Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

RFP 2026-0401

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Decarbonization Projects Program

Question Number

Question Subject Offeror Question & Agency Response

Contract for

Services: Section 4 – Compensation p.9

Are there not-to-exceed budgets or internal cost benchmarks proposers should be aware of?

Agency Response:

Thank you for your inquiry. DOGAMI is seeking proposer pricing for multiple drilling depth ranges, technical approaches, and optional services as identified in the RFP. As a result, the final contract value has not yet been determined and will depend on the selected scope, technical approach, and negotiated final contract terms.

Contract for Services: Section 6 –

Period of Performance p.9

Are there schedule incentives or penalties tied to completion timelines?

Agency Response:

The RFP does not include schedule-based incentives or liquidated damages/penalties tied to completion timelines. Proposers are encouraged to provide realistic project schedules and identify any schedule assumptions, constraints, or dependencies within their proposals. Final schedule requirements and any related contract provisions may be further addressed during contract negotiations with the apparent successful proposer prior to final contract execution.

4 RFP: Section 2 – Scope of Work p.2

Who is responsible for site preparation and reclamation?

Agency Response:

The awardee will be responsible for site preparation and reclamation. Please include items related to site preparation and reclamation in your overall cost outline.

How these items are ultimately handled, whether as base pricing, allowances, or separately authorized costs, can be discussed with the selected contractor during the negotiation period. Final scope alignment and any related commercial details will be clarified before the contract is finalized

5 RFP: Section 2 – Scope of Work p.2

Does the project scope allow for a multi-well configuration, or is a single deep well the preferred approach?

Agency Response:

Thank you for the question. Proposers are asked to create a project scope for a single test (stratigraphic) well.

RFP: Section 3 –

Sections to Include in Proposal p.5

Is reservoir testing expected to be conducted in open hole conditions, or is testing after installation of casing an option?

Reservoir testing for this project is planned to be carried out in open‑hole conditions. Conducting formation tests

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 prior to casing installation allows us to obtain the most representative formation pressure and fluid data, as well as to characterize reservoir properties without the influence of casing or completion hardware.

RFP: Section 2 –

Scope of Work p.2

Which zones are priority zones and how many tests are desired per zone? Is there a preferred placement or distribution of hydraulic and reservoir testing intervals throughout the CRBG?

Agency Response:

Number and placement of test zones will be determined in negotiation, dependent on costings across options.

Bidders should provide cost breakdowns for indicative test zones at a range of depths within the Grande Ronde.

To help orient prospective proposers, DOGAMI has shared a recorded overview within OregonBuys that walks through the RFP and provides background on the regional geology for the project area. We encourage you to review the video, as it highlights the key geologic context relevant to your inquiry.

You’ll also find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in proposal development.

8 RFP: Section 2 – Scope of Work p.2

How does DOGAMI prioritize full coring versus sidewall core (SWC) collection in achieving the desired stratigraphic and reservoir characterization outcomes?

Agency Response:

DOGAMI evaluates the use of full conventional coring versus sidewall coring (SWC) by considering technical objectives, geological conditions, and operational constraints. Full‑diameter coring can be costly and time‑intensive, and in basalt formations it may yield lower‑quality samples due to the tendency of these units to break apart during recovery.

For these reasons, full coring is not always the most efficient or reliable option for obtaining representative geologic data in volcanic settings.

Sidewall coring has been successfully used in the region and can often provide the necessary lithologic, stratigraphic, and reservoir information at substantially lower cost and operational risk. DOGAMI therefore selects the coring method that best balances data quality, feasibility, and cost‑effectiveness for the project’s specific geologic and programmatic objectives.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

9 RFP: Section 2 – Scope of Work p.2

Are proposers expected to perform full data interpretation and analysis, or is the scope limited to data acquisition and processing with delivery to DOGAMI for interpretation?

Agency Response:

For this project, proposers are expected to focus primarily on data acquisition and processing. Each contractor should plan to collect cuttings and fluid samples as part of the scope of work. Laboratory analysis of these materials is not required to be performed by the contractor. DOGAMI can coordinate the selection of laboratories and manage the analytical work once samples are delivered.

