This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter. (2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues. However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments. Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response, compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text. The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.

## HOLLIDAY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & REGULATORY CONSULTANTS

P.O. BOX 2508 BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77402-2508 (713) 668-7640 F E-MAIL ghh@att.net AX (713) 668-5184

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 pr opose regulations governing the protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water, but we believe Carbon Dioxide Sequestrati on Wells are: 1) dangerous and 2) unnecessary and should not promul gated. 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 CERC LA imminent hazard substance st orage 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 pa rt 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 Cl ass 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 superv ised by a Regional Director who is neither an engineer nor a Professional Engineer. The Agency proposes using untrained EPA employ ees who are not required to demonstrate their

CO 2 sequestration technical knowledge by completing a nd 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 usi ng well completion materials not currently developed and proven corrosion-resist ant under carbonic acid corrosive conditions. The proposed regulations are a formula for futu re disaster: 1) Dangerous to sequester CO 2 , a supercritical fluid stored at high pressure (2200± psi) : 2) The scientific basi s 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 n ecessary, without support. Refer to the Comment Section below entitled “Sequest ration 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 fo r a “political” pollutant, which will encourage unqualified organizations and speculators to seek Class VI injection permits. These unqualified organizations will find unqualified consu ltants to prepare documents supporting the permit

1applications. EPA, in the instant proposed rule, s uggests several financial re sponsibility schemes to avoid unqualified organizations and sp eculators from creatin g a disaster, but EPA and states do not know how to assure financial respon sibility as demonstrated by the la ck specificity w ithin 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 se lect regulation wording not reviewed by the commenting publ ic, and not alluded to during the proposal. One of the most frightening aspects of the propos ed rule is EPA imposes no technical qualification requirements on EPA review personne l. Thus, a well written, but in accurate document, can easily be accepted by EPA, when technically unqua lified reviewers are used. If qualified reviewers were used, the application would be rejected. A review of the existing techni cal literature sugge sts no author has c onsidered how long sequestration is expected to last. Schlumberger sa ys in their advertising, sequestration is “permanent” separation of CO 2 from the near surface waters. Webster Un abridged Dictionary defines “permanent” as meaning unchanging, a very long time, to last indefinitely. I ndefinitely is for ever without end. This appears to be an impossible assignment. Govern ments come and go, people come and to, and most importantly companies (permittees) come and go. Th e cost of carbon dioxide se questrations monitoring until the end of time is a monumental expenditure. To circumvent this problem EPA states 50 years should be long enough, even though EP A offers no technical support for this claim. Then EPA says “not to worry,” EPA will allow the non-technically tr ained Regional Director to lengthen or shorten the sequestration reservoir monitoring time based on his vast “inexperien ce”. EPA offers no guidance to assist the untrained, non-engineer Regional Di rectors in making that determination. EPA discusses what happens, if, the sequestra tion 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 th e proposed rule. EPA suggests in th e 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 establis h a trust fund? If one considers the Social Security Trust Fund, we can expect the sequestration fund to be combined with th e General Fund for Government maintenance and then the money is not available wh en need! Who will prevent Congress from using the funds when times are lean? The Safe Drinking Wa ter Act makes no provision for this alternative!

EPA believes Class VI wells and associated reser voirs will be safe, even though corrosion resistant materials are not available. Agai n EPA says “not to worry” EPA “know s” the Oil and Gas Industry will develop corrosion resistant pipe and cement, when th ey are needed. Our investigation shows no pipe, packer, rubber seal or cement have been tested resistant to carbonic acid a ttack for 50 years (maximum test length to date is 12 mont hs!). 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-protec tion 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 corr osion of stainless st eel 404 components duri ng 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 ty pically 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).

2A 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 di scuss the types of materi al 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, a nd forgings on the basis of recommendation of Meyer (2007) for surface connections asso ciated 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, Me yer, 2007. Further investigation establishes that only one stainless steel 316 we llhead 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. Meye r (2007), also discusses, use of epoxy coated tubing fo r 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 jo int 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 desi gn problem. A stainless steel packed body can be manufactured. But, the slip must be hardened carbon steel so they se t 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 a nd Nitrile rubbers, are available,

but never tested over long time periods, e.g., 50 y ears, 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 communi cation with Vaughn Morgan, Halliburton). Thus, unfield 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 ma y be used, rather, proposes providi ng the owner or operator with the flexibility to choose, as l ong as the materials used in GS wells ar e corrosion-resistant and meet standards approved for such materials by API or ASTM Intern ational 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 Direct or to solve the material s dilemma. This raise ques tions about the existing EPA/State approved se questrations wells!

The EPA’s statement at 73 FR 43510 ra ises 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 in jection 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).

3The proposed rule must be withdrawn!

CS WELLS ARE NOT NECESSARY Carbon dioxide sequestration will no t stop global temperature increase! EPA in the preamble to the CS proposed rule (73 FR 43496-43502) discu sses the reasons for the need for CO 2 sequestration. Nowhere in those pages does EPA state that carbon di oxide 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 discon tinued. Is EPA suggesting sequestra tion 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, re ferenced by EPA or anyone else (not based on computer simulation) showing CO 2 causes global warming. EPA relie s heavily on computer simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IP CC) reports. Reference to IPCC reports subjects EPA to serious question rega rding the technical validity of the in formation presented. The use of the Hockey Stick Figure (Figure 22, IPCC, 1996) brings into sharp focus the politi cal nature of the IPCC reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated conclusively the Hockey Stick Figure was based

on truncated data, obsolete data, calculation errors a nd quality control deficien cies. Also, Figures 5.20 and 5.21 (IPCC, 2005) , sequestration well details, dem onstrate IPCC is technica lly deficient because, IPCC blithely suggests pulling cemented casing from Cl ass 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 th e 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 sc ientists and engineer s are very wary of IPCC reports, because of the frequent and cons istent errors contained in the reports. EPA, in the proposed sequestration rule, does not pr ovide any indication of the benefit sequestration will provide other than reduce CO 2 concentration in the atmosphe re. Even that goal appears questionable. Our extensive review of the technica l literature demonstrate no peer reviewed reports

based on field observations are av ailable showing a direct relations hip of global warming caused by increase in the atmospheric CO 2 . However, Lucas, 2008, states the “We Can Solve It”

( www.wecansolveit.org ) campaign compares “your commitment to solving the climate crisis as [being equivalent to solving] the World War II, Norm andy landing, the civil rights movement and putting a man on the moon” combined. Unfortunately, www.wecansolveit.org offers no supporting data, but it offers new high financial income opportunities, whic h appears to be the major driving force behind temperature change projects. Is the relationship between CO 2 and global temperature increas e 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 ) developed the graph, showing projected

CO 2 entering the atmosphere during 2008 from Anth ropogenic sources is 6.0 Gt C/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?

4Figure 1. 2008 Estimated United States CO2 Emissi ons 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 conc lude 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 frami ng area to a bleak cold frozen area, but people continue ta king advantage of the warmer clim ate by moving away from the cold areas. The belief that these global temperature cha nges can be mitigated by sequestering carbon dioxide has no scientific support, since pr evious Global temperature increases occurred in the absence of anthropogenic CO 2

. Climate models, which are being used to suggest CO 2 is causing global warm ing are inaccurate at best, because climate predictions are very complicat ed and beyond our current t echnical capabilities. Relying on computer modeling as the basis for need ing the instant rule pro posal is a cruel hoax.

5LACK 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 E ngineer (P.E.) for developing the UIC rules. During the initial stages of writing the 1979 draft rule s, 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 Regi onal employees to be professional engineers. When I requested the information in writing from EP A, 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 th is 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 safe ty. 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 tr ue Class I disposal we lls sequester hazardous wa ste, but these wastes are not buoyant and typically are combined w ith 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 en gineers (Bryant, 2007) and the political nature of CO 2 sequestration projects ( 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 as sociated with Class I injection wells do not aggre ssively attack carbon steel or cement. Also, hazardous waste will not change phase, as supercritical CO 2 does when the pressure is decreased. The cha nge in fluid phase results in forma tion of a gas, which is large in volume and more redily able to find its way to th e surface of the earth th rough 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 fiel ds, to name a few areas where leaks are known to

occur. The hazardous wastes stored in Class I wells are retained underg round because, the column of waste formed when a leak occurs, provides a controlli ng head of weighted fl uid. In the case of CO 2 the hydraulic head, in the event of a leak, becomes less as the over burden pr essure reduces. This is a much more dangerous condition than expe rienced 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 produc ed until the field becomes un-economical (too depleted) to produce.

This, unlike the CO 2 sequestration wells is not unde r 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 mon itoring pressures in GS project (sic).” EPA does not cite the serious qu estions raised by Nicot and Hovarka (2008) at the EPA January 16, 2008 CO 2 meeting in New Orleans, wherei n Nicot and Hovarka (2008) presen ted a PowerPoint slide show

6regarding monitoring insitu problems. Hovarka ( 2008) reiterates serious c oncern 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 se rious 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 EP A (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, refe rs the reader to the instant proposed rule. EPA consistently, excludes reference whic h do not support the EPA preconceived ideas!

EPA DOES NOT HAVE PROPER STAT UTORY AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE CO 2 SEQUESTRATION RULE EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Ac t (SDWA) to prot ect USDWs from CO 2 sequestration. The SDWA authorizes EPA to protect dr inking water, not encourage indefini te storage of a corrosive, high press fluid. CO 2 is known to attack carbon and stainless st eel, 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 definitio n 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 uns afe 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 decide d 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 w ith 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 endange rment to USDWs from injection activities; EPA is proposing a default pos t-injection site care period of 50 years. During this 50- year period, the owner or opera tor would be required to subm it 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 untrain ed Regional Administrator counseled by uncertified EPA employees, because EPA does not have technical know-how to determine the appropriate monitoring time period! We questio n the probability of speculators be ing in business 50 years after the injectors stop producing income and become a liabil ity. Since EPA is charge d 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 Ar bitrary and Capricious and a life threatening action on the part of EPA.

7EPA 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 Work shops. 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 disadv antage. 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 discussi ons occurred during the Workshops. Th e EPA record demons trates, little or nothing was accomplished during the Workshops. EPA de prives the commenters of accurate input from the Workshops. For example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states:

“···SDWA does not have explic it provisions for financial re sponsibility, as included in RCRA, EPA believes that the general author ities 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 afte r site closure. The SDWA au thority does not extend to financial responsibility for ac tivities not related to protect ion of USDWs (e.g., coverage of risks to air, ecosystems, public heal th or public safety unrelated to USDW endangerment). It also does not cover tr ansfer 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 like ly 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 inco me available from climate change presented on 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 in come ceases, these companies will fade away, particularly if the IOGCC (2007) trust fund recommendati on 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 ac tion regarding financial responsibility. Review of the EPA cited documents regardi ng 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 re garding “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 la st few years into the transportation sector which is related to climate change. For example, the CO 2 injection program would require financial assurance, if something goes wrong in the clean up. EFAB has been working with

8the 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 appear s to be lacking in these Board minutes. If in fact, EFAB is discussing “transportati on 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 regardi ng 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 pr oposal, because the data are withheld!

COST ESTIMATE FOR PLUGGING CLASS VI WELLS

EPA at 73 FR 43522 EPA discusses havi ng funds available to plug Class VI wells. They question if the owner/operator will have sufficient f unds to plug and abandon the inje ction 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 es timate reflects the assumpti on 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 complian ce with the proposed unpublished SPCC rule. The resulting cost estimate was unethical, but reflecte d 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 co sts for Class VI by unethi cal speculators? Will the technically untrained EPA employee recognize the estimate is not correct or for that matter, how will untrained EPA employee recogni ze the estimate is correct?

ADAPTIVE APPROACH EPA, at 73 FR 43522, requests input re garding using electronic means of involving the public in the rule making process. From our vantage point of reading the Federal Regist er daily, the use of the web is highly satisfactory. However, we find most citizens don’t know the Federal Regi ster 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 rema in uninformed, if the Agency relies solely on the Federal Register.!

PRIMACY We find many of the state regulat or are knowledgeable, but many stat e regulators are not formally trained and certainly not Pr ofessional Engineers. CO 2 sequestration is too technical and dangerous an undertaking to leave the hi ghly technical review a nd decision making to non-Pr ofessional Engineers. The instant Class VI rule must be based on Primacy only being given to State and Tribes employing and using specially trained Pr ofessional 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 resu lts 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 Cl ass I well of unknown depth, unknown casing size, unknown location and type of reservoir. EPA, using this unspecified well information, cal culated the incremental cost to

convert the Class I well to a Class VI well. Th is approach excludes comme nters 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.

9Unethical instructions and unstated assumptions pr event 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 peri od 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 attemp ting 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 ha ve no inkling of want A lternative 3 entails. On 28 August 2007, Dr. Holliday discussed these cost figures with the Chairman of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Sequestration Panel. The Chairm an’s response was “there is no way in Hell we can conduct a sequestration projec t for that little money.”

EOR INJECTION WELLS

EPA notes at 73 FR 43526 “····CO 2 injection· [as] ·already practi ced···(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, EP A 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 abandonme nt, and casing penetrating the cap-rock can be protected from corrosion, et c., the converting of CO 2 EOR wells to Class VI wells is neither justified nor appropriate.

Respectfully submitted

s/ G, H, Holliday 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 Legisl ature. November, 2007. CEC–500–2007–100–SF.

Environmental Enterprise: Carbon Se questration using Texaco Gasificat ion Process. Presented at the

First National Conference on Carbon Se questration, Washington, D.C. May 14-17. 2001

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Undated. Overview of CERCLA and RCRA, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/re sources/publications/cleanup/br ownfields/handbook/intro-08.pdf , 5

10Flett, M., R. Gurton, and G. Weir. 2007. Hetero geneous Saline Formations for Carbon Dioxide Disposal: Impact of Varyi ng 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 Cha nge. Human Events, 64:28;15, August 14, 2008

McIntyre, S. and R.M. McKitric k, 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 E nhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology” prepared for American Petroleum Institute, p 21.

Moore, J.J. M. Nord and K. Br un, 2007. Novel Concepts for Compre ssion 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 T echnical Workshop on Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification, January 16,. New Orleans, LA.

Schemp, F.W., and G.R Roberson, 1975. Effect of S upercritical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) on Construction

Materials, SPE Journal, 15:3, June. Paper 4667-MS..

U.S. Department of Energy, 2007. Carbon Sequestra tion Technology Roadmap and Program Plan 2007. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologi es/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%20portfolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf

Xie, X and M.J. Economides, 2009. “The Impact of Carbon Geological Seque stration”. 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,

11regulatory 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.

1213

### Global Temperature Change

George H. Holliday, PhD., P.E., BCEE Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.

Abstract This study was initiated to review the existing technical litera ture regarding the possibility of anthropogenic carbon dioxide releases

causing climate change. The literature search demonstrates no peer reviewed evidence exists , except computer climate simulations, supporting the concept of man-generated carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases causing increased global temperature. Most reports contain statements, without technical support or reference, regarding the need to control carbon dioxide e.g., “The use of these fossil fuels results in the release of carbon dioxide (CO2), whic h is widely believed to contribute to global climate change.” (USDOE, 2007). On the contrary, the existing technical literature report cyclic variations in climate temperature change for about 2 m illion years. In part, this conclusion is supported, by oxygen-28 to oxygen-16 gas ratios from analyses of ice cores covering a perio d of 250,000 years. The literature search leads to the conclusion anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions d o not result in climate temperature increases.

Introduction The earth’s climate forever changes in a predicable cyclic manner, apparently dictated by solar activity, Bond et al. (2001). W e know Romans recorded climate warming between 200 BC and 600 AD, Lamb (1977a). In Europe, between 600 and 1300 AD, the Medieval Warming occurred. The Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850 AD) is dramatically documented by tax records of the abandonment of Greenland by the Norse population in about 1300 after nearly 300 years of moderate temperatures, when farming prospered.

Weather History

Ice Core Records Milleksen and Kuijpetrs (2001) suggest alternating ice and wa rming cycles existed about 2 million years ago. Dansgaard and Oeschger during 1983 cored the Greenland I ce Sheet. Dansgaard, et al. (1984) reported a link between climate cycles and sun act ivity. The ice core temperature analyses are based on the ratio of oxyge n–18 to oxygen–16 at the time the snow was laid down. This rat io is not time impacted. Ice core analyses showed persistent temperatur e cycles within cycles, Singer and Avery (2007a). The link sho ws a moderate cyclic variation in ambient air te mperature with time. The orig inal analyses of ice cores gathered from coreholes span ning 250,000 years suggested a repeating cycle lasting about 2,500 years. Based on more research this periodicity was revised to 1,5 00 years ±500 years by Bond (1997). These cycles make weather modeling extremely di fficult and complex, even with modern

computers.

Tree Ring Data Tree ring analyses from long living Pakistani trees confirm ambient temperature warming from AD 800 to 1,000 and cold temperatures from AD 1,500 to 1,700, Esper, et al. (2002). These findings compare favorably with ice core data.

Written History Lamb (1977b) documented climate change history for a period of 1,000 years. Romans (30-60 AD) reported grape cultivation advancing slowly northward in Italy. This history shows both gr apes and olives growth receded as the ambient temperature chang ed (decreased). Lamb (1977c) discusses the cold temperature histor y reported in Europe during the 1500’s AD (Little Ice Age). This history correlates well with the severe change in Greenland temperature causing the Norsemen to evacuate Greenland.

Sun’s Irradiation Perry and Hsu (2000) using a solar-luminosity model based solar- related isotopes-variations scanned 90,000-year glacial cycle. They observed excellent correlation using carbon-14 variations and carefu lly dated tree rings data as far back as the Medieval Warmi ng (900-1300 AD). They extrapolated findings to 90,000 years usin g the correlated model. Soon (2005) shows how well solar activit y correlates with arctic temperature duri ng the past 130 years and how poorly CO 2 correlates arctic temperature, Figure 1 . The temperature data comes from Polyakow et al . (2003) using arctic station measurements, while the solar activity data comes from five databases. Willson (2003) reports the sun’s ra diation increased by nearly 0.05 percent from the late 1970s based on 25-year rec ord assembled by NASA. The cited trend is signif icant, because the total ener gy output of the sun is en ormous. Willson cannot suppo rt the data before 1978, but he says, if the trend persisted during all of the 20 th century, the increase in so lar activity would produce “a substantial component” of the observed climate temperature increase.

Global Warming The Earth temperature has warmed since 1850, end of the Little I ce Age. The highest temperatures were recorded in the late 1930s, Figure 1. During the late 1930s, the increase in temper ature was rapid, e.g., 2.5oC in 20 years in the Arctic region. No one

1recognized the worldwide temper ature increase, except the farmers, who took advantage of the warming, by expanding their agricultural areas to the north, just as the Romans did during the Roman Warming. Also, the population increased, because of th e abundance of food. Good correlation between solar activity and ar ctic temperature exists, Figure 1. Galileo first collected sun spot data in 1609

. Therefore, we have sun-spot data substantiating Maunder Solar Minimum, the coldest period (1645-1710) of the Little Ice Age, wh en sunspots were at low ebb. EPA (2001) confirms these observations. Currently, there is discussion regarding capturing and sequestering CO 2 as a means of mitigating climate temperature increase. Department of Energy (2007) states without support “ The concern is that atmospheric GHG accum ulations in excess of levels required to sustain the greenhouse effect introduce an external forcing factor leading to global temperature increases.” This true of al l documents supporting reduction of greenhouse gases

― there is no technical support for asse rting greenhouse increases cause climate temperature increase. S equestration or elimination of a carbon environment would be an expensive mistake if the climate change is the result of solar activity. In addition, having to compress CO 2 from atmospheric pressure to injection pressure (2200± psi) is energy intensive. The U.S. will have great difficulty providing the additional energy, if though the 25-year moratorium on domestic d rilling and producing is discontinued. Compensating for 25 years without access to offshore exploration and dr illing will require time. Further, objection to building nuclear generation plants may prevent providing the needed power. Lack of power could cause a re peat of the California rolling blackouts of 2001, but this time on a massive scale. Even wind turbines may not help, because the win d does not always blow (e.g., 20% utility factor) and an adequate power grids to move the electricity from remote areas are not availa ble and are costly. We are experiencing this situation now (2008) in Texas, where wind turbine generated power cannot be introduced int o the distribution system because of lack an adequa te grid to serve the remote wind turbines. Some concerned citizens raise the specter of sea level rise as a result of temperature increase. Singer and Avery (2007d) state the sea level for the last 5,000 years has risen at the rate of about seven feet per century. On the other hand, during the last ce ntury, tide gauges show the sea level has raised about six inches, in spite of the recorded high temperatures from 1916 to 1940, Figure 1. Accordingly, except in very low-lying areas, sea level rise does not appear to be a major concern.

Global Cooling The possibility of climate cooling raises interesting questions, e.g., what is the desired climate temperature, when do we know when the optimum temperature is attained, were the high temperatur es of the late 1930s or low temperatures of the 1870s the des ired levels? Warming produces abundant crops, in creased area of agricultural viable land and moderate sea level rise. On the other hand climate cooling reduces crop yield, reduces useable land, and more importantly, climat e cooling increases need for additional e nergy for home and building heating. Also, freezing weather kills far more humans and animals th an warm weather. Interestingly, on 23 March 2008, the Hadley Climate Research Un it in Britain, the NASA Godd ard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy Group at the University of Alabama, and the Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. in Calif ornia reported global temperatures decreased 0.7°C during 2007, The Australian, 2008. The reported lowere d climate temperature is reflected in decrease solar activity, Figure 2

.

Lack of Experimentation There are no scientific data, experiments or hypotheses demons trating climate change results from greenhouse gases generation. IPCC modeling, Houghton, et al. (1995), demonstrates exaggerated computer predictions of climate change from 1978–1998 when compared with field measured temperatures for the same time period between latitudes 83 N and 83 S, Robinson (2007b). Shindell and Schmidt (2004), based on observed trends, predicted global warming would cause the Southern (Hemisphere) Annular Mode (SAM) to become neutral, thereby markedly reducing polar coolin g. This situation has not occurred, in fact the highest Antarcti c temperature occurred in the 1930 s, Przybylak (2002), Polyakov (2002). Also, Anta rctic temperatures are decreasing and the ice c aps are thickening, Taylor (2006).

Weather Predictions

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 as a body of climate scientists interested in furtherin g knowledge of weather behavior. These scientists published peer reviewed technical weather assessm ents. For example, the 1996 IP CC “Second Assessment” provided a graph showing “The Last 1,000 Years of Earth Temperatures from Tree Rings, Ice Cores and Thermometers” (Figure 22, IPCC Cl imate Change, 1996).. This graph, Figure 3, clearly shows the Medieval Warming (900 – 1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850 AD). The 2001 assessment prepared by the IPCC Executive Committee, a group of polic ymakers, rather than scientists [Horner (2007a)], displayed a totally new rendition of Figure 3. Instead of an accurate assessm ent of historical temperature trends, th e new graph, Figure 4 , modified the last 1000 years of temperature variations and historical records, Mann (1998). The 2001 version of the historical data, Figure 4, portrays the past 1,000 year of temperatures as a slightly undulating line having an obvious, consis tent and abrupt upward curve starting at the end of the Little Ice Age, e.g., the so-called “hockey stick” graph (Figure 2.20, IPCC Clim ate Change, 2001), Mann, (1998), Figure 4. Th e hockey stick graph minimizes the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.

22001 IPCC Data Review McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) re viewing the Mann (hockey stick) data observed critical data correlation errors, e.g., unjustifi ed truncation of data, use of obsolete data, ca lculation errors and quality control defici encies in the data and statistics. McInt yre and McKitrick using a corrected set of Mann data showed the “Hockey Stick” interpretation was wrong. Erroneous graphical data sponsored by IPCC Executive Committee and computer simulations by Houghton, et al. (1995) resulted in frightening the uninitiat ed public to near hysteria regarding global temperature change. The IPCC (2001) included the Hockey Stick graph in their Ex ecutive Committee Assessments. Al so, IPCC advocated the Kyoto

Protocol even in the face of Ice Core data demonstrating long trending temperature cy cles. In contrast, Robinson (2007a), repor ts obtaining signatures of 18,000 (now report to be 31,000) American university degreed physical science graduates in opposition t o the Kyoto Protocol, which recommends limits on greenhouse emissions. IPCC report (2007) no longer includes the Hockey Stick graph. A Global Warming Industry developed as a result of misinterpreta tion and misreporting of climate change by IPCC, This industry finds government financial assistance is readily available, if th e research proposal, in some fa shion, suggests the research fi ndings could be a solution to the perceived Global Warming problem. Michaels (2006) reports “in the United States the taxpayer outlay for so-called global change science is now in excess of $4 billion annually.” Based on the scientific findings of persistent and repeated cl imate change cycles, the temperature records show the Little Ice Age stopped in 1850. After that date, the global temperature consiste ntly increased, except for an anomalous high in 1940. Frohlich and Lean, (2002) show this temperature increase is due to solar irradiation. Further, th e analysis shows no significant increase of CO 2 concentration occurred with increased temperature, Figure 1. Carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of global warming, Singer an d Avery (2007b). The observed CO 2 increase is due to the ocean warming, which releases more CO 2 as the water temperature increases. There is no question global temperature is increasing. However, th is temperature change is likely to be small. Robinson et al. (2007b)

estimate the increase will be about 4oC.

2007 IPCC Report The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change (IPCC) Climate Change report ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf ) generated considerable criticism from climate scientists, who claim the report provides grossly

inaccurate information. For more inform ation, refer to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ( http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Bl ogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb ).

The Senate Committee said “ Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recen tly voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC···”. This should raise concern regarding the validity of the newer IPCC reports.

Greenhouse Gases The greenhouse gas theory suggests emissions of greenhouse gases, especially CO 2 , from human activities are causing heating of the Earth beyond the levels of past climate variation, and creating serious danger for the planet’s ecosystems, IPCC (2007a). The t heory

has obvious flaws.

1. CO 2 changes do not account for the past c limate variations, including the Roman Warming (200 BC – 900 AD), Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850), Figures 1 and 3. If CO 2 is responsible for climate change, what would cause the presence or absence of CO 2 to result in these past documented temperature variation over time?

2. The CO 2 theory does not explain the recent temp erature changes. Most of the observ er climate warming occurred prior to 1940, Figure 1 (top)

─ before there was mu ch anthropogenic CO 2 in the atmosphere. In fact, the CO 2 lags the temperature rise, Figure 1 (top);

─ no increase in CO 2 in the 1930s, when climate increase was observed. After 1940, climate temperature decreased until 1960, in sp ite of an increase in CO 2 emissions. On the other hand, solar activity tracks Arctic temperature well, Figure 1 (bottom). Bond (2001) stat es, “···over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial ti me-scale increase in

drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum.” The regularity and correlation of temperature increases and drift ice occurrences with solar activity demonstrate the interaction of these observations.

3. The increase in CO 2 concentration has not produced the increases in atmospheric temperature predicted by the computer models over a 20-year-period. The Earth’s surface temperature ha s warmed more rapidly than the temperature of the lower atmosphere up to 30,000 feet. The Greenhouse theory states th e “lower atmosphere” will warm first. This disparity places the Greenhouse Theory in serious question.

4. CO 2 is a lagging indicator by about 600-800 years, of climate warming for the last 240,000 years, e.g., warming produces

CO 2 rather than CO 2 producing warming, Singer and Avery (2007a).

5. The Greenhouse Theory predicts CO 2 –driven warming of the Earth’s surface will st art, and be strongest at the polar the regions. This is not happening. Horner (2007b), Taylor (2006). Polyakov (2002) supports lack of pole warming by showing no pole temperature increase and perhaps, a slight temperature decrease in the arctic since 1937.

One of the reasons the greenhouse gas theory being flawed is computer programs do not consider other greenhouse gases. For example, water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, e.g., the atmosphere contains nearly 2 percent water (compared to 0.037% for C O 2 ).

3Water vapor is responsible for about two-thirds of the natural greenhouse effect. Modeling water vapor in climate-change models is very difficult and currently is rudimentary. In fact, the Envi ronmental Protection Agency did not include water vapor in the 19 90-2006 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, EPA (2008). EPA stated water vapor was too difficult to inventory.

Discussion IPCC Executive Committee abrogated its contract to provide us eful, forward-looking climate information. Instead, the IPCC Executive Committee ignored peer-reviewed c limate science and, in some cases, knowingly and willingly refused to correct errone ous data previously published, e.g., Hockey Stick Graph. The greenhouse gas misconception fostered by the IPCC Executive Committee led to the Kyoto Treaty. This treaty is now languishing because, most participating na tions cannot, without causing havoc to th eir country’s economy, achieve the greenhouse gases reductions proposed by the treaty. In July 2008, the major industrialized count ries abandoned the Kyoto treaty by agreeing to half the greenhouse gas emission by 2050, http://www.foxnews. com/story/0,2933,377622,00.html

. The concept of reducing greenhouse gases to mitigate global temp erature change is hopeless task, if temperature change is the result of solar radiation, as the scientific community shows. I observe energy and monetary wasting by well-meaning persons and companies trying to sequester CO 2 by underground injection, OSPAR, http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html . Gas compression from atmospheric pressure to 2200± psi is energy intensive. CO 2 is a minor greenhouse gas co mpared with water vapor

or methane. Elimination of CO 2 will not prevent global temperature increases. Sv ante Arrhenius (1895) showed a reduction in CO 2 down to about 60 percent of the concentration of atmospheric CO 2 existing at the time of his calculations, would have been necessary to cause the Little Ice Age. Ice core gas analyses show such a drastic reduction in CO 2 did not occur. Thus, we can conclude, CO 2 is not a major actor in global temperature change. On the other ha nd, good correlation exists betw een solar activity and climate c hange on earth, Figure 1. The current climate-warming scare has foster ed an entire industry seeking financial gr ants for weather related research. Also, there is developing a need by industry to show the public their commitm ent to mitigate global temperature increase by reducing greenhouse gases. There is a move towards emissions trading in Europe, and United States. Kyoto Annex I Parties can trade emiss ion, at a price, to satisfy the protocol. Unfortunately, if a problem exists, emission trading simply allows the emissions to enter the atmosphere, rather than a reduced emissions quantity. This may no lo nger be a problem since, for the most part, the EU is unabl e to achieve the Kyoto prescribed reductions and the Kyoto protocol will most likely dissolve in 2012. The 2008 proposal to reduce C O 2 by 50 using unspecified methods will be su bstituted for Kyoto. Proposals to reduce gr eenhouse gases will re sult in increased co st of doing business, which will be passed onto the consum er without affecting global temperature change. The carbon tax is another remedy being proposed to reduce CO 2 emissions. Collected taxes likely will be spent on ill-conceived alternate energy projects. Congress spent billions of dollars on Synfuel Projects during the 1970’s, but provided no economic v iable synthetic fuel. FurtureGen, ( http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen ) clean burning of coal to generate electric power, is now shut down

