- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:38 pm to Bard
quote:
-Will project x, y, z, etc. still proceed if 45Q is repealed?
Almost zero chance a repeal would be immediate. They would do a step down or safe harbor provision like they did with the solar tax credits. Big business plans years in advance and no one has the balls to piss off wall street that much.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:10 am to billjamin
quote:
Almost zero chance a repeal would be immediate. They would do a step down or safe harbor provision like they did with the solar tax credits. Big business plans years in advance and no one has the balls to piss off wall street that much.
I agree, but the point is that there is not nearly enough of a business need for this without the tax credits. If an industry survives only due to government supports, it's fall is going to be fast and hard when those supports are removed.
To your point though, those supports will likely never be stepped down due to the enormous stroke O&G has. These programs are doing nothing but hastening the crush of the USD under the weight of its own debt.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:53 am to Penrod
quote:
Isn’t this just taking the underground formation? Or is it actually taking topsoil land?
I think current statutes related to CCSU allows for "taking" of the pore space to store CO2, and as well as eminent domain avenues similar to oil & gas pipelines. The pipeline stuff is still a drawn out process, so any reputable company with a timeline to want to be under, and one who wants to have a good reputation within the community, won't use ED unless "absolutely necessary".
The pore space taking...that's a tricky one that I'm not sure of the LA DNR still has completely figured out. Is it going to be similar to oil & gas unitization in Louisiana where you must have 80% of the mineral servitude owners either leased or signed up as working interest partners in order to drill a well for your proposed spacing unit? That I'm not sure. I know as of about four years ago, the LA DNR really didn't have a clue how they were going to apply that one. I had asked them directly.
And...the CO2 is going to migrate over time. Several decades...but still. So you start with a proposed "project area" that shows geographically the surface owners whose pore space the CO2 is going to intrude into, but as the gas migrates over time, you'll have to lease more pore space owners. The Class 6 well permits require the operator to drill monitor wells around the boundaries of the proposed sequestration project area to track the CO2 migration over time. So...if those additional owners refuse to lease their pore space as the gas migrates over time, then how is that going to be treated?
That's why I always thought this might end up getting treated similar to saltwater disposal wells. You lease that surface owner where the well is drilled, paying only them any royalties/injection fees, but surrounding surface owners and mineral owners within a certain radius are allowed to protest and object when the permit is proposed by the governing body if they believe the saltwater will intrude upon their right of use to their own surface/pore space, or flood out their minerals.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 7:57 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 7:55 am to billjamin
quote:
Almost zero chance a repeal would be immediate. They would do a step down or safe harbor provision like they did with the solar tax credits. Big business plans years in advance and no one has the balls to piss off wall street that much.
This.
So many hardcore Trumpers thought one of the first things President Trump was going to do in his second term was cancel all those CCSU tax credits. I tried to tell quite a few he wasn't going to touch that, and they wouldn't listen.
Then here comes the Big Beautiful Bill, and all that did was actually expand the Biden 45Q increases into other arenas. It did nothing to curtail any credits (funded by the taxpayers) for carbon sequestration.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:00 am to ragincajun03
quote:
And...the CO2 is going to migrate over time. Several decades...but still.
I don't think this is true. What I have been told by the chemical engineers who study this is that the CO2 will go into solution much as it does in a cola.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:05 am to Penrod
quote:
I don't think this is true. What I have been told by the chemical engineers who study this is that the CO2 will go into solution much as it does in a cola.
It will after a period of time where injection has stopped.
But during the injection period, it will continue to migrate, potentially outside of the geographical boundaries of the initial proposed sequestration unit. Which is why ideally you'd try to lease enough pore space to cover at least 20 years of the migration...or at least until you're no longer on the project to worry about subsurface trespass.
I've seen some projection models from ChemEs and geologists I whose work I trust. Now...maybe they're all wrong, which is possible. But some of those same folks have worked within the secondary/enhanced oil & gas recovery realms where CO2 is injected to get more oil out of a reservoir.
But yes, I think AFTER continuous injection stops, the CO2 is supposed to crystalize or something like that.
Still a huge fricking waste of taxpayer dollars.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 8:09 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:28 am to ragincajun03
quote:
So many hardcore Trumpers thought one of the first things President Trump was going to do in his second term was cancel all those CCSU tax credits.