If bidders have prior experience with specific laboratories and would like to recommend them for consideration, please include that information in the proposal. Such recommendations can help inform DOGAMI’s selection process, but will not be bound to those recommendations.

Contractors should ensure that all acquired data, processed outputs, and sampling documentation are delivered in a clear, organized format that supports subsequent analysis.

RFP: Section 4.1 –

Well Plan Development p.6

What is the expected final state of the well (e.g. plugged and abandoned, injection well, monitoring well, or future testing), and how should proposers align their plugging and abandonment (P&A) strategy with that anticipated end state?

Agency Response:

The final state of the well has not been predetermined and may vary depending on project needs, data outcomes, and cost considerations. Proposers should understand that cost will be a significant factor in determining whether the well is completed for future use or plugged and abandoned.

Proposers are encouraged to include a clear and compliant P&A strategy in their proposal.

DOGAMI will review these options with the selected contractor and make a final determination during the negotiation stage, once costs, logistics, and data needs are more fully evaluated.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

If your proposed approach includes decision points, cost ranges, or operational contingencies related to these potential end states, please describe them so DOGAMI can evaluate the feasibility of each option.

RFP: Section 1 –

Introduction and Purpose p.1

Are there specific coordination expectations with EPA Region 10 or any other agencies during drilling? Does an OR licensed geologist need to provide oversight?

Agency Response:

Thank you for your inquiry. EPA Region 10 oversees underground injection control permitting (Classes I–V or VI), but its regulations do not mandate an OR‑licensed geologist be present on-site during drilling in these categories.

EPA Region 10 does not specifically require an OR‑licensed geologist to be present on-site during drilling of stratigraphic or test wells. Their involvement focuses on injection well permitting, which is a separate concern.

Formation and reservoir testing requirements under DOGAMI and Oregon regulations are currently defined only within the context of the state’s oil & gas framework (OAR 632 Division 10). There are no separate provisions specifically for deep stratigraphic or formation test wells outside of oil & gas operations. This division explicitly addresses requirements for reservoir surveys, formation pressure testing, well stimulation, and injection activities for oil & gas wells.

For other stratigraphic test wells outside these scopes, on-site geologist presence is not mandated by EPA or state regulations, although DOGAMI can choose to include such requirements during contract negotiations based on data quality, regulatory risk, or project objectives.

Your proposal may include a licensed geologist, or assume DOGAMI’s staff will provide oversight, depending on your operational needs. Please outline your assumptions or planned geologist involvement in your proposal so we can evaluate how oversight might best align with your methodology and project requirements.

During contract negotiations, DOGAMI and the awarded contractor will review your proposed work scope. If geological oversight is necessary (due to project specifics, risk management, or regulatory requirements) it can be included at that stage.

https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-region-10-ak-id-or-and-wa https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_chapter_632_division_10

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Contract for Services: Section 6 –

Period of Performance p.9

Can DOGAMI clarify target drilling start vs. flexibility within the August 2026 to June 2027, including any seasonal or weather-related constraints that may impact operations?

Agency Response:

The August 2026 to June 2027 drilling window identified in the RFP reflects DOGAMI’s current planning assumptions. This window provides flexibility to accommodate seasonal conditions, weather, site access, permitting timelines, contractor availability, and other operational considerations that may influence drilling operations.

DOGAMI does not intend to set a fixed drilling start date at this stage. Instead, the final drilling schedule will be developed collaboratively with the selected awardee during contract negotiations. Proposers are encouraged to identify reasonable scheduling preferences, sequencing recommendations, and any anticipated constraints within their proposals. This information will help inform the final schedule once an award is made.

Contract for

Services: Section 4 – Compensation p.3

What is the process for change management in response to unforeseen conditions? Specifically, how will scope, schedule, and cost adjustments be handled?

Agency Response:

DOGAMI recognizes that unforeseen field, technical, geologic, operational, permitting, or site conditions may require adjustments to project scope, schedule, or cost during project execution. Any such changes would be addressed through the contract change management process, including review, documentation, justification, and in some instances, written approval by the State. Specific procedures and requirements for change management, including any scope, schedule, or cost adjustments, will be further addressed during contract discussions and negotiations with the apparent successful proposer prior to final contract execution.

