CCS
Part 3 in our series on Carbon Capture and Storage
As expected, proposed legislation to allow for carbon capture and storage wells (CCS) was introduced this week in the Ohio General Assembly. The legislation opens the door for CCS underground injection wells to store captured carbon dioxide in “pore space” or cavities far beneath the land’s surface. As we explained in Part 1 and Part 2 of our CCS series, CCS technology removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and can also trigger final production in an oil or gas field. If passed, the new law would affect agricultural landowners, who could be asked to lease their “pore space” for CCS projects.
The identical CCS bills introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives and Senate are H.B. 170, sponsored by Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) and S.B. 136, sponsored by Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) and Sen. Brian Chavez (R-Marietta). The proposal varies in several places from a bill introduced late last year, the result of “fine tuning” by interested parties over the winter, according to Rep. Blasdel.
The proposed legislation includes clarification of the pore space property interest, a regulatory framework and fees for injection wells, consolidation or “pooling” provisions, well closure procedures, and liability provisions for carbon dioxide migration.
Clarification of “pore space” as a real property interest
Currently, Ohio does not have statutory laws that recognize pore space as a real property interest. The proposal would change that by recognizing that the owner of surface lands and water also owns “all pore space in all strata below the surface lands and waters.” The definition of “pore space” is “subsurface cavities and voids, whether natural or artificially created, that are suitable for use as a sequestration space for carbon dioxide.”
The proposal also addresses conveyancing of pore space, stating that a conveyance of surface ownership also conveys the pore space interest unless the pore space is expressly reserved or severed from the surface interest. This means a landowner could sever pore space rights and convey those separate from the surface, as Ohio law currently allows with minerals. A severed pore space interest would have priority over the surface interest. The proposal also addresses the relationship with mineral interests, stating that severed mineral or oil and gas interests would be dominant over pore space rights.
Regulatory framework for CCS injection wells
The proposed legislation would place state regulatory authority over CCS storage facilities in Ohio’s Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Note that the federal Safe Drinking Water Act also requires CCS injection wells to have a Class VI injection well permit from the U.S. EPA, although with the passage of the proposed bills, Ohio hopes to receive approval from the EPA to administer the state’s Class VI permit program.
The bills directs ODNR to adopt rules for CCS. At a minimum, the rules must include:
(1) Requirements for the operation and monitoring of a carbon dioxide well;
(2) Safety concerning the drilling and operation of a carbon dioxide well;
(3) Spacing, setback, and other provisions to prevent storage facilities and storage operators from impacting the ability of owners of oil and gas interests to develop those interests;
(4) Protection of the public and private water supply, including the amount of water used and the source or sources of the water;
(5) Fencing and screening of surface facilities of a carbon dioxide well;
(6) Containment and disposal of drilling and other wastes related to a carbon sequestration project;
(7) Construction of access roads for purposes of the drilling and operation of a carbon dioxide well;
(8) Noise mitigation for purposes of the drilling of a carbon dioxide well and the operation of such a well, excluding safety and maintenance operations;
(9) Liability insurance to pay damages for injury to persons or property caused by the construction or operation of the storage facility;
(10) Liability insurance coverage of at least fifteen million dollars to cover bodily injury and property damage caused by the construction, drilling, or operation of wells, including environmental coverage.
(11) A surety bond sufficient to cover corrective actions, plugging, post-injection site care prior to receipt of a certificate of project completion, and emergency or remedial response.
The proposed law also states that ODNR may require a CCS storage well operator to deploy a seismicity monitoring system to determine seismic activity in the carbon storage area and requires a well operator to show that owners of oil and gas will not be adversely affected by the well. Both the well operator and the well owner would pay fees to ODNR for the amount of carbon dioxide stored in the well.
Consolidation or “pooling” of pore space
If a well operator can’t obtain the consent of all pore space owners within a proposed storage area, the legislation would allow the operator to apply for “consolidation” if the operator has consent from at least 75% of the pore space owners. The remaining percentage of pore space owners could be “forced” into the project if ODNR determines that the consolidation is “reasonably necessary to facilitate the underground storage of carbon dioxide.” Provisions would also address how to compensate the pore space owners.
Well closure
After carbon injections into a storage facility have ended and a period of 50 years passes, a storage operator may apply for a certificate of closure. If the operator can establish full regulatory compliance and that there is no potential of migration or threat to public health or the environment, the state may issue a certificate of project completion that releases the operator from regulatory requirements and transfers the primary responsibility and liability for the stored carbon dioxide to the state. An operator could remain liable, however, under several circumstances, such as criminal acts, providing deficient or erroneous information, or violating duties.
Liability
The proposal clearly protects owners of pore space and owners of surface or subsurface property interests from liability relating to the injection of carbon dioxide into a storage facility. It also limits any claims for damages against a storage operator to instances where the claimant can prove that the carbon dioxide injection or migration obstructed the free use of property, or caused direct physical injury to an individual, animal, or real or personal property. The bill prohibits awarding of punitive damages if the storage operator acted in compliance with the required permit, and limits damages for personal or real property to the “diminution” or loss of value of the property.
How will the legislation affect agricultural landowners?
Our next article in the Carbon Capture and Storage series will focus on issues agricultural landowners need to consider if the CCS legislation passes. Watch for Part 4 on CCS soon, along with continued updates on the progress of Ohio's CCS legislative proposals.
Tags: carbon capture and storage, CCS, carbon dioxide, pore space
Comments: 0
Part 2 in our series on Carbon Capture and Storage
If you’re a landowner, you may hold a valuable property interest that is gaining attention across the country: pore space. Pore space is the empty space between the particles of soil, sand, rock, and sediment beneath the surface of your land. It’s a geological formation that, if large enough, can store gas, brine water, and similar substances. Why the recent interest in pore space? It’s a necessity for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)—a technology that removes carbon dioxide (CO2) from emission sources and stores it in pore space far beneath the land’s surface.
We began this series on CCS with an overview of the technology and why it’s gaining traction in Ohio. See our first post on the Ohio Ag Law Blog. This second post focuses on legal issues related to pore space. The capacity to store CO2 in the pore space beneath the surface is a property interest that may have value to landowners—one that could be sold or leased to another party for CCS or other storage purposes. But before pore space transactions occur in Ohio, the General Assembly must address a few legal issues: clarification of pore space ownership, whether and how pore space interests can be severed and conveyed, and the relationship between a severed pore space interest and surface and mineral interests. Here’s why these are important legal needs.
- Ownership of pore space. A golden rule of property law partly answers the issue of pore space ownership in Ohio: the “ad coleum” doctrine. The doctrine states that the owner of land owns the rights above and below the land, from the sky to the earth’s core. The assumption under this common law rule, then, is that a landowner owns all subsurface pore space. But what if the pore space is created as a result of a particular activity, like mining? While a few court cases in Ohio have followed the ad coleum doctrine and recognized pore space ownership as an attribute of surface ownership, there have been inconsistent court rulings on the question of ownership of pore space resulting from mining activities. The rulings drive a need for the Ohio legislature to clarify pore space ownership issues, first by codifying the ad coleum doctrine and stating that a surface owner also owns the pore space beneath the surface. Second, statutory law could state whether the surface or mineral owner holds the right to pore space resulting from mineral extraction. If Ohio follows the general rule on mineral extraction adopted among other states, Ohio law would state that the surface owner retains the right to pore space after minerals are fully extracted.
- Severance, conveyance, and recording of pore space interests. Can a surface owner sever the rights to pore space and convey the interest to another party, as Ohio law allows with mineral interests? That’s another legal question in need of clarification in Ohio. The legislature could establish the right to sever pore space and adopt the same conveyancing and recording standards we utilize for tracking other property interests in Ohio.
- Conflicts with other property interests. Can pore space owners interfere with mineral and surface ownership interests by taking actions such as establishing a CCS well on the surface to store CO2 in the pore space? Which property interest has priority over the others if there is a conflict? Our courts can address legal questions as they arise but the Ohio legislature has the power to clear up the relationship between these property interests through statutory law. In particular, Ohio law should establish the priority of rights between the surface, pore space, and mineral interests and answer which is dominant over another when there is a conflict.
Will the legislature tackle these pore space issues that arise with the potential of CCS in Ohio? Possibly, but probably not until the next legislative session begins in January. There are currently proposals in both chambers of the legislature that simply declare an “intent to regulate carbon capture and storage technologies and the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide for long-term storage,” House Bill 358 and Senate Bill 200, but those bills do not yet contain any detailed language and they will die if not passed by year’s end. With few days remaining in the legislative session this year, the bills are not likely to see any action. There will likely be new versions of the bills introduced next year, however, if the interest in CCS in Ohio continues. Hopefully, the proposals will answer our legal questions about pore space as a property interest of Ohio landowners.
Tags: pore space, CCS, carbon, carbon capture, carbon injection, carbon lease, carbon sequestration
Comments: 0
Co-authored by Tyler Zimpfer, Law Fellow, National Agricultural Law Center
Many in Ohio agriculture are familiar with the terms “carbon sequestration” and “carbon credits.” The terms relate to efforts to reduce carbon in the atmosphere by capturing or “sequestering” the carbon. Ohio farmers have taken advantage of their ability to sequester carbon through practices like conservation tillage and cover crops, thus exchanging carbon sequestration practices or the generation of carbon credits for cash payments.
Now an additional form of carbon sequestration is emerging: Carbon Capture and Storage (“CCS”). CCS is a carbon sequestration technology that industries with large carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are using to reduce their carbon “footprint.” CCS technology captures CO2 from airborne emissions and injects it into geologic formations beneath the land surface. Because CCS requires land and can reduce the “carbon index” of products like ethanol, the technology has implications for Ohio agriculture.
In this first post on CCS, we’ll lay out the background of CCS and what’s driving interest in it. Future posts will explain legal hurdles for bringing CCS to Ohio, how CCS relates to ethanol and the potential growth of the sustainable aviation fuels market, and how Ohio landowners could be affected by CCS.
What is Carbon Capture and Storage?
CCS is a process that captures carbon dioxide from an emitting source and permanently stores it underground in geologic formations referred to as “pore space.” Though some are hearing of CCS for the first time, CCS technology has existed for decades, as have many studies on its safety, sustainability, and the amount of carbon that can be stored in different formations and regions. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) finalized a rule regulating geologic sequestration in 2010 pursuant to the agency’s authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
CCS involves three separate steps – capture, transport, and storage. CO2 is captured and separated from other gases at industrial facilities or directly from the atmosphere. After captured, the CO2 is then compressed for transportation. The compression forces the CO2 to act like a liquid. CO2 is most commonly transported via pipelines but can also be moved by ship to offshore wells. Once the CO2 arrives at the intended destination, it is injected into rock formations, often a mile or more underground, where it spreads throughout the pore space of the formation in a plume. The CO2 is then permanently stored in the geological formation. CCS technology is also used for “enhanced oil recovery,” because CO2 injection can recover untapped oil reserves in a partially-depleted oil field. When used for enhanced oil recovery and storage, the technology is referred to as “carbon capture utilization and storage” or CCUS. The image below illustrates different types of CCS.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Regulation of CCS wells
CO2 injection wells are regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act by the EPA through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. The category of wells relevant to CO2 for geological storage is “Class VI” wells. The primary purpose of the Class VI regulations is to protect underground sources of drinking water and prevent leakage, explosions, and contamination. Much attention is currently focused on CCS technology due to a recent Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) suspended the injection of CO2 at a site in Illinois after discovering a potential leak due to corrosion in a monitoring well. While there is no report of water contamination, the EPA found ADM violated federal safe drinking water rules by failing to follow an emergency response plan after detecting the leak.
Why so much interest in CCS?
CCS is expected to be an important strategy of industries that struggle with decarbonization or net-zero greenhouse gas emission goals. CCS can reduce CO2 emissions for hard-to-abate sectors that don’t have other methods for reducing their emissions, such as refineries and cement, steel, and chemical manufacturing
A more recent (and arguably more prominent) factor driving CCS is the current federal tax incentive. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) expanded the tax credit known as “Section 45Q,” first enacted in 2008 and extended in 2018. A company that captures and stores a certain threshold of CO2 every year is eligible for the tax credit. The IRA made several changes to the Section 45Q tax credit to further promote CCS and make it more lucrative and accessible, such as increasing the value of the credit by 70% to $85 per metric ton; lowering the annual capture amount required for eligibility by at least 50% for most facilities; and allowing transferability of the tax credit. With the significant changes in the IRA, researchers expect an increase in CCS projects across the United States.
Can we do CCS in Ohio?
No, not without legislation. Two legal changes are necessary to enable CCS technology in Ohio. (1) Ohio law must define and clarify property rights to the pore space in geological formations beneath land surfaces, and (2) the state must allow the establishment of CCS injection wells in Ohio. We'll explain these two requirements in our next post in this series on CCS.
For more background information on CCS and Section 45Q, see:
- Congressional Research Service, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44902
- Congressional Budget Office, Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59832#_idTextAnchor007
- Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Carbon Capture, Utilization, & Storage, https://ohiodnr.gov/discover-and-learn/safety-conservation/about-odnr/geologic-survey/energy-resources/carbon-capture-utilization-storage
- Congressional Research Service, The Section 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11455
Tags: carbon capture, CCS, sequestration, 45Q, pore space, carbon injection, carbon storage
Comments: 0
