**HOLLIDAY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.**

# ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & REGULATORY CONSULTANTS 

P.O. BOX 2508 BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77402-2508 (713) 668-7640 FAX (713)
668-5184

E-MAIL ghh@att.net

4 October 2008

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

**RE: Docket 1D No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 - COMMENTS**

Gentlemen:

These comments respond to the EPA request regarding the revisions to the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) well rule proposed 25 July 2008 at
73 FR 43492-43541. We agree EPA has the authority under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to propose regulations governing the protect
Underground Sources of Drinking Water, but we believe Carbon Dioxide
Sequestration Wells are: 1) dangerous and 2) unnecessary and should not
promulgated. Also, we believe the Safe Drinking Water Act is not suited
to provide necessary safety to the citizenry, because EPA, by
promulgating Class VI wells, is authorizing construction of a CERCLA
imminent hazard substance storage site and a RCRA hazardous substance
(corrosivity) storage site. Each of these concerns and many more are
discussed below. We request these comment be made a part of the record
EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390.

**DiscussiOn**

The Environmental Protection Agency at 73 FR 43492-43541 requests
comments regarding the proposal to prepare regulations for an unknown
number of Class VI wells. Class VI wells are in reality, manmade
explosive devices storing buoyant carbon dioxide sequestered deep in the
earth under supercritical pressure conditions. Many persons designing
these wells are of unknown technical ability, e.g., not professional
Engineers (P.E.). There are no safe guards to prevent organizations from
simply seeking monetary rewards, without being required to see the
project to completion. Further, the well designs and operations would be
approved by Agency technically untrained employees, who are not
Professional Engineers and supervised by a Regional Director who is
neither an engineer nor a Professional Engineer.

The Agency proposes using untrained EPA employees who are not required
to demonstrate their CO~2~ sequestration technical knowledge by
completing and passing a written examination. Further, the Agency
proposes to sequester buoyant CO~2~ until the end-of-time by only
requiring 50 years of monitoring (40 CFR 146.93(b)(1)). In addition, EPA
proposes using well completion materials not currently developed and
proven corrosion-resistant under carbonic acid corrosive conditions.

The proposed regulations are a formula for future disaster: 1) Dangerous
to sequester CO~2~, a supercritical fluid stored at high pressure (2200±
psi): 2) The scientific basis for sequestering Carbon Dioxide (CO~2~) as
a means of slowing or eliminating climate change (Global Warming) is not
scientifically established. In fact, EPA in the proposed rule does not
claim anthropogenic CO~2~ is the cause of global temperature increase.
EPA simply infers sequestration is necessary, without support. Refer to
the Comment Section below entitled "Sequestration is not necessary" for
details on the lack of supporting data for this EPA inferred position.

The sequestration of CO~2~ represents a money-making scheme for a
"political" pollutant, which will encourage unqualified organizations
and speculators to seek Class VI injection permits. These unqualified
organizations will find unqualified consultants to prepare documents
supporting the permit applications. EPA, in the instant proposed rule,
suggests several financial responsibility schemes to avoid unqualified
organizations and speculators from creating a disaster, but EPA and
states do not know how to assure financial responsibility as
demonstrated by the lack specificity within the proposed rule. Rules
proposed with this lack of specificity, typically result in EPA
selecting final rule wording, which received no comments during the
proposal stage. This gives EPA free rein to select regulation wording
not reviewed by the commenting public, and not alluded to during the
proposal.

One of the most frightening aspects of the proposed rule is EPA imposes
no technical qualification requirements on EPA review personnel. Thus, a
well written, but inaccurate document, can easily be accepted by EPA,
when technically unqualified reviewers are used. If qualified reviewers
were used, the application would be rejected.

A review of the existing technical literature suggests no author has
considered how long sequestration is expected to last. Schlumberger says
in their advertising, sequestration is "permanent" separation of CO~2~
from the near surface waters. Webster Unabridged Dictionary defines
"permanent" as meaning unchanging, a very long time, to last
indefinitely. Indefinitely is for ever without end. This appears to be
an impossible assignment. Governments come and go, people come and to,
and most importantly companies (permittees) come and go. The cost of
carbon dioxide sequestrations monitoring until the end of time is a
monumental expenditure. To circumvent this problem EPA states 50 years
should be long enough, even though EPA offers no technical support for
this claim. Then EPA says "not to worry," EPA will allow the
non-technically trained Regional Director to lengthen or shorten the
sequestration reservoir monitoring time based on his vast
"inexperience". EPA offers no guidance to assist the untrained,
non-engineer Regional Directors in making that determination.

EPA discusses what happens, if, the sequestration operator goes bankrupt
or decides "enough is enough" and cannot or will not continue monitoring
the highly pressure CO~2~ containing formulation. But EPA offers no
useable answer in the proposed rule. EPA suggests in the instant
preamble that, we wait until EPA finds an answer. Such assurance is
without merit. Now, during the rule proposal stage is the time to
provide concrete requirements to assure the public of the safety of
sequestration!

The Federal Government can establish a trust fund? If one considers the
Social Security Trust Fund, we can expect the sequestration fund to be
combined with the General Fund for Government maintenance and then the
money is not available when need! Who will prevent Congress from using
the funds when times are lean? The Safe Drinking Water Act makes no
provision for this alternative!

EPA believes Class VI wells and associated reservoirs will be safe, even
though corrosion resistant materials are not available. Again EPA says
"not to worry" EPA "knows" the Oil and Gas Industry will develop
corrosion resistant pipe and cement, when they are needed. Our
investigation shows no pipe, packer, rubber seal or cement have been
tested resistant to carbonic acid attack for 50 years (maximum test
length to date is 12 months!). Thus, when the well or formation fails
(leaks), the CO~2~ phase changes(from liquid to gas). This will result
in a massive increase in volume as the CO~2~ approaches the earth's
surface causing vast destruction. EPA is not authorized by the Safe
Drinking Water Act to consider protection of human life from such a
disaster. Since the disaster may occur where there is no USDW the Statue
provides no-protection for the general public from a release. Thus, at
some future time the sequestration system operating at 2215± psia
(Moore, et al) can fail due to corrosion (Meyer, 2007) or the carbon
dioxide finds its way explosively to the earth's surface.

Meyer (2007) reports severe corrosion of stainless steel 404 components
during injection at an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide.
Also, Newton and McClay (1977) say "\[p\]redict\[ing\] ··· corrosivity
based on CO~2~ and water cuts have not always proved accurate." The
presence of water insitu to storage reservoirs typically increases the
corrosive nature of this CO~2~. The injected CO~2~ is buoyant and rises
to the bottom of the top confining zone. The confining zone is
penetrated by at least one injection well and probably other wells.
These wells must have casing, which will corrode quickly unless there is
a constant injection of corrosion inhibitor (Thomasville. MS
experience).

A review of the Department of Energy, State of Washington and State of
New Mexico reports and rules shows none of these Agencies are willing to
discuss the types of material appropriate for well completion
components. This is true, also, of the IOGCC (2007) report. On the other
hand, EPA at 73 FR 43510 suggests using stainless steel 316 fittings,
and forgings on the basis of recommendation of Meyer (2007) for surface
connections associated with EOR wells injecting dry CO~2~. We asked Dr.
Meyer for clarification regarding the reported corrosion. Dr. Meyer
provided reference to two paper demonstrating severe corrosion of carbon
steel (Schemp and Roberson, 1975; Newton and. McClay, 1977.

We know the stainless steel components have corrosion problem, Meyer,
2007. Further investigation establishes that only one stainless steel
316 wellhead assembly has ever been made in the U.S. This means EPA
already has approved CO~2~ sequestration wells without SS 316
components. This means existing CO~2~ injection wells are subject to
carbonic acid agression, making the wells current RCRA (RCRA's §7003)
and CERLA (CERCLA §106) imminent hazards. Meyer (2007), also discusses,
use of epoxy coated tubing for enhanced oil recovery. **This plastic
coated tubing is pulled and inspected yearly**. Yearly inspection of
tubing for 50 years does not appear practical for CO~2~ sequestration
wells! Each time the tubing is pulled, the coating at the threaded joint
wears and/or chips, exposing the carbon steel to carbonic acid
corrosion. This corrosive attack will result in rapid exteriorization of
the tubing.

The packer presents a particularly difficult design problem. A stainless
steel packed body can be manufactured. But, the slip must be hardened
carbon steel so they set in the casing wall to compress the elastomer
seal. Stainless steel work hardens, but it is not heat treatable. Thus,
making stainless steel slips appears highly questionable. Packer
elastermers, e.g. Buna-N and Nitrile rubbers, are available, but never
tested over long time periods, e.g., 50 years, in the presence of
carbonic acid. Schemp, and Roberson, (1975) report "\[T\]ests showed
nonmetallic seals to be susceptible to acid and mechanical damage."
Tubingless completions are possible, but this would expose the casing to
acid attack. Multiple cemented casing strings can be run. However, steel
is known to corrode rapidly in the presence of carbonic acid.

Admixed cements have been "accelerated" tested in the presence of
carbonic acid for a period of 6-12 months, but not for decades (personal
communication with Vaughn Morgan, Halliburton). Thus, un-field tested
specialty cements have been short term laboratory tested, but not over a
50 year period! Halliburton
(<http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6904971.html>) makes a acid
resistant cement "with improved corrosion resistance.' Halliburton does
not claim the cement to be acid resistant!

What is particularly disturbing is the statement by EPA at 73 FR 43510,
col. 1, "Today's proposal does not specify materials that may be used,
rather, proposes providing the owner or operator with the flexibility to
choose, as long as the materials used in GS wells are
corrosion-resistant and meet standards approved for such materials by
API or ASTM International or comparable standards approved by the
\[nontechnically trained\] Director". This statement says in effect, "We
don't know what materials are appropriate for CS well completions. Thus,
EPA places the responsibility on industry and the untrained,
non-engineer Regional Director to solve the materials dilemma. This
raise questions about the existing EPA/State approved sequestrations
wells!

The EPA's statement at 73 FR 43510 raises even a greater concern:

> \[t\]oday's proposal would require that the cements and cement
> additives used in GS wells be appropriate to address long-term
> injection of CO2 and assure that the well can maintain integrity
> throughout the proposed life span of the project,

e.g., without EPA specifications, except longevity of materials, e.g.,
corrosion resistance requirements, etc., **EPA places the responsibility
on an industry which government, the public and regulators have never
trusted, Bryant (2007).**

**The proposed rule must be withdrawn!**

**CS Wells are not necessary**

Carbon dioxide sequestration will not stop global temperature increase!
EPA in the preamble to the CS proposed rule (73 FR 43496-43502)
discusses the reasons for the need for CO~2~ sequestration. Nowhere in
those pages does EPA state that carbon dioxide emissions cause global
warming or what the optimum earth temperature is, or how the Agency
knows when the optimum temperature is reached, so future sequestration
can be discontinued. Is EPA suggesting sequestration continue until it
causes the next ice age? A review of the U. S. Department of Energy
(2007) report demonstrates a similar lack of CO~2~ cause and effect.

We can find no peer reviewed technical paper, referenced by EPA or
anyone else (not based on computer simulation) showing CO~2~ causes
global warming. EPA relies heavily on computer simulations by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) reports. Reference to
IPCC reports subjects EPA to serious question regarding the technical
validity of the information presented. The use of the Hockey Stick
Figure (Figure 22, IPCC, 1996) brings into sharp focus the political
nature of the IPCC reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated
conclusively the Hockey Stick Figure was based on truncated data,
obsolete data, calculation errors and quality control deficiencies.
Also, Figures 5.20 and 5.21 (IPCC, 2005) , sequestration well details,
demonstrate IPCC is technically deficient because, IPCC blithely
suggests pulling cemented casing from Class VI at the completion of
injection, IPCC Figure 5.21. Experience demonstrates cemented casing
cannot be pulled. IPCC (2005 at page 231) suggests milling the casing
from the shoe upwards to remove corrodible metal from contact with the
carbonic acid. Milling is possible. Modern mills can "hog out" 10 feet
of casing per hour, but the metal chips settle-out in the well Blowout
Preventer, preventing proper operation in the event of an emergence. The
ludicrous suggestion of using a milling stone as a means of connecting
to a fixed packer defies all understanding, IPCC Figure 5.20. Astute
scientists and engineers are very wary of IPCC reports, because of the
frequent and consistent errors contained in the reports.

EPA, in the proposed sequestration rule, does not provide any indication
of the benefit sequestration will provide other than reduce CO~2~
concentration in the atmosphere. Even that goal appears questionable.
Our extensive review of the technical literature demonstrate no peer
reviewed reports based on field observations are available showing a
direct relationship of global warming caused by increase in the
atmospheric CO~2~. However, Lucas, 2008, states the "We Can Solve It"
([www.wecansolveit.org](http://www.wecansolveit.org/)) campaign compares
"your commitment to solving the climate crisis as \[being equivalent to
solving\] the World War II, Normandy landing, the civil rights movement
and putting a man on the moon" combined. Unfortunately,
[www.wecansolveit.org](http://www.wecansolveit.org/) offers no
supporting data, but it offers new high financial income opportunities,
which appears to be the major driving force behind temperature change
projects.

Is the relationship between CO~2~ and global temperature increase is
real? The quantity of anthropogenic CO~2~ emissions are infinitesimally
small compared with naturally occurring CO~2~ releases as shown by DOE,
Figure 1, below,. The U.S. Department of Energy
([www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/overview.html](http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/overview.html))
developed the graph, showing projected CO~2~ entering the atmosphere
during 2008 from Anthropogenic sources is 6.0 GtC/yr: Forests and Soils
release \>100 GtC/yr: Geologic \>300 GtC/yr and Oceans 1,400 GtC/yr. It
appears sequestering all of the anthropogenic CO~2~ in minuscule when
compared with natural sources. Will sequestering such a small quantity
effective reduce global warming?

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.152777777777778in"
height="5.074305555555555in"}

**Figure 1. 2008 Estimated United States CO2 Emissions for 2008**

**CO~2~ Sequestration is Costly**

Xie and Economides (2008) discuss the uncertainties and risks of CO~2~
sequestration in oil and gas reservoirs (see Attachment 1, below). The
authors conclude the cost just to satisfy the United States Kyoto
Protocol requirements will cost more than \$1 Trillion per year. The
paper gives a "realistic situation \[view\] on the potential impacts on
commercial CO~2~ sequestration projects, environment and the global
climate change."

**Sequestration is not Necessary**

Based on a review of existing technical papers, CO~2~ emissions are not
causing climate temperature change. There have been climate changes for
at about 2 million years. Life has struggled forward under climate
temperature increases and decreases without being annihilated.

During these temperature changes, Greenland has gone from a marginal
framing area to a bleak cold frozen area, but people continue taking
advantage of the warmer climate by moving away from the cold areas. The
belief that these global temperature changes can be mitigated by
sequestering carbon dioxide has no scientific support, since previous
Global temperature increases occurred in the absence of anthropogenic
CO~2~.

Climate models, which are being used to suggest CO~2~ is causing global
warming are inaccurate at best, because climate predictions are very
complicated and beyond our current technical capabilities. Relying on
computer modeling as the basis for needing the instant rule proposal is
a cruel hoax.

**Lack of Qualified EPA Personnel**

EPA requests comments on many aspects of CO~2~. For example at 73 FR
43514, col. 2, EPA request help learning to track CO~2~ underground
plumes. I have worked with the UIC rules as a commenter since 1979. At
no time did EPA use an EPA Professional Engineer (P.E.) for developing
the UIC rules. During the initial stages of writing the 1979 draft
rules, EPA used an Ancient English graduate as the Agency lead technical
supervisor. Ancient English is not considered a technical background.

I have not found any of the current EPA UIC Regional employees to be
professional engineers. When I requested the information in writing from
EPA, I was told privacy laws prohibited providing such information.
Reviewing and understanding CO~2~ sequestration projects is a
technically exacting task. Assigning an EPA non-Professional Engineer to
this review task exposes the U.S. public to severe risk. Placing the
final approval in the hands of a Regional Administrator, who
traditionally is not an engineer, means the EPA is disregarding public
safety. At a minimum, the reviewing engineer and Regional Administrator
must be Professional Engineers. EPA at 40 CFR Part 112 requires a
Professional Engineer certify a Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, which typically is intrinsically a simple
non-technical document, but EPA does not rely on EPA Professional
Engineers to review high pressure, corrosive fluid injection projects,
that are highly technical and intrinsically unsafe.

EPA has likened Class VI projects to Class I hazardous waste injection
wells and Class II CO~2~ enhanced recovery wells. It is true Class I
disposal wells sequester hazardous waste, but these wastes are not
buoyant and typically are combined with other waste to make them
non-corrosive**. Further, the Agency has been reviewing Class II well
plans submitted by experienced oil and gas company engineers**. An
anticipated shortage of trained oil and gas industry engineers (Bryant,
2007) and the political nature of CO~2~ sequestration projects
([www.wecansolveit.org](http://www.wecansolveit.org/)) will attract
spectators, who do not intend to see the project through to completion.
Thus, the Agency may be forced to correct many problems caused by poor
review and oversight on the part of the untrained EPA employees

The mixture of hazardous wastes associated with Class I injection wells
do not aggressively attack carbon steel or cement. Also, hazardous waste
will not change phase, as supercritical CO~2~ does when the pressure is
decreased. The change in fluid phase results in formation of a gas,
which is large in volume and more redily able to find its way to the
surface of the earth through minute cracks. The earth's surface is full
of examples of oil seeps, e.g., the underwater seeks at Santa Barbara,
California, and oil seeps in and around the Pennsylvania oil fields, to
name a few areas where leaks are known to occur.

The hazardous wastes stored in Class I wells are retained underground
because, the column of waste formed when a leak occurs, provides a
controlling head of weighted fluid. In the case of CO~2~ the hydraulic
head, in the event of a leak, becomes less as the over burden pressure
reduces. This is a much more dangerous condition than experienced with
Class I wells.

Class II enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells are not abandoned with a high
residual head of buoyant gas. Typically, the well is produced until the
field becomes un-economical (too depleted) to produce. This, unlike the
CO~2~ sequestration wells is not under high supercritical pressure (2200
psig pressure) at the time of abandonment. Also, a Class II CO~2~
injection well is associated with oil producing operations, which can be
protected from corrosion by injecting corrosion inhibitor into the
producing well during the producing phase.

**EPA Carefully Selects Citations**

EPA (2008), at 73 FR 43515, col. 2, cites Burton et al. (2007) as
supporting the availability and adequacy of "current monitoring
technologies" for monitoring pressures in GS project (sic)." EPA does
not cite the serious questions raised by Nicot and Hovarka (2008) at the
EPA January 16, 2008 CO~2~ meeting in New Orleans, wherein Nicot and
Hovarka (2008) presented a PowerPoint slide show regarding monitoring
insitu problems. Hovarka (2008) reiterates serious concern discussed in
2007 regarding field monitoring capabilities of currently available
tools. At 73 FR 43515, col. 3, EPA selects the Nimiz and Hudson (2005)
report to justify insitu monitoring of CO~2~. EPA did not cite the Nicot
and Hovarka (2007) presentation, which makes a point of expressing
serious concern regarding insitu monitoring using current techniques.

EPA cites Flett (2007), et al. at 73 FR 43519. The reader is directed to
the EPA reference section (73 FR 43533) of the proposed rule preamble
and to EPA (2008b). The reader finds a) no citation as to the origin of
the reference at 73 FR 43533 and b) EPA 2008b is a paper regarding
"Vulnerability Evaluation Framework ···", which, in turn, refers the
reader to the instant proposed rule.

EPA consistently, excludes reference which do not support the EPA
preconceived ideas!

**EPA Does Not Have Proper Statutory Authority to Propose CO~2~
Sequestration Rule**

EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect USDWs from
CO~2~ sequestration. The SDWA authorizes EPA to protect drinking water,
not encourage indefinite storage of a corrosive, high press fluid. CO~2~
is known to attack carbon and stainless steel, Meyer (2007). The fact
that Meyer reported stainless steel 404 was badly corroded by "dry"
CO~2~ indicates wet CO~2~ (carbonic acid) is a RCRA corrosive waste,
since it meets the RCRA definition of corrosive. In addition, the fact a
leak of CO~2~ could enter a building basement suffocating the
inhabitants, demonstrates CO~2~ sequestration is not an environmental
problem, but, when sequestered, it is a pervasive and dangerous life
threatening hazard. EPA is ill equipped to control potentially unsafe
activities under the guise of protecting drinking water.

**EPA Guesses at the required Class VI Monitoring Period**

EPA at 73 FR 43518 -- 43527 discusses how EPA decided to monitor a
sequestration project for 50 years. EPA said 50 years is a long time and
if EPA extends the time longer the cost will be too high! EPA provide no
rational argument for selecting 50 years: EPA says at 73 FR 43519, "EPA
is tentatively proposing a post-injection site care (monitoring) period
of 50 years with Director's discretion to change that period to lengthen
or shorten the 50- year period, if appropriate." The best support EPA
offers (73 FR 43520) for the 50 year monitoring period is:

> "To ensure that the post-injection site care monitoring timeframe is
> long enough to determine that there is no threat of endangerment to
> USDWs from injection activities; EPA is proposing a default
> post-injection site care period of 50 years. During this 50-year
> period, the owner or operator would be required to submit periodic
> reports providing monitoring results and updated modeling results as
> appropriate until a demonstration of non-endangerment to USDWs can be
> made."

EPA is willing to rely on a technically untrained Regional Administrator
counseled by uncertified EPA employees, because EPA does not have
technical know-how to determine the appropriate monitoring time period!
We question the probability of speculators being in business 50 years
after the injectors stop producing income and become a liability. Since
EPA is charged only with protecting USDWs and not human life, EPA can,
by default, slough the real burden, e.g., protecting human life, onto
some other agency. In our opinion this is an Arbitrary and Capricious
and a life threatening action on the part of EPA.

**EPA does not include a recommended means of funding sequestration long
term corrective action.**

EPA at 73 FR 43501, tells the reader of the proposed rule to go to
<http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/> so as to read the findings of the
various Class VI Workshops. Unfortunately, the presentations are, for
the most part, PowerPoint slideshow without voice over. Thus, the
slideshows are difficult to interrupt and only contain EPA presented
materials. When EPA refers to comments and questions from the attendees,
EPA provides only an interpretation of the questions or comments, thus
no context is provided. This places the commenter regarding the proposed
rule at a severe disadvantage. Reading of the various documents
available on the website demonstrates no issues of post closure
monitoring or long term funding for corrective action were raised, or
discussions recorded. The EPA references to the websites suggest
substantive discussions occurred during the Workshops. The EPA record
demonstrates, little or nothing was accomplished during the Workshops.
EPA deprives the commenters of accurate input from the Workshops. For
example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states:

> "···SDWA does not have explicit provisions for financial
> responsibility, as included in RCRA, EPA believes that the general
> authorities provided under the SDWA authority to prevent endangerment
> of USDWs include the authority to set standards for financial
> responsibility to prevent endangerment of USDWs from improper
> plugging, remediation, and management of wells after site closure. The
> SDWA authority does not extend to financial responsibility for
> activities not related to protection of USDWs (e.g., coverage of risks
> to air, ecosystems, public health or public safety unrelated to USDW
> endangerment). It also does not cover transfer of owner or operator
> financial responsibility to other entities, or creation of a third
> party financial mechanism where EPA is the trustee."

Further, EPA believes they can assume the RCRA type authority for Class
VI wells under the SDWA. If challenged in court, the court most likely
will disagree, because the SDWA was written only for protection of USDW.
Even the Agency suggests the Safe Drinking Water Act is not appropriate
to regulate CO~2~ sequestration.

When one considers the emphasis on enhanced income available from
climate change presented on
[www.wecandoit.org](http://www.wecandoit.org/), it is difficult to
imagine speculative companies being willing to fund short-term injection
but not long-term remedial projects. After the financial income ceases,
these companies will fade away, particularly if the IOGCC (2007) trust
fund recommendation is followed, 73 FR 43504. The trust fund is similar
to insurance. The Trust Fund input per ton of CO~2~ by the speculators
will be considered part of the cost of doing business.

EPA appears to be waiting for counsel from the Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB) regarding recommendations for long term corrective
action regarding financial responsibility. Review of the EPA cited
documents regarding EFAB shows the so called "important topic" of Class
VI well financial responsibility **was not** discussed at the **Workshop
on Financial Assurance in EPA Programs, June 17, 2008 - New York, NY**

<http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/publications/FinancialAssuranceWorkshopSummary.pdf>.

At the **EPA, Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting 27 March
10-11, 2008,** the minutes record the follow action regarding "this
important topic":

> *"DFO Meiburg* described EFAB's role in paying for activities
> especially in the area of SRFs for water programs. EFAB has expanded
> in the last few years into the transportation sector which is related
> to climate change. For example, the CO2 injection program would
> require financial assurance, if something goes wrong in the clean up.
> EFAB has been working with the Office of Solid Waste and the Office of
> Enforcement over financial assurance related to Resource Conservation
> and Recovery Act (RCRA)."

The sense of urgency expressed by the Agency appears to be lacking in
these Board minutes. If in fact, EFAB is discussing "transportation
sector", the discussion may relate to a different agenda item. In any
event, EFAB does not appear to be actively engaged in long term
corrective action funding for Class VI wells.

The EPA discussion from 73 FR 43520 - 43522 regarding surety provisions
is not formulated as a rule. The presentation resembles an Agency
thinking "out loud trying to find an answer." We are given no
opportunity to comment on a rational proposal, because the data are
withheld!