Contract for

Services: Section 4 – Compensation p.2

Given the three desired depths, uncertain number of field tests and core samples, and potential drilling uncertainties, would DOGAMI consider a cost plus type contract, rather than milestone based payments?

Agency Response:

DOGAMI recognizes that drilling projects of this nature may involve variable field conditions, evolving technical considerations, and operational uncertainties that could affect scope, schedule, sampling requirements, and overall project costs.

The contract structure included in the RFP reflects the State’s current proposed approach for proposal

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 preparation purposes. DOGAMI may consider alternative payment structures, including cost reimbursement or other contract mechanisms, as appropriate, during contract discussions and negotiations with the apparent successful proposer prior to final contract execution.

Lastly, to help orient prospective proposers, DOGAMI has shared a recorded overview within OregonBuys that walks through the RFP and provides background on the regional geology for the project area. We encourage you to review the video, as it highlights the key geologic context relevant to your inquiry.

You’ll also find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in proposal development.

RFP: Section 1 –

Introduction and Purpose p.1

Has the regional geologic framework, well prognosis, and other geologic screening been conducted or will that need to be developed before drilling as part of the contract scope?

Agency Response:

Please note that a well prognosis, or drilling plan, will need to be developed as part of the proposal. Once an awardee is selected, the drilling plan will be finalized and then submitted as part of the permitting application to drill.

To help orient prospective proposers, DOGAMI has shared a recorded overview within OregonBuys that walks through the RFP and provides background on the regional geology for the project area. We encourage you to review the video, as it highlights the key geologic context relevant to your inquiry.

You’ll also find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in

RFP: Section 11 –

Questions and Submission p.11

Will DOGAMI respond to additional questions after May 25 or perhaps open a second question period for questions that come up during more detailed proposal preparation?

DOGAMI established the formal question‑and‑answer period to ensure that all proposers have equitable access

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 to the same information and guidance while preparing their proposals. This structured window helps maintain fairness and transparency in the competitive process.

Proposers are welcome to submit additional questions after the May 25 deadline; however, DOGAMI cannot guarantee responses to questions received outside the designated Q&A period, particularly those submitted close to the proposal due date. If questions arise during detailed proposal preparation, we encourage you to submit them, but please understand that responses may not be provided in time to inform your proposal.

At this stage, we are not planning to open a second formal question period.

Class VI / Materials

& Design Basis Questions

Has DOGAMI established minimum casing metallurgy requirements for wells intended to preserve future Class VI convertibility (e.g., carbon steel vs. chromium alloys, CRA tubulars, internally coated casing, fiberglass liners)?

DOGAMI has not issued specific minimum casing metallurgy requirements (such as mandating carbon steel, chrome alloys, corrosion-resistant alloys, internally coated casing, or fiberglass liners) for wells that might later qualify as Class VI under the UIC program.

For guidance on casing and material selection, please refer to EPA’s Class VI regulations (40 CFR 146.86), which require well materials to possess sufficient structural strength and be compatible with the anticipated CO₂ stream and formation fluids, meeting or exceeding recognized standards like API or ASTM.

See also the EPA's Class VI Well Construction Guidance (May 2012) for recommended best practices regarding material compatibility. These resources are the current authoritative references on casing metallurgy considerations in a Class VI context.

Class VI / Materials

& Design Basis Questions

Are proposers expected to assume exposure to dry CO₂, wet CO₂, or CO₂-rich brines when developing contingency monitoring well designs?

Agency Response:

Because this well is not currently planned as an injection well and the injection method has not yet been determined, the primary requirement is ensuring that the cement and casing in the potential injection or reservoir https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/epa816r11020.pdf

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 interval are adequately corrosion‑resistant. For basalt projects, this typically means assuming exposure to wet CO2 or CO2‑rich brines rather than dry CO2.

See also the EPA's Class VI Well Construction Guidance (May 2012) for recommended best practices regarding material compatibility. These resources are the current authoritative references on casing metallurgy

& Design Basis Questions

Is the intent for the contingency monitoring well design to support USDW monitoring only, deep reservoir monitoring, injection testing, or eventual conversion to a permitted Class VI injection well?

