1 / 20

Overall conclusion from Alberta Research Council review of Lauridsen Water well Complaint :

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

krysta
Download Presentation

Overall conclusion from Alberta Research Council review of Lauridsen Water well Complaint :

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. 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. energy development projects in the area most likely have notadversely affected Ms. Lauridsen’s water well.

  3. Samples collected by AENV(Nov 2- 06) analysedby Alberta Research Council • 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,pxylene • 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 methyleneheptane • 6 methyl 2 phenylindole • 2,amino cyclopentanemethanamine • 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 * BTEX * Indicators of petroleum contamination

  4. Overall conclusion from Alberta Research Council review of the Signer Water well Complaint: Dec 31, 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. Signer’s water well.

  5. 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.

  6. Lauridsen Water well complaint review

More Related