Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- Utah lawmakers address regulatory conflicts in the growing brine extraction industry.
- HB433 mandates a study on mineral developments, excluding the Great Salt Lake.
- Recommendations aim to resolve conflicts among brine operators by 2025.
SALT LAKE CITY — As Utah's brine industry continues to grow, it became apparent to lawmakers and the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining that current regulations can create conflict and confusion over extraction of the key resource.
HB433, passed in 2024, mandated the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining to conduct a study and make recommendations to the 2025 legislature on multiple mineral developments of brines, excluding those in the Great Salt Lake, and solution mining of salt to create subterranean cavern space for storing liquids or gas.
In a briefing paper, the division made note of the state's involvement in this arena.
"Utah has an extensive history of recovering minerals from underground brines. Intrepid Potash, for example, has produced potash near Moab and Wendover, Utah. Domestic production of potash from the Wendover location began during World War I, and potash production near Moab began in the early 1960s. When only single-leasable minerals were being extracted, existing laws were sufficient to regulate production."
It went on to detail that Utah is one of only three states that produce potash, primarily used as a fertilizer. Potassium chloride, the main component of potash, is an essential plant nutrient along with nitrogen and phosphorus. Additionally, the chemical industry uses potash to produce soap, glass, ceramics and batteries.
But the multiple layers of agencies and variety of laws have presented issues.
"We have a bit of a conundrum where we have a federal agency of BLM who have allowed leases for different minerals in the same pool, a brine down in southeast Utah. The division was tasked with helping to provide clarity on this," division director Mick Thomas told the oil and gas board Wednesday.
Thomas said some initial recommendations were presented earlier this year to the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environmental Quality interim committee, which he added were well received.
"We had some initial discussions between parties as they got up to speed, that maybe there was a little bit of conflict, but as we've continued to educate and work things out, it seems like we'll have good consensus moving forward with this during the 2025 legislature."
The conflicts with extraction
As mining for lithium has ramped up, it's become apparent to regulators the layers of law, lack of clarity and resulting confusion have merited revamping how Utah regulators exercise oversight of these products.
"Conflicts can occur when one operator has a lease to recover leasable minerals, such as potash, and another has a claim to recover locatable minerals, such as lithium. Division staff are developing recommendations for legislators on new laws that would give the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining the tools to manage and create various concurrent surface and subsurface brine resources," the briefing paper said.
"These laws would enable the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining to adjudicate and resolve multiple mineral development conflicts among brine operators, helping to protect correlative rights," the paper said.
Study participants have included the Bureau of Land Management, the Utah Geological Survey, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, the school trust land administration, among others.
The division also reached out to multiple other states and regions to see if there are commonalities and how issues of conflict may have been handled in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas.