Agency Response:

The intent of the contingency monitoring well design is to maintain flexibility for multiple potential future uses, including:

• Monitoring of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs),

• Deep reservoir monitoring, and

• Preserving the option for future conversion to a permitted Class VI injection well, if warranted by the project’s long‑term development.

We encourage proposers to design wells with material selection, construction methods, and access considerations that support this full range of potential monitoring functions and do not preclude future regulatory pathways

Class VI / Materials

& Design Basis Questions

To what extent should EPA Class VI UIC standards (40 CFR Part 146 Subpart H) be incorporated into conceptual well design versus Oregon state well construction requirements? What maximum anticipated formation pressure, fracture gradient, and future injection pressure envelope should proposers use for conceptual well design?

Agency Response:

You’ll find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in proposal development.

Proposers may reference the Wallula Basalt Pilot Project in Washington to better understand downhole conditions and monitoring strategies for basalt-hosted CO₂ injection. That project drilled a supercritical CO₂ well

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 in flood basalt, injected approximately 1,000 t of CO₂, and conducted extensive monitoring and hydrologic testing and offers valuable insights into pressure regimes, reservoir response, and early mineralization.

Since Oregon does not have its own Class VI well construction standards, any conceptual design that could later be converted to a Class VI injection well should follow the EPA’s Class VI UIC standards (40 CFR Part 146 Subpart H). Section 146.86 defines requirements for casing, cement, and materials selection 1.

& Design Basis Questions

Does DOGAMI have an estimated maximum surface injection pressure (MSIP) target for future testing scenarios?

Agency Response:

Because this well is not currently planned as an injection well and the injection method has not yet been determined, an estimated maximum surface injection pressure (MSIP) target for future testing scenarios is not defined.

Proposers may reference the Wallula Basalt Pilot Project in Washington to better understand downhole conditions and monitoring strategies for basalt-hosted CO₂ injection. That project drilled a supercritical CO₂ well in flood basalt, injected approximately 1,000 t of CO₂, and conducted extensive monitoring and hydrologic testing and offers valuable insights into pressure regimes, reservoir response, and early mineralization.

& Design Basis Questions

Are any offset well geochemical datasets available regarding salinity, dissolved CO₂, chlorides, H₂S, temperature, or formation water compatibility?

Although sparse, there are offset open-source datasets available.

To help orient prospective proposers, DOGAMI has shared a recorded overview within OregonBuys that walks through the RFP and provides background on the regional geology for the project area. These materials offer a helpful starting point for identifying the public data sources available in the region. Proposers are encouraged to https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-146/subpart-H?toc=1 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-146/subpart-H?toc=1

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 use those references, along with other public state and federal data repositories, to access any geochemical dataset they consider relevant.

You’ll also find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in proposal development.

Class VI / Materials

& Design Basis Questions

Has DOGAMI evaluated whether the well may eventually require materials and cement systems compatible with supercritical CO₂ exposure under long-term monitoring conditions?

Thank you for your inquiry. At this stage, we are focused on drilling the test well and collecting detailed subsurface information. The data obtained from this well will allow us to determine whether specialized CO₂‑compatible materials may be needed in the future.

We are considering current test well design choices with the intention of preserving flexibility. If the downhole conditions prove to be suitable for CO₂ sequestration and mineralization, we want to ensure that the well could be converted or adapted as needed for future phases. Any final decisions about long-term material or cement requirements will be based on the conditions confirmed through the test-well results.

& Design Basis Questions

Does DOGAMI anticipate future Area of Review (AoR) modeling utilizing data generated from this stratigraphic test well and should data collection be optimized for reservoir modeling inputs (e.g., permeability, relative permeability, capillary pressure) to support such efforts?

Agency Response:

We are considering current test well design choices with the intention of preserving flexibility for future modeling, well design, drilling, and monitoring.

DOGAMI does anticipate using data from this stratigraphic test well to support reservoir modeling. We recommend that data collection during drilling be optimized to capture reservoir modeling inputs such as permeability, relative permeability, and capillary pressure. This information will form the foundation of any

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 subsequent modeling efforts and help ensure that future design and monitoring decisions are based on robust, site-specific data.

