7. 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

8. 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, 2007 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. Lauridsen’s water well.

10. 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

11. 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

13. 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.