**Cost Estimate for Plugging Class VI Wells**

EPA at 73 FR 43522 EPA discusses having funds available to plug Class VI
wells. They question if the owner/operator will have sufficient funds to
plug and abandon the injection well. We have expressed the same concern
previously in these comments. EPA proposes to solve this problem by
having a contractor make the cost estimate. Any cost estimate reflects
the assumption used to develop the estimate. We recall when EPA
instructed their cost estimating contractor to assume all existing SPCC
Plans (67 FR 47140, July 17, 2002) were in compliance with the proposed
unpublished SPCC rule. The resulting cost estimate was unethical, but
reflected the given assumptions and showed the proposed revisions to 40
CFR Part 112 reduce regulatory costs. Is there a chance the same
(unethical) approach is possible when estimating the plug and
abandonment costs for Class VI by unethical speculators? Will the
technically untrained EPA employee recognize the estimate is not correct
or for that matter, how will untrained EPA employee recognize the
estimate is correct?

**ADAPTIVE APPROACH**

EPA, at 73 FR 43522, requests input regarding using electronic means of
involving the public in the rule making process. From our vantage point
of reading the Federal Register daily, the use of the web is highly
satisfactory. However, we find most citizens don't know the Federal
Register exists. Thus, the public does not have any idea what
regulations are being proposed or promulgated. EPA needs to be out-going
with their information, e.g., put notices in the newspapers, sponsor
television Public Notices, etc. Currently, the public is uninformed and
will remain uninformed, if the Agency relies solely on the Federal
Register.!

**PRIMACY**

We find many of the state regulator are knowledgeable, but many state
regulators are not formally trained and certainly not Professional
Engineers. CO~2~ sequestration is too technical and dangerous an
undertaking to leave the highly technical review and decision making to
non-Professional Engineers. The instant Class VI rule must be based on
Primacy only being given to State and Tribes employing and using
specially trained Professional Engineers for review and approval of
CO~2~ sequestration projects. Without this provision, EPA places the
general public in severe danger.

**Cost Estimate**

EPA at 73 FR 43524 presents the results of an analysis of the cost to
protect USDWs from a Class VI wells. EPA was very specific regarding
what they did not include in the regulatory estimate. EPA based the cost
estimate on a Class I well of unknown depth, unknown casing size,
unknown location and type of reservoir. EPA, using this unspecified well
information, calculated the incremental cost to convert the Class I well
to a Class VI well. This approach excludes commenters from verifying the
accuracy of the EPA estimate because of these omissions. This is
reminiscent of the 2004 SPCC Plan cost estimate, where commenters were
not privileged to the assumptions EPA provide to its contractor.
Unethical instructions and unstated assumptions prevent commenters from
testing the accuracy of the cost estimate. We have no means of knowing
if EPA provided unethical instructions to the contractor for development
of the Class VI well costs, since EPA does not include the assumptions
in the publication.

Apparently, EPA told the contractor to use a 25 year after closure
monitoring time period (73 FR 43524). Then, EPA proposed a 50 years
monitoring period at 40 CFR 146.91 (73 FR 43540). Either the Agency
changed its mind after giving the go-ahead to the contractor , but did
not revise the proposed rule or the Agency was attempting reduce cost of
the rule.

\*EPA at Table VII-2 (73 FR 43525) says the cost of baseline project
plus Alternate 3 and Alternate 3 increment varies between \$94.6 and
\$98.4 million for 22 sequestration projects or \$4.3 million to \$4.5
million per project. EPA at 73 FR 42504 provides a non-specific
definition of Alterative 3. The definition is words without specificity!
We have no inkling of want Alternative 3 entails.

On 28 August 2007, Dr. Holliday discussed these cost figures with the
Chairman of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Sequestration Panel. The
Chairman's response was "there is no way in Hell we can conduct a
sequestration project for that little money."

**EOR Injection Wells**

EPA notes at 73 FR 43526 "····CO~2~ injection· \[as\] ·already
practiced···(i.e. EOR), is expected to expand rapidly···." This
statement can be interpreted to mean CO~2~ EOR will be come under the
Class VI well rule. If this is the case, EPA will in effect reduce oil
and gas production significantly during the existing server domestic
energy shortage! Since operating conditions of CO~2~ EOR are different,
e.g., Supercritical CO~2~ is not left in the reservoir at abandonment,
and casing penetrating the cap-rock can be protected from corrosion,
etc., the converting of CO~2~ EOR wells to Class VI wells is neither
justified nor appropriate.

Respectfully submitted

[s/ G, H, Holliday]{.underline}

G. H. Holliday, PhD., P.E., BCEE, Life Fellow ASME

**References**

Bryant, S., 2007. Geologic CO~2~ Storage---Can the Oil and Gas Industry
Help Save the Planet? J Pet. Tech (JPT), p 98-105, September

Burton, E., R. Myhre, L. Myer, and K. Birkinshaw. 2007. Geologic Carbon
Sequestration Strategies for California. Report to the Legislature.
November, 2007. CEC--500--2007--100--SF.

Environmental Enterprise: Carbon Sequestration using Texaco Gasification
Process. Presented at the First National Conference on Carbon
Sequestration, Washington, D.C. May 14-17. 2001

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Undated. Overview of CERCLA and
RCRA,
<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/cleanup/brownfields/handbook/intro-08.pdf>,
5

Flett, M., R. Gurton, and G. Weir. 2007. Heterogeneous Saline Formations
for Carbon Dioxide Disposal: Impact of Varying Heterogeneity on
Containment and Trapping. 73 FR 43491-43541.

Hovarka, S., 2008. "Recent Progress and Big Ideas on Geologic
Sequestering, US/International Perspective." 11 January.

IPCC, 1996. Second Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers.

Lucas, F., 2008. Cashing in on Climate Change. Human Events, 64:28;15,
August 14, 2008

McIntyre, S. and R.M. McKitrick, 2003. "Correction of Mann et al. Proxy
Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Surface Air Temperature
Series" Energy and Environment, 14:751-771

Meyer, J.P. 2007. "Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
(CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology" prepared for American Petroleum
Institute, p 21.

Moore, J.J. M. Nord and K. Brun, 2007. Novel Concepts for Compression of
Large Volumns of Carbon Dioxide, Oil and Gas Journal, June

Newton Jr., L.E., and R.A. McClay, 1977. Corrosion and Operational
Problems, CO2 Project, Sacroc Unit, SPE 6391-MS

Nicot, J.P. and S.D. Hovorka. 2008. Role of Geochemical Monitoring in
Geologic Sequestration. Presented at the CO2 Geologic Sequestration
Technical Workshop on Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification, January
16,. New Orleans, LA.

Schemp, F.W., and G.R Roberson, 1975. Effect of Supercritical Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) on Construction Materials, SPE Journal, 15:3, June. Paper
4667-MS..

U.S. Department of Energy, 2007. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap
and Program Plan 2007.

[http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%20portfolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf](http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project portfolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf)

Xie, X and M.J. Economides, 2009. "The Impact of Carbon Geological
Sequestration". SPE 120333-P.

**ATTACHMENTS**

**Attachment 1**

**ABSTRACT**

**The Impact of Carbon Geological Sequestration**

**By**

**Xina Xie and M.J, Economides**

**SPE 120333-P**

Although CO2 geological sequestration is the most popular carbon storage
method promoted and pilot tested, the economic feasibility and technical
risks for commercial scale sequestration projects are rarely mentioned.
More significant, is that, apart from rhetorical pronouncements, the
would-be impact of the operation on climate change is not discussed.
This work studies the technical risks, regulatory issues, and economic
burden of CO2 geological sequestration on the U.S. by using the Kyoto
Protocol emission requirements as the base line. The potential effect of
burying all the extra CO~2~ regulated by Kyoto Protocol on global
temperature change is also evaluated.

The lack of regulatory framework is blamed as one of the obstacles for
slowing or stopping CO~2~ geological sequestration practice. However,
any regulatory issues are intertwined and dominated by the physics of
the injection process itself and its economic viability. This study
analyzes the uncertainty and/or risks caused by CO~2~ geological
sequestration in oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, and coal beds.
The work shows that the potential technical and legal risks and
financial costs for sequestering CO2 underground make it impossible to
promulgate any regulatory framework without causing detrimental effects
on economic development and energy utilization. It is estimated that
CO~2~ sequestration in U.S. will cost over \$1 trillion annually for
CO~2~ geological sequestration by complying with the Kyoto Protocol.
Even if the global temperature increase of 0.7 degrees Celsius over the
past 100 years is solely caused by anthropogenic CO~2~ emissions, the
change on the global temperature by sequestering all the CO~2~ emitted
exceeding the 95% of 1990 level will be negligible. The dynamic climate
and weather patterns on Earth will make it impossible to be verified.

This work gives a realistic situation on the potential impacts of
commercial scale CO~2~ sequestration projects on economics, environment,
and the global climate change. The findings of this study can be used to
evaluate the risks of the CO~2~ geological sequestration projects.