A recent Supreme Court decision. A decades old Superfund cleanup liability case. What do they have in common? State climate litigants are about to find out in ways they probably won't like.
Interesting,common sense application,of reasonable environmental standards,and not belligerent litigation to cripple companies,would have been a better option.
One of the most impressive posts I've read in ages! You have superb powers of observation and a very good understanding of human momentum. Great writing skills as well! Kudos!
Well, this brought back old memories. In the 60’s, I lived in Fullerton near what we called “the tar pits”. You had to keep moving when playing on them to avoid getting stuck and becoming “a dinosaur”. Great fun, but ruined a lot of shoes!
Does the existence of these sites, with no liability toward the polluters, give you a quiet? Does the same apply to them lining about ACC and their contribution to it?
Your statement is incorrect. "..with no liability toward polluters." You obviously don't understand how CERCLA works, or what happened at the McColl NPL site.
EPA recovered their costs because the polluters were liable, and solvent. The energy companies recovered most of that via the indemnity contracts under the Avgas Program.
And conflating hazardous, carcinogenic refinery waste with CO2 is a category error of the highest order. But we see this all the time with your type.
It's ironic. Your preview states "I'm here to challenge 'right wing' talking points. Anything else is just decoration."
Yet every comment you've ever made here doesn't challenge anything and contains exactly zero original thought. It's all merely left-wing EcoSocialist talking points with no cogent challenge or argument.
So, that just makes you the left-wing EcoSocialist talking point decoration around here. Congratulations!
Impressive research and a well constructed piece. Thanks for this.
The core idea that states can hold legally operating companies that are not breaking the law to climate suits in Dumb States®️ (that's my new trademarked description for ever more irrational liberal states) is a ridiculous situation. But Demb States are run by...
Our comfortable way of life has come at a cost which is difficult to quantify; except to plaintiff attorneys, of course. One takeaway is the folly of offering blanket indemnities; whether for vaccines, oil production or herbicides. And certainly when less is at stake than the outcome of a world war.
They are starting that up here chasing the 45Q credits to inject CO2 into a very seismic area
Resource development in Alaska has always followed a recognizable pattern. The state owns the resource. A private operator extracts it. The state collects royalties and taxes on the extracted value. The operator profits from the sale. The resource is gone, but the revenue is real and the liability is bounded.
Carbon storage reverses that relationship at every step.
The resource being sold is not something extracted from the ground. It is the ground itself: the geological formation, the pore space, the capacity of the basin to hold injected CO2. The state does not receive royalties on extracted value because nothing is being extracted. It receives a per-ton injection fee starting at $2.50 under the enrolled statute. The operator does not profit primarily from what it sells to buyers. It profits from what the federal government pays it per ton of CO2 it injects, which is $85 per ton under current law, structured as a direct-pay cash refund available for the first 12 years of injection.
Ya know, Andy, part of reason for delay is I spent all afternoon fly fishing on a small mountain creek you could spit across, tight cover with rhododendrons about to bloom.
But I thought about your Taylor Sheridan series comment while I was out there.
Some character who has the only remaining physical copy of the indemnity agreement with the broad language mysteriously drowns while fly fishing on the Snake River in WY.
Wow. I am beyond impressed at your ability to peer around corners and imagine how a smart legal team could use the McColl decision and the Supreme Court opinion on Plaquemines to upend the current fashion of cities and states suing oil and gas companies for climate damages. Some of those legal teams might want to hire you.
On a different note, I've often wondered which industries or institutions use the greatest number of acronyms. My top competitors have always been health care, the military, legal/law enforcement, and the oil and gas business. But I think I need to include environmental professionals for the dizzying combination of legal, scientific, and governmental acronyms that make up your language. 😉
Great job. I'll be watching the climate/legal space closely to see if your foresight comes to pass.
I'm biased but I'd put the environmental industry (across law/regulation, engineering/science/consulting, remediation contracting) right up there with any industry for acronyms (and that's not even including the chemistry within, per se). Obviously, some of those cut across the oil and gas industry (e.g., O&G folks are well aware of CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, OCSLA, BTEX, PAHs, GROs, DROs, etc.).
I would come out of retirement to work for something really crazy interesting/innovative in energy, but not so much to work with environmental lawyers any more. Had my fun (lots of great folks, including one of our original founders here, now spends his time between Austin, Naples and Napoli all year).
Thank you for digging into these very dry legal areas - and joining the dots in the most brilliant (and entertaining) way. The whole "climate reparations" area needs just this kind of ironic outcome.
Whilst no one would condone the WW2 era practices of environmental dumping - I doubt anyone has ever considered the counterfactual of what the world would look like today had the US aviation fuel (and overall war effort) not been realized, and the US had not come to the aid of the UK and Europe, and had"lost" the war in the Pacific? (and yes, I realise that is somewhat a false dichotomy). But the ability to sit in luxuary and opine (litigate) on the past, applying today's moralistic framework, works well when you ignore counterfactuals.
Your point is excellent. We spent our careers cleaning up the worst industrial environmental problems from that era until the CERCLA, RCRA, etal came along to change things. We've seen some awful stuff.
Interesting,common sense application,of reasonable environmental standards,and not belligerent litigation to cripple companies,would have been a better option.
Makes sense, because the obvious rational solution of simply throwing any co2 based climate change lawsuit out of court won’t work.
In some courts it probably will.
But Congressional action obviating any such state suits is a cleaner solution.
One of the most impressive posts I've read in ages! You have superb powers of observation and a very good understanding of human momentum. Great writing skills as well! Kudos!
That’s very kind of you to say (and apologies for the delay responding!) considering we’re just people from industry and not professional writers.
Thanks!
Doomberg- your research and explanation is terrific. Thanks for the explanation. At some level, Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher was right.
Not sure why we got two people confusing us with Doomberg on this post but thanks!
Well, this brought back old memories. In the 60’s, I lived in Fullerton near what we called “the tar pits”. You had to keep moving when playing on them to avoid getting stuck and becoming “a dinosaur”. Great fun, but ruined a lot of shoes!
Good for balance!
By the way, good article. Accurate, from someone who was there.
Thanks!
And you’re still here to talk about it!!!
👏
Several extra toes.
Does the existence of these sites, with no liability toward the polluters, give you a quiet? Does the same apply to them lining about ACC and their contribution to it?
You have the strangest fantasies, dude.
Your statement is incorrect. "..with no liability toward polluters." You obviously don't understand how CERCLA works, or what happened at the McColl NPL site.
EPA recovered their costs because the polluters were liable, and solvent. The energy companies recovered most of that via the indemnity contracts under the Avgas Program.
And conflating hazardous, carcinogenic refinery waste with CO2 is a category error of the highest order. But we see this all the time with your type.
It's ironic. Your preview states "I'm here to challenge 'right wing' talking points. Anything else is just decoration."
Yet every comment you've ever made here doesn't challenge anything and contains exactly zero original thought. It's all merely left-wing EcoSocialist talking points with no cogent challenge or argument.
So, that just makes you the left-wing EcoSocialist talking point decoration around here. Congratulations!
„Dude“
Holy Cow, “Go to war Miss Agnes!”.
What a beautiful reply to the eco-weenie, pseudo-savior. Keep up the good work environMENTAL!
"So, that just makes you the left-wing EcoSocialist talking point decoration around here."
Wow. Sez the dude who calls "Helping a country defend against an aggressive, imperialistic invading neighbour" a "proxy war".
Only pro-Putinists come up with that nonsense.
"And conflating hazardous, carcinogenic refinery waste with CO2 is a category error"
Only if you deny the reality that ACC is happening, and has already started to harm millions of people.
Do you deny both?
"The energy companies recovered most of that via the indemnity contracts under the Avgas Program."
So in the end, the energy companies didn't end up paying, at least not much.
Thanks for proving me right.
“Proxy war”?
{face palm}
Is there any further doubt Trump is Putin’s stooge? Or that Russia has been at war with the EU since Putin because president?
Sure, Lyle. China is just going along with this to suit Russia.
Great theory.
I welcome whole thoughts. Try it.
Impressive research and a well constructed piece. Thanks for this.
The core idea that states can hold legally operating companies that are not breaking the law to climate suits in Dumb States®️ (that's my new trademarked description for ever more irrational liberal states) is a ridiculous situation. But Demb States are run by...
Correct. And Congress is should fix it. But don't hold your breath.
Speaking of “ Dumb States®️”, got any of that $1.99 gas in your village yet?
And that's just activities relating to World War Eleven. Think about the other ten...
Probably applies to several war efforts since WW Eleven.
Our comfortable way of life has come at a cost which is difficult to quantify; except to plaintiff attorneys, of course. One takeaway is the folly of offering blanket indemnities; whether for vaccines, oil production or herbicides. And certainly when less is at stake than the outcome of a world war.
They sure wanted to win that war!
Products you sell to the public? Nah.
They are starting that up here chasing the 45Q credits to inject CO2 into a very seismic area
Resource development in Alaska has always followed a recognizable pattern. The state owns the resource. A private operator extracts it. The state collects royalties and taxes on the extracted value. The operator profits from the sale. The resource is gone, but the revenue is real and the liability is bounded.
Carbon storage reverses that relationship at every step.
The resource being sold is not something extracted from the ground. It is the ground itself: the geological formation, the pore space, the capacity of the basin to hold injected CO2. The state does not receive royalties on extracted value because nothing is being extracted. It receives a per-ton injection fee starting at $2.50 under the enrolled statute. The operator does not profit primarily from what it sells to buyers. It profits from what the federal government pays it per ton of CO2 it injects, which is $85 per ton under current law, structured as a direct-pay cash refund available for the first 12 years of injection.
https://raff6482.substack.com/p/the-development-that-isnt
It's not obvious to us that any CCS has any real value except in EOR.
fantastic story, could be a mini series, maybe Taylor Sheridan would be interested 😀
Ya know, Andy, part of reason for delay is I spent all afternoon fly fishing on a small mountain creek you could spit across, tight cover with rhododendrons about to bloom.
But I thought about your Taylor Sheridan series comment while I was out there.
Some character who has the only remaining physical copy of the indemnity agreement with the broad language mysteriously drowns while fly fishing on the Snake River in WY.
;)
Love it!!
Wow. I am beyond impressed at your ability to peer around corners and imagine how a smart legal team could use the McColl decision and the Supreme Court opinion on Plaquemines to upend the current fashion of cities and states suing oil and gas companies for climate damages. Some of those legal teams might want to hire you.
On a different note, I've often wondered which industries or institutions use the greatest number of acronyms. My top competitors have always been health care, the military, legal/law enforcement, and the oil and gas business. But I think I need to include environmental professionals for the dizzying combination of legal, scientific, and governmental acronyms that make up your language. 😉
Great job. I'll be watching the climate/legal space closely to see if your foresight comes to pass.
Thanks, Trevor.
I'm biased but I'd put the environmental industry (across law/regulation, engineering/science/consulting, remediation contracting) right up there with any industry for acronyms (and that's not even including the chemistry within, per se). Obviously, some of those cut across the oil and gas industry (e.g., O&G folks are well aware of CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, OCSLA, BTEX, PAHs, GROs, DROs, etc.).
I would come out of retirement to work for something really crazy interesting/innovative in energy, but not so much to work with environmental lawyers any more. Had my fun (lots of great folks, including one of our original founders here, now spends his time between Austin, Naples and Napoli all year).
Thank you for digging into these very dry legal areas - and joining the dots in the most brilliant (and entertaining) way. The whole "climate reparations" area needs just this kind of ironic outcome.
Whilst no one would condone the WW2 era practices of environmental dumping - I doubt anyone has ever considered the counterfactual of what the world would look like today had the US aviation fuel (and overall war effort) not been realized, and the US had not come to the aid of the UK and Europe, and had"lost" the war in the Pacific? (and yes, I realise that is somewhat a false dichotomy). But the ability to sit in luxuary and opine (litigate) on the past, applying today's moralistic framework, works well when you ignore counterfactuals.
You bet. This was a fun one to write.
Your point is excellent. We spent our careers cleaning up the worst industrial environmental problems from that era until the CERCLA, RCRA, etal came along to change things. We've seen some awful stuff.