in June 2008 because of the excessive cost. Even when politics is not involved, there is little agreement be tween opposing groups. In this regard, your attention is direct ed to Appendix A of the 1 October 2006 New Zealand Climate Science Coalition at http://nzclimatescience.net2.php?option=comcontent&do-pdf=1&id=20 . The report is a response from the Coalition to Dr. Wr att (listed author of IPCC Assessment Reports), who took issue with the Coalition’s statement “the science [of climate change] is not settled” regarding the issue of anthropogenic activities. Further, The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (2008) announced 31,000 physical science university degreed professionals, including 9,000 PhDs signed a petition stating climate change is not the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gass es. This demonstrates the magnitude of the disagreement. There are no experimental data supporting CO 2 causes climate change. On the contrary, Jo nes et al. (1986) developed an 11 year running average of terrestrial Northern Hemi sphere temperature as deviations from the 1951-1970 mean temperature for the period 1750-2000 AD. These data were compared by Baliunas and Soon (1995) with solar magnetic cycle length in years. The resulting match of climate change vs. solar cycle length is almost perfect, Robinson, (2007a, Figure 4), Figure 1. Also, two papers regar ding anthropogenic carbon dioxide have appeared in the Journal of Petroleum Technology (see September 2008 issue) during 2008. I requested from each author a peer reviewed paper, not base d on computer simulation, demons trating anthropog enic greenhouses gasses cause global warming. In both cases, the author declined to respond to my requests. This does not instill confidence in the hypothesis that CO 2 causes global temperature increase.

Conclusions

1. The earth’s climate temperature is increasing.

2. The temperature change is a natural, cyc lic occurrence driven by solar activity,

3. There are no experimental hypotheses and supporting data demonstrating greenhouse gases causes temperature change. On the contrary ice core and tree ring data show cl imate change is a long-term cyclic occurrence.

4. Controlling anthropogenic greenhouse gases, including CO 2 , will not stop temperature change, if the temperature change is due to solar activity.

5. The most convincing hypothesis and supporting data demonstrate the earth’s cyclic temperature change results from solar activity

4Recommendations

1. Encourage governments to establish laws based on science.

2. Discourage governments and research groups appropriating and spending tax monies on inappropriate anthropogenic climate change experiments.

References.

Arrhenius, S., 1895. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Presented at Stockholm Physical Society.

Baliunas, S.L., and W.H. Soon (1995). Are variations in the lengt h of the activity cycle related to changes in brightness in so lar-type stars? Astrophysical Journal 450: 896-901.

Bond, G., 1997. “A Pervasiv e Millennial Scal e in North Atlantic Holocene.” Science , 278:1257-266.

Bond, G., et al., 2001. “Persistent Solar influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene,” Science 294, 16 November: 2130-136.

Dansgaard, W., et al., 1984. “North Atlantic climate Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity , ed. F. E. Hansen and T Takahashi (Washington, DC: Amer ican Geophysical Union) Geophysical monograph 29, 288-98.

EPA, 2001. The Sun’s Chilly Impact on Earth

. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html

EPA, 2008. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, 73 FR 12413, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange /emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf

7 March Esper, J., et al., 2002. “1300 Years of Climate History for Western Cent ral Asia inferred from Tree Rings,” The Holocene 12:267-77.

Frohlich, C. and Lean, J., 2002. “Solar irradiance variability and climate.” Astronomische Nachrichten 323 : 203-212

Horner, C. C., 2007a “The Political Inco rrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” 84: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Horner, C. C., 2007b “The Political Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmen talism,” 145: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Houghton, J. T., 1995. “Report of the In tergovernmental Panel on Climate Cha nge,” Cambridge University Press.

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

IPCC, 2001. “Third Assessment Repor t, Summary for Policymakers.”

IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policymakers of Synthesis Report of the IPCC Forth Assess ment Report, Draft Copy 16 November.

IPCC, 2007a. Summary for Policymakers of Sy nthesis Report of the IPCC Fo rth Assessment Report, Draft Copy 16 November, 13

Jones, P. D., S.C.B. Raper, P.M. Kelly, and T.M.L. Wigley, R. S. Bradley and H.F. Diaz, 1986. “Northern Hemisphere Surface Air T emperature Variations: 1851-1984,” Journal of Applied Meteorology : 25, No. 2: 161-179

Lamb, H. H., 1977a. “Climate, History and the Future,” Methuen, London, 156.

Lamb, H. H., 1977b. “Climate, History and the Future,” Methuen, London, 365.

Lamb, H. H., 1977c. “Climate, History and the Future,” Methuen, London, 212.

Mann, M. E., 1998. “Global Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries,” Nature 392: 779-87.

McIntyre, S. and R. M. McKitrick, 2003. “C orrection of Mann el al., Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperatur e Series,” Energy and Environment 14.:751-71.

Michaels, P. J., 2006. “Is the Sky Really Falling? A review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories,” Cado Policy Analysis Serie s No. 576, 22, August 23

Mikkelsen, N., and A. Kuijpersk, 2001. The Clim ate System and Climat e Variations, “Natural Climate Variations in a Geological P erspective,” Geological Survey of Denmark am\nd Greenland.

Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, 2008. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/inde x.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

56 Perry, C. A and K .J. Hsu, 2000. “Geogra phical, Archaeological, and Historical Evid ence Support a solar-Output Model for Clima te Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97 12433-438.

Polyakov, I. V., et al, 2003. “Variability and Trends of Ai r Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000.” Journal of Climate 16:

2067-77.

Przybylak, Raymond, 2000. “Temporal and Spatial Variation of Su rface Air Temperature over the Period of Instrument Observations in the Arctic.” International Journal of Climatology 20: 587-614.

Robinson, A. B, 2007a. “Globa l Energy Rationing,” at www.lewrockwell.com/ orig8/robinson1.html

Robinson, A.B., et al., 2007b. “ E nvironmental Effects of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” At www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Shindell, D. T., and G. A. Schmidt, 2004. “Southern Hemisphere Climate Response to Ozone Changes and Greenhouse Gas Increases,” Geophysical

Research letters 31: L18209.

Singer, S. F., and D. T. Avery, 2007a. “U nstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years. ” Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc. 23

Singer, S. F., and D. T. Avery, 2007bsinge r. “Unstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years.” Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, I nc. 23

Singer, S. F., and D. T. Avery, 2007c. “U nstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years. ” Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc. 15

Singer, S. F., and D. T. Avery, 2007d. “U nstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years. Updated and Expanded” Rowman & Littlefiel d Publishing,

Inc. 8

Soon, W. (2005). Geophysical Research Letters 32 , 2005.

Taylor, George H., 2006. “Antarctic Temperat ure and Sea Ice Trends Over the Last Cent ury –An Assessment of Antarctic Climate Tr ends.” http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf

The Australian, 2008. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html

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

Willison, Richard C., 2003. “NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Tre nd That Can Change Climate.” Goddard Space Center “Top Story, ” press

release 20 March.Figure 2. Solar Cycle Prediction http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

Figure 1 . Carbon Dioxide and Solar Activity correlations with Arctic Temperatures. Horner (2007b) p146. Courtesy of Dr. Willie Soon

Figure 3. Climate history for the last 1,000 years.

7Figure 4. The 2001 IPCC Report “Hockey Stick”

8Letter ID: 0114 Commenter: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22515 Letter Lines: 19 to 22

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment Code: 1430 1.2.1.2 Support EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection

Comment: 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

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that properly manage d GS projects are dangerous. EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule c ontains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

EPA believes that the creation of a new inject ion well class (VI) under th e existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22516 Letter Lines: 22 to 28

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: 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 promulgati ng Class VI wells, is authorizing construction of a CERCLA imminent hazard substance storage site and a RCRA hazardous substance (corrosivity) storage si te. 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.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the final GS ru le is authorizin g construction of CERCLA imminent hazard substance storage site s or RCRA hazardous substance storage sites. It is authorizing the constructi on and operation of a new class of injection well for purposes of long term storage of CO2.

1EPA received many comments regarding the applicab ility of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Cl ass VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 str eams being geologically sequestered. EPA will consider these comments as part of its devel opment of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of th at separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment period

for that rule.

EPA recognizes that many CO2 streams may be rela tively pure, and research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, these estimates are based on limited information, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of impurities from the various types of CO2 stream s. The concentrations of minor and trace

elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollu tion removal technologies.

EPA is not authorizing the inje ction of RCRA hazardous wastes under the terms of the GS rule, since the GS rule, at §146.81(d), prohibits CO2 st reams that meet the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. Under the rule, owners or operators will need to characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application process to determine whether the injectate is a RCRA hazardous waste. If the CO2 stream is determined to be a hazardous waste, injection may only occur in a Class I hazar dous waste injection well.

The GS rule also requires the owner or operator to submit data about the site , including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confini ng zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This info rmation can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces orthe dissolution of formation

minerals.

EPA clarifies that CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous s ubstance under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous s ubstance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether su ch substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration facility depe nds entirely on the composition of the specific CO2 stream and

the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U. S.C. 9607, certain “federally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S. C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they prevent potential releases from the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22517 Letter Lines: 32 to 39

2Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency at 73 FR 43492-43541 requests comments regarding the proposal to pr epare regulations for an unknow n number of Class VI wells. Class VI wells are in reality, manm ade explosive devices storing buoyant carbon dioxide sequestered deep in the earth under supercr itical pressure conditions. Many persons designing th ese wells are of unknown technical ability, e.g., not professional Engineers (P.E.). There are no safe guards to prevent organizations from simply seek ing monetary rewards, without being required to see the project to comple tion. Further, the well designs and

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that injection wells are dangerous devices. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking wa ter sources and have other adverse impacts. However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corr osivity in the presence of wate r, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

EPA believes that building upon th e existing UIC requirements (e.g., Class I and Class II well requirements) to develop the Class VI GS regulation provides a foundation for protecting USDWs based on success, field experience, and le ssons learned about CO2 injection in other applications. Class I well owners or operators ha ve experience with site characterization, well construction, and monitoring procedures and technol ogies that are applicab le to Class VI wells. Class II ER well operators have experience with managing the unique properties of CO2. To successfully flood a hydrocarbon field with CO2 during an ER operation, the behavior of injected CO2 must be well understood.

EPA disagrees that the people designing and regula ting wells lack technica l training for effective oversight of Class VI wells. Most permitting authorities’ staff have years of experience with the current UIC injection well classe s and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplines. Injection well owners and operators represent indus tries with decades of experience injecting a variety of fluids, includi ng CO2. Industry also has decades of experience with well construction and operation. For example, the oil an d gas industry has experiencedrilling and cementing wells in very deep formations, in a variety of environments (e.g., highpressure and low-pressure formations), and fo r a variety of uses (e .g., injection, oil and gas production, monitoring). EPA believes that this experience has led to th e development of well materials and construction and operating procedures that are applicable to Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22518 Letter Lines: 39 to 46

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

3Comment: required to see the project to comple tion. Further, the well designs and operations would be approved by Agency t echnically untrained employees, who are not Professional Engineers and supervised by a Regional Director who is neither an engineer nor a Pr ofessional Engineer.

The Agency proposes using untrained EP A employees who are not required to demonstrate their CO2 sequestration t echnical knowledge by completing and passing a written examination. Further, the Agency proposes to sequester

Individual Response: As described above, EPA disagrees that the people designing and regulating wells lack technical training for effec tive oversight of Class VI wells. Most permitting authority staff have years of experience with the current UIC injection well classes and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplin es. Injection well owners and operators represent industries w ith decades of experience injecti ng a variety of fluids, including CO2. EPA believes that this experience has le d to the development of well materials and construction and operating procedures that are applicable to Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22519 Letter Lines: 46 to 53

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general

Comment Code: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements (40 CFR 146.86)

Comment Code: 5000 2.8 Proposed Well Plugging and Post-In jection Site Care Requirements

Comment: passing a written examination. Further, the Agency proposes to sequester buoyant CO2 until the end-of-time by only re quiring 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 fo r future disaster: 1) Dangerous to sequester CO2, a supercritical fluid stored at high pressure (2200± psi): 2)

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that a properly managed GS site is dangerous. The Class VI GS regulation builds upon the long-stan ding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the inject ion of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The Class VI GS regulation enhances this exis ting framework with requirements for Class VI wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2.

EPA believes that a 50 year pos t-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective post-injection site monitoring period for most GS projects and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do no t support a different default timeframe. EPA bases this on a review of research studies, i ndustry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. EPA adds th at the GS regulation includes a provision that the Director may, at their lengthe n the post-injection site care tim eframe if the owner or operator cannot demonstrate that movement of the plume a nd pressure front have ceased and the injectate

4does not pose a risk to USDWs (146.93(b)(2)).

EPA disagrees that corrosion-resi stant materials and cement do not exist. Industry experience of many decades in corrosive down-hole situations such as acid gas injection and production of natural gas with carbon dioxide and hydrogen su lfide impurities shows that materials are

available that can resist corrosive environments. Meyer (2007) lists several types of cements that

have been used under such corrosive conditions . EPA acknowledges that studies have likely not been performed to prove a 50-year life span for corrosion-resistant materials. However, there are two studies of wells that were exposed to CO2 for approximately 30 year s by Carey et al. (2007) and Crow et al. (2008). Although these studies are limited in the number of well material samples and the number of wells examined, the casing and cement sampled indicate fairly good condition (i.e., fairly significant corrosion resistance) of well ma terials installed three decades ago. The best available corrosion-resistant materials suited for each GS project will be determined by the Director.

EPA adds that, to address potential risks associ ated with high pressures associated with CO2 injection for GS, the final rule, at §146.88(e)(2), requires that owners or operators of onshore

Class VI wells install automatic surface shut-off devices. Owners or operators must also monitor pressure in the injection z one, as required at §146.90(g).

EPA acknowledges that there are limited data on this subject, and believes that providing multiple barriers of protection is the most a ppropriate approach to protecting USDWs from endangerment. See the discussion of Class VI we ll construction requirements in the preamble to

the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guida nce will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

The Agency plans to, every six years, collect a nd review project data on early GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount a nd types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determ ine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22520 Letter Lines: 54 to 60

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: The scientific basis for sequestering Car bon Dioxide (CO2) 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 CO2 is the cause of global temperature increas e. EPA simply infers sequestration is necessary, without support. Refer to the Comment Section below entitled "Sequestration is not necessary" for deta ils on the lack of supporting data for this EPA inferred position.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of th e Class VI GS rule is to ensure

5consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirement s to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. Mitigating climate change is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22521 Letter Lines: 62 to 79

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: The sequestration of CO2 represents a m oney-making scheme for a "political" pollutant, which will encourage unqualifie d organizations and speculators to seek Class VI injection permits. Thes e unqualified organizations will find unqualified consultants to prepare docume nts supporting the permit applications. EPA, in the instant proposed rule, su ggests several financial responsibility schemes to avoid unqualified organizati ons and speculators from creating a disaster, but EPA and states do not know how to assure financial responsibility as demonstrated by the lack specific ity within the proposed rule. Rules proposed with this lack of specificity, typically result in EP A selecting final rule wording, which received no comments during the proposal st age. This gives EPA free rein to select regulation wo rding 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 re quirements on EPA review personnel. Thus, a well written, but inaccurate document, can easily be accepted by EPA, when technically unqualified review ers are used. If qualified reviewers were used, the application would be rejected.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA disagrees w ith the assertion that the staff reviewing permit applications does not have adequate technical knowledge to review and approve Class VI permits. EPA will be facilitating training on the GS rule requirements for states and Regional staff in addition to providing gui dance on implementation of the Class VI UIC

program.

EPA clarifies that the person who signs a permit a pplication must certify th at the application is

accurate and that data was coll ected in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel evaluate the data. EPA believe s that assigning this responsibility to the signatories will ensure that the work has been properly supervised. Failure to meet this requirement would subject the owner or operator of the well to applicable civil, criminal, or administrative penalties under SDWA §1423.

EPA adds that owners or operators of Class VI we lls must ensure that resources are available to prevent endangerment of USDWs from imprope r plugging, remediation, and management of wells. For this reason, the GS rule requires that owners or oper ators demonstrate and maintain

6financial responsibility for corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, postinjection site care and site closure, and emergenc y and remedial response at GS sites as specified in §146.85. EPA has revised the requirements in the fi nal rule to provide more specifics. In the

event of contamination or other adverse event th at endangers a USDW during the life of the GS project, the financial instrument(s), such as insurance, bonds, etc., rather than public monies, would cover necessary response actions.

EPA adds that Class VI well owne rs and operators must site, cons truct, operate, monitor, and close their wells in a manner that protects USDW s, and Class VI permits will set forth rigorous technical requirements to ensure careful planni ng, operation, and closur e of GS projects.

EPA adds that the requirements in the final GS rule, including all changes from the proposed rule, are based on consideration of public commen ts received in response to the proposed rule and its subsequent Notice of data Availabil ity and Request for Comment issued on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802).

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22522 Letter Lines: 81 to 94

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment)

Comment: A review of the existing technical literatu re suggests no author has considered how long sequestration is expected to last. Schlumberger says in their advertising, sequestration is "permane nt" separation of CO2 from the near surface waters. Webster Unabridged Dictiona ry defines "permanent" as meaning unchanging, a very long time, to last inde finitely. Indefinite ly is for ever without end. This appears to be an impo ssible assignment. Governments come and go, people come and to, and most importan tly companies (permittees) come and go. The cost of carbon dioxide sequestrations monitoring until the e nd of time is a monumental expenditure. To circumvent th is problem EPA states 50 years should be long enough, even though EPA offers no technical support fo r this claim. Then EPA says "not to worry," EPA will allow the non-technically trained Regional Director to lengthen or shorte n the sequestration reservoir monitoring time based on his vast "inexperience". EP A offers no guidance to assist the untrained, non-engineer Regional Direct ors in making that determination.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In determining the post-injection site care -timeframe for the proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent results from GS modeling studies in the preambl e to the proposed regula tion. Further explanation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prep ared background document that is available in the federal docket for the GS rule, titled "Comput ational Modeling of U nderground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water." Based on review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may o ccur on the timeframe of 10-100 y ears after the cessation of injection. EPA believes that a 50-year default po st-injection site care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for most GS projects and available da ta, including data submitted by commenters, do

7not support a different default timeframe, and has re tained this in the fina l regulation. To address concerns that, in some situations, it can be demons trated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangermen t to USDWs, the final GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regard ing the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the

Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the PISC period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) a ffording the Director discretion

to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, ba sed on substantial data during the permitting process, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures nonendangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts.

EPA disagrees that the staff making determinations regarding whether to shorten or lengthen the post-injection site care timeframe lack technical training for effective oversight of Class VI wells. Most permitting authority staff have years of experience with the current UIC injection well classes and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplines.

EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating propo sed well plugging plans a nd post-injection site care and site closure plans under §146.92 a nd §146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator coul d plug injection and m onitoring wells; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22523 Letter Lines: 96 to 108

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: EPA discusses what happens, if, the se questration operator goes bankrupt or decides "enough is enough" and cannot or wi ll not continue m onitoring the highly pressure CO2 containing formulation. Bu t EPA offers no useable answer in the proposed rule. EPA suggests in the inst ant preamble that, we wait until EPA

finds an answer. Such assurance is w ithout merit. Now, during the rule proposal stage is the time to provide concre te requirements to assure the public of the safety of sequestration!

8The Federal Government can establish a tr ust fund? If one cons iders the Social Security Trust Fund, we can expect the se questration fund to be combined with

the General Fund for Government maintenan ce 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!

Individual Response: The goal of financial responsibility is to ensure that financial resources are available to prevent or remediate the endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties. Assuring fi nancial responsibility for correct ive action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and si te closure, and emergency and remedial response at GS sites is an important component of en suring that USDWs are protected.

Under SDWA, EPA has the general authority to set financial responsibility requirements for injection well owners or operators to ensure th at adequate resources are available to protect USDWs throughout the life of the GS project. However, this au thority does not extend to allowing the Agency to create a financial instru ment with EPA as the trustee, due to the

restrictions of the Miscellane ous Receipts Act (MRA). The MRA requires that EPA deposit the

funds it receives for the use of the Government into the Treasury, therefore funds would not necessarily be available for GS financial responsibility.

Additionally, EPA does not have authority under SDWA to establis h a trust fund for purposes of financial responsibility for Class VI projects. The Agency clarifie s that the trust funds that are addressed as financial responsibility instruments on the GS rule are set up by individual owners or operators and are different from a national-le vel trust described by th e commenters that would cover large numbers of GS projects.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22524 Letter Lines: 110 to 168 ; 609 to 616 ; 622 to 623

Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking comment)

Comment: EPA believes Class VI wells and associated reservoirs will be safe, even though

corrosion resistant materials are not availa ble. 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 inve stigation shows no pipe, packer, rubber

seal or cement have been tested resistan t to carbonic acid attack for 50 years (maximum test length to date is 12 mont hs!). Thus, when the well or formation fails (leaks), the CO2 phase changes(from liquid to gas). This will result in a massive increase in volume as the CO2 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 su ch a disaster. Since the disaster may

occur where there is no USDW the Statue provides no-protecti on 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)

9or the carbon dioxide finds its way explosively to the earth’s surface.

Meyer (2007) reports seve re 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 CO2 and water cuts have not always proved accurate." Th e presence of water insitu to storage reservoirs typically increases the corrosi ve nature of this CO2. The injected CO2 is buoyant and rises to the bottom of the top confining zone. The confining zone is penetrated by at least one inje ction well and proba bly other wells. These wells must have casing, which will corrode quickly unless there is a constant injection of corrosion inhibi tor (Thomasville. MS experience).

A review of the Department of Energy, State of Washington and State of New Mexico reports and rules shows none of thes e 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 st eel 316 fittings, and forgings on the basis of recommendation of Meyer (2007) for surface c onnections associated with EOR wells injecting dry CO2. 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 CO2 sequestration wells without SS 316 components. This means existing CO2 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 t ubing for enhanced oil recovery. THIS

PLASTIC COATED TUBING IS PULLED AND INSPE CTED YEARLY. Yearly inspection of tubing for 50 years does not appear pract ical for CO2 sequestration wells! Each time the tubing is pulled, the coating at th e threaded joint wears and/or chips, exposing the carbon steel to carbonic aci d corrosion. This corrosive attack will result in rapid exteri orization of the tubing.

The packer presents a particularly diffi cult 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 treata ble. Thus, making stainless steel slips appears highly questionable. Packer el astermers, 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 pr esence of carbonic acid.

10Meyer, J.P. 2007. "Summary of Carbon Dioxi de 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, O il and Gas Journal, June

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

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..

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that corros ion-resistant materials and cement do not exist. Meyer (2007) lists several types of cements that have been used under corrosive conditions. EPA acknowledges that studies have likely not been performed to prove a 50-year life span for corrosion-resistant materials. However, there are two studies of wells that were exposed to CO2 for approximately 30 years by Carey et al. (2007) and Crow et al. (2008). Although these studies are limited in the number of well material sample s and the number of wells examined, the casing and cement sampled indicate fairly good condition (i.e., fairly significant corrosion resistance) of well materials installed three decades ago. The best available corrosion-resistant materials suited for each GS project will be determined by the Director.

EPA clarifies that Grade 316 stainl ess steel is not a specified mate rial. It is discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule as an example of materials that have been used successfully in

similar situations. The determination of the best mate rial to use is left for the Director to approve based upon case-specific informati on as provided under §146.86(b)(1).

EPA acknowledges that there is limited data on this subject, and believes that providing multiple barriers of protection is the most appropr iate approach to protecting USDWs from endangerment. See the discussion of Class VI we ll construction requirements in the preamble to

the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guida nce will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

The Agency plans to, every six years, collect a nd review project data on early GS projects as well as industry innovations on cementing including the develo pment of CO2-resistant epoxy cements to determine whether the appropriate am ount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determ ine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22525 Letter Lines: 170 to 195

Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment)

Comment: Admixed cements have been "accelerated" te sted in the presence of carbonic acid

11for 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.’ Ha lliburton does not claim the cement to

be acid resistant!

What is particularly disturbing is th e statement by EPA at 73 FR 43510, col. 1, "Today’s proposal does not specify material s 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 Interna tional or comparable standards approved by the [nontechnically trained] Director". This statement says in effect, "We don’t know what materials are appropriat e 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 ra ises 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-te rm injection of CO2 and assure that the well can maintain integrity throu ghout the proposed life span of the project,

Individual Response: EPA believes that allowing flexibil ity in choosing cements is an important way to address the potenti al geologic and operational vari ation in GS projects. For this

reason the rule will allow the selection and use of cements for Class VI we lls that are appropriate to the site-specific conditions of each project. The rule at §146.86(b)(5) provides owners or operators with the flexibility to choose cements and additives, as long as they are compatible

with the CO2 stream and formation fluids and of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain integrity over the design life the GS project.

The materials must also meet the specifications developed by API or ASTM International, or other specifications approved by the Director. This requirement at §146.86 (b)(1) invokes the expertise of these bodies to ensure that the requirements for construction of Class VI wells

reflect the state of the art in well cons truction technology. EPA believes that permitting authorities, which have many staff who have b een overseeing UIC programs for decades, have sufficient expertise to evaluate the appropriateness of cements for use in specific situations.

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

12Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22526 Letter Lines: 196 to 199 ; 578 to 579

Comment Code: 1450 1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking

Comment Code: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements (40 CFR 146.86)

Comment: e.g., without EPA specifications, except l ongevity of materials, e.g., corrosion resistance requirements, etc., EPA PLAC ES THE RESPONSIBILI TY ON AN INDUSTRY

WHICH GOVERNMENT, THE PUBLIC AND REGULATORS HAVE NEVER TRUSTED, BRYANT (2007).

THE PROPOSED RULE MU ST BE WITHDRAWN!

Bryant, S., 2007. Geologic CO2 Storage - Can the Oil and Gas Industry Help Save the Planet? J Pet. Tech (JPT), p 98-105, September

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the final GS ru lemaking provides industry with the responsibility to enforce GS requi rements. EPA clarifie s that responsibility for enforcing the GS rule rests with state and/or regional permitting aut horities, not industry, and that states seeking to implement the GS rule must demonstrate in th eir primacy program subm ission that they will implement a program that is at least as stringe nt as the federal requirements for permitting, site characterization, monitoring, and site closure, as well as for all ot her GS rule requirements as required under §1422 of SDWA.

The prescribed construction requirements describe d in the final GS rule for Class VI wells are sufficient to protect USDWs from endangerm ent. EPA adds that the requirement at §146.86(b)(1) that materials must meet or ex ceed standards developed by the American Petroleum Institute, ASTM International, or comparable standards acceptable to the Director invokes the expertise of th ese bodies which, combined with the re view by the Direct or of all sitespecific information required to be submitted at §146.82(a) will ensure that the owner or operator constructs a well that will ensure USDWs are pr otected from endangerment. EPA believes that permitting authorities, which have many staff who have been oversee ing UIC programs for decades, have sufficient expertise to evaluate th e appropriateness of cements for use in specific

situations.

EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be

available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22527 Letter Lines: 201 to 258 ; 600 to 607 ; 625 to 628

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: CS WELLS ARE NOT NECESSARY

Carbon dioxide sequestration will not stop gl obal temperature increase! EPA in

13the preamble to the CS proposed rule (73 FR 43496-43502) discusses the reasons for the need for CO2 sequestration. Nowher e in those pages does EPA state that carbon dioxide emissions cause global wa rming or what the optimum earth temperature is, or how the Agency knows wh en the optimum temperature is reached, so future sequestration can be discon tinued. 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 sim ilar lack of CO2 cause and effect.

We can find no peer reviewed technical pa per, referenced by EPA or anyone else (not based on computer simulation) s howing CO2 causes global warming. EPA relies heavily on computer simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) reports. Reference to IP CC reports subjects EPA to serious question regarding the technical validity of the information presented. The use of the Hockey Stick Figure (Figure 22, IP CC, 1996) brings into sharp focus the political nature of the IPCC reports. McIn tyre and McKitrick ( 2003) demonstrated conclusively the Hockey Stick Figure was based on truncated data, obsolete data, calculation errors and qual ity control deficiencies . Also, Figures 5.20 and 5.21 (IPCC, 2005) , sequestration well detail s, 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. Mode rn mills can "hog out" 10 feet of casing per hour, but the meta l 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 CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Even that goal appears ques tionable. Our extensive review of the technical literature demonstrate no p eer reviewed reports based on field observations are available showing a dire ct relationship of global warming caused by increase in the atmospheric CO 2. However, Lucas, 2008, states the "We Can Solve It" (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 move ment and putting a man on the moon" combined. Unfortunately, www.wecansolveit .org offers no supporting data, but it offers new high financial income opportuni ties, which appears to be the major driving force behind temper ature change projects.

Is the relationship between CO2 and globa l temperature increase is real? The quantity of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are infinitesimally small compared with naturally occurring CO2 releases as show n by DOE, Figure 1, below,. The U.S.

14Department of Energy ( www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ove rview.html) developed the graph, showing projected CO2 entering the atmo sphere during 2008 from Anthropogenic sources is 6.0 GtC/yr: Forests and So ils release >100 GtC/ yr: Geologic >300 GtC/yr and Oceans 1,400 GtC/yr. It a ppears sequestering all of the anthropogenic CO2 in minuscule when compared with natural sources. Will sequestering such a small quantity effective reduce global warming?

[Figure 1. 2008 Estimated United States CO2 Emissions for 2008. See pdf]

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

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

14, 2008

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

U.S. Department of Energy, 2007. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan 2007. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_ seq/refshelf/proj ect%20portfolio/20 07/2007Roadmap.pdf

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of th e Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirement s to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. As described above, mitigating climate change is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22528 Letter Lines: 260 to 267 ; 630 to 631

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule

Comment: CO2 SEQUESTRATION IS COSTLY

Xie and Economides (2008) discuss the uncertainties a nd risks of CO2 sequestration in oil and gas reservoirs (see Attachment 1, below) [SEE P. 11 OF PDF FOR ATTACHMENT 1]. The authors conclude the cost just to satisfy the Un ited States Kyoto Prot ocol requirements will cost more than $1 Trillion per year. The paper gives a "realistic situation [view] on the potential im pacts on commercial CO2 sequestration projects, environment and th e global climate change."

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

15Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule addresses costs associated with sequestration only, i.e., not capture or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are likely to be influenced by all aspects of CC S, including capture, tran sport, and sequestration. EPA adds that it does not establish or attempt to influence electric costs – they are set by factors the Agency does not control. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total CCS project costs; EPA estimates that the GS rule requirements amount to approximately 2 percent of the total CCS project costs.

EPA acknowledges that the Class VI requirement s have associated costs beyond baseline (Class I industrial wells) costs. The Agen cy clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation, promulgated under authority of the SDWA, is to ensure th at, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

EPA clarifies that addressing clim ate change is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22529 Letter Lines: 288 to 323 ; 578 to 579

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking comment)

Comment: LACK OF QUALIFIED EPA PERSONNEL

EPA requests comments on many aspects of CO2. For example at 73 FR 43514, col. 2, EPA request help learning to track CO2 underground plumes. I have worked

with the UIC rules as a commenter si nce 1979. At no time did EPA use an EPA Professional Engineer (P.E.) for devel oping the UIC rules. During the initial stages of writing the 1979 dr aft 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 provid ing such information. Reviewing and understanding CO2 sequestration projects is a technically exacting task. Assigning an EPA non-Professiona l Engineer to this review task exposes the U.S. public to severe risk. Placing the fina l 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 Engin eers. EPA at 40 CFR Part 112 requires a Professional Engineer certify a Spill Pr evention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, which typically is intrinsi cally a simple non-te chnical document,

16but EPA does not rely on EPA Professiona l Engineers to revi ew high pressure, corrosive fluid injection projects, that are highly technical and intrinsically

unsafe.

EPA has likened Class VI projects to Cl ass I hazardous waste injection wells and Class II CO2 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 natu re of CO2 sequestra tion projects ( www.wecansolveit.org) will attract spectat ors, who do not intend to see the project through to completion. Thus, the Ag ency may be forced to correct many problems caused by poor review and oversight on the part of the untrained EPA employees

Bryant, S., 2007. Geologic CO2 Storage - Can the Oil and Gas Industry Help Save the Planet? J Pet. Tech (JPT), p 98-105, September

Individual Response: As described previously, most perm itting authority staff have years of experience with the curren t UIC injection well classes and ha ve relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplines. Additionally , EPA will coordinate with and assist states, e.g., through guidance and on-line and in-person training, to help them address problematic technical and policy issues.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22530 Letter Lines: 325 to 347

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks

Comment Code: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements (40 CFR 146.86)

Comment: 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 CO2 does when the pressure is decreased. The change in fluid phase results in formati on 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 Ba rbara, 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 cont rolling head of weighted fluid. In the case of CO2 the hydr aulic head, in the event of a leak, becomes less as the over burden pressure re duces. This is a much more dangerous condition than experienced with Class I wells.

17Class II enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells are not abandoned with a high residual head of buoyant gas. Typicall y, the well is produced until the field becomes un-economical (too depleted) to produce. This, unlike the CO2 sequestration wells is not under high supercritical pressure (2200 psig pressure) at the time of abandonment. Also, a Class II CO2 injection well is associated with oil producing operations, which can be protected from corrosion by injecting corrosion inhi bitor into the producing well during the producing phase.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the constructi on requirements at §146.86 provide an appropriate level of protecti on from endangerment to USDWs that is based upon the existing UIC framework for deep wells. The new tailored approach was designed to address the general risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and was tailored specif ically to address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., including large inje ction volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations).

EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and ha ve other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expect s the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care re quirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

EPA believes that building upon th e existing UIC requirements (e.g., Class I and Class II well requirements) to develop the Class VI GS regulation provides a foundation for protecting USDWs based on success, field experience, and le ssons learned about CO2 injection in other applications. Class I well owners or operators ha ve experience with site characterization, well construction, and monitoring procedures and technol ogies that are applicab le to Class VI wells. Class II ER well operators have experience with managing the unique properties of CO2. To successfully flood a hydrocarbon field with CO2 during an ER operation, the behavior of injected CO2 must be well understood.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22531 Letter Lines: 349 to 369 ; 581 to 583 ; 593 to 598 ; 618

to 620

Comment Code: 1810 1.4.1 Research on identify ing risks to USDWs

Comment: EPA CAREFULLY SELECTS CITATIONS

EPA (2008), at 73 FR 43515, col. 2, cites Bu rton 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 EP A January 16, 2008 CO2 meeting in New

18Orleans, wherein Nicot and Hovarka (2008) presented a PowerPoint slide show regarding monitoring insitu problems. Hovarka (2008) reit erates serious concern discussed in 2007 regarding field monitoring capabilities of currently available tools. At 73 FR 43515, col. 3, EPA select s the Nimiz and Hudson (2005) report to justify insitu monitori ng of CO2. 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 th e 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 th e reader to the instant proposed rule. EPA consistently, excludes reference wh ich do not support the EPA preconceived

ideas!

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.

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

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

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

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS Rule is based on limited research. While developing the GS rule, EPA conducted an extensiv e literature search. Th e papers cited in the preamble are those EPA believes directly address the unique issues associ ated with CO2 GS, and provide overwhelming evidence supporting the rule requirements, including testing and monitoring requirements.

EPA also considered information from laboratory, modeling, and field res earch as it developed the requirements for GS wells. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also involved in coll ecting and analyzing GS project data and permit information from a vari ety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data and inform ation associated with the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. De partment of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. In addition to the information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which

19the Agency described the preliminary results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi project; th e Aneth Field project in Para dox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico.

EPA is using an adaptive approach to re gulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plan s to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropr iate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22532 Letter Lines: 371 to 383 ; 609 to 610

Comment Code: 1460 1.2.2.2 Oppose EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment)

Comment: EPA DOES NOT HAVE PROPER STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE CO2 SEQUESTRATION RULE

EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Ac t (SDWA) to protect USDWs from CO2 sequestration. The SDWA authorizes EPA to protect drinking wate r, not encourage indefinite storage of a corrosive, high press fluid. CO2 is known to attack carbon and stainless steel, Meyer (20 07). The fact that Meyer reported stainless steel 404 was badly corroded by "dry" CO2 indicates wet CO2 (carbonic acid) is a RCRA corrosive waste, si nce it meets the RCRA definition of corrosive. In addition, the f act a leak of CO2 could en ter a building basement suffocating the inhabitants, demonstr ates CO2 sequestration is not an environmental problem, but, when sequest ered, it is a pervasive and dangerous life threatening hazard. EPA is ill equi pped to control potentially unsafe activities under the guise of protecting drinking water.

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

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the SDWA does not provide EPA with adequate authority to regulate underground in jection of CO2 for GS or that the GS rule oversteps the boundaries or authority of the SDWA. The GS re gulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from enda ngerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. Injection wells are regula ted under the authority of Part C of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Under the SDWA, the underground injection of a ny "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is de fined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

EPA disagrees that properly managed GS proj ects are dangerous. EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standi ng UIC regulatory framew ork and tailored to

20meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS , appropriately address endangerment risks to

USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum techni cal criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and correc tive action, well construction, ope ration, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial res ponsibility, injection well pluggi ng, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment.

EPA considers the risk of asphyxiat ion and other chronic and acute health effects from airborne exposure resulting from CO2 injection activities (even in the case of leakage or accidental exposure) to be minimal. This finding is based on experience gained in the oil and gas industry, experience from international GS projects, and evaluation of large scale releases of naturally occurring CO2 (73 FR 43498).

Please also see the GS final rule preamble sect ions entitled, “Under What Authority is This Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does Th is Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

Authorities and GS Initiatives?"

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22533 Letter Lines: 385 to 412

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment)

Comment: 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) pe riod of 50 years with Director’s discretion to change that period to length en or shorten the 50- year period, if appropriate." The best support EPA o ffers (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 mon itoring results and updated modeling results as appropriate until a demonstrati on 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 m onitoring time period! We question the probability of speculators being in busi ness 50 years after the injectors stop producing income and become a liabilit y. 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

21this is an Arbitrary and Capricious and a life threatening acti on on the part of

EPA.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA disagrees w ith this comment. In determining the post-injection site care-ti meframe for the proposed regul ation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and in itial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent results from GS mode ling studies in the preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explanation of this analys is was included in an EPA-prepared background

document that is available in the federal docke t, titled "Computational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determinati on of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water." Based on review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume st abilization may occur on the time frame of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection s ite care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for most GS projects and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default ti meframe, and has retained this in the final regulation.

EPA disagrees that the staff making determinations regarding whether to shorten or lengthen the post-injection site care timeframe lack technical training for effective oversight of Class VI wells. Most permitting authority staff have years of experience with the current UIC injection well classes and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplines.

EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating propo sed well plugging plans a nd post-injection site care and site closure plans under §146.92 a nd §146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator coul d plug injection and m onitoring wells; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22534 Letter Lines: 417 to 430

Comment Code: 1900 1.4.3 Technical workshops

Comment: 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 pr esentations are, for the most part,

PowerPoint slideshow without voice over. Thus, the slideshows are difficult to interrupt and only contain EPA presented ma terials. When EPA refers to comments and questions from the attendees, EPA pr ovides only an interp retation 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 dem onstrates no issues of post closure monitoring or long term funding for co rrective action were raised, or

22discussions 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 Work shops. EPA deprives the commenters of accurate input from the Workshops. Fo r example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states:

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the workshop Po werPoint slides to which the commenter refers were presented by EPA. Follo wing the presentations EPA answered questions and these responses are included in the work shop summaries, which are available in the

electronic docket.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22535 Letter Lines: 429 to 441

Comment Code: 1900 1.4.3 Technical workshops

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: or nothing was accomplished during the Work shops. EPA deprives the commenters of accurate input from the Workshops. Fo r example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states:

"...SDWA does not have explicit provisions for financial re sponsibility, 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 endangermen t of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells after site closure. The SDWA authority does not extend to fina ncial responsibility for activities not related to protection of USDWs (e.g., cove rage of risks to air, ecosystems, public health or public safety unrelated to USDW endangerment). It also does not cover transfer of owner or operator fina ncial responsibility to other entities, or creation of a third party financial mechanism where EPA is the trustee."

Individual Response: As described above, the summaries of the workshop discussions were

condensed to make them more readable. EP A notes that it received numerous comments on financial responsibility during th e comment period for the proposed rule. These comments are

available in the docket for this rule.

In reference to comments on financial responsib ility, as described above, under SDWA, EPA has the general authority to set financial responsib ility requirements for injection well owners or operators to ensure that adequa te resources are available to pr otect USDWs throughout the life of the GS project. However, this authority does not extend to allowing the Agency to create a financial instrument with EPA as the trustee, due to the restrictions of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (MRA). The MRA requires that EPA deposit the funds it receives for the use of the Government into the Treasury, therefore funds would not necessarily be available for GS financial responsibility.

The Agency clarifies that the trus t funds that are addressed as fi nancial responsibility instruments on the GS rule are set up by individual owners or operators and are di fferent from a national23level trust described by the commenters that woul d cover large numbers of GS projects. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EP A's final approach to financial responsibility.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22536 Letter Lines: 443 to 447

Comment Code: 1460 1.2.2.2 Oppose EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment)

Comment: 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 pr otection of USDW. Even the Agency suggests the Safe Drinking Water Act is not appropriate to regulate CO2 sequestration.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with adequate authority to regulate underground injection of CO2 for GS or that the GS rule oversteps the boundaries or authority of the SDWA. The GS regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from e ndangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. Injection wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Under the SDWA, the underground injection of a ny "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is de fined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Please also see the GS final rule preamble sect ions entitled, “Under What Authority is This Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does Th is Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

Authorities and GS Initiatives?"

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22537 Letter Lines: 414 to 415 ; 449 to 485

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: EPA DOES NOT INCLUDE A RECO MMENDED MEANS OF FUNDING SEQUESTRATION LONG TERM

CORRECTIVE ACTION.

When one considers the emphasis on enhanced income available from climate change presented on www.wecandoit.org, it is diffi cult to imagine specu lative companies being willing to fund short-term injection but not long- term remedial projects. After the financial income ceases, these co mpanies will fade away, particularly if the IOGCC (2007) trust fund recomme ndation is followed, 73 FR 43504. The

trust fund is similar to insurance. The Trust Fund input per ton of CO2 by the speculators will be considered part of the cost of doing business.

24EPA appears to be waiting for counsel from the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) regarding recommendations fo r 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/F inancialAssuranceWorkshopSummary.pdf.

At the EPA, Environmental Financial A dvisory 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 ha s expanded in the last few years into the transportation sector which is relate d to climate change. For example, the CO2 injection program would require financ ial assurance, if something goes wrong in the clean up. EFAB has been working w ith the Office of Solid Waste and the

Office of Enforcement over financial assu rance related to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)."

The sense of urgency expressed by the Agen cy appears to be lacking in these Board minutes. If in fact, EFAB is di scussing "transportati on 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 re garding surety prov isions is not formulated as a rule. The presentation resembles an Agency thinking "out loud trying to find an answer." We are give n no opportunity to comment on a rational proposal, because the da ta are withheld!

Individual Response: EPA notes that long-term liability is outside of the scope of the GS rulemaking and is not addressed in the GS rule. SDWA does not contain any express provisions addressing liability. An owner or operator will be held liable for any permit violations under SDWA §1423.

Under the final GS rule, once an owner or ope rator has met all regulatory requirements under

Part 146 for Class VI wells and th e Director has approved site cl osure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, thei r financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, ev en if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for re gulatory noncompliance (inc luding violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even after site clos ure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

25Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regul atory compliance, an owner or operator may be subject to a §1431 response orde r even after proper site cl osure is approved under §146.93. Under §1431 the Administrator may require an ow ner or operator to take necessary response

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an USDW, which may pres ent an imminent and s ubstantial endangerment to the health of persons, and the appropriate Stat e and local authorities ha ve not acted to protect the health of such persons. Th e action may include issuing admi nistrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

Furthermore, after site closure an owner or ope rator may remain liable under tort and other remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility for Class VI wells.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22538 Letter Lines: 487 to 502

Comment Code: 6100 3.1 Comments on the cost estimates

Comment: 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 w ill have sufficient funds to plug and abandon the injection well. We have expre ssed the same concer n 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 assumpti ons and showed the proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 112 reduce regulatory co sts. 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 co rrect or for that matter, how will untrained EPA employee recogni ze the estimate is correct?

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance on financia l responsibility th at describes the types of financial instruments th at owners or operators can use to meet financial responsibility requirements for GS wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

26For additional information on EPA's final regula tory approach, including the well plugging and financial responsibility requirements, pl ease see the final rule and preamble.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22539 Letter Lines: 504 to 514

Comment Code: 1910 1.4.4 Stakeholder outreach

Comment: ADAPTIVE APPROACH

EPA, at 73 FR 43522, requests input rega rding using electronic means of involving the public in the rule making pr ocess. 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-goi ng with their information, e.g., put notices in the newspapers, sponsor tele vision Public Notices, etc. Currently, the public is uninformed and will remain uninformed, if th e Agency relies solely on the Federal Register.!

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that it asked for commen t on the use of electronic media to inform stakeholders of the availability of indi vidual Class VI permit applications, not on the use of electronic media to inform the public about regulations themselves. However, EPA clarifies

that it notifies interested stakeholders when it proposes and finalizes new rules. EPA also posts information about current and recent rulemakings on its website http://www.epa.gov/safewater. In addition, EPA issues press releases on its regu latory actions, and the news media often write articles about EPA propos ed and final rules.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22540 Letter Lines: 516 to 525

Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells

Comment: PRIMACY

We find many of the state regulator are knowledgeable, but many state regulators are not formally trained and certainly not Professional Engineers. CO2 sequestration is too technical and danger ous an undertaking to leave the highly technical review and decision making to non-Professional Engin eers. The instant Class VI rule must be based on Primacy only being given to State and Tribes employing and using specially trained Prof essional Engineers for review and approval of CO2 sequestration projects. Without this provision, EPA places the general public in severe danger.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas

relevant to GS of CO2 is critic ally important for effective UIC oversight of Class VI wells. EPA notes that staff in existing State UIC Program s including programs that implement the UIC

27requirements under section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, IV, and V wells) and State oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA have expertise in the te chnical areas necessary to eval uate permit applications and effectively oversee GS projects.

When a State applies for Class VI Primacy, it must demonstrate that it has sufficient and appropriate technical capacity (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, techni cal expertise) to implement a Class VI program that meets EPA's minimum Fede ral requirements finali zed by this rulemaking. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories that describe th e process of applying fo r and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Cl ass VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA. The guidance will also provide tools designed to assist UIC Directors with evaluating permit application information. The gui dance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.

Regarding the suggestion that specially trained professional engineers re view and approve CO2 GS projects, EPA notes that most permitting authority staff have years of experience with the current injection well classes and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and related disciplines. EPA will also consult with NDWAC, associations and organizations, ORD, and experts to provide cross-regional assistance and build expertise.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22541 Letter Lines: 527 to 558

Comment Code: 6100 3.1 Comments on the cost estimates

Comment Code: 6210 3.2.1 Comments on the timeframe of the costing analysis (seeking comment)

Comment: 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 unspecifi ed well information, calculated the

incremental cost to convert the Class I we ll to a Class VI well. This approach excludes commenters from verifying the accu racy 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 assu mptions EPA provide to its contractor.

Unethical instructions and unstated assumptions preven t commenters from testing the accuracy of the cost estimate. We ha ve 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 th e 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

28CFR 146.91 (73 FR 43540). Either the Agency changed its mind after giving the go-ahead to the contractor , but did not revise the propos ed rule or the Agency was attempting reduce co st 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 definiti on of Alterative 3. The definition is words without specificity! We have no i nkling of want Altern ative 3 entails.

On 28 August 2007, Dr. Holliday discussed th ese 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."

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that due to the variat ion expected in i ndividual project specifications, a pro forma (representative) project was used in the cost analysis to provide a reasonable estimate on a national basis for the pur pose of selecting betw een regulatory options and development of the final regulation. This appr oach is consistent with EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (September 2000) and with other major rulemakings under SDWA. Detailed information on the pro forma assump tions and unit costs applied in the analysis are included in the appendix to the cost anal ysis, which is in the rulemaking docket.

EPA clarifies that cost estimates are presented in incremental terms, that is, the costs beyond

those estimated to be incurred if the projects were operating under regulations in place prior to GS rule promulgation. (EPA determined that, ab sent the GS regulation, requirements similar to Class I industrial well requirement s would apply to GS wells and th erefore served as the baseline scenario.)

For this reason, costs may seem lower or less co mprehensive than expected. This approach, the development of cost estimates that are incrementa l changes in cost relative to the baseline, is consistent with EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (September 2000) and with other major rulemakings under SDWA. As described in section 5.3 (Baseline) of that guidance, "An economic analysis of a policy or regulation compares 'the world with the policy or regulation' (the policy sc enario) with 'the world absent the policy or regulation' (the baseline scenario)."

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 22542 Letter Lines: 560 to 570

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: EOR INJECTION WELLS

EPA notes at 73 FR 43526 "...CO2 injection. [as] .already practiced...(i.e. EOR), is expected to expand rapidly...." This statement can be interpreted to

29mean CO2 EOR will be come under the Class VI well rule. If this is the case, EPA will in effect reduce oil and ga s production significantly during the existing server domestic energy shortage! Since operating conditions of CO2 EOR are different, e.g., Supercritical CO2 is not left in the reservoir at abandonment, and casing penetrating th e cap-rock can be protected from corrosion, etc., the converting of CO2 EOR wells to Class VI wells is neither justified nor appropriate.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule doe s not change the requirements or address Class II EOR operations. EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program. EPA believes that the nature and risks of CO2 inject ion for the primary purpose of l ong term storage poses different risks than injection for the primary purpose of EOR, and therefore has developed new Class VI regulations to address these unique risks. For example, the volu me of CO2 anticipated to be injected for long term storage is significantly gr eater than for ER operatio ns. Reservoir pressure conditions will also be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within th eir storage formations than Class II EOR projects.

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0114 Comment ID: 24116 Letter Lines: 269 to 286

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming

Comment: SEQUESTRATION IS NOT NECESSARY

Based on a review of existing technical papers, CO2 emissions are not causing climate temperature change. There have been climate changes for at about 2 million years. Life has struggled forwar d under climate temperature increases

and decreases without being annihilated.

During these temperature changes, Greenla nd has gone from a marginal framing area to a bleak cold frozen area, but pe ople continue taking advantage of the warmer climate by moving away from the co ld areas. The belief that these global temperature changes can be mitigated by sequestering car bon dioxide has no scientific support, si nce previous Global temperature increases occurred in the

3031 absence of anthropogenic CO2.

Climate models, which are being used to suggest CO2 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 ru le proposal is a cruel hoax.

Individual Response: As described above, mitigating and m odeling climate change is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. EPA clar ifies that the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in permitting undergrou nd injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirements to prev ent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of

the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions.