• Current regulation prohibiting the co-mingling of groundwater may conflict with CBM/NGC development objectives

• The need to protect current water users who obtain the water from coal zones that may be targeted for CBM/NGC development

• The anticipated need, in some cases, for de-watering coal zones for CBM/NGC development, verses protection (sustainability) of the aquifers

energy development projects in the area most

likely have not adversely affected Ms. Lauridsen’s water well.

Overall conclusion from Alberta Research Council review of Lauridsen Water

well Complaint: Dec 20, 2007The Alberta research Council’s overall

conclusion of the evidence from the review of the AENV and AEUB files, along with a new review and evaluation of additional data and aspects, is that energy development projects in the area most likely have not adversely affected Ms. Lauridsen’s water well.

• cyclopropane• isobutene• 1-butene• butane• 2,2,dimethyl propane• isopentane• pentane• 2,2 dimethyl butane• 3-methylenecyclohexene• 2,3 dimethyl butane• 2 methyl pentane• 3 methyl pentane• 2 methyl-1-pentene• hexane• methylcyclopentane• cyclohexane• benzene• 2,2,4 trimethylpentane• 1-heptene• heptane• 2,4,4 trimethylpentane• methylcyclohexane

• 2,3,4 trimethylpentane• toluene• trans-1-butyl-2-methylcyclopropane• 4- octane• octane• ethyl-2-hexene-1• chlorobenzene,d5• ethylbenzene• m,p xylene• o xylene• nonane• isopropyl benzene• alpha pinene• 4 methylcyclohexene• 2-decene• cis-4-decene• 5, methyl- 4-nonene• 1-decene• 5-decene• tridecane• 4, methylene, 5,hexen-2-ol

• 1-octene• 4-methylcyclohexanone• 3 methylene heptane• 6 methyl 2 phenylindole• 2,amino cyclopentane methanamine• 2,4, hexadien-1-ol• 1-nitropiperadine• pentyl, cyclopentane• 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene• 2,methyl 1-decanol• 2,2,4,6,6 pentamethyl 3-heptene

Samples collected by AENV(Nov 2- 06) analysed by Alberta Research Council

* BTEX * Indicators of

petroleum contamination

• The Alberta research Council’s overall conclusion of the evidence from the review of the AENV and AEUB files, along with a new review and evaluation of additional data and aspects, is that energy development projects in the area most likely have not adversely affected

Ms. Signer’s water well.

Overall conclusion from Alberta Research Council review of the

Signer Water well Complaint: Dec 31, 2007

Well selection – ARC Review Lauridsen Water Well Complaint Dec 20, 2007

Some of the wells tested have questionable quality data.

Data from CBM wells from Township 45, Ranges 20 and 21, was used to compare the Lauridsen well carbon isotopes to typical deeper CBM well carbon isotopes.

Lauridsen Water well complaint review

-80 -76 -72 -68 -64 -60 -56 -520

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 8 data using entry order as inARC review. Visually Lau-ridsen value appears to lie outside of the range of CBM values

D35 WellsLauridsen WellGown WellCBM WellsConv. Gas

-80 -76 -72 -68 -64 -60 -56 -520

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 8 data. Altering the order of entering the data in the programhelps this chart show Lauridsen value overlaps with CBM values.

Conv. GasCBM WellsGown WellsD35 WellsLauridsen

δ13C Methane

-80 -76 -72 -68 -64 -60 -56 -520

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9Figure 8 data -same order as ARC Review

D 35 wellLauridsenGown WellCBM wellsConv. Gas

-80 -76 -72 -68 -64 -60 -56 -520

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 8 data- different positions in legend

LauridsenD35 WellsGown WellsCBM WellsConv. Gas

δ13C Methane