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 propose regulations governing the protect Underground 

Sources of Drinking Water, but we believe Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Wells are: 1) dangerous and 

2) unnecessary and should not promulgated. Also, we believe the Safe Drinking Water Act is not suited 

to provide necessary safety to the citizenry, because EPA, by promulgating Class VI wells, is 

authorizing construction of a CERCLA imminent hazard substance storage site and a RCRA hazardous 

substance (corrosivity) storage site. Each of these concerns and many more are discussed below. We 

request these comment be made a part of the record EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390. 

DISCUSSION 

The Environmental Protection Agency at 73 FR 43492-43541 requests comments regarding the proposal 

to prepare regulations for an unknown number of Class VI wells. Class VI wells are in reality, 

manmade explosive devices storing buoyant carbon dioxide sequestered deep in the earth under 

supercritical pressure conditions. Many persons designing these wells are of unknown technical ability, 

e.g., not professional Engineers (P.E.). There are no safe guards to prevent organizations from simply 

seeking monetary rewards, without being required to see the project to completion. Further, the well 

designs and operations would be approved by Agency technically untrained employees, who are not 

Professional Engineers and supervised by a Regional Director who is neither an engineer nor a 

Professional Engineer. 

The Agency proposes using untrained EPA employees who are not required to demonstrate their 

CO2 sequestration technical knowledge by completing and passing a written examination. Further, the 

Agency proposes to sequester buoyant CO2 until the end-of-time by only requiring 50 years of 

monitoring (40 CFR 146.93(b)(1)). In addition, EPA proposes using well completion materials not 

currently developed and proven corrosion-resistant under carbonic acid corrosive conditions.

The proposed regulations are a formula for future disaster: 1) Dangerous to sequester CO2, a 

supercritical fluid stored at high pressure (2200± psi): 2) The scientific basis for sequestering Carbon 

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 increase. EPA simply infers sequestration is necessary, without support. 

Refer to the Comment Section below entitled “Sequestration is not necessary” for details on the lack of 

supporting data for this EPA inferred position. 

The sequestration of CO2 represents a money-making scheme for a “political” pollutant, which will 

encourage unqualified organizations and speculators to seek Class VI injection permits. These 

unqualified organizations will find unqualified consultants to prepare documents supporting the permit 

1
applications. EPA, in the instant proposed rule, suggests several financial responsibility schemes to 

avoid unqualified organizations and speculators from creating a disaster, but EPA and states do not 

know how to assure financial responsibility as demonstrated by the lack specificity within the proposed 

rule. Rules proposed with this lack of specificity, typically result in EPA selecting final rule wording, 

which received no comments during the proposal stage. This gives EPA free rein to select regulation 

wording not reviewed by the commenting public, and not alluded to during the proposal. 

One of the most frightening aspects of the proposed rule is EPA imposes no technical qualification 

requirements on EPA review personnel. Thus, a well written, but inaccurate document, can easily be 

accepted by EPA, when technically unqualified reviewers are used. If qualified reviewers were used, 

the application would be rejected. 

A review of the existing technical literature suggests no author has considered how long 

sequestration is expected to last. Schlumberger says in their advertising, sequestration is “permanent” 

separation of CO2 from the near surface waters. Webster Unabridged Dictionary defines “permanent” as 

meaning unchanging, a very long time, to last indefinitely. Indefinitely is for ever without end. This 

appears to be an impossible assignment. Governments come and go, people come and to, and most 

importantly companies (permittees) come and go. The cost of carbon dioxide sequestrations monitoring 

until the end of time is a monumental expenditure. To circumvent this problem EPA states 50 years 

should be long enough, even though EPA offers no technical support for this claim. Then EPA says 

“not to worry,” EPA will allow the non-technically trained Regional Director to lengthen or shorten the 

sequestration reservoir monitoring time based on his vast “inexperience”. EPA offers no guidance to 

assist the untrained, non-engineer Regional Directors in making that determination. 

EPA discusses what happens, if, the sequestration operator goes bankrupt or decides “enough is 

enough” and cannot or will not continue monitoring the highly pressure CO2 containing formulation. But 

EPA offers no useable answer in the proposed rule. EPA suggests in the instant preamble that, we wait 

until EPA finds an answer. Such assurance is without merit. Now, during the rule proposal stage is the 

time to provide concrete requirements to assure the public of the safety of sequestration! 

The Federal Government can establish a trust fund? If one considers the Social Security Trust Fund, 

we can expect the sequestration fund to be combined with the General Fund for Government 

maintenance and then the money is not available when need! Who will prevent Congress from using the 

funds when times are lean? The Safe Drinking Water Act makes no provision for this alternative! 

EPA believes Class VI wells and associated reservoirs will be safe, even though corrosion resistant 

materials are not available. Again EPA says “not to worry” EPA “knows” the Oil and Gas Industry will 

develop corrosion resistant pipe and cement, when they are needed. Our investigation shows no pipe, 

packer, rubber seal or cement have been tested resistant to carbonic acid attack for 50 years (maximum 

test length to date is 12 months!). Thus, when the well or formation fails (leaks), the 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 such a disaster. Since the disaster may occur where there is no 

USDW the Statue provides no-protection for the general public from a release. Thus, at some future 

time the sequestration system operating at 2215± psia (Moore, et al) can fail due to corrosion (Meyer, 

2007) or the carbon dioxide finds its way explosively to the earth’s surface. 

Meyer (2007) reports severe corrosion of stainless steel 404 components during injection at an 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide. Also, Newton and McClay (1977) say 

“[p]redict[ing] ··· corrosivity based on CO2 and water cuts have not always proved accurate.” The 

presence of water insitu to storage reservoirs typically increases the corrosive 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 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). 

2
A review of the Department of Energy, State of Washington and State of New Mexico reports and 

rules shows none of these Agencies are willing to discuss the types of material appropriate for well 

completion components. This is true, also, of the IOGCC (2007) report. On the other hand, EPA at 73 

FR 43510 suggests using stainless steel 316 fittings, and forgings on the basis of recommendation of 

Meyer (2007) for surface connections associated with EOR wells injecting dry 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 tubing for enhanced oil recovery. This plastic coated tubing is pulled and 

inspected yearly. Yearly inspection of tubing for 50 years does not appear practical for CO2 

sequestration wells! Each time the tubing is pulled, the coating at the threaded joint wears and/or chips, 

exposing the carbon steel to carbonic acid corrosion. This corrosive attack will result in rapid 

exteriorization of the tubing. 

The packer presents a particularly difficult design problem. A stainless steel packed body can be 

manufactured. But, the slip must be hardened carbon steel so they set in the casing wall to compress the 

elastomer seal. Stainless steel work hardens, but it is not heat treatable. Thus, making stainless steel 

slips appears highly questionable. Packer elastermers, e.g. Buna-N and Nitrile rubbers, are available, 

but never tested over long time periods, e.g., 50 years, in the presence of carbonic acid. Schemp, and 

Roberson, (1975) report “[T]ests showed nonmetallic seals to be susceptible to acid and mechanical 

damage.” Tubingless completions are possible, but this would expose the casing to acid attack. 

Multiple cemented casing strings can be run. However, steel is known to corrode rapidly in the presence 

of carbonic acid. 

Admixed cements have been “accelerated” tested in the presence of carbonic acid for a period of 6-

12 months, but not for decades (personal communication with Vaughn Morgan, Halliburton). Thus, 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 may be used, rather, proposes providing the owner or operator with the 

flexibility to choose, as long as the materials used in GS wells are corrosion-resistant and meet standards 

approved for such materials by API or ASTM International or comparable standards approved by the 

[nontechnically trained] Director”. This statement says in effect, “We don’t know what materials are 

appropriate for CS well completions. Thus, EPA places the responsibility on industry and the untrained, 

non-engineer Regional Director to solve the materials dilemma. This raise questions about the existing 

EPA/State approved sequestrations wells! 

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

[t]oday’s proposal would require that the cements and cement additives used in GS wells be 

appropriate to address long-term injection of CO2 and assure that the well can maintain integrity 

throughout the proposed life span of the project, 

e.g., without EPA specifications, except longevity of materials, e.g., corrosion resistance requirements, 

etc., EPA places the responsibility on an industry which government, the public and regulators 

have never trusted, Bryant (2007).

3
The proposed rule must be withdrawn! 

CS WELLS ARE NOT NECESSARY

Carbon dioxide sequestration will not stop global temperature increase! EPA in the preamble to the 

CS proposed rule (73 FR 43496-43502) discusses the reasons for the need for CO2 sequestration. 

Nowhere in those pages does EPA state that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming or what the 

optimum earth temperature is, or how the Agency knows when the optimum temperature is reached, so 

future sequestration can be discontinued. Is EPA suggesting sequestration continue until it causes the 

next ice age? A review of the U. S. Department of Energy (2007) report demonstrates a similar lack of 

CO2 cause and effect. 

We can find no peer reviewed technical paper, referenced by EPA or anyone else (not based on 

computer simulation) showing CO2 causes global warming. EPA relies heavily on computer simulations 

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) reports. Reference to IPCC reports subjects 

EPA to serious question regarding the technical validity of the information presented. The use of the 

Hockey Stick Figure (Figure 22, IPCC, 1996) brings into sharp focus the political nature of the IPCC 

reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated conclusively the Hockey Stick Figure was based 

on truncated data, obsolete data, calculation errors and quality control deficiencies. Also, Figures 5.20 

and 5.21 (IPCC, 2005) , sequestration well details, demonstrate IPCC is technically deficient because, 

IPCC blithely suggests pulling cemented casing from Class VI at the completion of injection, IPCC 

Figure 5.21. Experience demonstrates cemented casing cannot be pulled. IPCC (2005 at page 231) 

suggests milling the casing from the shoe upwards to remove corrodible metal from contact with the 

carbonic acid. Milling is possible. Modern mills can “hog out” 10 feet of casing per hour, but the metal 

chips settle-out in the well Blowout Preventer, preventing proper operation in the event of an 

emergence. The ludicrous suggestion of using a milling stone as a means of connecting to a fixed 

packer defies all understanding, IPCC Figure 5.20. Astute scientists and engineers are very wary of 

IPCC reports, because of the frequent and consistent errors contained in the reports. 

EPA, in the proposed sequestration rule, does not provide any indication of the benefit sequestration 

will provide other than reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Even that goal appears 

questionable. Our extensive review of the technical literature demonstrate no peer reviewed reports 

based on field observations are available showing a direct relationship of global warming caused by 

increase in the atmospheric CO2. 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 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, which appears to be the major driving force behind 

temperature change projects. 

Is the relationship between CO2 and global temperature increase is real? The quantity of 

anthropogenic CO2 emissions are infinitesimally small compared with naturally occurring CO2 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 

CO2 entering the atmosphere during 2008 from Anthropogenic sources is 6.0 GtC/yr: Forests and Soils 

release >100 GtC/yr: Geologic >300 GtC/yr and Oceans 1,400 GtC/yr. It appears sequestering all of the 

anthropogenic CO2 in minuscule when compared with natural sources. Will sequestering such a small 

quantity effective reduce global warming? 

4
Figure 1. 2008 Estimated United States CO2 Emissions for 2008 

CO2 SEQUESTRATION IS COSTLY 

Xie and Economides (2008) discuss the uncertainties and risks of CO2 sequestration in oil and gas 

reservoirs (see Attachment 1, below). The authors conclude the cost just to satisfy the United States 

Kyoto Protocol requirements will cost more than $1 Trillion per year. The paper gives a “realistic 

situation [view] on the potential impacts on commercial CO2 sequestration projects, environment and the 

global climate change.” 

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 forward under 

climate temperature increases and decreases without being annihilated. 

During these temperature changes, Greenland has gone from a marginal framing area to a bleak cold 

frozen area, but people continue taking advantage of the warmer climate by moving away from the cold 

areas. The belief that these global temperature changes can be mitigated by sequestering carbon dioxide 

has no scientific support, since previous Global temperature increases occurred in the absence of 

anthropogenic 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 rule proposal is a cruel hoax. 

5
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 since 

1979. At no time did EPA use an EPA Professional Engineer (P.E.) for developing the UIC rules. 

During the initial stages of writing the 1979 draft rules, EPA used an Ancient English graduate as the 

Agency lead technical supervisor. Ancient English is not considered a technical background. 

I have not found any of the current EPA UIC Regional employees to be professional engineers. 

When I requested the information in writing from EPA, I was told privacy laws prohibited providing 

such information. Reviewing and understanding CO2 sequestration projects is a technically exacting 

task. Assigning an EPA non-Professional Engineer to this review task exposes the U.S. public to severe 

risk. Placing the final approval in the hands of a Regional Administrator, who traditionally is not an 

engineer, means the EPA is disregarding public safety. At a minimum, the reviewing engineer and 

Regional Administrator must be Professional Engineers. EPA at 40 CFR Part 112 requires a 

Professional Engineer certify a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, which 

typically is intrinsically a simple non-technical document, but EPA does not rely on EPA Professional 

Engineers to review high pressure, corrosive fluid injection projects, that are highly technical and 

intrinsically unsafe. 

EPA has likened Class VI projects to Class I hazardous waste injection wells and Class II 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 nature of CO2 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 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 formation of a gas, which is large in 

volume and more redily able to find its way to the surface of the earth through minute cracks. The 

earth’s surface is full of examples of oil seeps, e.g., the underwater seeks at Santa Barbara, California, 

and oil seeps in and around the Pennsylvania oil fields, to name a few areas where leaks are known to 

occur. 

The hazardous wastes stored in Class I wells are retained underground because, the column of waste 

formed when a leak occurs, provides a controlling head of weighted fluid. In the case of CO2 the 

hydraulic head, in the event of a leak, becomes less as the over burden pressure reduces. This is a much 

more dangerous condition than experienced with Class I wells. 

Class II enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells are not abandoned with a high residual head of buoyant 

gas. Typically, the well is produced until the field becomes un-economical (too depleted) to produce. 

This, unlike the 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 inhibitor into the producing 

well during the producing phase. 

EPA CAREFULLY SELECTS CITATIONS 

EPA (2008), at 73 FR 43515, col. 2, cites Burton et al. (2007) as supporting the availability and 

adequacy of “current monitoring technologies” for monitoring pressures in GS project (sic).” EPA does 

not cite the serious questions raised by Nicot and Hovarka (2008) at the EPA January 16, 2008 CO2

meeting in New Orleans, wherein Nicot and Hovarka (2008) presented a PowerPoint slide show 

6
regarding monitoring insitu problems. Hovarka (2008) reiterates serious concern discussed in 2007 

regarding field monitoring capabilities of currently available tools. At 73 FR 43515, col. 3, EPA selects 

the Nimiz and Hudson (2005) report to justify insitu monitoring of 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 the proposed rule preamble and to EPA (2008b). The reader finds a) no citation as to 

the origin of the reference at 73 FR 43533 and b) EPA 2008b is a paper regarding “Vulnerability 

Evaluation Framework ···”, which, in turn, refers the reader to the instant proposed rule. 

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

EPA DOES NOT HAVE PROPER STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE CO2

SEQUESTRATION RULE 

EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect USDWs from CO2 sequestration. The 

SDWA authorizes EPA to protect drinking water, not encourage indefinite storage of a corrosive, high 

press fluid. CO2 is known to attack carbon and stainless steel, Meyer (2007). The fact that Meyer 

reported stainless steel 404 was badly corroded by “dry” CO2 indicates wet CO2 (carbonic acid) is a 

RCRA corrosive waste, since it meets the RCRA definition of corrosive. In addition, the fact a leak of 

CO2 could enter a building basement suffocating the inhabitants, demonstrates CO2 sequestration is not 

an environmental problem, but, when sequestered, it is a pervasive and dangerous life threatening 

hazard. EPA is ill equipped to control potentially unsafe activities under the guise of protecting drinking 

water. 

EPA GUESSES AT THE REQUIRED CLASS VI MONITORING PERIOD 

EPA at 73 FR 43518 – 43527 discusses how EPA decided to monitor a sequestration project for 50 

years. EPA said 50 years is a long time and if EPA extends the time longer the cost will be too high! 

EPA provide no rational argument for selecting 50 years: EPA says at 73 FR 43519, “EPA is tentatively 

proposing a post-injection site care (monitoring) period of 50 years with Director’s discretion to change 

that period to lengthen or shorten the 50- year period, if appropriate.” The best support EPA offers (73 

FR 43520) for the 50 year monitoring period is: 

“To ensure that the post-injection site care monitoring timeframe is long enough to 

determine that there is no threat of endangerment to USDWs from injection activities; 

EPA is proposing a default post-injection site care period of 50 years. During this 50-

year period, the owner or operator would be required to submit periodic reports providing 

monitoring results and updated modeling results as appropriate until a demonstration of 

non-endangerment to USDWs can be made.” 

EPA is willing to rely on a technically untrained Regional Administrator counseled by uncertified 

EPA employees, because EPA does not have technical know-how to determine the appropriate 

monitoring time period! We question the probability of speculators being in business 50 years after the 

injectors stop producing income and become a liability. Since EPA is charged only with protecting 

USDWs and not human life, EPA can, by default, slough the real burden, e.g., protecting human life, 

onto some other agency. In our opinion this is an Arbitrary and Capricious and a life threatening action 

on the part of EPA. 

7
EPA DOES NOT INCLUDE A RECOMMENDED MEANS OF FUNDING SEQUESTRATION 

LONG TERM CORRECTIVE ACTION. 

EPA at 73 FR 43501, tells the reader of the proposed rule to go to http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/ so 

as to read the findings of the various Class VI Workshops. Unfortunately, the presentations are, for the 

most part, PowerPoint slideshow without voice over. Thus, the slideshows are difficult to interrupt and 

only contain EPA presented materials. When EPA refers to comments and questions from the attendees, 

EPA provides only an interpretation of the questions or comments, thus no context is provided. This 

places the commenter regarding the proposed rule at a severe disadvantage. Reading of the various 

documents available on the website demonstrates no issues of post closure monitoring or long term 

funding for corrective action were raised, or discussions recorded. The EPA references to the websites 

suggest substantive discussions occurred during the Workshops. The EPA record demonstrates, little or 

nothing was accomplished during the Workshops. EPA deprives the commenters of accurate input from 

the Workshops. For example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states: 

“···SDWA does not have explicit provisions for financial responsibility, as included in 

RCRA, EPA believes that the general authorities provided under the SDWA authority to 

prevent endangerment of USDWs include the authority to set standards for financial 

responsibility to prevent endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, 

and management of wells after site closure. The SDWA authority does not extend to 

financial responsibility for activities not related to protection of USDWs (e.g., coverage 

of risks to air, ecosystems, public health or public safety unrelated to USDW 

endangerment). It also does not cover transfer of owner or operator financial 

responsibility to other entities, or creation of a third party financial mechanism where 

EPA is the trustee.” 

Further, EPA believes they can assume the RCRA type authority for Class VI wells under the 

SDWA. If challenged in court, the court most likely will disagree, because the SDWA was written only 

for protection of USDW. Even the Agency suggests the Safe Drinking Water Act is not appropriate to 

regulate CO2 sequestration. 

When one considers the emphasis on enhanced income 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 income ceases, these companies will 

fade away, particularly if the IOGCC (2007) trust fund recommendation is followed, 73 FR 43504. The 

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

considered part of the cost of doing business. 

EPA appears to be waiting for counsel from the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) 

regarding recommendations for long term corrective action regarding financial responsibility. Review 

of the EPA cited documents regarding EFAB shows the so called “important topic” of Class VI well 

financial responsibility was not discussed at the Workshop on Financial Assurance in EPA 

Programs, June 17, 2008 - New York, NY 

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

At the EPA, Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting 27 March 10-11, 2008, the 

minutes record the follow action regarding “this important topic”: 

“DFO Meiburg described EFAB’s role in paying for activities especially in the area of SRFs 

for water programs. EFAB has expanded in the last few years into the transportation sector 

which is related to climate change. For example, the CO2 injection program would require 

financial assurance, if something goes wrong in the clean up. EFAB has been working with 

8
the Office of Solid Waste and the Office of Enforcement over financial assurance related to 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).” 

The sense of urgency expressed by the Agency appears to be lacking in these Board minutes. If in 

fact, EFAB is discussing “transportation sector”, the discussion may relate to a different agenda item. In 

any event, EFAB does not appear to be actively engaged in long term corrective action funding for Class 

VI wells. 

The EPA discussion from 73 FR 43520 - 43522 regarding surety provisions is not formulated as a 

rule. The presentation resembles an Agency thinking “out loud trying to find an answer.” We are given 

no opportunity to comment on a rational proposal, because the data are withheld! 

COST ESTIMATE FOR PLUGGING CLASS VI WELLS 

EPA at 73 FR 43522 EPA discusses having funds available to plug Class VI wells. They question if the 

owner/operator will have sufficient funds to plug and abandon the injection well. We have expressed 

the same concern previously in these comments. EPA proposes to solve this problem by having a 

contractor make the cost estimate. Any cost estimate reflects the assumption used to develop the 

estimate. We recall when EPA instructed their cost estimating contractor to assume all existing SPCC 

Plans (67 FR 47140, July 17, 2002) were in compliance with the proposed unpublished SPCC rule. The 

resulting cost estimate was unethical, but reflected the given assumptions and showed the proposed 

revisions to 40 CFR Part 112 reduce regulatory costs. Is there a chance the same (unethical) approach is 

possible when estimating the plug and abandonment costs for Class VI by unethical speculators? Will 

the technically untrained EPA employee recognize the estimate is not correct or for that matter, how will 

untrained EPA employee recognize the estimate is correct? 

ADAPTIVE APPROACH 

EPA, at 73 FR 43522, requests input regarding using electronic means of involving the public in the rule 

making process. From our vantage point of reading the Federal Register daily, the use of the web is 

highly satisfactory. However, we find most citizens don’t know the Federal Register exists. Thus, the 

public does not have any idea what regulations are being proposed or promulgated. EPA needs to be 

out-going with their information, e.g., put notices in the newspapers, sponsor television Public Notices, 

etc. Currently, the public is uninformed and will remain uninformed, if the Agency relies solely on the 

Federal Register.! 

PRIMACY 

We find many of the state regulator are knowledgeable, but many state regulators are not formally 

trained and certainly not Professional Engineers. CO2 sequestration is too technical and dangerous an 

undertaking to leave the highly technical review and decision making to non-Professional Engineers. 

The instant Class VI rule must be based on Primacy only being given to State and Tribes employing and 

using specially trained Professional Engineers for review and approval of CO2 sequestration projects. 

Without this provision, EPA places the general public in severe danger. 

COST ESTIMATE 

EPA at 73 FR 43524 presents the results of an analysis of the cost to protect USDWs from a Class 

VI wells. EPA was very specific regarding what they did not include in the regulatory estimate. EPA 

based the cost estimate on a Class I well of unknown depth, unknown casing size, unknown location and 

type of reservoir. EPA, using this unspecified well information, calculated the incremental cost to 

convert the Class I well to a Class VI well. This approach excludes commenters from verifying the 

accuracy of the EPA estimate because of these omissions. This is reminiscent of the 2004 SPCC Plan 

cost estimate, where commenters were not privileged to the assumptions EPA provide to its contractor. 

9
Unethical instructions and unstated assumptions prevent commenters from testing the accuracy of the 

cost estimate. We have no means of knowing if EPA provided unethical instructions to the contractor 

for development of the Class VI well costs, since EPA does not include the assumptions in the 

publication. 

Apparently, EPA told the contractor to use a 25 year after closure monitoring time period (73 FR 

43524). Then, EPA proposed a 50 years monitoring period at 40 CFR 146.91 (73 FR 43540). Either the 

Agency changed its mind after giving the go-ahead to the contractor , but did not revise the proposed 

rule or the Agency was attempting reduce cost of the rule. 

*EPA at Table VII-2 (73 FR 43525) says the cost of baseline project plus Alternate 3 and Alternate 3 

increment varies between $94.6 and $98.4 million for 22 sequestration projects or $4.3 million to $4.5 

million per project. EPA at 73 FR 42504 provides a non-specific definition of Alterative 3. The 

definition is words without specificity! We have no inkling of want Alternative 3 entails. 

On 28 August 2007, Dr. Holliday discussed these cost figures with the Chairman of the Society of 

Petroleum Engineers Sequestration Panel. The Chairman’s response was “there is no way in Hell we 

can conduct a sequestration project for that little money.” 

EOR INJECTION WELLS 

EPA notes at 73 FR 43526 “····CO2 injection· [as] ·already practiced···(i.e. EOR), is expected to 

expand rapidly···.” This statement can be interpreted to mean CO2 EOR will be come under the Class VI 

well rule. If this is the case, EPA will in effect reduce oil and gas production significantly during the 

existing server domestic energy shortage! Since operating conditions of CO2 EOR are different, e.g., 

Supercritical CO2 is not left in the reservoir at abandonment, and casing penetrating the cap-rock can be 

protected from corrosion, etc., the converting of CO2 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 CO2 Storage—Can the Oil and Gas Industry Help Save the Planet? J Pet. 

Tech (JPT), p 98-105, September 

Burton, E., R. Myhre, L. Myer, and K. Birkinshaw. 2007. Geologic Carbon Sequestration Strategies for 

California. Report to the Legislature. November, 2007. CEC–500–2007–100–SF. 

Environmental Enterprise: Carbon Sequestration using Texaco Gasification Process. Presented at the 

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Undated. Overview of CERCLA and RCRA, 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/cleanup/brownfields/handbook/intro-08.pdf, 5 

10
Flett, M., R. Gurton, and G. Weir. 2007. Heterogeneous Saline Formations for Carbon Dioxide 

Disposal: Impact of Varying Heterogeneity on Containment and Trapping. 73 FR 43491-43541. 

Hovarka, S., 2008. “Recent Progress and Big Ideas on Geologic Sequestering, US/International 

Perspective.” 11 January. 

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

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

McIntyre, S. and R.M. McKitrick, 2003. “Correction of Mann et al. Proxy Data Base and Northern 

Hemisphere Average Surface Air Temperature Series” Energy and Environment, 14:751-771 

Meyer, J.P. 2007. “Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection Well 

Technology” prepared for American Petroleum Institute, p 21. 

Moore, J.J. M. Nord and K. Brun, 2007. Novel Concepts for Compression of Large Volumns of Carbon 

Dioxide, Oil and Gas Journal, June 

Newton Jr., L.E., and R.A. McClay, 1977. Corrosion and Operational Problems, CO2 Project, Sacroc 

Unit, SPE 6391-MS 

Nicot, J.P. and S.D. Hovorka. 2008. Role of Geochemical Monitoring in Geologic Sequestration. 

Presented at the CO2 Geologic Sequestration Technical Workshop on Measurement, Monitoring, and 

Verification, January 16,. New Orleans, LA. 

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

ABSTRACT 

The Impact of Carbon Geological Sequestration

By

Xina Xie and M.J, Economides

SPE 120333­P

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,

11
regulatory issues, and economic burden of CO2 geological sequestration on the U.S. by using the Kyoto

Protocol emission requirements as the base line.    The potential effect of burying all the extra CO2

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 CO2

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 CO2 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 CO2

sequestration in U.S. will cost over $1 trillion annually for CO2 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 CO2 emissions, the change on the global temperature by

sequestering all the CO2 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 CO2 sequestration

projects on economics, environment, and the global climate change.  The findings of this study can be

used to evaluate the risks of the CO2 geological sequestration projects.   

12
13
Global Temperature Change 

George H. Holliday, PhD., P.E., BCEE 

Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. 

Abstract 

This study was initiated to review the existing technical literature 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), which 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 million 

years. In part, this conclusion is supported, by oxygen-28 to oxygen-16 gas ratios from analyses of ice cores covering a period of 

250,000 years. The literature search leads to the conclusion anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions do 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). We 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 warming cycles existed about 2 million years ago. Dansgaard and 

Oeschger during 1983 cored the Greenland Ice Sheet. Dansgaard, et al. (1984) reported a link between climate cycles and sun activity. 

The ice core temperature analyses are based on the ratio of oxygen–18 to oxygen–16 at the time the snow was laid down. This ratio is 

not time impacted. Ice core analyses showed persistent temperature cycles within cycles, Singer and Avery (2007a). The link shows a 

moderate cyclic variation in ambient air temperature with time. The original analyses of ice cores gathered from coreholes spanning 

250,000 years suggested a repeating cycle lasting about 2,500 years. Based on more research this periodicity was revised to 1,500 

years ±500 years by Bond (1997). These cycles make weather modeling extremely difficult 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 grapes and olives growth receded as the ambient temperature changed 

(decreased). Lamb (1977c) discusses the cold temperature history 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 carefully dated tree rings data as far back as the Medieval Warming 

(900-1300 AD). They extrapolated findings to 90,000 years using the correlated model. Soon (2005) shows how well solar activity 

correlates with arctic temperature during the past 130 years and how poorly CO2 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 radiation increased by nearly 0.05 percent from the late 1970s based on 25-year record 

assembled by NASA. The cited trend is significant, because the total energy output of the sun is enormous. Willson cannot support the 

data before 1978, but he says, if the trend persisted during all of the 20th century, the increase in solar 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 Ice Age. The highest temperatures were recorded in the late 

1930s, Figure 1. During the late 1930s, the increase in temperature was rapid, e.g., 2.5oC in 20 years in the Arctic region. No one 

1
recognized the worldwide temperature 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 the 

abundance of food. 

Good correlation between solar activity and arctic 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, when 

sunspots were at low ebb. EPA (2001) confirms these observations. 

Currently, there is discussion regarding capturing and sequestering CO2 as a means of mitigating climate temperature increase. 

Department of Energy (2007) states without support “The concern is that atmospheric GHG accumulations in excess of levels required 

to sustain the greenhouse effect introduce an external forcing factor leading to global temperature increases.” This true of all 

documents supporting reduction of greenhouse gases ― there is no technical support for asserting greenhouse increases cause climate 

temperature increase. Sequestration 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 CO2 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 drilling 

and producing is discontinued. Compensating for 25 years without access to offshore exploration and drilling will require time.

Further, objection to building nuclear generation plants may prevent providing the needed power. Lack of power could cause a repeat 

of the California rolling blackouts of 2001, but this time on a massive scale. Even wind turbines may not help, because the wind does 

not always blow (e.g., 20% utility factor) and an adequate power grids to move the electricity from remote areas are not available and 

are costly. We are experiencing this situation now (2008) in Texas, where wind turbine generated power cannot be introduced into the 

distribution system because of lack an adequate 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 century, 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 temperatures of the late 1930s or low temperatures of the 1870s the desired 

levels? Warming produces abundant crops, increased 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, climate cooling increases need for additional energy 

for home and building heating. Also, freezing weather kills far more humans and animals than warm weather. Interestingly, on 23

March 2008, the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy 

Group at the University of Alabama, and the Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. in California reported global temperatures decreased 

0.7°C during 2007, The Australian, 2008. The reported lowered climate temperature is reflected in decrease solar activity, Figure 2. 

Lack of Experimentation 

There are no scientific data, experiments or hypotheses demonstrating 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 cooling. This situation has not occurred, in fact the highest Antarctic 

temperature occurred in the 1930s, Przybylak (2002), Polyakov (2002). Also, Antarctic temperatures are decreasing and the ice caps 

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 furthering 

knowledge of weather behavior. These scientists published peer reviewed technical weather assessments. For example, the 1996 IPCC 

“Second Assessment” provided a graph showing “The Last 1,000 Years of Earth Temperatures from Tree Rings, Ice Cores and 

Thermometers” (Figure 22, IPCC Climate 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 policymakers, rather than scientists [Horner 

(2007a)], displayed a totally new rendition of Figure 3. Instead of an accurate assessment of historical temperature trends, the 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, consistent 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 Climate 

Change, 2001), Mann, (1998), Figure 4. The hockey stick graph minimizes the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. 

2
2001 IPCC Data Review 

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reviewing the Mann (hockey stick) data observed critical data correlation errors, e.g., unjustified 

truncation of data, use of obsolete data, calculation errors and quality control deficiencies in the data and statistics. McIntyre 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 uninitiated 

public to near hysteria regarding global temperature change. 

The IPCC (2001) included the Hockey Stick graph in their Executive Committee Assessments. Also, IPCC advocated the Kyoto 

Protocol even in the face of Ice Core data demonstrating long trending temperature cycles. In contrast, Robinson (2007a), reports 

obtaining signatures of 18,000 (now report to be 31,000) American university degreed physical science graduates in opposition to 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 misinterpretation and misreporting of climate change by IPCC, This industry 

finds government financial assistance is readily available, if the research proposal, in some fashion, suggests the research findings 

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 climate change cycles, the temperature records show the Little Ice Age 

stopped in 1850. After that date, the global temperature consistently increased, except for an anomalous high in 1940. Frohlich and 

Lean, (2002) show this temperature increase is due to solar irradiation. Further, the analysis shows no significant increase of CO2

concentration occurred with increased temperature, Figure 1. Carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of global warming, Singer and 

Avery (2007b). The observed CO2 increase is due to the ocean warming, which releases more CO2 as the water temperature increases. 

There is no question global temperature is increasing. However, this 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 Climate 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 information, refer to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb). 

The Senate Committee said “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently 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 (Intergovernmental 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 CO2, 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 theory 

has obvious flaws. 

1. CO2 changes do not account for the past climate variations, including the Roman Warming (200 BC – 900 AD), Medieval 

Warming and the Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850), Figures 1 and 3. If CO2 is responsible for climate change, what would cause 

the presence or absence of CO2 to result in these past documented temperature variation over time? 

2. The CO2 theory does not explain the recent temperature changes. Most of the observer climate warming occurred prior to 

1940, Figure 1 (top) ─ before there was much anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, the CO2 lags the temperature 

rise, Figure 1 (top); ─ no increase in CO2 in the 1930s, when climate increase was observed. After 1940, climate temperature 

decreased until 1960, in spite of an increase in CO2 emissions. On the other hand, solar activity tracks Arctic temperature 

well, Figure 1 (bottom). Bond (2001) states, “···over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time-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 CO2 concentration has not produced the increases in atmospheric temperature predicted by the computer 

models over a 20-year-period. The Earth’s surface temperature has warmed more rapidly than the temperature of the lower 

atmosphere up to 30,000 feet. The Greenhouse theory states the “lower atmosphere” will warm first. This disparity places 

the Greenhouse Theory in serious question. 

4. CO2 is a lagging indicator by about 600-800 years, of climate warming for the last 240,000 years, e.g., warming produces 

CO2 rather than CO2 producing warming, Singer and Avery (2007a). 

5. The Greenhouse Theory predicts CO2–driven warming of the Earth’s surface will start, 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 CO2). 

3
Water 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 Environmental Protection Agency did not include water vapor in the 1990-2006 

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 useful, forward-looking climate information. Instead, the IPCC 

Executive Committee ignored peer-reviewed climate science and, in some cases, knowingly and willingly refused to correct erroneous 

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 nations cannot, without causing havoc to their 

country’s economy, achieve the greenhouse gases reductions proposed by the treaty. In July 2008, the major industrialized countries 

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 temperature 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 CO2 by underground injection, OSPAR, http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/welcome.html. Gas 

compression from atmospheric pressure to 2200± psi is energy intensive. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared with water vapor 

or methane. Elimination of CO2 will not prevent global temperature increases. Svante Arrhenius (1895) showed a reduction in CO2

down to about 60 percent of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 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 CO2 did not occur. Thus, we can conclude, CO2 is 

not a major actor in global temperature change. On the other hand, good correlation exists between solar activity and climate change 

on earth, Figure 1. 

The current climate-warming scare has fostered an entire industry seeking financial grants for weather related research. Also, 

there is developing a need by industry to show the public their commitment 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 emission, 

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 longer be a problem since, for the most part, the EU is unable to 

achieve the Kyoto prescribed reductions and the Kyoto protocol will most likely dissolve in 2012. The 2008 proposal to reduce CO2

by 50 using unspecified methods will be substituted for Kyoto. Proposals to reduce greenhouse gases will result in increased cost of 

doing business, which will be passed onto the consumer without affecting global temperature change. 

The carbon tax is another remedy being proposed to reduce CO2 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 viable 

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 between opposing groups. In this regard, your attention is directed 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. Wratt (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 gasses. This 

demonstrates the magnitude of the disagreement. 

There are no experimental data supporting CO2 causes climate change. On the contrary, Jones et al. (1986) developed an 11 year 

running average of terrestrial Northern Hemisphere 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 regarding 

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 based on computer simulation, demonstrating anthropogenic 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 CO2 causes global temperature increase. 

Conclusions 

1. The earth’s climate temperature is increasing. 

2. The temperature change is a natural, cyclic 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 climate change is a long-term cyclic occurrence. 

4. Controlling anthropogenic greenhouse gases, including CO2, 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 

4
Recommendations 

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 length of the activity cycle related to changes in brightness in solar-type 

stars? Astrophysical Journal 450: 896-901.

Bond, G., 1997. “A Pervasive Millennial Scale 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: American 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 Central 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 Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” 84: Regnery Publishing, Inc. 

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

Houghton, J. T., 1995. “Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Cambridge University Press. 

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

IPCC, 2001. “Third Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers.” 

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

IPCC, 2007a. Summary for Policymakers of Synthesis Report of the IPCC Forth 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 Temperature 

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. “Correction of Mann el al., Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature 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 Series No. 576, 22, 

August 23 

Mikkelsen, N., and A. Kuijpersk, 2001. The Climate System and Climate Variations, “Natural Climate Variations in a Geological Perspective,” 

Geological Survey of Denmark am\nd Greenland. 

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

5
6

Perry, C. A and K .J. Hsu, 2000. “Geographical, Archaeological, and Historical Evidence Support a solar-Output Model for Climate Change,” 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97 12433-438. 

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

2067-77. 

Przybylak, Raymond, 2000. “Temporal and Spatial Variation of Surface Air Temperature over the Period of Instrument Observations in the Arctic.” 

International Journal of Climatology 20: 587-614. 

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

Robinson, A.B., et al., 2007b. “ Environmental 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. “Unstoppable Global Warming every 1,500 years.” Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc. 23

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

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

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

Inc. 8 

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

Taylor, George H., 2006. “Antarctic Temperature and Sea Ice Trends Over the Last Century –An Assessment of Antarctic Climate Trends.” 

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 Trend 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. 

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

8
Letter 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 managed 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 contains 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 injection well class (VI) under the 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 issues (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 promulgating Class VI wells, is authorizing 

construction of a CERCLA imminent hazard substance storage site and a RCRA 

hazardous substance (corrosivity) storage site. Each of these concerns and many 

more are discussed below. We request these comment be made a part of the record 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the final GS rule is authorizing construction of 

CERCLA imminent hazard substance storage sites or RCRA hazardous substance storage sites. 

It is authorizing the construction and operation of a new class of injection well for purposes of 

long term storage of CO2. 

1
EPA received many comments regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to 

CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. 

As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine 

the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered. EPA will 

consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider 

issues particular to RCRA in the context of that 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 relatively 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 streams. 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 pollution removal technologies. 

EPA is not authorizing the injection of RCRA hazardous wastes under the terms of the GS rule, 

since the GS rule, at §146.81(d), prohibits CO2 streams 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 hazardous 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 confining zones and the materials used 

to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This information 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 or the dissolution of formation 

minerals. 

EPA clarifies that CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; however, the 

CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (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 such substances may result in CERCLA liability 

from a sequestration facility depends 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 

2
Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks 

Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency at 73 FR 43492-43541 requests comments 

regarding the proposal to prepare regulations for an unknown number of Class VI 

wells. Class VI wells are in reality, manmade explosive devices storing buoyant 

carbon dioxide sequestered deep in the earth under supercritical pressure 

conditions. Many persons designing these wells are of unknown technical 

ability, e.g., not professional Engineers (P.E.). There are no safe guards to 

prevent organizations from simply seeking monetary rewards, without being 

required to see the project to completion. Further, the well designs and 

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 water 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 corrosivity in the presence of water, 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 the 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 lessons learned about CO2 injection in other 

applications. Class I well owners or operators have experience with site characterization, well 

construction, and monitoring procedures and technologies that are applicable 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 regulating wells lack technical training for effective 

oversight of Class VI wells. Most permitting authorities’ staff have years of experience with the 

current UIC injection well classes and have relevant specialties in geology, engineering, and 

related disciplines. Injection well owners and operators represent industries with decades of 

experience injecting a variety of fluids, including CO2. Industry also has decades of experience 

with well construction and operation. For example, the oil and gas industry has experience 

drilling and cementing wells in very deep formations, in a variety of environments (e.g., highpressure and low-pressure formations), and for a variety of uses (e.g., injection, oil and gas 

production, monitoring). EPA believes that this experience has led to the 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) 

3
Comment: required to see the project to completion. Further, the well designs and 

operations would be approved by Agency technically untrained employees, who are 

not Professional Engineers and supervised by a Regional Director who is neither 

an engineer nor a Professional Engineer. 

The Agency proposes using untrained EPA employees who are not required to 

demonstrate their CO2 sequestration technical 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 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. Injection well owners and 

operators represent industries with decades of experience injecting a variety of fluids, including 

CO2. EPA believes that this experience has led 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-Injection Site Care Requirements 

Comment: passing a written examination. Further, the Agency proposes to sequester 

buoyant CO2 until the end-of-time by only requiring 50 years of monitoring (40 

CFR 146.93(b)(1)). In addition, EPA proposes using well completion materials 

not currently developed and proven corrosion-resistant under carbonic acid 

corrosive conditions. 

The proposed regulations are a formula for future disaster: 1) Dangerous to 

sequester 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-standing protective framework of the UIC program, 

which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The Class VI 

GS regulation enhances this existing 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 post-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 not support a different default timeframe. EPA 

bases this on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, 

and evaluation of public comments. EPA adds that the GS regulation includes a provision that 

the Director may, at their lengthen the post-injection site care timeframe if the owner or operator 

cannot demonstrate that movement of the plume and pressure front have ceased and the injectate 

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

EPA disagrees that corrosion-resistant 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 sulfide 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 years 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 materials 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 associated 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 zone, 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 appropriate approach to protecting USDWs from 

endangerment. 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. 

The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review project data on early GS projects to 

determine whether the appropriate 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: 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 Carbon 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 increase. EPA simply infers sequestration is 

necessary, without support. Refer to the Comment Section below entitled 

"Sequestration is not necessary" for details on the lack of supporting data for 

this EPA inferred position. 

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

5
consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United 

States and provide requirements 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 money-making scheme for a "political" 

pollutant, which will encourage unqualified organizations and speculators to 

seek Class VI injection permits. These unqualified organizations will find 

unqualified consultants to prepare documents supporting the permit applications. 

EPA, in the instant proposed rule, suggests several financial responsibility 

schemes to avoid unqualified organizations and speculators from creating a 

disaster, but EPA and states do not know how to assure financial responsibility 

as demonstrated by the lack specificity within the proposed rule. Rules 

proposed with this lack of specificity, typically result in EPA selecting final 

rule wording, which received no comments during the proposal stage. This gives 

EPA free rein to select regulation wording not reviewed by the commenting 

public, and not alluded to during the proposal. 

One of the most frightening aspects of the proposed rule is EPA imposes no 

technical qualification requirements on EPA review personnel. Thus, a well 

written, but inaccurate document, can easily be accepted by EPA, when 

technically unqualified reviewers are used. If qualified reviewers were used, 

the application would be rejected. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA disagrees with 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 guidance on implementation of the Class VI UIC 

program. 

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

accurate and that data was collected in accordance with a system designed to ensure that 

qualified personnel evaluate the data. EPA believes 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 wells must ensure that resources are available to 

prevent endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of 

wells. For this reason, the GS rule requires that owners or operators demonstrate and maintain 

6
financial responsibility for corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, postinjection site care and site closure, and emergency and remedial response at GS sites as specified 

in §146.85. EPA has revised the requirements in the final rule to provide more specifics. In the 

event of contamination or other adverse event that 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 owners and operators must site, construct, operate, monitor, and 

close their wells in a manner that protects USDWs, and Class VI permits will set forth rigorous 

technical requirements to ensure careful planning, operation, and closure 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 comments received in response to the proposed rule 

and its subsequent Notice of data Availability 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 literature suggests no author has considered 

how long sequestration is expected to last. Schlumberger says in their 

advertising, sequestration is "permanent" separation of CO2 from the near 

surface waters. Webster Unabridged Dictionary defines "permanent" as meaning 

unchanging, a very long time, to last indefinitely. Indefinitely is for ever 

without end. This appears to be an impossible assignment. Governments come and 

go, people come and to, and most importantly companies (permittees) come and go. 

The cost of carbon dioxide sequestrations monitoring until the end of time is a 

monumental expenditure. To circumvent this problem EPA states 50 years should 

be long enough, even though EPA offers no technical support for this claim. 

Then EPA says "not to worry," EPA will allow the non-technically trained 

Regional Director to lengthen or shorten the sequestration reservoir monitoring 

time based on his vast "inexperience". EPA offers no guidance to assist the 

untrained, non-engineer Regional Directors in making that determination. 

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 preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explanation 

of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the 

federal docket for the GS rule, titled "Computational Modeling of Underground 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 occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of 

injection. EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is a reasonable 

midpoint for most GS projects and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do 

7
not support a different default timeframe, and has retained this in the final regulation. To address 

concerns that, in some situations, it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and 

pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs, the final GS rule offers owners 

or operators flexibility regarding 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) affording the Director discretion 

to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, based 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 care 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 accommodate site-specific circumstances and various 

geologic conditions, and addresses commenters’ concerns, while ensuring USDW protection. 

Both approaches will utilize site-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 proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site 

care and site closure plans under §146.92 and §146.93. The guidance describes recommended 

approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring 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: 22523 Letter Lines: 96 to 108 

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: EPA discusses what happens, if, the sequestration operator goes bankrupt or 

decides "enough is enough" and cannot or will not continue monitoring the highly 

pressure CO2 containing formulation. But EPA offers no useable answer in the 

proposed rule. EPA suggests in the instant preamble that, we wait until EPA 

finds an answer. Such assurance is without merit. Now, during the rule 

proposal stage is the time to provide concrete requirements to assure the public 

of the safety of sequestration! 

8
The Federal Government can establish a trust fund? If one considers the Social 

Security Trust Fund, we can expect the sequestration fund to be combined with 

the General Fund for Government maintenance and then the money is not available 

when need! Who will prevent Congress from using the funds when times are lean? 

The Safe Drinking Water Act makes no provision for this alternative! 

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 financial responsibility for corrective action on wells in the AoR, 

injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response at GS sites 

is an important component of ensuring that USDWs are protected. 

Under SDWA, EPA has the general authority to set financial responsibility requirements for 

injection well owners or operators to ensure that adequate resources are available to protect 

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. 

Additionally, EPA does not have authority under SDWA to establish a trust fund for purposes of 

financial responsibility for Class VI projects. The Agency clarifies 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-level trust described by the 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 available. Again EPA says "not to worry" 

EPA "knows" the Oil and Gas Industry will develop corrosion resistant pipe and 

cement, when they are needed. Our investigation shows no pipe, packer, rubber 

seal or cement have been tested resistant to carbonic acid attack for 50 years 

(maximum test length to date is 12 months!). Thus, when the well or formation 

fails (leaks), the 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 such a disaster. Since the disaster may 

occur where there is no USDW the Statue provides no-protection for the general 

public from a release. Thus, at some future time the sequestration system 

operating at 2215± psia (Moore, et al) can fail due to corrosion (Meyer, 2007) 

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

Meyer (2007) reports severe corrosion of stainless steel 404 components during 

injection at an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide. Also, Newton 

and McClay (1977) say "[p]redict[ing] ... corrosivity based on CO2 and water 

cuts have not always proved accurate." The presence of water insitu to storage 

reservoirs typically increases the corrosive 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 injection well and probably other wells. 

These wells must have casing, which will corrode quickly unless there is a 

constant injection of corrosion inhibitor (Thomasville. MS experience). 

A review of the Department of Energy, State of Washington and State of New 

Mexico reports and rules shows none of these Agencies are willing to discuss the 

types of material appropriate for well completion components. This is true, 

also, of the IOGCC (2007) report. On the other hand, EPA at 73 FR 43510 

suggests using stainless steel 316 fittings, and forgings on the basis of 

recommendation of Meyer (2007) for surface connections associated with EOR wells 

injecting dry 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 tubing for enhanced oil recovery. THIS 

PLASTIC COATED TUBING IS PULLED AND INSPECTED YEARLY. Yearly inspection of 

tubing for 50 years does not appear practical for CO2 sequestration wells! Each 

time the tubing is pulled, the coating at the threaded joint wears and/or chips, 

exposing the carbon steel to carbonic acid corrosion. This corrosive attack 

will result in rapid exteriorization of the tubing. 

The packer presents a particularly difficult design problem. A stainless steel 

packed body can be manufactured. But, the slip must be hardened carbon steel so 

they set in the casing wall to compress the elastomer seal. Stainless steel 

work hardens, but it is not heat treatable. Thus, making stainless steel slips 

appears highly questionable. Packer elastermers, e.g. Buna-N and Nitrile 

rubbers, are available, but never tested over long time periods, e.g., 50 years, 

in the presence of carbonic acid. Schemp, and Roberson, (1975) report "[T]ests 

showed nonmetallic seals to be susceptible to acid and mechanical damage." 

Tubingless completions are possible, but this would expose the casing to acid 

attack. Multiple cemented casing strings can be run. However, steel is known to 

corrode rapidly in the presence of carbonic acid. 

10
Meyer, J.P. 2007. "Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) 

Injection Well Technology" prepared for American Petroleum Institute, p 21. 

Moore, J.J. M. Nord and K. Brun, 2007. Novel Concepts for Compression of Large 

Volumns of Carbon Dioxide, Oil and Gas Journal, June 

Newton Jr., L.E., and R.A. McClay, 1977. Corrosion and Operational Problems, 

CO2 Project, Sacroc Unit, SPE 6391-MS 

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 corrosion-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 samples 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 stainless steel is not a specified material. 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 material to use is left for the Director to approve 

based upon case-specific information 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 appropriate approach to protecting USDWs from 

endangerment. 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. 

The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review project data on early GS projects as 

well as industry innovations on cementing including the development of CO2-resistant epoxy 

cements to determine whether the appropriate 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: 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" tested in the presence of carbonic acid 

11
for a period of 6-12 months, but not for decades (personal communication with 

Vaughn Morgan, Halliburton). Thus, un-field tested specialty cements have been 

short term laboratory tested, but not over a 50 year period! Halliburton ( 

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6904971.html) makes a acid resistant cement 

"with improved corrosion resistance.’ Halliburton does not claim the cement to 

be acid resistant! 

What is particularly disturbing is the statement by EPA at 73 FR 43510, col. 1, 

"Today’s proposal does not specify materials that may be used, rather, proposes 

providing the owner or operator with the flexibility to choose, as long as the 

materials used in GS wells are corrosion-resistant and meet standards approved 

for such materials by API or ASTM International or comparable standards approved 

by the [nontechnically trained] Director". This statement says in effect, "We 

don’t know what materials are appropriate for CS well completions. Thus, EPA 

places the responsibility on industry and the untrained, non-engineer Regional 

Director to solve the materials dilemma. This raise questions about the existing 

EPA/State approved sequestrations wells! 

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

[t]oday’s proposal would require that the cements and cement additives used in 

GS wells be appropriate to address long-term injection of CO2 and assure that 

the well can maintain integrity throughout the proposed life span of the 

project, 

Individual Response: EPA believes that allowing flexibility in choosing cements is an 

important way to address the potential geologic and operational variation in GS projects. For this 

reason the rule will allow the selection and use of cements for Class VI wells 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 construction technology. EPA believes that permitting 

authorities, which have many staff who have been 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. 

12
Letter 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 longevity of materials, e.g., corrosion 

resistance requirements, etc., EPA PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY ON AN INDUSTRY 

WHICH GOVERNMENT, THE PUBLIC AND REGULATORS HAVE NEVER TRUSTED, 

BRYANT (2007). 

THE PROPOSED RULE MUST BE WITHDRAWN! 

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 rulemaking provides industry with the 

responsibility to enforce GS requirements. EPA clarifies that responsibility for enforcing the GS 

rule rests with state and/or regional permitting authorities, not industry, and that states seeking to 

implement the GS rule must demonstrate in their primacy program submission that they will 

implement a program that is at least as stringent as the federal requirements for permitting, site 

characterization, monitoring, and site closure, as well as for all other GS rule requirements as 

required under §1422 of SDWA. 

The prescribed construction requirements described in the final GS rule for Class VI wells are 

sufficient to protect USDWs from endangerment. EPA adds that the requirement at 

§146.86(b)(1) that materials must meet or exceed standards developed by the American 

Petroleum Institute, ASTM International, or comparable standards acceptable to the Director 

invokes the expertise of these bodies which, combined with the review by the Director 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 protected from endangerment. EPA believes that 

permitting authorities, which have many staff who have been overseeing UIC programs for 

decades, have sufficient expertise to evaluate the 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/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.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 global temperature increase! EPA in 

13
the preamble to the CS proposed rule (73 FR 43496-43502) discusses the reasons 

for the need for CO2 sequestration. Nowhere in those pages does EPA state that 

carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming or what the optimum earth 

temperature is, or how the Agency knows when the optimum temperature is reached, 

so future sequestration can be discontinued. Is EPA suggesting sequestration 

continue until it causes the next ice age? A review of the U. S. Department of 

Energy (2007) report demonstrates a similar lack of CO2 cause and effect. 

We can find no peer reviewed technical paper, referenced by EPA or anyone else 

(not based on computer simulation) showing CO2 causes global warming. EPA 

relies heavily on computer simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Changes (IPCC) reports. Reference to IPCC reports subjects EPA to serious 

question regarding the technical validity of the information presented. The use 

of the Hockey Stick Figure (Figure 22, IPCC, 1996) brings into sharp focus the 

political nature of the IPCC reports. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated 

conclusively the Hockey Stick Figure was based on truncated data, obsolete data, 

calculation errors and quality control deficiencies. Also, Figures 5.20 and 

5.21 (IPCC, 2005) , sequestration well details, demonstrate IPCC is technically 

deficient because, IPCC blithely suggests pulling cemented casing from Class VI 

at the completion of injection, IPCC Figure 5.21. Experience demonstrates 

cemented casing cannot be pulled. IPCC (2005 at page 231) suggests milling the 

casing from the shoe upwards to remove corrodible metal from contact with the 

carbonic acid. Milling is possible. Modern mills can "hog out" 10 feet of 

casing per hour, but the metal chips settle-out in the well Blowout Preventer, 

preventing proper operation in the event of an emergence. The ludicrous 

suggestion of using a milling stone as a means of connecting to a fixed packer 

defies all understanding, IPCC Figure 5.20. Astute scientists and engineers are 

very wary of IPCC reports, because of the frequent and consistent errors 

contained in the reports. 

EPA, in the proposed sequestration rule, does not provide any indication of the 

benefit sequestration will provide other than reduce CO2 concentration in the 

atmosphere. Even that goal appears questionable. Our extensive review of the 

technical literature demonstrate no peer reviewed reports based on field 

observations are available showing a direct relationship of global warming 

caused by increase in the atmospheric CO2. 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 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, which appears to be the major 

driving force behind temperature change projects. 

Is the relationship between CO2 and global temperature increase is real? The 

quantity of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are infinitesimally small compared with 

naturally occurring CO2 releases as shown by DOE, Figure 1, below,. The U.S. 

14
Department of Energy ( 

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/overview.html) developed the graph, 

showing projected CO2 entering the atmosphere during 2008 from Anthropogenic 

sources is 6.0 GtC/yr: Forests and Soils release >100 GtC/yr: Geologic >300 

GtC/yr and Oceans 1,400 GtC/yr. It appears sequestering all of the 

anthropogenic 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 Change. Human Events, 64:28;15, August 

14, 2008 

McIntyre, S. and R.M. McKitrick, 2003. "Correction of Mann et al. Proxy Data 

Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Surface Air Temperature Series" Energy and 

Environment, 14:751-771 

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/20 

07/2007Roadmap.pdf 

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

consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United 

States and provide requirements 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 and 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 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 CO2 sequestration 

projects, environment and the global climate change." 

Xie, X and M.J. Economides, 2009. "The Impact of Carbon Geological 

Sequestration". SPE 120333-P. 

15
Individual 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 CCS, including capture, transport, 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 requirements have associated costs beyond baseline (Class 

I industrial wells) costs. The Agency clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation, promulgated 

under authority of the SDWA, is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA clarifies that addressing climate 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 since 1979. At no time did EPA use an EPA 

Professional Engineer (P.E.) for developing the UIC rules. During the initial 

stages of writing the 1979 draft rules, EPA used an Ancient English graduate as 

the Agency lead technical supervisor. Ancient English is not considered a 

technical background. 

I have not found any of the current EPA UIC Regional employees to be 

professional engineers. When I requested the information in writing from EPA, I 

was told privacy laws prohibited providing such information. Reviewing and 

understanding CO2 sequestration projects is a technically exacting task. 

Assigning an EPA non-Professional Engineer to this review task exposes the U.S. 

public to severe risk. Placing the final approval in the hands of a Regional 

Administrator, who traditionally is not an engineer, means the EPA is 

disregarding public safety. At a minimum, the reviewing engineer and Regional 

Administrator must be Professional Engineers. EPA at 40 CFR Part 112 requires a 

Professional Engineer certify a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) Plan, which typically is intrinsically a simple non-technical document, 

16
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 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 nature of CO2 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 

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 permitting authority staff have years of 

experience with the current UIC injection well classes and have 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 formation of a gas, which is large in volume 

and more redily able to find its way to the surface of the earth through minute 

cracks. The earth’s surface is full of examples of oil seeps, e.g., the 

underwater seeks at Santa Barbara, California, and oil seeps in and around the 

Pennsylvania oil fields, to name a few areas where leaks are known to occur. 

The hazardous wastes stored in Class I wells are retained underground because, 

the column of waste formed when a leak occurs, provides a controlling head of 

weighted fluid. In the case of CO2 the hydraulic head, in the event of a leak, 

becomes less as the over burden pressure reduces. This is a much more dangerous 

condition than experienced with Class I wells. 

17
Class II enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells are not abandoned with a high 

residual head of buoyant gas. Typically, the well is produced until the field 

becomes un-economical (too depleted) to produce. This, unlike the 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 inhibitor into the producing well during the producing 

phase. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the construction requirements at §146.86 provide an 

appropriate level of protection 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 specifically to address the unique 

nature of CO2 GS (i.e., including large injection 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 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 corrosivity in the presence of water, 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 the 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 lessons learned about CO2 injection in other 

applications. Class I well owners or operators have experience with site characterization, well 

construction, and monitoring procedures and technologies that are applicable 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 identifying risks to USDWs 

Comment: EPA CAREFULLY SELECTS CITATIONS 

EPA (2008), at 73 FR 43515, col. 2, cites Burton et al. (2007) as supporting the 

availability and adequacy of "current monitoring technologies" for monitoring 

pressures in GS project (sic)." EPA does not cite the serious questions raised 

by Nicot and Hovarka (2008) at the EPA January 16, 2008 CO2 meeting in New 

18
Orleans, wherein Nicot and Hovarka (2008) presented a PowerPoint slide show 

regarding monitoring insitu problems. Hovarka (2008) reiterates serious concern 

discussed in 2007 regarding field monitoring capabilities of currently available 

tools. At 73 FR 43515, col. 3, EPA selects the Nimiz and Hudson (2005) report 

to justify insitu monitoring of 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 the proposed rule preamble and to EPA 

(2008b). The reader finds a) no citation as to the origin of the reference at 

73 FR 43533 and b) EPA 2008b is a paper regarding "Vulnerability Evaluation 

Framework ...", which, in turn, refers the reader to the instant proposed rule. 

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

ideas! 

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. Heterogeneous Saline Formations for 

Carbon Dioxide Disposal: Impact of Varying Heterogeneity on Containment and 

Trapping. 73 FR 43491-43541. 

Hovarka, S., 2008. "Recent Progress and Big Ideas on Geologic Sequestering, 

US/International Perspective." 11 January. 

Nicot, J.P. and S.D. Hovorka. 2008. Role of Geochemical Monitoring in Geologic 

Sequestration. Presented at the CO2 Geologic Sequestration Technical Workshop on 

Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification, January 16,. New Orleans, LA. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS Rule is based on limited research. While 

developing the GS rule, EPA conducted an extensive literature search. The papers cited in the 

preamble are those EPA believes directly address the unique issues associated 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 research 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 collecting and analyzing GS 

project data and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated 

permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon 

sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department 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 

19
the Agency described the preliminary results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the 

Escatawpa, Mississippi project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and 

the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after 

finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on 

GS projects to determine whether the appropriate 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 issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: EPA DOES NOT HAVE PROPER STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE 

CO2 SEQUESTRATION RULE 

EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect USDWs from CO2 

sequestration. The SDWA authorizes EPA to protect drinking water, not encourage 

indefinite storage of a corrosive, high press fluid. CO2 is known to attack 

carbon and stainless steel, Meyer (2007). The fact that Meyer reported 

stainless steel 404 was badly corroded by "dry" CO2 indicates wet CO2 (carbonic 

acid) is a RCRA corrosive waste, since it meets the RCRA definition of 

corrosive. In addition, the fact a leak of CO2 could enter a building basement 

suffocating the inhabitants, demonstrates CO2 sequestration is not an 

environmental problem, but, when sequestered, it is a pervasive and dangerous 

life threatening hazard. EPA is ill equipped to control potentially unsafe 

activities under the guise of protecting drinking water. 

Meyer, J.P. 2007. "Summary of Carbon Dioxide 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 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 endangerment, 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 any "fluid" is subject to the 

requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined 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 projects are dangerous. EPA believes that the GS 

requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to 

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

USDWs. The GS rule contains 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 considers the risk of asphyxiation 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 sections entitled, “Under What Authority is This 

Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does This 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) period of 50 years with Director’s 

discretion to change that period to lengthen or shorten the 50- year period, if 

appropriate." The best support EPA offers (73 FR 43520) for the 50 year 

monitoring period is: 

"To ensure that the post-injection site care monitoring timeframe is long enough 

to determine that there is no threat of endangerment to USDWs from injection 

activities; EPA is proposing a default post-injection site care period of 50 

years. During this 50-year period, the owner or operator would be required to 

submit periodic reports providing monitoring results and updated modeling 

results as appropriate until a demonstration of non-endangerment to USDWs can be 

made." 

EPA is willing to rely on a technically untrained Regional Administrator 

counseled by uncertified EPA employees, because EPA does not have technical 

know-how to determine the appropriate monitoring time period! We question the 

probability of speculators being in business 50 years after the injectors stop 

producing income and become a liability. Since EPA is charged only with 

protecting USDWs and not human life, EPA can, by default, slough the real 

burden, e.g., protecting human life, onto some other agency. In our opinion 

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

EPA. 

Individual Response: As described above, 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 preamble to the proposed 

regulation. Further explanation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background 

document that is available in the federal docket, titled "Computational Modeling of Underground 

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 occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years after the 

cessation of injection. EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is a 

reasonable midpoint for most GS projects and available data, including data submitted by 

commenters, do not support a different default timeframe, 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 proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site 

care and site closure plans under §146.92 and §146.93. The guidance describes recommended 

approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring 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 presentations are, for the most part, 

PowerPoint slideshow without voice over. Thus, the slideshows are difficult to 

interrupt and only contain EPA presented materials. When EPA refers to comments 

and questions from the attendees, EPA provides only an interpretation of the 

questions or comments, thus no context is provided. This places the commenter 

regarding the proposed rule at a severe disadvantage. Reading of the various 

documents available on the website demonstrates no issues of post closure 

monitoring or long term funding for corrective action were raised, or 

22
discussions recorded. The EPA references to the websites suggest substantive 

discussions occurred during the Workshops. The EPA record demonstrates, little 

or nothing was accomplished during the Workshops. EPA deprives the commenters 

of accurate input from the Workshops. For example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states: 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the workshop PowerPoint slides to which the 

commenter refers were presented by EPA. Following the presentations EPA answered questions 

and these responses are included in the workshop 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 Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: or nothing was accomplished during the Workshops. EPA deprives the commenters 

of accurate input from the Workshops. For example, EPA at 73 FR 43520 states: 

"...SDWA does not have explicit provisions for financial responsibility, as 

included in RCRA, EPA believes that the general authorities provided under the 

SDWA authority to prevent endangerment of USDWs include the authority to set 

standards for financial responsibility to prevent endangerment of USDWs from 

improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells after site closure. The 

SDWA authority does not extend to financial responsibility for activities not 

related to protection of USDWs (e.g., coverage of risks to air, ecosystems, 

public health or public safety unrelated to USDW endangerment). It also does not 

cover transfer of owner or operator financial responsibility to other entities, 

or creation of a third party financial mechanism where EPA is the trustee." 

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

condensed to make them more readable. EPA notes that it received numerous comments on 

financial responsibility during the comment period for the proposed rule. These comments are 

available in the docket for this rule. 

In reference to comments on financial responsibility, as described above, under SDWA, EPA has 

the general authority to set financial responsibility requirements for injection well owners or 

operators to ensure that adequate resources are available to protect 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 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 national23
level trust described by the commenters that would cover large numbers of GS projects. See the 

final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA'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 issues (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 protection 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 endangerment, 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 any "fluid" is subject to the 

requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined 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 sections entitled, “Under What Authority is This 

Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does This 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 Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: EPA DOES NOT INCLUDE A RECOMMENDED 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 difficult to imagine speculative companies 

being willing to fund short-term injection but not long- term remedial projects. 

After the financial income ceases, these companies will fade away, particularly 

if the IOGCC (2007) trust fund recommendation is followed, 73 FR 43504. The 

trust fund is similar to insurance. The Trust Fund input per ton of CO2 by the 

speculators will be considered part of the cost of doing business. 

24
EPA appears to be waiting for counsel from the Environmental Financial Advisory 

Board (EFAB) regarding recommendations for long term corrective action regarding 

financial responsibility. Review of the EPA cited documents regarding EFAB 

shows the so called "important topic" of Class VI well financial responsibility 

was not discussed at the WORKSHOP ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE IN EPA PROGRAMS, 

JUNE 

17, 2008 - NEW YORK, NY 

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

At the EPA, Environmental Financial Advisory Board Meeting 27 March 10-11, 2008, 

the minutes record the follow action regarding "this important topic": 

"DFO Meiburg described EFAB’s role in paying for activities especially in the 

area of SRFs for water programs. EFAB has expanded in the last few years into 

the transportation sector which is related to climate change. For example, the 

CO2 injection program would require financial assurance, if something goes wrong 

in the clean up. EFAB has been working with the Office of Solid Waste and the 

Office of Enforcement over financial assurance related to Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA)." 

The sense of urgency expressed by the Agency appears to be lacking in these 

Board minutes. If in fact, EFAB is discussing "transportation sector", the 

discussion may relate to a different agenda item. In any event, EFAB does not 

appear to be actively engaged in long term corrective action funding for Class 

VI wells. 

The EPA discussion from 73 FR 43520 - 43522 regarding surety provisions is not 

formulated as a rule. The presentation resembles an Agency thinking "out loud 

trying to find an answer." We are given no opportunity to comment on a rational 

proposal, because the data are withheld! 

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 operator has met all regulatory requirements under 

Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements 

at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for 

regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 

will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an 

owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including 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 closure was approved if the Director relied on 

erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or operator when 

approving site closure. 

25
Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regulatory compliance, an owner or operator may be 

subject to a §1431 response order even after proper site closure is approved under §146.93. 

Under §1431 the Administrator may require an owner 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 present an imminent and substantial endangerment 

to the health of persons, and the appropriate State and local authorities have not acted to protect 

the health of such persons. The action may include issuing administrative orders or commencing 

a civil action for appropriate relief against the owner 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 operator may remain liable under tort and other 

remedies, or under other federal statutes including, 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 will have sufficient funds to plug and 

abandon the injection well. We have expressed the same concern previously in 

these comments. EPA proposes to solve this problem by having a contractor make 

the cost estimate. Any cost estimate reflects the assumption used to develop 

the estimate. We recall when EPA instructed their cost estimating contractor to 

assume all existing SPCC Plans (67 FR 47140, July 17, 2002) were in compliance 

with the proposed unpublished SPCC rule. The resulting cost estimate was 

unethical, but reflected the given assumptions and showed the proposed revisions 

to 40 CFR Part 112 reduce regulatory costs. Is there a chance the same 

(unethical) approach is possible when estimating the plug and abandonment costs 

for Class VI by unethical speculators? Will the technically untrained EPA 

employee recognize the estimate is not correct or for that matter, how will 

untrained EPA employee recognize the estimate is correct? 

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility that describes the 

types of financial instruments that 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/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

26
For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, including the well plugging and 

financial responsibility requirements, please 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 regarding using electronic means of 

involving the public in the rule making process. From our vantage point of 

reading the Federal Register daily, the use of the web is highly satisfactory. 

However, we find most citizens don’t know the Federal Register exists. Thus, 

the public does not have any idea what regulations are being proposed or 

promulgated. EPA needs to be out-going with their information, e.g., put 

notices in the newspapers, sponsor television Public Notices, etc. Currently, 

the public is uninformed and will remain uninformed, if the Agency relies solely 

on the Federal Register.! 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that it asked for comment on the use of electronic media to 

inform stakeholders of the availability of individual 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 regulatory actions, and the news media often write 

articles about EPA proposed 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 dangerous an undertaking to leave the highly 

technical review and decision making to non-Professional Engineers. The instant 

Class VI rule must be based on Primacy only being given to State and Tribes 

employing and using specially trained Professional Engineers for review and 

approval of 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 critically important for effective UIC oversight of Class VI wells. EPA 

notes that staff in existing State UIC Programs including programs that implement the UIC 

27
requirements 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 technical areas necessary to evaluate 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, technical expertise) to implement a 

Class VI program that meets EPA's minimum Federal requirements finalized 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 the process of applying for and receiving primary 

enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA. The 

guidance will also provide tools designed to assist UIC Directors with evaluating permit 

application information. The guidance will be available at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Regarding the suggestion that specially trained professional engineers review 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 unspecified well information, calculated the 

incremental cost to convert the Class I well to a Class VI well. This approach 

excludes commenters from verifying the accuracy of the EPA estimate because of 

these omissions. This is reminiscent of the 2004 SPCC Plan cost estimate, where 

commenters were not privileged to the assumptions EPA provide to its contractor. 

Unethical instructions and unstated assumptions prevent commenters from testing 

the accuracy of the cost estimate. We have no means of knowing if EPA provided 

unethical instructions to the contractor for development of the Class VI well 

costs, since EPA does not include the assumptions in the publication. 

Apparently, EPA told the contractor to use a 25 year after closure monitoring 

time period (73 FR 43524). Then, EPA proposed a 50 years monitoring period at 40 

28
CFR 146.91 (73 FR 43540). Either the Agency changed its mind after giving the 

go-ahead to the contractor , but did not revise the proposed rule or the Agency 

was attempting reduce cost of the rule. 

*EPA at Table VII-2 (73 FR 43525) says the cost of baseline project plus 

Alternate 3 and Alternate 3 increment varies between $94.6 and $98.4 million for 

22 sequestration projects or $4.3 million to $4.5 million per project. EPA at 

73 FR 42504 provides a non-specific definition of Alterative 3. The definition 

is words without specificity! We have no inkling of want Alternative 3 entails. 

On 28 August 2007, Dr. Holliday discussed these cost figures with the Chairman 

of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Sequestration Panel. The Chairman’s 

response was "there is no way in Hell we can conduct a sequestration project for 

that little money." 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that due to the variation expected in individual project 

specifications, a pro forma (representative) project was used in the cost analysis to provide a 

reasonable estimate on a national basis for the purpose of selecting between regulatory options 

and development of the final regulation. This approach is consistent with EPA Guidelines for 

Preparing Economic Analyses (September 2000) and with other major rulemakings under 

SDWA. Detailed information on the pro forma assumptions and unit costs applied in the analysis 

are included in the appendix to the cost analysis, 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, absent the GS regulation, requirements similar to 

Class I industrial well requirements would apply to GS wells and therefore served as the baseline 

scenario.) 

For this reason, costs may seem lower or less comprehensive than expected. This approach, the 

development of cost estimates that are incremental 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 scenario) 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 injection 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 

29
mean CO2 EOR will be come under the Class VI well rule. If this is the case, 

EPA will in effect reduce oil and gas production significantly during the 

existing server domestic energy shortage! Since operating conditions of CO2 EOR 

are different, e.g., Supercritical CO2 is not left in the reservoir at 

abandonment, and casing penetrating the 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 does 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 injection for the primary purpose of long 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 volume of CO2 anticipated to be 

injected for long term storage is significantly greater than for ER operations. Reservoir pressure 

conditions will also be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of 

CO2 and likely having higher pressures within their storage formations than Class II EOR 

projects. 

The final Class VI regulations require that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary 

purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the 

fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI requirements. 

The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those 

projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. 

The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this 

determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides sufficient protection of 

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional 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 forward under climate temperature increases 

and decreases without being annihilated. 

During these temperature changes, Greenland has gone from a marginal framing 

area to a bleak cold frozen area, but people continue taking advantage of the 

warmer climate by moving away from the cold areas. The belief that these global 

temperature changes can be mitigated by sequestering carbon dioxide has no 

scientific support, since previous Global temperature increases occurred in the 

30
31

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 rule proposal is a cruel hoax. 

Individual Response: As described above, mitigating and modeling climate change is outside 

the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the Class VI GS rule 

is to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the 

United States and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of 

the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions.