ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTWATEHWELL

COMPLAINT REVIEWS.SUMMARY REPORT

Fonnatted:Deletd! SUMtilAnYOF

Formatted: Indent: Left: 3'

Prepared by:Alexander Blyth, P.Geol., Ph.D.

Alberta Research Council lnc.Permit to Practice P03619

Prepared for:

Alberta Environment10th Floor Oxbridge Place

9820 - 106 S:treetEdmonton, Alberta TsK 2J6

December 30,2007

Contact lnformation:Alec BlythAlberta Research Council lnc.3608

- 33 Slreet NW

Galgary, Alberta T2L 2A6

DECEMEER 30. 2OO7

Phone: 403-21G5345E-mall: blyh @arc.ab.ca

ALBERTA REsEAFcx Couucil hrc.

SUMMARY OF WATER WELI- COMPTAINT REVIEWS

ALBERTA RESEAFCH COUNCIL INC.

StlMt{aay oF WATER wE-L coirpr.Arwr REvrEws

12

34

567

TABLE OFCONTENTS

TNTRODUCTTON .......................3CENTRAL PLANS REGTONALSETTTNG ...........22.1 GEoLoGtcAL FoRMATtoNs..... ......................... 22.2 REGToNAL STRess Ree rue .. ........................... Z2.3 Gnouruownre@nrcIEElS4cs ..................2CoALBED METHANE tN SOUTHERN ALBERTA ....................9WATER WELL COMPLAINTS

LISTOF FIGURES

Figurc I CBM Potential and CBM Well Locations in Alberta ........5,Flgure 2 Flowchart of the Overall Water Well Complalnt Response Process...................... 9 ' 'Flgurc 3 Piper plot of complainant and D35 water wells.Flgurc 4 Hlstogrem of carbon lsotope valugs of methane.Flgurc 5 Methane concrntration versus 6l3C of methane..Figurc 6 Histogram of cqqbon tsotope vatues of ethane. .......... l4 '. .'.Flgurc 7 Mixing plot of 6trC of methane versus the methane/C2+ ratio............................. lli '. '.

Deld:lDdTd! GEOLOG]C ANDHYPROGEOLOGIC

Ddcted!,Ddeted:1Deletdr 1Dlebd! HYDHoSTRAT|GRAPHY AtrDDdd: FLOWANOGHADIENTSDeltd! 1Del&d!1Ddetd:1Ddeied:1DeleE:1Deleted:1Ddetd: rDdetd:1Dddcd!lDdeH:1Ddeted: IDelsted! tDdeted:1DeleH: IDdetd:1Ddeted: I

..

i'.r\4.2 NATUHEoFWATERWE[CoMeI-AINTs........... .9 J,',.,..4.3 ALBERTA ENVTRoNMENT CoMpt-AtNT PRocEss AND HRruouruo..... .............. e \" '.'SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE WATER WELL COMPLAINTSCONCLUSIONS OF WATER WELL INVESTIGATIONSt{f.tr{rl:Ii

Ll'..

SUMMABY OF WATEF WR I CO'{PIAMT REVIEWS DECEMBFR 3{) 2OO7 Q,Y1 INTRODUCNONAlberta Research Council (ARC) was contracted by Alberta Environment (AENV) to conductfour reviews of complaints about coalbed methane (CBM) activities affecting pdvate water wells.ARC undertook these reviews for AENV to independently assess the scientific evidence andprovide conclusions identifying whether or not the water wells had been impacted by CBM orconventional oil/gas extraction activities. This report summarizes ABC's reviews and

. conclusions of these four water well complaints. The summary report discusses the regional ,t'

I geology and.oroundwater characteristics of the Central Plains region of Albena where the 'I complaints originated from, gives a brief overview of CBM activity in the area,and discusses the ,'I nature of watel well complaints and potential impacts of CBM on water welts, Furthermore the 'I reoort discusses the specific lines of evidence used in the reviews of the wel! complaints and t

gives overall conclusions of the ARC water well complaint investigation. i

2 CENTRAL PLATNS REGTONALSETTTNG

The Central Plains reoion of Alberta is found within the Western Canada Sedimentarv Basin.

contain aouifers with non-saline (fresh) water. Current laWs and reoulations with resoect to oiland oas develooment serve to orotect non-saline oroundwater resources above the BGP.

2.1 Geological Formations

2.2 RegionalStressRegime(Start with a basic definition/exolanation of stress reoime. one sentence). The stress regime ofupperpoaFbearing strata in Albefia Unsert depth ranoel has a strong correlation to permeabilityand fracture dlrections in coal (face cleats). This in tum has a strong control on the direction that'fluids" (both gas and oroundwater) tend to migrate in these strata. Studies have shown thatfracturesJine up in--certain directions due to reoional stres Jn Alberta the most likelyorientation of the predomlnant fractures (face cleats) in the coal would be about 55' E of N(aoproximatelv southwest to northeast)-

2.g,Groundwater --Gharacteri stics (H vd rooeoloqv)

Regional groundwater flow systems across the Albeila Basin are controlled, in part, by highareas along the Rocky Mountain front in western niberta where precipitation water enterspermeable rock (recharge zones). ln general, regional groundwater flow within the basin is

Ddeted! hydroEeologyDelefied: discusses

Deletd:,DdTd! GEOLOGIC ANDHYDROGEOLOGlC

Dli:leltedi rne Cental Phlns reglonof Aheda ls found wlthln he WestsmCanada Sedimenhry Basin. Earlysedlmentary deposltlon wasdomlnatsd by madne carbonabs,vaporatos and shale. Uplift ot theRocky MounEln6 dposited coal-tiearing sandsone and shab lnto thedevloplng basln. Psat accumuhllonpEvlded he source malerlalforhemalor codFbeadng strah lncludlnglhe Manvllle, Blly Rfuor, Edmonbn(including ihe Ho'seshoe CanyonFomadon) and he Scolhnl (Anlley).ln th6 Cent al Reglon the Manvillecoab occur bglow lhe base olgroundwabr prolection and wr notpart ol any wellcomplalntlnvestlgatons. A descrlptlon of thegeology and hydrogeologyencounbrd abov lhe base ofgoundwabr protectlon ln lhe @nualReglon of Abe& Is as follows:llibrmattedr Normal Left, unespaclng: slngle

FomEtted! Fbnt ltallcDdd! B6lly Fiver GroupllThe deepest geologic unlt rlwant tothe walbr wsllcomplalnt ravlews wasihq Belly Rlver Oroup. The uppEr part(Oldmad Formauon) of the Belly RlverGroup conslsb of sandslonos,slltsbnes and coal (Lethbrldgo)deposited ln floodphln and lakeenvlrcnmants (B6aton et al. 2002).tl1lBeapaw FomatlonflA 6ea level rls6 deposlled ,ine-grained madne sedlments ol heBearpaw Forfiatbn dhectly onb theBeny Rtuer Group. Ths sgdlmentsale prdomlnanty shale and silbtone,wffir some EanGbne beds andclayston (Macdonald et al. I gf:mDdctd! Cretaceous

- Teiliarv

Formatd: Font: IbllcHetd! Rock mechanlcs theoryand lleld measuEmenb shows

Ddetd! tsendDdetd:aDdted: parallel to he graEstcompressfue Btress. HorLonhl stressoipntrlions ln Alberta have bs(lTtiDeleH:.Deld: HydrostratlgrEphy andDeletd: Flow and Gradlents

ALEERTA RESEARCH COI.INCIL INC.

G:9controlled by topography and is directed northeast towards the basin edge (Hitcheon 1969a, b).However, groundwater flow in upper rocks in the south-western part of the basin is directedsouth-westward,finsert simoler exolanationl. Regionally, the Scollard and Paskapoo formationsact as in aquifer system (a rock unit that transmits usable amounts of water) above the regionalBattle-Whitemud aquitard (a rock unit that does not transmit water). Bslow this the HorseshoeCanyon Formation acts as an aquifer above the Bearpaw Formation aquitard. Below theBearpaw,theupperBellyRiverFormationactsasanaquileL@

ln the Wetaskiwin area, groundwater flow in the Paskapoo-Scollard aquifer, where mostdomestic wells are completed, is directed to the northeast (Bachu and Michael2002). The areais relatively flat-lying and horizontal gradients (the driving force for water) are low. The hydraulicconductivity (permeability to groundwater flow) of the rock is expected to be low to intermediateand yields from wells in this area are expected to be 5 to 25 imperial gallons per minute (LeBreton 1971). There is a groundwater divide (hiqh point in oroun in the deeperHorseshoe Canyon aquifer in the area and water will flow both to the northeast and southwestawav from the divide (Bachu and Michael2002).ln the Rosebud/Hedland area, shallow groundwater flow withinlheJpp@g! Quaternary sandand gravel-ljryg!-9lg!fuggg! is directed towards the Rosebud River by gravity. Regionalgroundwater flow in the Horseshoe Canyon aquifer (including the Carbon Thompson andWeaver coals where most domestic wells are completed) is directed to the northeast (Bachuand Michael 2002). The hydraulic conductivity of the rock is expected to be low to intermediateand yields from wells in this area are expected to be 1 to 5 imperial gallqns per minute (Borneuf .1972). ln the deeper (below 200 m) Horseshoe Canyon Formation permeabilitles for coals are,very low- Completion data from the energy wells in the area suggest that the coals (with theexception of the upper Carbon Thompson and Weaver members of the Horsqshoe Canyon) arenot water saturated based on pressure measurements and water production data.

Regionally grounduvater flow in the Belly River aquifer is directed to the southwest due tq(nossibP re-word base on orevious edit\. Coal permeability is et

SUMMAFY oF WATEn WaL coirprrrNT FlEvrEWs DECEMBEH 30. 2OO7

Allthe southem half of Alberta has potential for NGC (natural gas j4coal), also known as CBM(coalbed methane). This oas mostlv contains mpthane and ethane (with small amounts ofpropane and butane) which are adsorbed to the surface of fractures and gilflin the matrix of thecoal. Gas is produced by depressurizing (or dewatedng if water is present) the coal seam toallow the gas to desorb and flow to the well. A typical Horseshoe Canyon CBM well involvesdrllling and cementing a surface casing to a depth below non-saline water-bearing aquifers,drilling to the GBM zone, installation and cementing of a production casing, perforation of theproduction casing at the zone of interest, followed by fractudng (stimulation) with 100% nitrogento remove drilling damage in the well bore.,There are three main zones for CBM (Figure 1). The oldest and deepest is the Manville whichconsists of thick coal seams along with shale, siltstone and sandstone at a depth of about 1050metres below ground surface (Yurko 1975). This formation contains saline water (Hitchon andFriedman 1969) and approximately 822 wells have been completed in this formation (as ofDecember 31,2003J,!p!h!tg mpp:eS

- AEUB). The next zone is the Horseshoe Canyon

and Belly River Formations which contain coals deposited in lake, delta and river environments.(how manv CBM wells to date?). The shallowest coal (Carbon Thompson membE0 occurq at adepth of about 100 to 500 m in the central part of the province (Beaton et al, 2002). TheHorseshoe Canyon and Belly River Fomations are generally considered dry, but the uppermostmembers (Calbon Thompson and Weaver) sometimes contain non-saline water (Lemay andKonhauser 2006). This is the main target of CBM operations in Alberta with 9,762 well as ofDecember 31, 2006. The Ardley coal zone is the youngest CBM zone and occuls at a depth of100to600m'Thiscoaloftencontainsnon.salinewaleL@

ALBEHTA RESETRCH COUNCIL INc.

Delted! fomDeletd: MDelefied: and

Delefied:

Fonnatted: Font: Ibllc

Fomatted: Fonti Ibllc

SUMMAHY oFWATEH WE r c6Mpl ^rffi

Flililc DFCFMRFE IN ,NO7

sr S5

Figure 1 CBM Potential and CBM Well Locations in Albeda.(.Consider cross section as welh

4 WATER WELL COMPLAINTS4.1 Inltiation of Water Well Complaints

The lqwater well complaints reviewed by ARC were initiated in a number of ways. Thelandowner complaints were often presented directly to industry (to local personnel or in publicmeetings). Landowners sometimes contacted AENV, EUB, local health unit, or others (e.9.other govemment representatives, the media). Often, more than one authodty was contactedwith the complaint. ln one case, the complaint was inltiated through the media and AENVcontacted the landowner to initiate and investigation.

4.2 Nafure of WaterWellComplaintsAllthe water well complaints reviewed by ARC were water quality related. Specific water qualitycomplaints included:

e Livestock refusing waterr Methane gas in waterr lncreased methane gas in water (pipes banging and taps'spurting" more)o Mineral and bacteria deposits in well and plumbing system

ALBERTA RESEAFCH CoUNCIL INc,

Fonnatted! LeftFormattd! Font: Ibllc

SUMMARY OF WATEB WELL COMPLAINT REVTEWS DECEMBER 30.2OO7

4.8 Aberta Environment Complalnt Process and HandtingA flowchart of AENV's overall water well complaint response process is presented on Figure 2.Typically, water well complaints are received and dealt with through AENV by its Complianceand lnspection staff. The Departments three regions operate a Central Complaint Line and tollfree number (1-800-222-6514) to log the complaint and initiate a file and an investigation.Phone calls are expected to be retumed within 24 hours of the initial complaint. A file will alsobe opened if the complaint is reported to the AENV by an outside party that received the originalcomplaint, such as a company or the EUB. AENV may be involved through communicationswith the company or complainant, at.various stages in the process.