Class VI / Materials

& Design Basis Questions

Are proposers expected to preserve wellbore geometry and casing design compatibility for future pulsed-neutron logging, DAS/DTS fiber deployment, or permanent downhole monitoring instrumentation?

Agency Response:

Thank you for your question. We are considering current test well design choices with the intention of preserving flexibility for future modeling, well design, drilling, and monitoring. Although specific monitoring technologies have not yet been selected, we encourage proposers to describe in their proposals how their conceptual well designs could support future deployment of pulsed‑neutron logging tools, fiber‑optic DAS or DTS systems, or other permanent downhole monitoring instrumentation.

Proposers are welcome to identify any design features, materials, completion approaches, or access pathways that would help maintain compatibility with these types of monitoring options. While not all proposals will be able to accommodate every technology, it is helpful for us to understand the extent to which designs can preserve optionality for future monitoring needs

& Design Basis Questions

Does DOGAMI anticipate future EPA Region 10 review of the well design as part of a broader CCS site characterization effort?

Agency Response:

At this stage, DOGAMI is focused on drilling the stratigraphic test well and collecting detailed subsurface information. We have not yet initiated any formal EPA Region 10 review processes related to Class VI or broader CCS site characterization. The primary goal of the test well is to improve our understanding of the local geology, pressure conditions, fluid chemistry, and reservoir properties.

If the data from the test well indicate that the subsurface conditions are suitable for potential CO₂ sequestration or mineralization, DOGAMI would be interested in exploring future CCS-related evaluations. In that scenario, the information collected from the test well would support any future technical discussions with EPA Region 10.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Proposers are encouraged to design their approaches with an understanding that the test well may, depending on results, contribute to future CCS planning efforts.

Class VI / Materials

& Design Basis Questions

Should proposers design contingency monitoring well materials assuming long-term exposure to CO₂ (dry, wet, or CO₂-rich brines), and are corrosion-resistant alloys or CO₂-resistant materials expected?

Agency Response:

Because this well is not currently planned as an injection well and the injection method has not yet been determined, the immediate requirement is to ensure that the cement and casing in the potential injection or reservoir interval have appropriate corrosion resistance. For basalt settings, this generally means assuming exposure to wet CO₂ or CO₂‑rich brines rather than dry CO₂.

Although decisions about CO₂ injection cannot be made until we have results from the stratigraphic test well, we are considering long‑term monitoring needs as part of our planning efforts. If the downhole conditions prove suitable for future CO₂ sequestration or mineralization, it would be beneficial for the well design to allow for long‑term monitoring applications.

Proposers are encouraged to describe how their material selections or design concepts could support potential long‑term monitoring under CO₂‑rich conditions, while still recognizing that final determinations will depend on the site‑specific information gathered from the test well.

See also the EPA's Class VI Well Construction Guidance (May 2012) for recommended best practices regarding material compatibility. These resources are the current authoritative references on casing metallurgy

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Drilling Program Questions

Does DOGAMI maintain a list of prequalified or preferred drilling contractors, or should proposers assume a fully open competitive procurement across all service providers.

Agency Response:

DOGAMI maintains its vendor registrations through OregonBuys, which serves as the statewide procurement system. However, this project will follow an open and fully competitive procurement process. Proposers should therefore assume that all qualified drilling contractors and service providers may compete, regardless of whether they are currently listed in OregonBuys.

We encourage all interested firms to ensure their vendor information is up to date in OregonBuys, but inclusion in that system does not represent prequalification or preferred status for this solicitation.

Drilling Program

Questions

Does DOGAMI have a preferred conceptual well architecture or target casing program for the 8,200-ft scenario?

Agency Response:

DOGAMI does not have a preferred conceptual well architecture or target casing program for the depth scenarios:

3,000ft, 5,000 ft, and 8,200 ft. As part of this solicitation, proposers are expected to develop and present their own conceptual well plan and well design based on the information provided and their professional judgment.

Your proposed well architecture should reflect your technical approach, anticipated subsurface conditions, and any design considerations you believe are important for drilling, data collection, and potential future adaptability.

Drilling Program

Questions

Are proposers expected to optimize borehole diameter for future injection testing capability?

Agency Response:

At this stage, the planned well is a stratigraphic test well, and its primary purpose is to collect subsurface data.

