4 ms·

I think this is cool but this is mostly being used to find leaky old forgotten wells. Not tap unused or forgotten wells. This is purely risk avoidance, which u

by spydum 2y ago

I think this is cool but this is mostly being used to find leaky old forgotten wells. Not tap unused or forgotten wells. This is purely risk avoidance, which usually means it won't get much attention or funding.

alephnerd 2y ago
> which usually means it won't get much attention or funding Leaky wells are a legal and insurance liability, which has a downstream impact on the financing of a drilling project.
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  They are also a huge, unfunded public liability in many jurisdictions, like mine (Alberta). Companies disappear but their rec-rem responsibilities last forever.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
You have to find them to make the case to fund the remediation. Quantify, calculate, and communicate the risk and cost, then action.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Fine them at rates that dwarf whatever cost it would take to fix them. That would be the motivation necessary. Tell them they have 30 days after being notified before the fines start. Someone else on some other thread mentioned the ideas of exponentially increasing fines. Do that here. Of course, the company has to still exist
  - Dah00n 2y ago
    >Of course, the company has to still exist The system in place in the US means they mostly do not. A fund holding the amount of money it would take to clean up whatever you do on the land should be mandatory. Leave the land as — or better — than you bought it. Of course, that's very un-American.
    - codingdave 2y ago
      Huh, in my energy industry experience, we always remediated sites. And set aside funding for it before any construction was done. The cost estimation and funding of it was part of the initial planning and approval. I thought it was mandatory and mostly did happen. Some quick research says it is legally required, but IANAL nor an expert. Of course, that has not always been the case, and things falls through the cracks, but I would not immediately dismiss the entire industry as being non-compliant. I would dismiss the entire industry as flawed and needing change, but not on this specific point - it is vastly improved over past decades.
      - toast0 2y ago
        > Of course, that has not always been the case, and things falls through the cracks, but I would not immediately dismiss the entire industry as being non-compliant. There's a point in time where this changed and permits needed at least a plausible expectation of remediation. If I had to guess that would have been late 1980s to mid 90s. Most of the sites abandoned without remediation are from permits obtained before that time. I'm sure there's some cases where there was a setaside for remediation and it wasn't sufficient and the corporate entities involved went bankrupt, so it wasn't finished; but IMHO, most of the problem is older sites. Older sites also tend to have worse records, so there's that too.
- Dah00n 2y ago
  If you know they are out there (and we do know) then hiding your head in the sand until someone stuffs proof up your behind seems rather.... well, you get the point. In my opinion, that is like not fixing roads until someone collects data on potholes and forces you to, instead of actually keeping an eye on roads and bridges. A very American POV I'd say.
  - cowsandmilk 2y ago
    Your opinion is very European in that it assumes you can just walk around and find these. The US west where this is focused is vast expanses of open un occupied land and cannot just be inspected to find the abandoned wells from a century ago. Same for large parts of Australia, so no surprise the Australian commenters also find this interesting.
jabroni_salad 2y ago
The DOI has an orphaned wells program and it seems like one of the few things that the BLM does with bipartisan support. https://www.doi.gov/orphanedwells https://www.doi.gov/orphanedwells

by spydum 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

> which usually means it won't get much attention or funding Leaky wells are a legal and insurance liability, which has a downstream impact on the financing of a drilling project.

dowager_dan99 2y ago
They are also a huge, unfunded public liability in many jurisdictions, like mine (Alberta). Companies disappear but their rec-rem responsibilities last forever.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

You have to find them to make the case to fund the remediation. Quantify, calculate, and communicate the risk and cost, then action.

dylan604 2y ago
Fine them at rates that dwarf whatever cost it would take to fix them. That would be the motivation necessary. Tell them they have 30 days after being notified before the fines start. Someone else on some other thread mentioned the ideas of exponentially increasing fines. Do that here. Of course, the company has to still exist
- Dah00n 2y ago
  >Of course, the company has to still exist The system in place in the US means they mostly do not. A fund holding the amount of money it would take to clean up whatever you do on the land should be mandatory. Leave the land as — or better — than you bought it. Of course, that's very un-American.
  - codingdave 2y ago
    Huh, in my energy industry experience, we always remediated sites. And set aside funding for it before any construction was done. The cost estimation and funding of it was part of the initial planning and approval. I thought it was mandatory and mostly did happen. Some quick research says it is legally required, but IANAL nor an expert. Of course, that has not always been the case, and things falls through the cracks, but I would not immediately dismiss the entire industry as being non-compliant. I would dismiss the entire industry as flawed and needing change, but not on this specific point - it is vastly improved over past decades.
    - toast0 2y ago
      > Of course, that has not always been the case, and things falls through the cracks, but I would not immediately dismiss the entire industry as being non-compliant. There's a point in time where this changed and permits needed at least a plausible expectation of remediation. If I had to guess that would have been late 1980s to mid 90s. Most of the sites abandoned without remediation are from permits obtained before that time. I'm sure there's some cases where there was a setaside for remediation and it wasn't sufficient and the corporate entities involved went bankrupt, so it wasn't finished; but IMHO, most of the problem is older sites. Older sites also tend to have worse records, so there's that too.
Dah00n 2y ago
If you know they are out there (and we do know) then hiding your head in the sand until someone stuffs proof up your behind seems rather.... well, you get the point. In my opinion, that is like not fixing roads until someone collects data on potholes and forces you to, instead of actually keeping an eye on roads and bridges. A very American POV I'd say.
- cowsandmilk 2y ago
  Your opinion is very European in that it assumes you can just walk around and find these. The US west where this is focused is vast expanses of open un occupied land and cannot just be inspected to find the abandoned wells from a century ago. Same for large parts of Australia, so no surprise the Australian commenters also find this interesting.

jabroni_salad 2y ago

The DOI has an orphaned wells program and it seems like one of the few things that the BLM does with bipartisan support. https://www.doi.gov/orphanedwells https://www.doi.gov/orphanedwells