When a complaint is received by the EUB, its procedure is to forward the complaint to the EUBEnvironment Group, who then contacts the landowner to discuss the complaint. The EUB willthen refer the owner to the AENV 1-800 number, and provide follow-up, support, or act as acontact as needed/requested.

When AENV is involved, an investigator contacts the complainant with respect to the issue. lfthe investigator can identify the water well problem and recommend a solution by phone (basedon the complaint and the investigato/s experience), this will be done. lf there is insufficientinformation, the incident is loooed and the investioative process is initiated- ln some cases, thecompany may initiate its own investigation. AENV wlll direct the company and its consultants inthe data gathering and evaluation phase until reasonable certainty is obtained to resolve the

Figure 2 Flowchart of the OverallWaterWell Complaint Response Process

Although the overall response process descdbed above is applicable in a general sense, AENVdoes not have a specific, documented response process, with required tasks, and decisionpoints to directjhe investioative orocess or the involved parties. Data gathering and evaluationdecisions are made somewhat subjectively based on experience of investigators and responseALBEBTA RESEASCH CoUNoIL INc.

Dltd: an Investlgalion wlll belnltaled.

Deleted: lnvestigations

-b-

palticipants. Specific responsibilities of AENV towards the companies and/or to water wellowners are not clearly delineated, and appear to vary between complaints. The process alsomay not advance when certainty of one pafiy may be different than another and resolutioncannot proceed.

ln addition, although a resolution may be reached by the lnvestigators involved, if the owner isnot satisfied with the proposed resolution, the complaint may be remade to another person orbody. The level of owner satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the proposed iesolution may berelated to outstanding non-scientific issues such as trust or acceptance of scientific rationale;lack of understanding; and/or the desires of the owner, among others. Where the ownercontinues with the complalnt, there may not be a clear path for eventual resolution.

5 SCIENTIFIG EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE WATER WELL COMPLAINTS

the importance of each is below.

1) Geological and hydrogeological controls on groundwater flow and contaminant transportThe geological controls on groundwater flow are important to understand at both the local andregional scale. Locatly, geological units can direct water flow from the surface or shatlowgroundwater into a water well resulting in impact to water quality. Regionally, the geology exertscontrol on the location and movement of CBM_ggg. lt is necessary to understand thepermeability; of the aquifers and the driving force (gradient) between aquifers to determine thefate and transport of CBM gas. A review of the local and regional geology and hydrogeology(including rock permeabili$ and gradients) was performed for each of the well complaints.

2) Surounding Energy Well lnformationIt is impoilant to examlne energy wells ln the vicinity of a well complaint to determine if anyproblems were encountered during ddlling or completion of the well. Energy wells within a 1.5km radius of the well complaints were examined using data available from the AEUB and areview of the tour reports by AEUB and ARC. Energy wells that lined up with the complainantwater well and the predominant regional fracture direction were examined. Additional wellsoutside the 1.5 km radius were reviewed if they were specifically identified by a complainant or ifthey had any unusual drilling or completion aspects relevant to the complaints.

3) WaterWd Construction and MaintenanceThe construction methods used to install the complainantsl water,lvells were evaluated whereinformation existed. Well construction and sealing methods vary widely between drillers andcertain methods are more approprtate in some geological and hydrogeological situations. Thecurrent condition of the wells and the maintenance regime followed by the complainant wasexamined and evaluated to see if they were relevant to the problems reported for the well.

4) Major lon Chemistry

Deleted: (bolh natrral and inducgd)

DeleEd: well

ALEEHTA RESEAFGH CoUNcIL INc.

SUMMARY oF WATER WE-L CorrpurNT FEuEws DECEMEER 30. 2OO7

, Historical water analyses of the major ion chemistry for the complainant wells was compared to

I analyses performed during the well investigations. Maior ions include..... Changes in the maiorions chemistry can be indicative of changes to the well (such as casing failure) or wideispreadchanges to the aquifer chemistry (such as mixing caused by energy extraction activities). Eachwater well complaint was also compared to between 105 and 145 nearby water wells from theAENV database (collected under the AEUB Directive 35) to look for differences and similaritiesbetween water types.

5) Dissolved Organic ChemistryDissolved organic chemistry (included volatile and extractable priority pollutants (USEPA) andBTEX and F1-F4) was available for all the water wells investigated (but not the D35 waterwells). These analyses can be used to identify the type and source of contamination in a watersample.

6) Free Gas Composition and Carbon lsotope GeochemistryThe presence of free methane gas in water was the primary concerp with the complainants. Thecomposition and ca6on isotope signature of free gas from the water wells was the primary dataused to evaluate the well complaints. The gas composition and carbon lsotope signature of thewells were evaluated using a series of plots and statistically compared to 105 to 145 nearby"D35" water wells from the AENV water well database pollected under the AEUB Directive 3{,(Standard for Bhseline Water Well Testino for Coalbed Methane/Natural Gas in CoalOoerations).

(Short panoraoh on what isotopes are andtell usl

6 CONCLUSTONS OF WATER WELL INVESTIGATIONSThe Albeila Research Council's review of the four AENV complaint file and AEUB data, and ourindependent review of additlonal data and aspects of the complaints provide the followingconclusions, organized into the evidence categories listed above:

1) Geological and hydrogeological controls on groundwater flow and contaminant transpolto The Rosebud/Redland complainant water wells are completed in the Upper

Horseshoe Canyon Formation. ln the Rosebud/Redland area local water wellsappear to be predominantly producing water from the Carbon Thompson andWeaver coals of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. ln the Wetaskiwin area localwater wells appear to be predominately producing water from thePaskapoo/Scollard Formations.

. The deep AENV observation well and CBM drilling and completions recordsindicate that in the Rosebud/Redland and Wetaskiwin areas the coals are notwater saturated below the Weaver coal (i.e. coals are "drf'). Under naturalconditlons, qroundwater flow withln and between these coal zones is expected tobe very limited.

ALBERTA RESEAHCH COIJNCIL INC.

Deleted:Deleted: )

Fonnatted! Font: IbllcFomatd! Fonh lblic

Deleted: GOWN

e

-8-

2)

A local- oeolooical studv indicates the most likely orientation of fractures (facecleats) in the coals would be abolt 055" E of N (aporoximatelv so

' northeastlAn estimate of downward vertical gradient between the water wells and theHorseshoe Canyon CBM zones is approximately 1.0. This represents a largedownward veilical gradient. lf these two zones become connected, water wouldflow downwards into the GBM well rather than up into the water wells.A theoretical evaluation of the potential migration of methane as bubbles from theCBM well to the complainant wells (through an induced fractureggllyfracture stimulation) suggests that the downward flow of groundwater in thefracture would stop the upward migration of methane bubbles.Fluctuations in static water levels were observed in all the complainant wells. Thecause of this fluctuation could be groundwater resource extraction by thecomplainant well or nearby users or from drought. The drop in water level, andcorresponding drop in pressure on the coal zone, can be shown to contribute tothe increase in amount of methane dissolved in the groundwater. This effectwould be even greater during pumping of the wells where the waters level dropmore.

Sunounding Energy Well lnformation. Energy Wells in the vicinity (within 1.5 km) of the complainant water wells have

no apparent drilling and construction issues that would contdbute to methane ordegradation of water quality.

o One CBM well in the Rosebud/Redland area had perforations and fracturing inthe same aquifer that many residential wells are completed in. The connectionbetween these wells has since been removed (well abandoned) and it is unlikelythat these short-lived perforations had any measurable effects on thecomplainant wells at a distance of 1.7 to 3.1 km away.

Water Well Construction and MaintenanceDdlling records indicate the all the complainant wells were drilled using mudrotary rigs. ln all cases

"bentonite and/or cuttings were put in the annulus (openspace) between the borehole and the casing. This method of sealing is notprefened as there is no way to ensure a proper seal the entire length of theannulus. furthermore in the Rosebud area, fine sand and/or gravel encounteredin all the boreholes between 5 and 11 m could have lead to bentonite bridging(sticking caused by water swelling the bentonite) at that point. lt is not clear if theexisting seals provide adequate protection against contamination of water fromground surface entering the well. Several water analyses (discussed below) didindicate coliform bacteria were present and this could indicate a poor seal in theupper part of the wells.Records in the AENV wellcomplalnt files indicate the complainant wells were notregularly shock chlorinated. The well casing of at least one (?) of the wells wggnotingoodcondition@.

Ddeted: ,ock stress

Deleted:.

Ddd:Ddetd: Benbnlte

Deleted: As well

DdeH: someDeleted: ere

3)

ALBERTA RESEAFCH CoUNoIL INc.

SUMMARYoF WATEH WELL CoMPLATNT Fla/rEws DECEMaER 30- 2007

Analyses show the presence of total coliform bacteria in exceedence of themarimum acceptable concentration in three of the four wells evaluated. All threewells had coliform bacteria numbers too numerous to count on at least oneoccasion.One wells had E. Coli bacteria present and in addition, amoebae, flagellates,ciliates and possible water fleas were detected in the water.The bacterial/microbial problems are likely lndicative o, water from groundsurface entedng the well. lt is likely that the source of contamination is quiteclose, rather than from other sources such as drilling fluids used Lor energyJgllgthat were surface-water sourced, becausemost of these organisms generally donot possess the ability to persist long in groundwater environment.

4) Major lon Chemistryo The water well major ion chemistry for the complainant water wells are Na-HCOg

or Na-HCOs-Cl Lwrite our ions as be type water. The complainant water wellchemistries are not unique. They, along withpver 100 other wells in the areas,have Na-HCOs or Na-HCOo-Cl type water and have methane.

r For all the D35 wells in the area sodium-bicarbonate (Na-HCOs) and sodium-bicarbonate-chloride (Na-HCOg-Cl) tlpe waters are strongly associated with thepresence of methane in the water.

ALBERTA RESEAFCH CoUNcIL INc.

Deleted: many

Fomattd: Font: IbllcDeleted: many

@

Figure 3 Piper plot of complainant and D35 water wells. (delete fioure. too hard for qeneralpublic to understand)

The analyses show the complainant well suoolies consistently excee( theaesthetic objectives under the Guidelines for Canadaian Drinkinq Water Qualitvfor total dissolved solids (TDS) and sodium. The maximum acceptableconcentntions for fluodde have sometimes been exceeded. This water chemistryis typical of water wells in these areas. All complainant wells have maximumconcentrations that are within health related liml the Guidelines forCanadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada 2007) with the exception offluodde and coliform bacteria as noted above.

5) Dissolved Organic Chemistryr An analysis for USEPA volatile priority pollutants and extractable priority

oollutants are available for three of the 4 complainant wells. All volatile andextractable organic compounds were below the analytical detection limit withthe exception of two compounds not expected to be related to CBM activities.These compounds, 2-Methyl-2-Propanol (an alcohol) and phthalates(plasticizers) were detected at veru may have comefrom cleaning of the AENV sampling equipment prior to sampling the well andfrom new sample tubing respectively. BTEX and F1-F4 analyses were low or

fuBEHTA HESEARCH CoUNoIL INc.

Ddeted: sDeleted: s

-11-

6)

SUMMARY oF WATEn WELL CoirpLrNT HE\rEl rs DECFMBFF 30- 2OO7

below detection limit. No Canadian Drinking Water Guideline limits wereexceeded for USEPA priodty pollutants or CCME hydrocarbons.

o Dissolved methane analyses were available for the complainant wells withconcentrations ranging from

-11 to 110 mo/l These concentrations are at orabove saturation and methane would be expected to exsolvejlg!!!ry[ fromthe water when exoosed to asurface into a home's water distribution svstem. There is a risk that exsolvedmethane can form an explosive mixture with air within confined spwell shack). A small amount of dissolved ethane (2.2to 3.1 Ug/l) was detectedin three of the for complainant wells.

Free Gas Compositlon and Carbon lsotope Geochemistry

. Free atmospheric and hydrocarbon gas analyses were avallable for allthe complainantwells. All analyses detected the presence of atmospheric gas (nitrogen, orygen andcarbon dioxide), methane (98,000 to 979,000 ppm) and ethane (13 to 300 ppm).

o One analysisllgho was !filg! from one well contained higher order hydrocarbons(propane

= 0.031 ppm, n-butane = 0.008 ppm and i-butane = 0.015 ppm')JPdW,detection limitl. Re-sampling of this well for both free and dissolved hydrocarbonsfound onlyrnethane and ethane?

o The methane carbon isotope.lElA) values for the complaint wells fall within the generalhistogram peak for methane values for all D35 wells (Figure 4). ln other words. thecomolainants' wells had isotope finoerorints similar to # other wells in the area.

. The complainant water wetl data all have 6rsO methane values that are clearly biogenic(6tsO vatues more negative that -60 %" PDB). This means the methane likely formed bvbacteria at a shallow depth. The GBM and conventionat gas wells have 6r3C methanevalues that are less depleted (less neoative) than the typical range for biogenic methane.These values represent a mixed thermogenic and biogenic origin (Figure{).

ALOERTA RESEAFCH CoUNCIL INc.

Delebd! 11,200 io 110,000

Fonnatted: Font: IblicFomatted! Font: Ibllc

Delebd: propane and buhnE.

Deleted! 5

12

10

I

c6

4

2-

0-64 -60

6rrC Methane

Figure 4 Histogram of carbon isotope values of methane. (exoand v axis title

40

45

-50

o--c -cJa

E-roC'-o'Do

-70

-75

-80

:#iOOoo E oon6.ffio o ooo o o

100000 2000@ 300000 400000 500000 60(x)00 700000 800000 900000 1(x)0000

Methane Concentrataon (ppm)

Figure 5 Methane concentration versus 6r3C of methane. Methane with 613C value morenegative than -60 %o is usually considered biogenic in origin. (looks like onlvone CBM well. oublic mav not understand. I would remove this fioure)

. The ethane carbon isotope values for the CBM wells fall within the general histogrampeak for ethane values for all D35 wells in the area (Figure 6).

ALBEFTA RESEARCH CoUNCIL INc.

Format'ted: Normal

-13-

SUMMABY oF WATER WaL CoMPLAINT REuErIvs

. The 6r3C ethane values of all the water wetls are similar to the values of the CBM wells,but concentrations are lower (indicating a different odgin or potential mixing, see nextconclusion point).

pEcEMBERso.2ooT W9

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

6r3c Ethane

lEDa5w"n. --llEComptatnantWels Ilrcgrtr w"rr. Illconv. oas I

IH IEIlf,

rB l$l lfl lfl Iffi I I IH-66 -64 -62 -60 -58 -56 -54 -52 -50 -48 46 -4 -42 40 -38 -34

Figure 6 Histogram of carbon isotope values of ethane.

ALBEFTA RESEAFCH CoUNcIL INc.

I

ri

. The hydrocarbon gas composition and isotopic values can be modified by mixingbetween different sources of gases. For example, hypothetical mixing curves 1 and 2(Figure 7) mix a biogenic gas with typical CBM gas. The two biogenic gas compositionand isotope values were chosen so complainant wells would fall on the curve. Thesecurves show the composition and isotopic value of the complainant wells could beproduced by mixing with 0.5 to 4% CBM gas. While gas mixing is possible, the gascomposition and dr3Or"s,.n. value of the complainant wells is not statistically any differentfrom the average D35 water well values in the areas.

Figure 7 Mixing plot of 613C of methane versus the methane/C2+ ratio.

. A statistical analysis of the methane and ethane ca6on isotope value of the complainantwells, surrounding D35 water wells and energy well in the area show:

1) The carbon isotope value of the methane in the complainant water wells is the same asthe methane isotope signature of the surrounding D35 water wells.

2) The carbon isotope values of the methane in the CBM wells is different than themethane isotope signature of the complainant and surrounding D35 water wells.

3) The carbon isotope value oJ the ethane in the CBM wells is the same as the ethaneisotope value of the complainant and surrounding D35 water wells. This does notindicate the water wells have been lmpacted by ethane from CBM wells. The similaritybetween ethane isotope values is expected // as both the CBM wells and the water wellsare completed in the same formation (but different coal members).lone coulO asX tne1whv is methane ditferent?

- consider re-wordino)

Overall Conclusionr The Alberta Research Council's overall conclusion of the evidence from the reviews of

the AENV and AEUB files, along with a new review and evaluation of addition data and

ALBEFTA RESEARCH CoUNCIL INc.

l.E+06

1.E+05

3 1.E+04os? t.e*osN(.)o 1.E+02

l.E+0.|

1.E+00

D35 WaterwsllsComplalnant Wells

GOWN WellsCBM WellsConv. Gas

Curve 1Curve 2

oEaaA

o o of(r'p o

SUMMARY oFWATEF WELL CoMPLAINT REuan,s DECEMBEB 30.2OO7

aspects, is that energy development projects in the areas most likely have not adverselyaffected the complainant water wells.

7 CLOSUREThis repoil is a summary of four water well complaint reviews carried out by ARC. The reviewsevaluated data from the AENV well complaint files, as well as additional evidence, regardingCoal Bed Methane (CBM) and conventional gas activities undertaken by energy companies andthe subsequent perceived decrease in water quality of the complainant water wells.

This work was carried out in accordance with accepted hydrogeological practices.

Respectfully submitted,Albeila Research CouncilPermit to Practice P0361 I

Alexander R. Blyth, Ph.D., P. Geol.Research Hydrogeologist

ALBEBTA HESEAFCH COIJNCIL INC.

D

-16-

I? "t' '

Coalbed Methane Related Water Well ComplaintsAlberta Environment Incident Reference Nos. 1 61 943, 178988, 21 4287, 21 9646

Summary Report of Albert Research Council Scientific Reviews

Terms of Reference

Background

Alberta Environment (AENV) recently commissioned the Alberta Research Council (ARC)toconduct separate scientific reviews of four water well complaints allegedly associated withcoalbed methane activity. These include lncident Reference Nos. 161943 (: . , ),178988 (J.Ernst), 214287 ( ,.. '- ) and 219646 ( .'. . ').

Purpose

The purpose of the Summary Report is to inform the general public about the findings of theARC scientific reviews and to increase public confidence in the AENV complaint investigationprocess.

Scope of Work and Deliverables

1. The Summary Report is to be written in a manner that is:. Factual. Clearly understood by the general public (aim for Grade 8 education level). Transparent. Concise (maximum of 10 pages, preferably shorter, including figures)

2. The summary Report shall include clear and concise explanations of the following (notnecessarily in this order):

a. lnvolvement of the ARC in the review of the four water well complaints, including whattype of information was provided to ARC to complete the reviews,

b. Problems encountered with each of the reported water wells,c. How the water well complaint process was initiated and handled by AENV,

d. Local/regional hydrgeological settings using basic groundwater concepts (eg. geologicalformations, aquifer type, groundwater flow directions, etc),

e. Coal bed methane operations within the areas of investigation (eg. number of CBMwells, number of operators, formations/zones completed in, basic CBM concepts)

I r1gf:v,tJ6

lr..T-,,f'

f. The various lines of evidence used by ARC to evaluate the water well complaintsg. Conclusions arrived at by ARC upon evaluation of all the information and data provided

as to whether coal bed methane activity has impacted any of the water wells in question.

h. lmplications of the review findings on coalbed methane activity in general and itspotential effects on water wells and groundwater resources, particularly in the Rosebudatea.

3. The Summary Report shall incorporate figures, illustrations and maps as a valuablecomponent of the document to ensure the review information is clearly conveyed to thegeneral public.

4. Names of any of the complainants or governnlent officials involved in the water wellcomplaint rt.

5. The exact locations of the water wells under investigation shall be omitted from theSummaryReport(limitedtothe@ithintheweIlexists).

6. The Reviewer shall attend and participate in a meeting, to be held in Edmonton, todiscuss the report findings once completed.

@ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

SUMMARY REPORT of CBM SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS

PROPOSAL

Prepared by:

Alec Blyth, P.Geo!., Ph.D.

Alberta Research Council lnc.

Prepared for:

Steve WallaceAlberta Environment

10th Floor Oxbrldge Place9820 - 106 Street

Edmonton, Alberta TsK 2J6

December 4,2007

Contact lnformation:Alec BlytrAlberta Research Council lnc.3608

- 33 Steet NW

Galgary, Alberta T2L?AGPhone: 403-210-5345E-mail: blyth@arc.ab.ca

1 INTRODUGTION

Maintaining groundwater quali$ is an essential part of ensuring sustainable resource extractionpractices. With growing concems over groundwater contamination from oil and gas explorationand production, Alberta Environment (AENV) initiates a stepped investigative process toaddress all complaints brought forward to Alberta Environment.

Alberta Environment (AENV) recently commissioned the Alberta Research Council (ARC) toconduct separate scientific reviews of four water well complaints allegedly associated withcoalbed rnethane activity. These include lncident Reference Nos. 161943 (D.Zimmerman),178988 (J.Emst), 214287 (F.Lauridsen) and 219646 (D.Signer).

2 OBJEGTIVESARC will, in cooperation with AENV staff, produce a report summarizing the findings of thesefour CBM related well complaints. The purpose of this report will be to inform the general publicabout the findings of the ARC scientific reviews and to increase public confidence in the AENVcomplaint investigation process.

3 SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLESThe Summary Report written by the Alberta Research Council will be based on factual findingsfrom the individual well complaint reviews. be clearly understood by the general public, betransparent and concise (a m aximum of 10 pages including figures).

The report will address the following:

lnvolvement of the ARC in the review of the four water well complaints, includingwhat $pe of information was provided to ARC to complete the reviews.

Problems encountered with each of the reported water wells.

How the water wel! complaint process was initiated and handled by AENV.

Local/regional hydrogeological settings using basic groundwater concepts (e.9.geological formations, aquifer type, groundwater flow directions, etc).

Coal bed methane operations within the areas of investigation (e.9. number of CBMwells, number of operators, formations/zones completed in, basic CBM concepts).

The various lines of evidence used by ARC to evaluate the water well complaints.

Conclusions anived at by ARC upon evaluation of allthe information and dataprovided as to whether coal bed methane activity has impacted any of the waterwells in question.

ALBERTA RESEARCH CoUNCIL INC1

@

r lmplications of the review findings on coalbed methane activity in general and itspotential effects on water wells and groundwater resources, particularly in theRosebud area.

The Summary Report shall incorporate figures, illustraiions and maps as a valuable componentof the document to ensure the review information is clearly conveyed to the general public. Thenames and exact location of any of the complainants or government officials involved in thewater wellcomplaint process shall not be included in the Summary Report.

4 BUDGETAND PERSONNEL

The Alberta Research Council scientist that will be involved with the Summary Report is Dr.Alec Blyth. Curdculum vita is appended to this document.

The estimated costs, by task, for the project are presented in the following table.

The draft report will be completed by the end of December, 2007. We look forward to workingwith you on thls project. lf you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.

Respectf ully submitted,

Dr. Alec Blyth, P.Geol.Research Hydrogeologi stAlberta Research Council

ALBERTA RESEARCH CouNcrt lNc.2

,^.

w)Alexander Blyth PhD, P.Geol.

HydrogeologistARC - Sustainable Ecosystems

3608 -

33 Street, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, TzL2AoBlyth@arc.ab.ca, www.arc.ab.cals usbu/

EDUCATION

2004 -

Doctor of Philosophy -

Science - University of Waterloo1993

- Master of Science

- Science

- University of Waterloo

1989 -

Bachelor of Science (Honours) -

Geology -

Queen's University

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY

I am a professionally registered hydrogeologist in Alberta with a Ph.D. from theUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I have 15 years of work experiencein hydrogeology, geochemisby and exploration geology in Alberta, British Columbia,Manitoba, Ontario, Northwest Tenitories, Finland, Sweden and Australia. My doctoralresearch involved assessing crystalline rock environments for radioactive wastedisposal, and ! have 17 scientific publications and 11 presentations in this field. I alsohave teaching experience in over 10 difierent courses (both as a lecfurer and as anassistant).

EMPLOYMENT

zOM - -

Alberta Research Council lnc., Hydrogeologist, Calgary, Alberta2OO4 -

University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, SessionalLecfurer

1996 to 2004 -

University of Waterloo, Department of Earth Sciences, SessionalLecturer, Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant, Waterloo,Ontario

1993 to 1996 -

AGRA Earth & Environmental Limited (now AMEC), ConsultingHydrogeolo gist and Geochemi st, Calgary, Alberta

1990 to 1993 -

University of Waterloo, Department of Earth Sciences, ResearchAssistant and Teaching Assistant, Waterloo, Ontario

1990

1989

- Aberfoyle Resources Ltd., Base MetalExploration Geologist,Melbourne, Vlctoda, Australia

- Placer Dome lnc., Precious Metals Exploration Geologist, Toronto

1987 to 1988 -

(summers) -

Placer Dome lnc., Precious Metals Exploration

1986Geologist, Toronto, Ontado

- (summer)

- Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd., Precious Metals Exploration

Geologist, Lynn Lake, Manitoba1984 to 1985

- (summers)

- Urangesellschaft Canada Ltd., Uranium Exploration

Geologist, Toronto, Ontado

PROJECT EXPERIENCES

Geolooical StoraoeThe focus of my doctoral research was the assessment of past and presenthydrogeological and geochemical conditions in the crystalline rock environment andtheir implications to high-level radioactive waste disposal. I employed tools such as

hydrology and water chemistry, isotope geochemistry, fracture mineral petrology, fluidinclusions, and cathodoluminescence to determine the behaviour of the rock massduring past geological events (such as glaciation) to predict the future stability(performance assessment). During my candidacy, lwas involved in radioactive wasteresearch for the Finnish, Swedish and Canadian nuclear programs includinghydrogeological and geochemical review panels for the waste programs.

At the Alberta Research Council I have been involved with ECBM and EOR projectsthat are injecting COz to enhance hydrocarbon recovery. I am contrlbutinghydrogeological, geochemical and isotope expertise to evaluate the fate and transportof injected CO2, through environmental monitoring of productlon wells and overlyingaquifers.

Groundwater Suoolv and DewatednoI have been responsible for the design, construction and evaluation of over 50 waterwells for industrialuse ln Ontario, Alberta and British Golumbia. Yield requirementsvaried trom2O to >4000 gpm, from depths of 20 to >300 feet. Several of the watersupply and dewatering wells required complete hydrogeological investigations prior towell location. I am familiar with all aspects of water well drilling, including cable tooland air rotary (with casing hammer) drilling methods and all necessary permitting andlicensing requirements.

I have also been involved in the development of monitoring strategies for long-termassessment of aquifer and well performance. This experience includes the use ofpressure transducers and data logging systems.

Contaminant HvdrooeoloovI have been responslble for contaminant site characterization, assessment and designof groundwater and soil remedial strategies in Ontario and Alberta. I have conductedsoil vapour surveys on gasoline contaminated sites, and am familiar with auger rigsand sampling devices including Shellry tubes, the Solinist-Waterloo coring device andsplit spoons

I am familiar with groundwater and gas sampling protocol in deep boreholes andshallow multi-level piezometer, and have performed the laboratory procedure andprotocolfor gas squeezlng equipment designed to sample pore water in clays.

Landfill lnvestioationsMy experience also includes extensive evaluation of existing landfills in Alberta.lnvestigations range from waste delineation and characterization to receptoridentification. I have also been responsible for hydrogeological evaluations of severalpotentialsites for landfilloperations. I have worked with many drilling methodsincluding reverse circulation, solid stem auger, hollow stem auger, and hollow stemauger with continuous core barrel. Work experience includes government and publichearlngs, location and drilling of extensive monitoring systems, hydraulic conductivitytesting and evaluation of the data retrieved.

Cofnouter ModelinoI am also familiar with commercially available two and three-dimensional groundwaterflow and transport models, as well as aquifer testing and seepage analysis models.These include MODFLOW, MT3D, FLOWPATH, SEEP\W, AQUTFER TEST andAQTESOLV. I have applied this knowledge to severalprojects such as calculation ofpost closure fluxes from tailings ponds, evaluation of flood potential and evaluation ofcontaminant migration and remediation strategies. I also have extensive experience ininorganic chemical modelling of groundwater systems, including involvement with thegovernment of Finland's radioactive waste disposal strategy.

Geolooical Maooino and Mineral ExolorationI have been responsible for reconnalssance and detailed geological mapping inOntario, Manltoba, the Northwest Territories, and Australia. Tasks included mappingrock type and structure, geochemical sampling, and supervision of diamond and "air-core" drills. Mineralexploration included gold, base metals, uranium, zircon, and rutile.

Academic Work Exoerience

Sessrbnal lnstructorI was a session lnstructor for GLGY 4011601 (hydrogeology) at the University ofGalgary in fall 2004.

While a doctoral candidate at the University of Waterloo, lwas asked, by the head ofthe department, to teach several courses. These include: Eal,lh 427 - CrustalEvolution, Earth232 - lntroductory Petrography and Earth 490 - Geologlcal FieldSchool(Quebec).

Ieaciing AssisfantWhile a student at the University of Waterloo I was a teaching assistant for numerousundergraduate and graduate courses. I was well respected and sought after as ateaching assistant. Courses lnclude: Earth232 Petrography, Earth 238 ShucturalGeology, Earth 331 lgneous Petrology, Earth 332 Metamorphic Petrology, Earth 342Applied Geomorphology, Earth 390 Methods in Geological Mapping (Field School),Eafth 427 Crustal Evolution, Earth 440 Quaternary Geology, Earth 471 MineralDeposits, Earth 490 Field Course and Earth 653 Contaminant Hydrogeology.

HONOURS AND AWARDS

NaturalSciences and Engineering Councilof Canada (NSERC) lndustrialResearchFellowshipPeacock Memorial Prize from the Walker Mineralogical Club (Toronto)Ontario Graduate Scholarship in Scienbe and Technology (OGSST)H.Q. Golder Memorial ScholarshipUniversity of Waterloo Schol arshipUniversity of Waterloo Graduate Scholarship

@

@MEMBERSHIPS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of AlbertaNational Ground Water AssociationGeological Society of Americalnternational Association of Hydrogeologists

LANGUAGES

English

PUBLIGATIONS

Published refereed atticlesBlyth, A., Frape, S.K., Ruskeeniemi, T., and Blomqvist, R., 2004. Origins, closed

system formation and preservation of calcites in glaciated crystalline bedrock:Evidence from the Palmottu natural analogue site, Finland. AppliedGeoche misw, 19, 675-686.

Blyth, A., Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., and Nissinen, P.,2000. Assessing the pastthermal and chemical history of fluids in crystalline rock by combining fluidinclusion and isotopic investigations of fracture calcite. Applied Geochemistry,15,1417-1437.

Frape, S.K., Blyth, A., Blomqvist, R. McNutt, R. and Gascoyne, M., 2004. Deep fluidsin the continents: ll. crystalline rocks, p. 541-580. ln.'Surface and GroundWater, Weathering, and Soils (ed. J.l. Drever) Vo!. 5 Treatise on Geochemistry(eds. H.D. Holland and K.K. Turekian), Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford.

Papers in submission or preparationBeaton, A., Blyth, A., Pana, C. and Gunter, W. Geological and Hydrogeological

Characterization and Monitoring of a COz Storage - Enhanced CBM ProductionMicro-Pilot Test Site in the Ardley Coal Zone, West-Central Alberta, Canada.

Blyth, A., Frape, S.K. and Tullborg, E-L. A review and compadson of fracture mineralinvestigations and their application to radioactive waste disposal. (Submittedto Applied Geochemistry)

Blyth, A., Frape, S.K. and Smellie, J. Evolution of groundwater at the Swedish NuclearFuel and Waste Management Company (SKP) AspO Hard Rock Laboratory withtime: Additionalinformation from kitium and o'Gl. (ln prep.)

Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K. Ftuid inclusions, a potential future source of satinity at thegranitic AspO Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden. (ln prep.)

Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K. A fluid inclusion investigation of fracture calcite at the Skipamine site, Sweden: Origins, and past thermal and chemical conditions incrystalline rock. (ln prep.)

@Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K. Thermaland chemical history of fluids in mafic crystalline

rock: a fluid inclusion and isotopic study of fracture calcite from the Mfints#ildiresearch site, Finland. (ln prep.)

Reports/ProceedingsBlyth, A. and Frape, S.K., 2002. AspO Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix fluid chemistry

experiment - Evolution of Asp6 groundwaters with time: Additional informationfrom tritium and o'Cl. SKB Technical Document TD-02-18, 17p.

Blyth, A., 2001. Asp6 Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix fluid chemistry experiment - Fluidinclusion investigation of quartz. SKB lnternationalTechnical Document ITD-01-06,20p.

Blyth A., 2001. Fluid inclusions in quarE from the Asp0 Hard Rock Laboratory. ln:Smellie, John (Ed.) Asp6 Hard Rock Laboratory - Matrix fluid experimentworkshop. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fueland Waste Management Co.)lnternational Techni cal Document. Report ITD-02-02.

Blyth A., 2000. Fluid inclusions in quartz from the AspO Hard Rock Laboratory. ln:Smellie, John (Ed.) Aspii Hard Rock Laboratory - Matrix fluid experimentworkshop. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co.)lnternational Technical Document. Report !TD-00-17.

Blyth A., 2000. Crush and leach experiments in granite from the Asp6 Hard RockLaboratory. ln: Smellie, John (Ed.) Aspii Hard Rock Laboratory - Matdx fluidexperiment workshop. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fueland Waste ManagementCo.) lnternational Technical Document. Report !TD-00-1 7.

Blyth A., 2000. ln: Smellie John (Ed.), AspO Hard Rock Laboratory - Status report of/the matrix fluid experiment June 1998-June 2000. S KB (Swedish Nuclear Fueland Waste Management Co.) lntemational Progress Report IPR-00-35, 47p.

Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K., 1999. Assessment of the past thermal and chemical historyof fluids atthe Palmotfu research site, by combining fluid inclusion and isotopicinvestigations of fracfure calcite. The Palmottu NaturalAnalogue Project.Technical Report 99-07.

Ruskeeniemi, T., Lindbefg,A., P6rez delVillar, L., Blyth, A., Suksi, J. de Pablo, J. andTullborg, E-L. 1999. Uranium mineralogy. Abstractfrom 8'h EuropeanCommission - Natural Analogue working Group Meeting, Strasbourg, France,23-25 March 1999.

Ruskeeniemi, T., Lindberg, A., PilrezdelVillar, L., Blomqvist, R., Suksi, J., Blyth, A.,and Cera, E.2002. Uranium mineralogy wlth implications for mobilisation ofuranium at Palmottu. ln: Maravic, H. von & Alexander, W. R. (eds.) Eighth ECNatural Analogue Working Group Meeting: proceedings of an internationalworkshop held in Strasbourg, France from 23 to 25 March 1999. Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 143-154.

frt' '1nr1/\-,

Blyth, A., Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., Nissinen, P. and McNutt, R., 1998. An isotopicand fluid lnclusion study of fracture calcite from borehole OL-KR1 at theOlkiluoto site, Finland. Posiva Oy, Report 98-04.

Ruskeeniemi, T., Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., Vuorela, P. and Blyth, A. 1996. SilicateGeothermometry in the Serpentinized Mafic-Ultramafic lntrusion of Ylivieska.Geological Survey of Finland, Nuclear Waste Disposal Research, Report YST-94,37 p.

Blomqvist, R., Vuorela, P., Nissinen, P., Ruskeeniemi, T., Frape, S.K., Blyth, A., andlvanovich, M. 1993. Crustal Rebound-Related Groundwater Flow and CalciteFormation in the Crystalline Bedrock of the Fennoscandian Shield: NewObservations from Finland. !q Paleohydrogeological Methods and theirApplications. OECD, Paris, 161-167.

Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., Nissinen, P., Blyth, A., and McNutt, R.H. 1992. Thegeochemistry of fracture filling calcite at the Olkiluoto research site, SouthwestFinland. !4q Dating of fracture minerals from Olkiluoto, S.W. Finland. lndustrialPowerCompany, TVO Site lnvestigations, Working Report 92-27,200 p byBlomqvist et al. 1992.

Frape, S.K., Blyth, A., Jones, M.G., Blomqvist, R., Tullborg, E-L., McNutt, R.H.,McDermott, F. and lvanovich, M., 1992. A comparison of Calcite FractureMineralogy and Geochem istry for the Canadian and Fennosc andian Shields.Water-Rock Interaction 7, Kharaka & Maest (eds.) p787 - 791.

PRESENTATTONS

lnvitedAbandoning wells and Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction. lnvited talk forWheatland County Watershed Group, Rosebud, AB, August 28,2007.

Potentiat Effects of CBM Development on Groundwater. lnvited talk for the CanadianWater Resources Association (CWRA), Red Deer, 4pri124,2007.

Developing and Maintaining and Effective Groundwater Supply. lnvited talk for the lAH,Edmonton, March 21. 2007.

Chemical and lsotopic Signatures of Water and CBM gases from Camrose County.lnvited talk for the EnCana GBM Workshop, Calgary, November 27,2006.

Water Well Maintenance. lnvited talk for the Alberta Research Council, Vegreville,October 13,2006.

GO2 Sequestration and ECBM. Invited talk for the Ganadian Prairies Group ofChartered Engineers (CPGCE), Calgary, May 10,2006.

Geological and hydrogeological characterization and monitoring of a CO2 storage -enhanced CB M production micro-pilot test site in the Pembina area, west-centralAlberta Plains, Canada. lnvited talk for Ground Water Protection Council - UICConference, Austin, January 25, 2006.

t.,

@Radioactive Waste Disposal in Crystalline rock in Scandinavia: Case studies of the far-field environment. lnvited talk to the Calgary chapter of the lnternationalAssociation ofHydrogeologists (lAH), Calgary, Alberta, January 20,2005.Alberta Research Council (ARC) led carbon dioxide storage/enhanced coalbedmethane (ECBM) recovery projects in Canada. lnvited talk to the Canadian Society forUnconventional Gas, Calgary, Alberta, December 9,2004.

Radioactive Waste Disposal in Crystalline Rock What fracture minerals tel! us aboutthe rock fluid hlstory. lnvited talk for Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear WasteManagement Division, Toronto, Ontario, June 6, 2O02.

Fluid inclusion study of quartz at the AspO Hard Rock Laboratory - Final Report. 2001.Aspii Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix Fluid Chemistry Experiment Workshop, SKB,Stockholm Sweden.

Radioactive Waste Disposal in Crystalline Rock. Walker Mineralogy Club, Toronto,Ontario, April 1 1, 2001.

Fluid inclusion study of quarE at the AspO Hard Rock Laboratory - Preliminary Results.2000. AspO Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix Ftuid Chemistry Experiment Workshop, SKB,Stockholm Sweden.

other presentationsCharacterization and monitoring of aCOZ storage - Enhanced Coal Bed Methane(ECBM) production micro-pilot test site in the Pembina area, Alberta Plains. AlbertaE nvironment Gonference, E dmonton, Al berta, 2006

Some additionalaspects of the evolution of brines in crystalline rocks gained fromisotope geochemistry. The Geological Society of America 2003 Annual Meeting,Seattle, Washington, November 3, 2003.

Long-term hydrogeological stabili$ of crystalline bedrock in glaciated tenains:Evidence from the Palmottu nafuralanalogue research site, Finland. The GeologicalSocieg of America 2002 AnnualMeeting, Denver, Colorado, October 30, 2002.

Combining fluid inclusion studies with isotopic investigations of fracture calcite toassess the past thermal and fluid history of the Olkiluoto research site, Finland. TheGeological Society of America 1998 Annua! Meeting, Toronto, Ontado, October 26,1 998.

Bedrock geochemistry of southwestern Ontario and its implications to the overlyingfresh water aquifer as a consequence of anthropogenic activities. Porous MediaResearch lnstitute, AnnualMeeting, Kitchener, Ontario, November 18, 1997.

A comparison of calcite fracture mineralogy and geochemistry for the Canadian andFennoscandian Shields. Water-Rock lnteraction 7, Park City, Utah, July 13-18, 1992.