We are not designing it as an injection well at this time. However, we do want to maintain flexibility in case the downhole conditions identified during testing indicate that the site could support future CO₂ sequestration or related pilot activities.

Proposers are not required to optimize borehole diameter specifically for future injection testing, but we encourage proposers to describe any design choices that would help preserve future optionality. This may include considerations that keep open the possibility of adapting the well for monitoring or additional evaluation if the test‑well results support that direction.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Drilling Program

Questions

What minimum coring intervals or recovery percentages are anticipated?

Agency Response:

To help orient prospective proposers, DOGAMI has shared a recorded overview within OregonBuys that walks through the RFP and provides background on the regional geology for the project area. These materials offer a helpful starting point for identifying the public data sources available in the region. Proposers are encouraged to use those references, along with other public state and federal data repositories, to access any dataset they consider relevant.

You’ll also find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in proposal development.

Drilling Program

Questions

Are wireline coring systems acceptable?

Agency Response:

Proposers who wish to use wireline coring should describe the approach in their proposal and provide justification for both the method and the associated cost. We encourage proposers to explain how their selected coring method supports data quality, operational efficiency, and overall project objectives.

Drilling Program

Questions

Does DOGAMI have offset drilling data regarding ROP, bit wear, lost circulation, interflow rubble zones, or unstable intervals within the CRBG?

Agency Response:

To help orient prospective proposers, DOGAMI has shared a recorded overview within OregonBuys that walks through the RFP and provides background on the regional geology for the project area. These materials offer a helpful starting point for identifying the public data sources available in the region. Proposers are encouraged to use those references, along with other public state and federal data repositories, to access any dataset they consider relevant.

You’ll also find within the “Proposal Video Link.pdf” available in OregonBuys offers additional background reference information. These resources are intended to support understanding of the subsurface and aid in

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Drilling Program

Questions

What deviation tolerance is acceptable for the wellbore?

Agency Response:

Thank you for your inquiry. DOGAMI has not established a specific deviation tolerance for this well. Because this is a stratigraphic test well, our primary objective is to collect high‑quality geological and geophysical data. We recognize that some deviation is expected in any drilled well, and acceptable tolerances will depend on the contractor’s proposed drilling plan, tools, and survey controls.

We encourage proposers to identify in their proposal the deviation tolerance they consider appropriate for a stratigraphic test well and to describe how their proposed drilling methods, survey approach, and quality‑control measures will ensure that the wellbore remains suitable for data collection and any potential future monitoring needs. Proposers can explain how their selected tolerance supports operational safety, data quality, and well objectives

Drilling Program

Questions

Is the well expected to remain vertical for future logging/testing compatibility?

Agency Response:

Yes. The well is expected to remain vertical to support the full range of planned logging and testing activities. A vertical wellbore will help ensure compatibility with standard wireline logging tools, future data acquisition needs, and any potential long‑term monitoring applications. Proposers should design their drilling approach and survey plan to maintain verticality within reasonable industry tolerances for a stratigraphic test well.

Drilling Program

Questions

Are there minimum QA/QC standards or data acceptance criteria (e.g., for logs, core recovery, pressure data) that will be used to evaluate deliverable completeness?

Thank you for your thoughtful question. DOGAMI does not have predefined minimum QA or QC standards or specific data-acceptance criteria for logs, core recovery, pressure measurements, or other deliverables. Our goal is to ensure that the data collected from the test well are reliable and can be used confidently for geological interpretation and potential future modeling.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

We ask proposers to clearly describe the QA and QC procedures they apply to their own equipment, tools, and data acquisition methods. This includes explaining how data quality is verified, how measurement accuracy is maintained, and how the proposer ensures confidence in the data they generate. Transparency in your internal QA and QC processes will help us understand how you validate your data and how you ensure that the information provided meets industry expectations for accuracy and completeness.

Logging & Reservoir Testing Questions

Should hydraulic testing and LOT/XLOT testing be assumed in open hole, cased hole, or both?

Agency Response:

For this project, testing should be assumed in open hole. Because this is a stratigraphic test well, it is important for us to understand the natural formation responses without the influence of casing or cement. Open‑hole testing will provide the most reliable information on formation pressure, stress conditions, injectivity, and mechanical properties.

