- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
ExxonMobil sues Allen Police Jury over CO2 sequestration permit ordinance
Posted on 7/7/25 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 7/7/25 at 2:29 pm
quote:
ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions Onshore Storage is suing Allen Parish officials over local efforts to require a parish permit for carbon capture sequestration and injection wells. ExxonMobil filed a 22-page lawsuit on July 1 in the U.S. District Court Western District in Lake Charles against the Allen Parish Police Jury and Sheriff Doug Hebert III. The lawsuit challenges the legality and enforceability of a local ordinance requiring a parish permit for carbon capture sequestration and injection well projects, arguing it is inconsistent with state law and delays state-permitted activities. ExxonMobil currently has state approval for two Class V stratigraphic test wells in the parish. If the test wells are successful, the company plans to capture industrial CO2, transport it via pipeline, and store it underground. However, police jurors and local residents are concerned these projects threaten the Chicot Aquifer, a vital drinking water source.
The police jury adopted the injection well ordinance (Ordinance No. 6656) in May, aiming to establish local oversight for carbon capture sequestration and injection wells, a matter typically under state jurisdiction. ExxonMobil claims it repeatedly requested but never received a final version of the ordinance from the police jury. Roland Hollins, a member of the Allen Parish Police Jury and chairman of the Louisiana CO2 Alliance, told the American Press on Monday that the police jury requested an expedited Attorney General opinion on its authority to regulate the wells but has not yet received a response.
quote:
The lawsuit seeks to declare the ordinance invalid and unenforceable, asserting that it exceeds state laws that the company has already met or will meet.
quote:
ExxonMobil argues the additional parish permit is both burdensome and redundant, as the state-issued Louisiana Department of Environmental and Natural Resources permit fulfills all necessary requirements. Furthermore, the lawsuit contends that the ordinance jeopardizes current and future carbon capture projects by granting the parish “complete discretion over whether a permit ever issues and is under no timeline to do so.” According to the lawsuit, state regulators have already approved the construction of the first exploratory Class V test wells at both the Mockingbird and Hummingbird sites. These sites are located east of Oberlin and extend to the Reeves and Elton area.
quote:
ExxonMobil reports having already spent over $75,000 on route surveys, engineering work, and procurement for its pipeline project in Allen Parish. The company indicates it cannot recoup these costs unless the ordinance is nullified and stands to forfeit an additional $75,000 if the project cannot proceed. If the test wells are successful, the company intends to seek a Class VI permit from the state for deep underground carbon dioxide injection, a prospect that continues to be a point of contention for police jurors and residents concerned about the Chicot Aquifer.
LINK
Exxon didn’t buy Denbury to have local governments get in the way of federal
or state approved projects. They’ll continue lawyering up.
Also, Gov Landry is likely for these sequestration projects in Louisiana, so I’m afraid that Allen Parish Police Juror ain’t getting an expedited opinion from AG Murrill. If he does, it’ll probably be an opinion he doesn’t like.
8
Posted on 7/7/25 at 2:45 pm to ragincajun03
It’s carbon dioxide. A gas. It won’t stay dissolved in water.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 2:46 pm to ragincajun03
Big theft of taxpayer dollars and an absolute shame.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 2:49 pm to ragincajun03
I'm shocked a local group of politicians would attempt a last minute money grab. 
Posted on 7/7/25 at 3:30 pm to Swazla
Dont know what you are talking about. Co2 in these projects is pressurized and injected at the right temps and depths to ensure its a supercritical liquid, not a gas.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 3:32 pm to ragincajun03
Concerns about the Chicot Aquifer are dumb and clearly just an instrument to drum up public concern. This area has thousands of old oil and gas wells that go through the Chicot and what has been their effect on contamination for the last 100 years? This injection project would be well below the Chicot with multiple strings of casing and cement to protect against contamination of fresh water aquifers. And no i dont work for Exxon.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 3:33 pm to Swazla
And yet, it does. It is quite soluble in water.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 3:35 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
CO2
quote:
police jurors and local residents are concerned these projects threaten the Chicot Aquifer, a vital drinking water source
So we get sparkling water now? Neat.
Posted on 7/7/25 at 10:51 pm to ragincajun03
Yeah Exxon is the hero of the story. Lol
Posted on 7/7/25 at 11:31 pm to ragincajun03
I have a minor in environmental engineering but as a minor don't have the knowledge to answer the following questions.
I'm not sure if CO2 sequestration is a good or bad thing long term? CO2 is needed for plant life so why sequester? Let's have the biggest, best plants in America (Make American Plants Great Again). Is it some made up bullshite climate change theory?
On the other side, I'm assuming it can get into the aquifer, what does that do to the drinking water? IDK
The salt domes in LA have been housing shite for decades. What have been the side effects of that?
The part I found funny was the "..Exxon had spent $75,000 for survey and ...might lose another $75,000...". Those numbers are laughable for Exxon to claim a loss. Additionally, those numbers don't get much in the way of surveying routes not to mention engineering and ROW procurement.
I'm not sure if CO2 sequestration is a good or bad thing long term? CO2 is needed for plant life so why sequester? Let's have the biggest, best plants in America (Make American Plants Great Again). Is it some made up bullshite climate change theory?
On the other side, I'm assuming it can get into the aquifer, what does that do to the drinking water? IDK
The salt domes in LA have been housing shite for decades. What have been the side effects of that?
The part I found funny was the "..Exxon had spent $75,000 for survey and ...might lose another $75,000...". Those numbers are laughable for Exxon to claim a loss. Additionally, those numbers don't get much in the way of surveying routes not to mention engineering and ROW procurement.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 4:35 am to Swazla
quote:
It’s carbon dioxide. A gas. It won’t stay dissolved in water.
Wrong. At depth in the earth it does. It even does in a lake in Africa at the bottom at over 700 feet it's there. Fish live and grow in that water too.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 6:51 am to Geaux-2-L-O-Miss
CO2 essentially doesn’t let solar radiation go back out into space so it acts as sort of a sponge of heat. You can see correlation to high global temps and high co2 levels in the historical records.
Believe in sequestration or not this is the path forward for the O&G industry.
No co2 is going to get into anyone’s drinking water. That’s really a non issue. The injection is well well below any freshwater (or potable) levels.
Believe in sequestration or not this is the path forward for the O&G industry.
No co2 is going to get into anyone’s drinking water. That’s really a non issue. The injection is well well below any freshwater (or potable) levels.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 12:28 pm to lsugradman
Carbon sequestration companies are going to get paid to sequester co2 from taxpayer funds from Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.There would be no interest in it if it wasn’t for subsidies.
Second of all,CO2 sequestration carries a serious threat to our aquifers.
If pressurized Co2 leaks and pushes saltwater in reservoirs up into freshwater aquifers,it will destroy water sources for a large part of Louisiana.
I went to a presentation by Phd professors and scientists from LSU.They are confident we have subsurface rock formations that will keep the Co2 from leaking.What they failed to talk about is the experience in Decatur Illinois.
“Scientists” had determined that sandstone formations in that location was the ideal site to sequester Co2,has an estimated storage capacity of 150 billion tons.
The injection well in Decatur is the very first commercial sequestration plant in the U.S. and it didn’t take very long for it to start leaking.Then the operator failed to notify the EPA that it was leaking for 3 months
You can read about it at Yale Climate Connections.org.
There are many articles one can Google and read about the potential harm for Co2 sequestration.
The potential risks are just not worth it.
Second of all,CO2 sequestration carries a serious threat to our aquifers.
If pressurized Co2 leaks and pushes saltwater in reservoirs up into freshwater aquifers,it will destroy water sources for a large part of Louisiana.
I went to a presentation by Phd professors and scientists from LSU.They are confident we have subsurface rock formations that will keep the Co2 from leaking.What they failed to talk about is the experience in Decatur Illinois.
“Scientists” had determined that sandstone formations in that location was the ideal site to sequester Co2,has an estimated storage capacity of 150 billion tons.
The injection well in Decatur is the very first commercial sequestration plant in the U.S. and it didn’t take very long for it to start leaking.Then the operator failed to notify the EPA that it was leaking for 3 months
You can read about it at Yale Climate Connections.org.
There are many articles one can Google and read about the potential harm for Co2 sequestration.
The potential risks are just not worth it.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 12:48 pm to LSUA 75
quote:
Carbon sequestration companies are going to get paid to sequester co2 from taxpayer funds from Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.There would be no interest in it if it wasn’t for subsidies.
Correct, but you want to know WHY much of that came about?
EPA over the years, even rule making bureaucrats during Trump’s first term, but then on steroids during Biden, told O&G and petrochem companies that they were going to have to cut back on their greenhouse emissions, or else risk not getting federal permits approved and “losing their license to operate”.
So industry said, “Hey, we’ve got the technology to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. We do it small scale for acid gas and other emissions we don’t want released, as well as secondary recovery operations. However, for us to do this to the scale you expect will drastically increase our costs, and we’ll have to pass that on the our consumers, your voters, and tell them why.”
The politicians sure as hell didn’t want that, so here we are. 45Q credit values jacked up to the moon.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 1:37 pm to ragincajun03
I think the harm from CO2:are overblown but there are other ways to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear energy could be huge but the climate activists heads start spinning when nuclear is mentioned.They all fly to Paris Climate conferences in their C02 emitting private jets and I doubt they even know majority of France’s electricity is from nuclear,
There’s a place for solar,with gas fired and nuclear power plants for backup.
Nevertheless,I think pumping CO2 in the ground is a very bad idea with a very real potential for catastrophe.
There’s a place for solar,with gas fired and nuclear power plants for backup.
Nevertheless,I think pumping CO2 in the ground is a very bad idea with a very real potential for catastrophe.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 1:46 pm to Swazla
quote:
It’s carbon dioxide. A gas. It won’t stay dissolved in water.
The CO2 is injected as a liquid. The triple point of CO2 is approximately 1060 psig @ 88 degrees F. Above 88 degrees (and above 1060 psig) the phase is referred to as "supercritical". Below 88 degrees (and above 1060 psig) the phase is liquid. Below 1060 psig the CO2 boils off (phase changes) to the gas phase. Supercritical and liquid are generally referred to as dense phase.
These Class V CO2 injection wells are more than 1500 psig at the well head.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 1:51 pm to Geaux-2-L-O-Miss
quote:
On the other side, I'm assuming it can get into the aquifer, what does that do to the drinking water? IDK
There is more than a mile of rock between the bottom of the well and any aquifers. Usually 2 miles.
quote:
The salt domes in LA have been housing shite for decades. What have been the side effects of that?
Pretty sable if you don't fill them with fresh water and dissolve the salt.
quote:
I'm not sure if CO2 sequestration is a good or bad thing long term? CO2 is needed for plant life so why sequester?
This is more of a political argument than an environmental science argument.
Essentially Big Oil has leveraged the emotions of the climate change nuts to get tax credits on the back end of their operations @ $85/metric ton of CO2.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 2:00 pm to lsugradman
quote:
CO2 essentially doesn’t let solar radiation go back out into space so it acts as sort of a sponge of heat.
This such a red herring.
CO2 emits radiation back to space almost instantly (on molecular timescales) even after the energy source is removed (nighttime), primarily in the 15 µm infrared band.
quote:
You can see correlation to high global temps and high co2 levels in the historical records.
The only correlation is forced correlation with temperatures that are estimated from climate models. Zero correlation with raw temperature data.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 2:04 pm to LSUA 75
quote:
Nuclear energy could be huge but the climate activists heads start spinning when nuclear is mentioned.
Nuclear is so damn expensive compared to natural gas. That's the issue with nuclear.
Breakeven for nuclear is 15 years. Breakeven for natural gas is less than 5 year with these tax credits now.
If you are an investor into utility electrical generation, where does it make sense to park your money? Yeah, I want three times the returns with a natural gas electrical generation plant too.
Posted on 7/8/25 at 2:15 pm to ragincajun03
Co2 sequestration is a scam perpetrated on the American taxpayer by democrats and oil companies. Don’t be a rube…
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News