The funny thing is that the only thing that legitimately got removed were the 25D solar credits. Which were for normal people to use. They left plenty of wiggle room for 48E and businesses still using them. Really a great example of who makes the rules.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:46 am to ragincajun03
quote:
But during the injection period, it will continue to migrate, potentially outside of the geographical boundaries of the initial proposed sequestration unit.
One of my companies developed a CO2 sequestration lease. A very big one here in Louisiana. All of these reservoirs are required to have perimeter wells to test for over migration. If the CO2 is threatening to get out of the boundaries, you have to shut in.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:48 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Still a huge fricking waste of taxpayer dollars.
Yep. Probably. But if they hit their projections, my royalties will be $5.2 million per year. There's probably a better than average chance that none of it will come to fruition, and even if it does, I'm sure they won't hit their projection, but I am dreaming.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:56 am to Penrod
quote:
One of my companies developed a CO2 sequestration lease. A very big one here in Louisiana.
Do we know each other?
quote:
But if they hit their projections, my royalties will be $5.2 million per year.
You need a consultant at the very cheap rate of 5% of proceeds?
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:59 am to Boston911
quote:
is there enough machinery that can operate efficiently enough to grab enough of it and shove it into a cavern that can exists millenniums that can make enough impact to change global climate changes????????????????????
Yes. They are called plants. Everything from grasslands to forests capture CO2 and deposits it in the soil.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:01 am to ragincajun03
quote:
You need a consultant at the very cheap rate of 5% of proceeds?
I'm out of it. We had the good sense to sell our position because we didn't have the know-how to develop it.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:05 am to Penrod
quote:
I'm out of it. We had the good sense to sell our position because we didn't have the know-how to develop it.
Probably for the best. I haven't touched the CCS game since 2022. Good ole oil & gas and petrochem is established enough. Congrats on getting at least set up well in case the sequestration stuff does happen.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:12 am to Commanda
I know several landowners in the Swla area that are dealing with with Oxy and Exxon trying to take their land run pipelines for the co2. Funny thing is some of them have worked for aegis chemical solutions who go out to wells and pump chemicals out of them straight into the ground. No one is complaining about that! Several of these guys will tell you they put stuff into the ground that is 100 times worse than co2. Then you have land owners who worked for the oil and gas industry in Lake Charles and did worse things there and now they are drawing big time retirement checks but they don’t want their property messed with. I guess it is ok to do bad things to the environment as long as you don’t get caught are it helps you make money. Neither side is right. Please stop using the old hillbilly ways of saying you are protecting the land for your grandkids. Guess what your grandkids are going to end up selling that land to some big industry one day. You cannot stop progress are should I say the federal government.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:13 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Is it going to be similar to oil & gas unitization in Louisiana where you must have 80% of the mineral servitude owners either leased or signed up as working interest partners in order to drill a well for your proposed spacing unit?
That's not the rule in Louisiana for oil and gas units. But to answer your question, you need 85% of the owners within the unit to consent for a CCS unit:
La RS 30:1104.2(B): An order for unit operation shall be issued only after notice, public hearing, and a finding by the commissioner that it is for a public and necessary purpose. In order to consider a unit application, the commissioner shall find that at least eighty-five percent of the owners in interest within the proposed storage unit have consented in writing to geologic storage. The required eighty-five percent of the owners in interest shall be on the basis of, and in proportion to, the surface acreage content of the entire storage unit and, if a tract within the storage unit is subject to ownership in indivision, credited by multiplying the acreage of the tract by the undivided ownership interest of the parties who have consented in writing to geologic storage.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:20 am to UpToPar
quote:
That's not the rule in Louisiana for oil and gas units.
What is the threshold? Is there one? Or can you force pool as much as you want for oil & gas, as long as the operator is willing to carry?
Maybe the 80% thing was just a self-imposed threshold on the projects I worked. I didn't think in Louisiana forced pooling was as operator friendly NM, TX, etc.
quote:
But to answer your question, you need 85% of the owners within the unit to consent for a CCS unit:
La RS 30:1104.2(B): An order for unit operation shall be issued only after notice, public hearing, and a finding by the commissioner that it is for a public and necessary purpose. In order to consider a unit application, the commissioner shall find that at least eighty-five percent of the owners in interest within the proposed storage unit have consented in writing to geologic storage.
Thank you.
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 9:22 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:22 am to ragincajun03
There isn’t one for production units.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News