In April of 2004 115 million cubic feet of gas was released into West Divide Creek

1. 2008 Divide Creek Seep Request for County intervention and water testing of potentially impacted ground water and domestic water well

2. In April of 2004 115 million cubic feet of gas was released into West Divide Creek

3. A history of complications At around the time of the Divide Creek Seep and Schwartz well blow out, the Brown well and the Arbaney wells also experienced significant problems with drilling and completions resulting in loss of cement and/or seeps in the vicinity of the wells. Each of these wells is within a two mile radius of the “main seep” area in Divide Creek. The seep from 2004 continues today.

4. EnCana’s Response to COGCC Notice of Alleged Violation May 18, 2004 “EnCana followed COGCC rules and current industry practices with regard to protection of water-bearing formations and water quality. It is reasonable to conclude that the seep existed prior to the drilling of the well. There is no indication that any ground water sources have been impacted by the seep.”

5. EnCana’s “Draft Plan of Action” April 09, 2004 “EnCana has seismic data that suggest there may be a fault zone that passes through the Schwartz 2-15 B has well and the gas seep in West Divide.”

6. THE INTERPLAY OF FRACTUES AND SEDIMENTARY Natural fractures play an important role in enhancing the conductivity and permeability of the Molina and related sandstones of the Wasatch Formation. The fractures in this formation commonly consist of conjugate fracture pairs, with the bisector of the acute angle lying in the horizontal plane and oriented approximately east-west (with minor but consistent variation across the basin). The fracture surfaces support the interpretation of the fractures as conjugate shear pairs, with small en echelon offsets indicative of lateral offset. The offsets should result in significant turbulence during flow of gas along a fracture. However, the fracture pairs have created an intersecting mesh, in which the anisotropy of the horizontal permeability should be significantly less than that in systems of parallel, vertical-extension fractures such as are found in the sandstones of the underlying Mesaverde Formation (Lorenz and Finley, 1991). • Performed at the Federal Energy Technology Center: October 1995 to October 1996

8. Hearing Testimony of Anthony Gorody – EnCana’s consulting geologist August 18, 2004 Mr. Gorody concurred with the general consensus that the extent of the seep hasn’t been fully determined.

9. ORDER NO. 1V-276/ COGCC Findings 10.  “EnCana performed completion operations between February 16, 2004 and April 1, 2004 that included cased hole logging, perforating, fracturing and flowing back four (4) different intervals without notifying the COGCC staff that the cement top had fallen to approximately 4050’ and without disclosing the well conditions.”

10. Comments from COGCC Commissioners at hearing August 18, 2004 • “Sheer unadulterated incompetence that we’re here today to address this problem” – John Ashby • “It’s not a problem with the geology. It’s a problem of some people not following the rules” – Tom Ann Casey

11. NOTICE TO OPERATORS DRILLING MESAVERDE GROUP OR DEEPER WELLS IN THE MAMM CREEK FIELD AREA IN GARFIELD COUNTY WELL CEMENTING PROCEDURE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS "This area was established from the previous West Divide Creek Moratorium Area to focus on the specific areas that, based on over 3 years of intensive study and review,the COGCC staff believe continues to require significant drilling and completion oversight by the State. The East Mamm Creek Notice Area was adopted through an official hearing by the Commission held April 25, 2006 in Denver and supported by Garfield County and became active on February 9, 2007."

14. We first began noticing anomalies in the environment in the area of the new seep after EnCana re-entered the Schwartz. Bubbling was attributed to biogenic (natural fermentation) activity

15. Loss of Well Control Report 10-10-07 Notice to Remediate 01-15-08 Signs of trouble again? Schwartz 11-2A (O2E)

17. Biofilm / Normal wetted area

18. Area of black seep

19. Black seep depression

20. Gas and fluid emanating from seep

22. Gas combustion

25. Gas emanating from cracks

26. Area of boulder corrosion – acid?

27. Flow of corrosive substance and Oil-related hydrocarbons

36. Seep - Iron-Reducing Bacteriaa hydrocarbon indicator CO2 effect – Arsenic Fluoride Selenium BariumUpwards of 200 tons of CO2

43. Did not sample from bank Did not test for hydrocarbons

44. COGCC did not sample from spring feeding into creek

45. EnCana Correspondence to Landowners June 09, 2004 “Due to hydrocarbon constituents found in a bank near the seep we will install monitoring wells and an on-site lab station to further investigate and monitor the area.”

46. Langegger’s bank near Benzene- producing vent (some 48 times the safe threshold) July 10, 2008

47. What Langegger’s spring looked likeearly in 2004

48. This is the 2008 seep the COGCC refuses to investigate

49. Over 4 years and 2000 feet separate the two events. But their similarities cannot be ignored.

50. Shellfish – sensitive to Barium