The data collected from these open‑hole tests will be used to evaluate site suitability and to support reservoir simulations related to potential CO₂ sequestration and mineralization. Although no injection is planned at this stage, the open‑hole testing results are essential for determining whether the subsurface conditions could support future CO₂ studies

Logging & Reservoir Testing Questions

Does DOGAMI anticipate borehole image logging as a mandatory deliverable or optional enhancement?

Agency Response:

Although borehole image logging is not required for test (stratigraphic) wells, it would support future CO₂ storage development in the region if results show the site is suitable for sequestration and mineralization.

When downhole conditions indicate favorable potential for CO₂ sequestration, the EPA requires borehole image logs or FMI logs before applying for a Class VI well permit. Permit applicants must demonstrate an understanding of fracture networks or faulting through comprehensive site characterization. This includes using borehole image logs (e.g., FMI, optical/acoustic televiewers) to visualize subsurface structural features and verify the absence or presence of fault and fracture pathways

Image logs or FMI logs play a key role in this process by allowing detailed mapping of fractures and faults intersecting the wellbore, which is considered helpful information essential for evaluating containment integrity and long-term storage safety

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Logging & Reservoir Testing Questions

Are proposers allowed to substitute alternative fracture characterization methods if borehole conditions prevent high-quality FMI acquisition?

Agency Response:

Yes, proposers are allowed to substitute alternative fracture characterization methods if borehole conditions prevent high quality FMI acquisition. We encourage proposers to recommend the tools or methods they believe will best characterize the fracture network under the expected conditions.

Including these recommendations in the proposal helps us understand your technical approach, gives DOGAMI options, and ensures we have reliable fracture characterization even if standard FMI data cannot be obtained

Logging & Reservoir Testing Questions

Are there minimum pressure falloff duration requirements for hydraulic testing?

Agency Response:

Yes. Oregon’s regulations set clear minimum durations:

• Test (stratigraphic) wells (OAR 690‑210‑0370): Require a minimum 1‑hour yield and drawdown test, with drawdown monitored throughout.

• Flowing artesian/deep aquifer wells (OAR 690‑217‑0030): Must be shut in for at least 16 hours, during which pressure is recorded at least three times, each reading at least 20 minutes apart.

For insights from deep-zone hydraulic testing, the Wallula Basalt Pilot program provides a good reference.

Following well completion around 2009, reservoir pressure was monitored from June 2009 through December 2010, with multiple hydrologic well tests performed to characterize hydraulics and boundary conditions 23.

(Wallula Phase II Hydrologic Characterization Report)

This shows that while Oregon rules establish baseline test durations, projects targeting deeper formations often conduct longer-term monitoring to fully understand reservoir response.

Logging & Reservoir Testing Questions

Should transient testing assume single-zone or multi-zone packer isolation?

Agency Response:

Proposers have full flexibility to design and justify their testing approach to best match site geology. The Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG) features multiple interbedded flow units, each with unique hydraulic behavior. A https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=178842 https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_690-217-0025 https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-ii-hydrolic-report

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026 multi‑zone (straddle‑packer) isolation setup is often preferred, as it enables accurate, zone‑specific pressure and permeability measurements.

In your proposal, clearly explain:

• Which isolation method you recommend (single‑ or multi‑zone)

• How it aligns with CRBG’s stratigraphy

• How it will improve characterization of individual flow zones and reservoir responses

This approach allows each proposer to advocate for their testing strategy while showing it is tailored to the geological setting.

Regulatory & Contractual

Is there consideration to drill the well under a Class II permit?

In Oregon, DEQ regulates these under OAR 340‑044, and DOGAMI oversees related drilling under OAR 632‑010.

The well permit is currently intended to meet both OAR 632‑010 and OAR 632-015-0010 compliance as a Class II or Class V well.

The “information hole” designation is the path that aligns best with project goals and regulatory pathways. Please note this drilling project does not involve actual CO₂ injection but will allow DOGAMI to obtain data to assess if CO₂ injection is feasible in the future.

Communications

Question

Oregon does not have primacy from the federal UIC program, has a Class VI application process started?

