This paper provides an examination of project-specific regulation and legislation in Europe, Australia and North America that covers property rights, the permitting process, financial assurances, and long-term liability related to CO2 storage.
This paper provides an analysis and update (as of 2015) on current pore space law in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming.
This paper compares the Australian and U.S. models of geologic ownership for CCS, arguing that the Australian model of state ownership is preferable as it provides clarity, structure, and certainty for CCS markets.
This paper considers the extent of a surface landowner's rights above and below land and explores the treatment of underground space within the context of CCS in relation to differing jurisdictions, with particular attention paid to the U.S. and U.K.
Kenneth R. Richards, Joice Chang, Joanna E. Allerhand, John Rupp
This article seeks to provide insight into how U.S. states might approach the task of defining and clarifying property rights to subsurface pore space, particularly rights to the types of structures that are relevant to CCS.
Jonas J. Monast, Brooks R. Pearson, Lincoln F. Pratson
This paper reviews the history of cooperative federalism and how it may provide a framework to determine appropriate roles for federal and state governments, and applies that framework to the gaps in the CCS regulatory structure.
This article navigates the legal challenges related to pore space ownership in Texas, what regulatory actions are needed to clear a path for CCS, and the risk of liability related to CCS and pore space ownership.