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.` FASKEN OIL AND RANCH ;ATD

.

303 WEST WALL AVENUE, SUITE 1800

MIDLAND, TEXAS 79701-5116

(432) 687-1777

jimmycQforl .com

December 22, 2008

Water Docket

U

. S

. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4601)

Ariel Rios Building

Mail Code : 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460-0003

Gentlemen,

Re : Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Docket ID No

. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

### - ~ -zoo ~p=6~

~ ~



# DEG1 o 2,008

Jimmy D

. Cariile

Regulatory Affairs Coordinator

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd

. appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rules concerning

geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide

. Our primary concern with these proposed regulations is that

the oil industry be able to continue to fully utilize carbon dioxide in a way that is beneficial to the global

environment and both our nation's economy and its energy security through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology

. Injection of carbon dioxide through existing SDWA Class II injection wells is crucial in

the ultimate recovery of oil reserves throughout our industry

. Proposed new SDWA "Class VI" injection

wells for commercial carbon dioxide capture and sequestration need to be clearly defined to exclude

EOR technologies used by the oil industry as these technologies are significantly different in their intent

and nature

.

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd

. has reviewed the Western Business Roundtable's comments concerning

these proposed regulations and fully supports their comments

. Any questions concerning our comments

can be directed to me at the letterhead number or email address

.

Yours truly,

Jimmy D

. Carlile

Regulatory Affairs Coordinator 

## DEC 9 2 2008Letter ID: 0281

Commenter: Jimmy Carlile

Organization: Fasken Oil & Ranch

Letter ID: 0281 Comment ID: 24114 Letter Lines: 41 to 50

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/

dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: proposed rules concerning geologic sequest ration of carbon dioxide. Our primary

concern with these proposed regulations is that the oil industry be able to

continue to fully utilize carbon dioxide in a way that is beneficial to the

global environment and both our nation's ec onomy and its energy security through

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technol ogy. Injection of car bon dioxide through

existing SDWA Class II injection wells is crucial in the ultimate recovery of

oil reserves throughout our industry. Propos ed new SDWA "Class VI" injection

wells for commercial carbon dioxide capture and sequestration need to be clearly

defined to exclude EOR technologies used by the oil industry as these

technologies are significantly differe nt in their intent and nature.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing

oil and gas recovery should remain under the Cla ss II Program. EPA also recognizes that the oil

and gas industry has decades of experience inj ecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites

used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites.

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary

purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the

fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements.

The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those

projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2.

The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this

determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations

while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on

transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA adds that the purpose of the GS regulation is not to promote GS or address energy security;

rather the purpose of the GS re gulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0281 Comment ID: 24115 Letter Lines: 52 to 54

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. has reviewed the Western Business Roundtable's

12 comments concerning these proposed regul ations and fully supports their

comments. Any questions concerning our co mments can be directed to me at the

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's

responses to this comment and Western Business Roundtable’s comment for further details. For

additional information on EPA's fina l regulatory approach, please se e the final rule and preamble

as well as the rulemaking docket.