Agency Response:

Thank you for this forward-looking question. Correct, Oregon does not currently have primacy authority for the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI program. Currently, the EPA retains direct permitting authority for Class VI wells in Oregon.

Because this project involves only drilling an information well and does not involve CO₂ injection, the focus is on site characterization and feasibility. EPA’s Class VI regulations (40 CFR 146.81 and following) and guidance stress conducting thorough geologic and hydrologic investigation before submitting a Class VI application.

https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_chapter_632_division_10 https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_632-015-0010

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Communications

Question

To what extent are proposers expected to support preparation of permit applications (DSL, OWRD, environmental), versus DOGAMI retaining full responsibility? Will DOGAMI require transfer of all raw vendor data and proprietary processing outputs, including third-party wireline contractor datasets?

Agency Response:

DOGAMI will retain full responsibility submitting all permit applications, including coordination with DSL for land access. Please note that proposers are expected to provide drilling plans that will be part of the permit documents. The awardee will work in partnership to provide technical details, descriptions of planned activities, and any supporting information DOGAMI may need to complete state permit packages accurately.

Regarding data, DOGAMI will require access to all datasets necessary to use and interpret results for modeling purposes. Datasets must be provided in formats suitable for technical evaluation and potential future reservoir simulations. PDF outputs alone will not be sufficient. DOGAMI will require digital files, logs, and processed data products that allow full usability of the results, including wireline contractor data and any proprietary processing outputs produced under the contract.

Communications

Question

How will differing subsurface conditions (e.g., severe lost circulation, unstable interflow zones, unexpected overpressure, or excessive bit consumption) be handled contractually?

Agency Response:

These situations will be addressed during contract negotiations after a bidder is selected. DOGAMI understands that subsurface conditions in the Columbia River Basalt Group can vary significantly, and conditions such as lost circulation or unstable interflow zones may require adjustments to drilling plans or cost structures. Because of this, the specific contractual treatment of these scenarios will be finalized once we are able to discuss technical approaches directly with the selected contractor.

In the meantime, proposers should include in their proposal a plan for how they would identify, manage, and mitigate challenging subsurface conditions. This includes describing their technical approach, contingency strategies, and any assumptions that would guide decision‑making. These plans will help inform negotiations and ensure both parties have a clear understanding of how differing subsurface conditions may affect project execution.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Communications

Question

How will DOGAMI manage technical integration and decision-making across multiple contractors (drilling, logging, testing), and who holds final authority for operational sequencing and safety decisions?

Agency Response:

Thank you for your question. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) will retain overall project oversight and final authority for contract administration, technical acceptance, and project decisions.

Please note that there is still an expectation to work with an on-site Rig Manager (Toolpusher) that provides oversite on safety and compliance, operational oversight, crew management, and general administration throughout the duration of the project. DOGAMI can expand on expectations around on-site operations during the negotiation period with the awardee.

Procurement

If applicable, could DOGAMI please provide the bonding requirements mentioned in the Cover Letter section on page 8 of the RFP?

Agency Response:

Bonding requirements will be addressed during contract development and prior to final contract execution. At this stage of the solicitation process, proposers should prepare proposals in accordance with the requirements and contract template included in the RFP.

Procurement

Questions

What is the anticipated contract term and start date?

Agency Response:

The August 2026 to June 2027 drilling window identified in the RFP reflects DOGAMI’s current planning assumptions. This window provides flexibility to accommodate seasonal conditions, weather, site access, permitting timelines, contractor availability, and other operational considerations that may influence drilling operations.

DOGAMI does not intend to set a fixed drilling start date at this stage. Instead, the final drilling schedule will be developed collaboratively with the selected awardee during contract negotiations. Proposers are encouraged to identify reasonable scheduling preferences, sequencing recommendations, and any anticipated constraints within their proposals. This information will help inform the final schedule once an award is made.

Question and Responses – DOGAMI RFP 2026-0401: Addendum 02 05/26/2026

Procurement

Questions

What is the anticipated contract value?

Agency Response:

DOGAMI is seeking proposer pricing for multiple drilling depth ranges, technical approaches, and optional services as identified in the RFP. As a result, the final contract value has not yet been determined and will depend on the selected scope, technical approach, and negotiated final contract terms.