26 Nat. Resources & Env’t 49, 49–50 (2012); Troy A. Rule, Property Rights and Modern Energy, 20 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 803, 810 (2013); A precise determination of ownership would require an analysis of the conveyance that created the split estate. See Bruce M. Kramer, Horizontal Drilling and Trespass: A Challenge to the Norms of Property and Tort Law, 25 Colo. Nat. Resources, Energy & Envt’l L. Rev. 291, 296–97 (2014).

  106. 106.

    Feland v. Placid Oil Co., 171 N.W.2d 829 (N.D.1969); Fischer v. Continental Res., Inc., 49 F. Supp. 3d 637, 646 (D.N.D.2014); Duncan, supra note 30, at 7-2; Howard R. Williams, Williams & Meyers on Oil and Gas Law § 202.1 (2015).

  107. 107.

    Wendy B. Jacobs, Global Climate Change and U.S. Law 581 (Michael Gerrard & Jody Freeman eds., 2d ed., 2014) (“it will be no simple logistical matter to determine when precisely the pore space within the mineral estate has been fully mined and has reverted to the surface owner.”).

  108. 108.

    8 Patrick H. Martin & Bruce M. Kramer, Williams Meyers Manual of Oil and Gas Terms §§ 1125-26 (2015).

  109. 109.

    Agencies may be able to grant injection easements pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Management Policy Act. See, 43 U.S.C. §1761(a) (West 2018), and, Bureau Land Mgmt., Colo. State Office, Colorado State Office, Instructional Memorandum No. CO-2016, Class II Injection Facilities and Wells (Mar. 28, 2016). For an analysis of these issues, see, Tara Righetti, Kris Koski, Jesse Richardson, and Sam Taylor, The Carbon Storage Future of Public Lands __ Pace Envt’l. L. Rev. __(2021).

  110. 110.

    Owen Anderson, Lord Coke, the Restatement, and Modern Subsurface Trespass Law, 6 Tex. J. Oil Gas & Energy L. 203, 233–234 (2010–2011).

  111. 111.

    R.R. Comm’n v. Manziel, 361 S.W.2d 560, 568 (Tex. 1962).

  112. 112.

    Anderson, supra note 111, at 233–234.

  113. 113.

    See Edward Rubin et al., Technical Summary, in Sally Benson et al., Underground Geological Storage, in IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (Bert Metz et al. eds., 2005).

  114. 114.

    See Chance v. BP Chemicals, 670 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio 1996); Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., LP v. Land & Sons Inc., 259 P.3d 766 (Mont. 2011).

  115. 115.

    Tara Righetti, Correlative Rights and Limited Common Property in the Pore Space: A Response to the Challenge of Subsurface Trespass in Carbon Capture and Sequestration, 47 Envt’l L. Rep. News & Analysis 10,420, 10,429–30 (2017).

  116. 116.

    Kris Koski, Jesse Richardson, Tara Righetti, & Sam Taylor, United States Energy Association, Study on State’s Policies & Regulations per CO2-EOR Storage Conventional, ROZ and EOR in Shale: Permitting, Infrastructure, Incentives, Royalty Owners, Eminent Domain, Mineral-Pore Space, and Storage Lease Issues (2020).

  117. 117.

    Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Task Force on Carbon Capture & Geologic Storage, A Legal and Regulatory Guide for States & Provinces 15, 22 (2007).

  118. 118.

    Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 353.808 (West 2011); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-153 (2011).

  119. 119.

    IOGCC, supra note 118, at 26.

  120. 120.

    Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 35-11-313 —316 (2011).

  121. 121.

    See FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Sys., L.C., 351 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2011); Snyder Ranches, Inc. v. Oil Conservation Comm’n of N.M., 798 P.2d 587 (N.M. 1990).

  122. 122.

    40 C.F.R. §§ 144.11– 144.19, 144.51 (West 2018).

  123. 123.

    40 C.F.R. § 144.51.

  124. 124.

    Godec, supra note 41, at 7407.

  125. 125.

    Nat. Res. Def. Council, Strengthening the regulation of enhanced oil recovery to align it with the objectives of geologic carbon dioxide sequestration (2017), available at https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/regulation-eor-carbon-dioxide-sequestration-report.pdf. Further, unlike the Class II program, only North Dakota has primacy over the Class VI injection program, See, State of North Dakota Underground Injection Control Program; Class VI Primacy Approval, 83 Fed. Reg. 17,758 (Apr. 24, 2018).

  126. 126.

    40 CFR § 144.19 (West 2018).

  127. 127.

    Memorandum from Peter C. Grevatt, Director Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA 1 (Apr. 23, 2018), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/class2eorclass6memo_0.pdf

  128. 128.

    Koski, et al., supra note 117.

  129. 129.

    40 CFR § 98.441, subpart RR (2010).

  130. 130.

    40 CFR § 98.448 (2010).

  131. 131.

    40 CFR § 998.446(d) (2010).

  132. 132.

    40 CFR § 998.446(f)(3) (2010).

  133. 133.

    Nat. Res. Def. Council, supra note 126, at 7–8.

  134. 134.

    J. Greg Schnacke et al., supra note 35 at 10-30–32.

  135. 135.

    U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Siting and Regulating Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Infrastructure, Workshop Report (2017).

  136. 136.

    Alexandra B. Klass & Elizabeth J. Wilson, Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration: Assessing a Liability Regime for Long-Term Storage of Carbon Dioxide, 58 Emory L.J. 103 (2008).

  137. 137.

    See Id.

  138. 138.

    Id at 172.

  139. 139.

    Id. at 149.

  140. 140.

    20 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1107/25 (West 2018); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 353.810(3) (West 2018); Mont. Code Ann. § 82-11-181 (West 2018); Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 119.004 (West 2018).

  141. 141.

    Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-318 (West 2018).

  142. 142.

    Klass & Wilson, supra note 137, at 176.

  143. 143.

    Dep’t of Energy, Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, 109-123, (2010).

  144. 144.

    Id. at 172–73.

  145. 145.

    See, Klass and Wilson, supra note 60, at 423–29; Marston & Moore, supra note 37, at 487–90.

  146. 146.

    Godec, supra note 38 at 6567.

  147. 147.

    Id.

  148. 148.

    California Air Resources Board, Carbon Capture and Sequestration Protocol under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (August 13, 2018), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-03/CCS_Protocol_Under_LCFS_8-13-18.pdf

  149. 149.

    Department of the Treasury, Credit for Carbon Oxide Sequestration, 26 C.F.R. Part 1 (Jan. 6, 2021).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wyoming College of Law, Laramie, WY, USA

    Tara Righetti

Authors
  1. Tara Righetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tara Righetti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy, American University, Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy and Culture program, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Wil Burns

  2. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    David Dana

  3. American University, Washington DC, WA, USA

    Simon James Nicholson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Righetti, T. (2021). Associated and Incremental Storage: Opportunities for Increased CO2 Removal with Enhanced Oil Recovery. In: Burns, W., Dana, D., Nicholson, S.J. (eds) Climate Geoengineering: Science, Law and Governance. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72372-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation