评论:孔隙空间租赁:从巴肯地表所有者的角度看问题

P. Boschee
{"title":"评论:孔隙空间租赁:从巴肯地表所有者的角度看问题","authors":"P. Boschee","doi":"10.2118/0724-0008-jpt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During a trip to western North Dakota last month to visit my family, I met with a long-time friend, Dick, who holds subsurface mineral rights and surface rights in the Bakken area. Over coffee, German sausage, and kuchen, our conversation naturally turned to the leasing of pore space.\n Dick has lately been approached by landmen with what they describe as “great deals” for purchasing the underlying pore space associated with his surface rights. They hesitate to provide specific offers. Instead, he described the initial interactions as “like making a deal for a new car or tractor.” The landmen reply, “I’ll need to go back to the client [my boss or manager] with your questions.” Sound familiar?\n Like most US states, pore space ownership correlates with surface ownership in North Dakota. In August 2022, the North Dakota Supreme Court clarified the rights of surface owners and the need for compensation for pore space use. It also created uncertainty for oil and gas operators who previously had more latitude in using pore space without compensation.\n Dick knows his way around the dealmaking involved in oil and gas rights leasing, having been involved in many landmen inquiries in the days of the Bakken boom and subsequent wheeling and dealing. However, pore space leasing is relatively nascent and faces similar unknowns like the early days of Bakken pitches.\n During his research, he came up against the same walls I have over the years while writing about pore space leasing for carbon sequestration. Becoming more apparent as deals gain momentum is the lack of specifics for comparable deals. As when purchasing a home, identifying “comps” for similar properties is a necessary part of the process.\n But the amounts paid for pore space are closely held, generally not publicly available. It’s impossible to determine if a deal is good or bad. Is the compensation fair?\n And individual surface owners and landowners rights associations (and/or their attorneys) are aware of the 45Q tax credit of $85/tonne of CO2 captured and stored available to the project developer/operator under the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act. How should this be factored into the determination of fair compensation?\n For example, the Ohio River Valley Institute (ORVI), a think tank focused on the Appalachian region, in March described a proposal by Tenaska Inc. to lease underground pore space across seven counties (approximately 80,000 acres) in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia for the sequestering of 150 million tons of CO2. In a document proposing terms for the acquisition of nearly 1,400 acres of pore space in county parklands in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Tenaska offered about $4 million for the county’s 2.6-million-metric-ton share of the CO2 between 2027 and 2056, or about $1.50 per metric ton.\n The ORVI called the deal “ridiculous and borderline insulting.” It supports this declaration by highlighting a comp available from August 2023. Mountaineer GigaSystem LLC offered the state of West Virginia a royalty of $3.35 per metric ton to sequester CO2 on public land in Mason County—more than two times what Tenaska is offering Washington County.\n It also made the point that the ultimate cost of capturing and sequestering the CO2 will not be borne by Tenaska or its customers. The 45Q tax credit will provide Tenaska $423 million annually for sequestering 5 million tons of CO2 annually. The region’s lease revenue will be $7.5 million.\n To align with the available comp, ORVI said Tenaska’s offer should at least match Mountaineer’s $3.35 instead of the proposed $1.50 per metric ton.\n In the western US, ExxonMobil is seeking to pay the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to inject 150 million tons of CO2 over the course of 20 years into 100,000 subsurface acres of pore space on federal lands. The proposed Snowy River CO2 project in Carter County, Montana, is still in the environmental assessment and public comment phase, and the BLM’s compensation for the use of the land is not yet publicly disclosed or finalized.\n Our takeaway after finishing the sausage and kuchen? As pore space leasing evolves, landowners like Dick face a complex landscape of uncertain deals and opaque compensation. With legal clarifications and potential tax credits in play, navigating these new frontiers requires keen insight and vigilance to ensure fair and beneficial agreements for all involved.","PeriodicalId":16720,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Petroleum Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comments: Pore Space Leasing: Insights From a Bakken Surface Owner’s Perspective\",\"authors\":\"P. Boschee\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/0724-0008-jpt\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During a trip to western North Dakota last month to visit my family, I met with a long-time friend, Dick, who holds subsurface mineral rights and surface rights in the Bakken area. Over coffee, German sausage, and kuchen, our conversation naturally turned to the leasing of pore space.\\n Dick has lately been approached by landmen with what they describe as “great deals” for purchasing the underlying pore space associated with his surface rights. They hesitate to provide specific offers. Instead, he described the initial interactions as “like making a deal for a new car or tractor.” The landmen reply, “I’ll need to go back to the client [my boss or manager] with your questions.” Sound familiar?\\n Like most US states, pore space ownership correlates with surface ownership in North Dakota. In August 2022, the North Dakota Supreme Court clarified the rights of surface owners and the need for compensation for pore space use. It also created uncertainty for oil and gas operators who previously had more latitude in using pore space without compensation.\\n Dick knows his way around the dealmaking involved in oil and gas rights leasing, having been involved in many landmen inquiries in the days of the Bakken boom and subsequent wheeling and dealing. However, pore space leasing is relatively nascent and faces similar unknowns like the early days of Bakken pitches.\\n During his research, he came up against the same walls I have over the years while writing about pore space leasing for carbon sequestration. Becoming more apparent as deals gain momentum is the lack of specifics for comparable deals. As when purchasing a home, identifying “comps” for similar properties is a necessary part of the process.\\n But the amounts paid for pore space are closely held, generally not publicly available. It’s impossible to determine if a deal is good or bad. Is the compensation fair?\\n And individual surface owners and landowners rights associations (and/or their attorneys) are aware of the 45Q tax credit of $85/tonne of CO2 captured and stored available to the project developer/operator under the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act. How should this be factored into the determination of fair compensation?\\n For example, the Ohio River Valley Institute (ORVI), a think tank focused on the Appalachian region, in March described a proposal by Tenaska Inc. to lease underground pore space across seven counties (approximately 80,000 acres) in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia for the sequestering of 150 million tons of CO2. In a document proposing terms for the acquisition of nearly 1,400 acres of pore space in county parklands in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Tenaska offered about $4 million for the county’s 2.6-million-metric-ton share of the CO2 between 2027 and 2056, or about $1.50 per metric ton.