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 2008 
Letter 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 injection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ 

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

Comment: 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. 

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

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

and gas industry has decades of experience injecting 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 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. 

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

rather the purpose of the GS regulation 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 

1
2

comments concerning these proposed regulations and fully supports their 

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

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please 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 final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble 

as well as the rulemaking docket.