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.BP Alternative Energy International Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with the company number 1553681, VAT num ber GB 243 5105 93 and whose registered office is

Chertsey Road, Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7BP.

BP Alternative Energy Holdings Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with the company number 2515099, VAT number G B 243 5105 93 and whose registered office is

Chertsey Road, Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7BP BP Alternative Energy Comments to EPA Proposed Rule By Mr. Iain Wright Well Design, Monitoring and Timeframe for Site Closure EPA Public Hearing, Chicago, Illinois – September 30, 20008

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

INTRODUCTION

• Thank you for the opportunity to speak t oday. My name is Iain Wright. I work for BP and I manage the industrial-scale CO 2 geo-sequestration project at In Salah in Algeria. BP appreciates EPA's efforts to create a regu latory framework for industrial-scale CO 2 geo-sequestration in the US.

• At In Salah, BP and its part ners (Sonatrach and StatoilHydro ) have, for the last four years, been sequestering around 1 million tonnes/year CO 2 in a deep saline formation, which is down-dip of a producing gas field. CO 2 storage at In Salah is permitted under Algerian hydrocarbon regulati ons and we have learned a number of lessons that could be beneficial for the development of geo-s equestration regulations in the US.

• My comments will address three issues:

1. Well Design, 2. Monitoring and

3. The Timeframe for Site Closure

WELL DESIGN

• So firstly, Well Design. At In Salah, 1mmtpa CO 2 is being sequestered in a formation that is 6,000ft deep, 60ft thick and has per meability of only 10mD - very similar to many deep saline formations here in the US Mid-west. To do this, we need only three wells, but they have very long horizontal se ctions in the storage formation – in fact, they are about as long as they are deep. We recommend that EPA’s regulations permit geo-sequestration using horizontal wells.

• At In Salah, a few mile s up-dip from the three CO 2 injectors, we have four wells that produce natural gas from the same geol ogical formation. The design of the CO 2 injectors is identical to the design of t he gas producers except that the gas producers have stainless steel tubing, whereas the CO 2 injectors have conventional mild steel (L80) tubing. This is because the gas producers are actually in a more corrosive

environment than the CO 2 injectors. So, just to emphasize that point: the CO 2 sequestration wells, permitted at In Salah are constructed to a lower specification than the natural gas wells in the same formation. We recommend that the design and construction of geo-sequestration wells s hould be site-specific and fit for the purpose of preventing endangerment of USDWs.BP Alternative Energy Comments to EPA Proposed Rule By Mr. Iain Wright

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 Page 2

MONITORING

• Moving on to my second point: Monitoring. Monitoring is important, but there is a common mis-perception that if you want secure storage, you need to do lots of monitoring. Well, the UN sa ys that “the proportion of CO 2 retained by appropriately selected and managed sites is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years”. So the key to secure storage is the appropriate selection and management of the site. If that is done properly, the site will be very se cure and the need for monitoring can be appropriately reduced. Monitoring is like the speedometer on y our car. It does contribute to your safety, but more important is the design of t he car, the road and how you drive the car.

• Having said that, at In Sa lah, we are doing a big research project into monitoring, so the program is much more extensive t han would be appropriate for a commercial project. We are trying out new technologies (such as satellite imagery, micro-seismic), so that we can see how they perform against conventional oilfield monitoring technologies (such as tracer s and conventional seismic).

• But as you can probably hear from my accent, I’m a Scotsm an, and Scotsmen don’t like to waste money, so every technology that we use at in Salah has been carefully chosen to represent good value for money. Before we started injectio n at In Salah, we did a site-specific assessment of leakage risk and then we tailored the monitoring program to address those risks. Mandating any specific m onitoring technology could waste a great deal of money and resources without contributing to the protection of

USDWs. So we would caution against a uni versal mandate for any specific monitoring technology.

• Many of you will have heard of the ot her two monitored, industrial-scale CO 2 injection projects in the world, at Sleipner and Weybur n. If you compare the monitoring activities at these sites, you can see that somethi ng which works well in one location, may not

work at all in another location. We encourage EPA to use risk-assessed, performance-based criteria to determi ne site-specific m onitoring programs.

TIMEFRAME FOR SITE CLOSURE

• My third and final point concerns the appropr iate timeframe for site closure. There is no rational basis to mandate a universal, 50-y ear minimum timeframe for post-injection

site care. Such a mandate would kill-off commercial investment in geo-sequestration projects. Worse than that, it would preferent ially kill-off the best sites – those with proven seals and the lowest risk of leakage - oil and gas fields.

• As the EPA proposal states “the actual time for CO 2 plume stabilization will be very site-specific”. A well-selected and managed s equestration site (such as an oil or gas field) that has met its performance objecti ves (including plume stabilization) will beBP Alternative Energy Comments to EPA Proposed Rule By Mr. Iain Wright

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 Page 3

much more secure and could be closed quickly (say a couple of years). However, (as EPA’s cited examples show), CO 2 injected in a poorly-confined deep saline formation could move around for quite a while such that the closure period will have to wait on residual and solubility trapping, and hence, a closure period of several years could be more appropriate. We recommend that EPA does not mandate any fixed

timeframe for site closure. Better would be a site-specific assessment that is risk and performance based.

Thank youLetter ID: 0118 Commenter: Iain Wright Organization: BP A lternative Energy

Letter ID: 0118 Comment ID: 22064 Letter Lines: 17 to 35

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS

Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Iain Wright. I work for BP and I manage the industrial-scale CO 2 geo-sequestration proj ect at In Salah in Algeria. BP appreciates EPA's effort s to create a regulatory framework for industrial-scale CO2 geo-se questration in the US.

At In Salah, BP and its partners (Sonatra ch and StatoilHydro) have, for the last four years, been sequestering around 1 m illion tonnes/year CO2 in a deep saline formation, which is down-dip of a produci ng gas field. CO2 stor age at In Salah is permitted under Algerian hydrocarbon regulat ions and we have learned a number

of lessons that could be beneficial for the development of geo-sequestration regulations in the US.

My comments will address three issues:

1. Well Design,

2. Monitoring and

3. The Timeframe for Site Closure

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach (including well construction requirements, monitoring, and post-injection site care and closure), please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0118 Comment ID: 22065 Letter Lines: 39 to 45

Comment Code: 3840 2.3.2 Horizontal well drilling techniques (seeking comment)

Comment: So firstly, Well Design. At In Salah, 1m mtpa CO2 is being sequestered in a formation that is 6,000ft deep, 60ft thic k and has permeability of only 10mD - very similar to many deep saline formations here in the US Mid-west. To do this, we need only three wells, but they have very long horizontal sections in the storage formation - in fact, they are a bout as long as they are deep. WE

RECOMMEND THAT EPA’S REGULATIONS PERMIT GEO-SEQUESTRATION USING

HORIZONTAL

WELLS.

1Individual Response: In the final rule, EPA allows the use of horizontal wells at GS projects. In the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on the appr opriateness of horizontal drilling techniques

for Class VI wells, and commenters representing energy companies, el ectric utilities, the oil and gas industry, CCS associations, states, and the public, unanimously suppo rted the concept and provided many reasons why horizonta l wells could be beneficial at GS sites. Based on an evaluation of these comments and additional research by EPA, the Agency has concluded that horizontal wells that are properly constructed, logged, and tested for mechanical integrity (i.e., to meet the requirements of the GS rule) can ensu re the protection of USDW s from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0118 Comment ID: 22066 Letter Lines: 47 to 57

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

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

Comment: At In Salah, a few miles up-dip from the th ree CO2 injectors, we have four wells that produce natural gas from the same ge ological formation. The design of the CO2 injectors is identical to the desi gn of the gas producers except that the gas producers have stainless steel tubi ng, whereas the CO2 injectors have conventional mild steel (L80) tubing. Th is is because the gas producers are actually in a more corrosive environment than the CO2 injectors. So, just to emphasize that point: the CO2 sequestration wells, permitted at In Salah are constructed to a lower specification than the natural gas wells in the same

formation. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF GEOSEQUESTRATION

WELLS SHOULD BE SITE-SPE CIFIC AND FIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING

ENDANGERMENT

OF USDWS.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, the rule provides flexibility re garding appropriate materials for Class VI wells. The rule does not specify materials to be used; rather, it provides owne rs or operators with the flexibility to choose, as long as the materials used in Class VI wells are compatible w ith fluids with which they may

come into contact and meet or exceed standard s developed for such materials by API or ASTM International, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as pr ovided at §146.86(b)(1).

The Director will evaluate the owner or operator's proposed cons truction procedures, including

materials to be used, in the context of informa tion about the well, the CO2 stream, and the site, as specified in §146.86(b)(1). EPA is aware of GS efforts at In Sa lah and clarifies that the wells in question were not constructed in accordance w ith U.S. regulations, so the comparison is not necessarily analogous. A paper summarizing EP A's review of In Salah and other large international GS projects is in the rulemaking docket.

2Letter ID: 0118 Comment ID: 22067 Letter Lines: 59 to 92

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90)

Comment Code: 4655 2.6.5.1 Plume tracking techniques/ geophysical methods (seeking comment)

Comment: MONITORING

Moving on to my second point: Monitoring. Mo nitoring is important, but there is a common mis-perception that if you want secu re storage, you need to do lots of monitoring. Well, the UN says that "the proportion of CO2 retained by appropriately selected and managed site s is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years". SO THE KEY TO SECURE STOR AGE IS THE APPROP RIATE SELECTION AND

MANAGEMENT OF THE SITE. If that is done properly, the site will be very secure and the need for monitoring can be appropr iately reduced. Monitoring is like the speedometer on your car. It does contribute to your safety, but more important is the design of the car, the road and how you drive the car.

Having said that, at In Salah, we are doing a big research project into monitoring, so the program is much more extensive than would be appropriate for a commercial project. We ar e trying out new technologi es (such as satellite imagery, micro-seismic), so that we can see how they perform against

conventional oilfield monito ring technologies (such as tracers and conventional seismic).

But as you can probably hear from my accen t, I’m a Scotsman, and Scotsmen don’t like to waste money, so every technology th at we use at in Salah has been carefully chosen to represent good value fo r money. Before we started injection at In Salah, we did a site-specific asse ssment of leakage risk and then we tailored the monitoring program to addre ss those risks. Mandating any specific monitoring technology could waste a great d eal of money and resources without contributing to the protection of US DWs. SO WE WOULD CAUTION AGAINST A

UNIVERSAL

MANDATE FOR ANY SPECIFIC MONITORING TECHNOLOGY.

Many of you will have heard of the other two monitored, indust rial-scale CO2 injection projects in the world, at Sl eipner and Weyburn. If you compare the monitoring activities at these sites, y ou can see that something which works well in one location, may not work at all in another location. WE ENCOURAGE EPA

TO USE RISK-ASSESSED, PERFORMANCE- BASED CRITERIA TO DETERMINE SITESPECIFIC

MONITORING PROGRAMS.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters and believ es that flexibility is important in

3developing and implementing a monitoring plan that is appropriately tailored for a specific GS site. The purpose of the requirement at §146.90 to develop site-specific testing and monitoring plans is to ensure that the monitoring performe d at a site is appropria te for site operational conditions and the geologic setting. EPA believes th at this is the best approach for addressing potential risks at GS sites. These flexible provisions in the monitoring requirements for Class VI wells enable the owner or operator to tailor monitoring programs to the specific needs of each project in consultation with the Director.

The final regulation provides for flexibility in: 1) methodologies used to co llect these data, 2) the spatial resolution at which the data should be co llected, and 3) how often the data should be collected. The number and placement of monitoring wells will be based on site-specific information such as the calculated AoR, inject ion rate and volume, site geology, baseline data, and the presence of artificial penetrations within the AoR. In some instances, there may be a limited number of options for complying with EPA's minimum requirements. For example, monitoring for geochemical changes will require use of monitoring wells and collection of groundwater samples for chemical analysis. Many options currently exis t for complying with other requirements, such as tracking the positio n of the plume and pressure front within the injection zone.

Flexibility is also provided re garding how to monitor for the sp ecific data required by the final rule. The testing and monitoring plan is develope d by the owner or operato r in consultation with the Director and is designed to ensure that a detailed, Director-approved document describing how monitoring will be conducted during the lifetime of the project exists.

EPA also agrees that good site selection and mana gement are crucial elemen ts of a successful GS project, but disagrees that this is an eff ective substitute for rigorous site monitoring.

EPA does not believe that prescrib ing specific technologies to be us ed in all cases for GS would be appropriate given the variabil ity in sites. Rather EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators a nd Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The gui dance describes availa ble technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring plan, including preoperational geophysical logging and testing of injection wells, MI Ts, injection well testing during operation, groundwater qualit y monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verificat ion, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in

the docket for the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0118 Comment ID: 22068 Letter Lines: 96 to 112

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

Comment: My third and final point c oncerns the appropriate timef rame for site closure.

45 There is no rational basis to mandate a uni versal, 50-year minimum timeframe for post-injection site care. Such a mandate w ould kill-off commercial investment in geo-sequestration projects. Worse than that, it would preferentially kill-off the best sites - those with proven seals and the lowest risk of leakage - oil and gas fields.

As the EPA proposal states - the actual ti me for CO2 plume stab ilization will be very "site-specific". A well-selected and managed sequestration site (such as an oil or gas field) that has met its pe rformance objectives (including plume stabilization) will be much more secure and could be closed quickly (say a couple of years). However, (as EPA’s cite d examples show), CO2 injected in a poorly-confined deep saline formation c ould move around for quite a while such that the closure period will have to wa it on residual and solubility trapping, and hence, a closure period of several years could be more appropriate. WE

RECOMMEND THAT EPA DOES NOT MAN DATE ANY FIXED TIMEFRAME FOR SITE

CLOSURE. BETTER

WOULD BE A SITE-SPECIFIC ASSESSMEN T THAT IS RISK AND PERFORMANCE

BASED.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there will be circumst ances where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to

USDWs. For this reason, 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, pur suant 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 ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c).

EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

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

EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose

of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.