2021 ] CARBON CAPTURE , UTILIZATION , AND SEQUESTRATION 65
program that is at least as stringent as the requirements of the federal regulations and submit an application for oversight authority with the EPA . A total of forty states have received primacy from the EPA for Class II wells . 104 The State of Texas has obtained primacy and now has an estimated 30,000 active Class II wells governed by the Texas Railroad Commission . 105 While requirements for a Class II well may vary among states , the federal regulations provide a baseline of the requirements an applicant may expect when permitting a Class II well . Approval for these wells will often require ( 1 ) a finding that the injection well will not injure any freshwater strata in the area , ( 2 ) certain casing and cementing requirements to prevent the migration of injected substances into underground sources of drinking water ( USDWs ), ( 3 ) annual monitoring , testing , and record keeping obligations , and ( 4 ) financial assurances that the applicant will properly plug and abandon the well . 106 Findings regarding the impact that injection wells will have on USDWs require coordination among the applicant , the state ’ s department of natural resources , and the state ’ s department of environmental protection . For example , in Texas , the Commission on Environmental Quality must issue a finding that the proposed injection well will not injure any freshwater strata in the area of operations before the Railroad Commission may issue a Class II permit . 107
Class VI well permitting entails an even more rigorous process tied to sequestration-related risks . For instance , the injection streams used for Class VI wells often contain higher pressures and volumes than the streams used for Class II wells . Consequently , Class VI wells can pose a higher risk of the injected substances migrating or escaping from the reservoir in which they are injected . The migration or escape of the injected substances presents a risk of contamination to USDWs , injury of nearby oil and gas operations , or a seismic event , each of which must be adequately addressed during the permitting process . Another notable difference in Class VI wells is that the injected substances are intended to be permanently stored compared to Class II wells which often extract a majority of the injected substances through the recovery process . 108 Accordingly , the EPA ’ s regulations governing Class VI wells con-
104 . JONES , supra note 99 , at 10 . 105 . David Hill , UIC Permit Applications : Technical Review & Public Notification , RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF TEX ., 11 , https :// www . rrc . state . tx . us / media / 29144 / uic-permit-applications-technicalreview-public-notification . pdf ( last visited Oct . 22 , 2020 ). 106 . JONES , supra note 99 , at 28 . 107 . 3 ERNEST E . SMITH & JACQUELINE LANG WEAVER , TEXAS LAW OF OIL AND GAS § 14.10 ( 2d ed . 1998 ); see 16 TEX . ADMIN . CODE § 3.30 ( e )( 7 ) ( Tex . R . R . Comm ’ n , Memorandum of Understanding between the Railroad Commission of Texas ( RRC ) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ )).
108 . JONES , supra note 99 , at 13 – 14 ( The EPA recognizes that the primary purpose of Class II wells is enhanced recovery , while the primary purpose of Class VI wells is secure geologic sequestration . The regulations provide that , when injection operations are conducted with the primary purpose of geologic sequestration and there is an increased risk to USDWs , the operator must apply for a Class VI permit . However , the EPA also recognizes that Class II injection wells will likely result in some volumes of CO 2 being permanently trapped in the reservoir after EOR operations are concluded . The regulations provide