\\n The ORVI called the deal “ridiculous and borderline insulting.” It supports this declaration by highlighting a comp available from August 2023. Mountaineer GigaSystem LLC offered the state of West Virginia a royalty of $3.35 per metric ton to sequester CO2 on public land in Mason County—more than two times what Tenaska is offering Washington County.\\n It also made the point that the ultimate cost of capturing and sequestering the CO2 will not be borne by Tenaska or its customers. The 45Q tax credit will provide Tenaska $423 million annually for sequestering 5 million tons of CO2 annually. The region’s lease revenue will be $7.5 million.\\n To align with the available comp, ORVI said Tenaska’s offer should at least match Mountaineer’s $3.35 instead of the proposed $1.50 per metric ton.\\n In the western US, ExxonMobil is seeking to pay the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to inject 150 million tons of CO2 over the course of 20 years into 100,000 subsurface acres of pore space on federal lands. The proposed Snowy River CO2 project in Carter County, Montana, is still in the environmental assessment and public comment phase, and the BLM’s compensation for the use of the land is not yet publicly disclosed or finalized.\\n Our takeaway after finishing the sausage and kuchen? As pore space leasing evolves, landowners like Dick face a complex landscape of uncertain deals and opaque compensation. With legal clarifications and potential tax credits in play, navigating these new frontiers requires keen insight and vigilance to ensure fair and beneficial agreements for all involved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Petroleum Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Petroleum Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/0724-0008-jpt\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Petroleum Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/0724-0008-jpt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

上个月去北达科他州西部探亲期间,我遇到了一位老朋友迪克,他在巴肯地区拥有地下采矿权和地表权。在喝咖啡、品尝德国香肠和蛋糕的过程中,我们的话题自然而然地转向了孔隙空间的租赁。最近,有一些地勘人员找到迪克,称可以以 "大优惠 "的价格购买与他的地表权相关的地下孔隙空间。他们对具体报价犹豫不决。相反,他将最初的互动描述为 "就像在交易一辆新车或拖拉机"。地勘人员回答说,"我需要回去向客户(我的老板或经理)提出你的问题"。听起来耳熟吗?与美国大多数州一样,在北达科他州,孔隙空间所有权与地表所有权相关联。2022 年 8 月,北达科他州最高法院明确了地表所有者的权利以及孔隙空间使用补偿的必要性。这也给石油和天然气运营商带来了不确定性,因为他们之前在无偿使用孔隙空间方面拥有更大的自由度。迪克对油气开采权租赁中的交易规则了如指掌,他曾在巴肯油气田繁荣时期参与过许多地勘人员的调查,并在随后参与了各种交易。然而,孔隙空间租赁相对来说刚刚起步,面临着与巴肯油田早期类似的未知数。在研究过程中,他遇到了我多年来在撰写有关孔隙空间租赁用于碳封存的文章时遇到的同样的问题。随着交易势头的增长,缺乏可比交易的具体细节变得越来越明显。就像购买房屋一样,确定类似房产的 "可比性 "是整个过程的必要组成部分。但为孔隙空间支付的金额是保密的,一般不会公开。因此无法确定交易的好坏。补偿是否公平?地表所有者和土地所有者权利协会(和/或其律师)都知道,根据 2022 年美国通货膨胀削减法案,项目开发商/运营商在捕集和封存二氧化碳时可获得每吨 85 美元的 45Q 税收抵免。在确定公平补偿时应如何考虑这一因素?例如,专注于阿巴拉契亚地区的智囊团俄亥俄河流域研究所(ORVI)在 3 月份介绍了 Tenaska 公司的一项提案,该公司将租赁俄亥俄州、宾夕法尼亚州和西弗吉尼亚州 7 个县(约 8 万英亩)的地下孔隙空间,用于封存 1.5 亿吨二氧化碳。在一份关于宾夕法尼亚州华盛顿县公园近 1400 英亩孔隙空间收购条款的文件中,特纳斯卡公司为该县 2027 年至 2056 年期间 260 万公吨二氧化碳的份额开价约 400 万美元,即每公吨约 1.5 美元。ORVI 称这一交易 "荒唐可笑,近乎侮辱"。为支持这一声明,它强调了 2023 年 8 月起可以使用的一项补偿。Mountaineer GigaSystem LLC 为西弗吉尼亚州提供了每公吨 3.35 美元的特许权使用费,用于在梅森县的公共土地上封存二氧化碳--是特纳斯卡为华盛顿县提供的特许权使用费的两倍多。该公司还指出,捕集和封存二氧化碳的最终成本不会由 Tenaska 或其客户承担。45Q 税收减免将为特纳斯卡每年封存 500 万吨二氧化碳提供 4.23 亿美元。该地区的租赁收入将达到 750 万美元。ORVI 表示,为了与现有的可比价格保持一致,特纳斯卡的报价至少应与 Mountaineer 的 3.35 美元相匹配,而不是拟议的每公吨 1.50 美元。在美国西部,埃克森美孚正在寻求向美国土地管理局 (BLM) 支付费用,以便在 20 年内将 1.5 亿吨二氧化碳注入联邦土地上 10 万英亩的地下孔隙空间。拟议中的蒙大拿州卡特县雪河二氧化碳项目仍处于环境评估和公众评论阶段,土地管理局对土地使用的补偿尚未公开披露或最终确定。吃完香肠和蛋糕后,我们的收获是什么?随着孔隙空间租赁的发展,像迪克这样的土地所有者面临着交易不确定、补偿不透明的复杂局面。在法律澄清和潜在税收抵免的作用下,驾驭这些新领域需要敏锐的洞察力和警惕性,以确保为所有参与者达成公平、有利的协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comments: Pore Space Leasing: Insights From a Bakken Surface Owner’s Perspective
During a trip to western North Dakota last month to visit my family, I met with a long-time friend, Dick, who holds subsurface mineral rights and surface rights in the Bakken area. Over coffee, German sausage, and kuchen, our conversation naturally turned to the leasing of pore space. Dick has lately been approached by landmen with what they describe as “great deals” for purchasing the underlying pore space associated with his surface rights. They hesitate to provide specific offers. Instead, he described the initial interactions as “like making a deal for a new car or tractor.” The landmen reply, “I’ll need to go back to the client [my boss or manager] with your questions.” Sound familiar? Like most US states, pore space ownership correlates with surface ownership in North Dakota. In August 2022, the North Dakota Supreme Court clarified the rights of surface owners and the need for compensation for pore space use. It also created uncertainty for oil and gas operators who previously had more latitude in using pore space without compensation. Dick knows his way around the dealmaking involved in oil and gas rights leasing, having been involved in many landmen inquiries in the days of the Bakken boom and subsequent wheeling and dealing. However, pore space leasing is relatively nascent and faces similar unknowns like the early days of Bakken pitches. During his research, he came up against the same walls I have over the years while writing about pore space leasing for carbon sequestration. Becoming more apparent as deals gain momentum is the lack of specifics for comparable deals. As when purchasing a home, identifying “comps” for similar properties is a necessary part of the process. But the amounts paid for pore space are closely held, generally not publicly available. It’s impossible to determine if a deal is good or bad. Is the compensation fair? And individual surface owners and landowners rights associations (and/or their attorneys) are aware of the 45Q tax credit of $85/tonne of CO2 captured and stored available to the project developer/operator under the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act. How should this be factored into the determination of fair compensation? For example, the Ohio River Valley Institute (ORVI), a think tank focused on the Appalachian region, in March described a proposal by Tenaska Inc. to lease underground pore space across seven counties (approximately 80,000 acres) in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia for the sequestering of 150 million tons of CO2. In a document proposing terms for the acquisition of nearly 1,400 acres of pore space in county parklands in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Tenaska offered about $4 million for the county’s 2.6-million-metric-ton share of the CO2 between 2027 and 2056, or about $1.50 per metric ton. The ORVI called the deal “ridiculous and borderline insulting.” It supports this declaration by highlighting a comp available from August 2023. Mountaineer GigaSystem LLC offered the state of West Virginia a royalty of $3.35 per metric ton to sequester CO2 on public land in Mason County—more than two times what Tenaska is offering Washington County. It also made the point that the ultimate cost of capturing and sequestering the CO2 will not be borne by Tenaska or its customers. The 45Q tax credit will provide Tenaska $423 million annually for sequestering 5 million tons of CO2 annually. The region’s lease revenue will be $7.5 million. To align with the available comp, ORVI said Tenaska’s offer should at least match Mountaineer’s $3.35 instead of the proposed $1.50 per metric ton. In the western US, ExxonMobil is seeking to pay the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to inject 150 million tons of CO2 over the course of 20 years into 100,000 subsurface acres of pore space on federal lands. The proposed Snowy River CO2 project in Carter County, Montana, is still in the environmental assessment and public comment phase, and the BLM’s compensation for the use of the land is not yet publicly disclosed or finalized. Our takeaway after finishing the sausage and kuchen? As pore space leasing evolves, landowners like Dick face a complex landscape of uncertain deals and opaque compensation. With legal clarifications and potential tax credits in play, navigating these new frontiers requires keen insight and vigilance to ensure fair and beneficial agreements for all involved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信