Other Locations: June 8 Millarville June 8 Vulcan June 9 Pincher Creek June 19 Red Deer June 20 Drayton Valley June 21 Rocky Mtn. House June 22 Sundre June 24 Grande Prairie June 26 Edson June 27 Hinton June 28 Leduc June 29 Calgary Summary Aboriginal Summary Response Forms Summary Written Forms

Advisory Committee on Public Safety and Sour Gas Response Forms Summary I Summary Format Response forms were made available to the public via the web site, by fax or mail upon request and at all the discussion sessions. The Advisory Committee received eleven completed response forms. The key points of each of the have been summarized and organized into three topic categories, including (1) Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction; (2) Event Consequence Management; and, (3) Communication and Compensation. These topic categories correspond with the Advisory Committee's three working groups, which have been established to assess and address specific aspects of the issues surrounding public health and safety and sour gas. II Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction Policy Definition of sour or sweet gas is highly variable, even in EUB publications. Issues about the objectivity of EUB when they are funded by industry and government. Jurisdiction Setback distances, notification requirements and associated environmental consideration should be addressed with the input of municipal authorities. Application and Decision Making Do not trust governing body responsible for health and safety and environmental protection; because of the decision of the Lockend well the EUB's integrity and reliability is in question. Their daughter's brother-in-law was killed by sour gas when he attempted to rescue co-workers and their neighbor was knocked down. The Lockend well should be stopped; results of a blow out could be disastrous. Turn down some applications for wells; based on need not profit. Regulations Critical wells should not be drilled in proximity to densely populated areas. Should be new health and safety standards and rules set for critical level sour gas wells regarding proximity to cities towns and growing MDs. Oil and gas drilling and flaring in close proximity to residential areas needs to be restricted and more closely monitored. All wells and flares should be regulated to reflect the H2S that may be present; tighten requirements so that they sweet and sour gas is not longer open to interpretation. Ban all wells with high sulfur content; gas production is adequate at this time; greed and profit have been put ahead of public health and safety. More air monitoring. Equipment and Procedures Machinery and equipment may be new and good, but still a potential for human error. Concern about the integrity of pipelines and relationship to health and safety; possibility of leaks; more monitoring and maintenance. III Event Consequence Management Health Effects and Toxicity Concerned about the human (themselves and neighbors), animal (registered cattle) and environmental (air and water quality) health impacts of sour gas emissions. Concerned about human and animal health and safety related to sour gas emissions. Worry and mental stress related to the potential of a sour gas well has been overwhelming; very concerned about the health and safety of family, neighbors and animals; critical well should not be allowed in a highly populated area. Possibility of serious health risks or death from the desire to make money. Poor air quality from sour gas emissions damages human, animal and environmental health; alters soil ph. Still not enough research to know the effects of sour gas emissions. Concerned about emissions from flares and the effect on human and animal health; farmer now have to give calves selenium shots. Immediate concerns about air and water quality; what about the water table. Setbacks Minimum set back distances are inadequate and too loosely regulated and do not address the concerns and safety issues for rural subdivisions and farms. The EUB, through public consultative process should draft more specific requirements of setback and notification requirements. Emergency Planning Zones EPS is too small. Emergency Response Plans REP could not effectively evacuate the large population that would be affected; does not include plans to evacuate animals; believe that the company does not have a solid safety reputation. If there is a major event, there is no hope of evacuating such a large number of people effectively; no plans in ERP for the animals. IV Communication and Compensation Public Consultation Poor communication with company; have been treated rudely; reputation of the company in other areas is not good; has resulted in distrust. No one in the company accepts liability or responsibility; have 'passed the buck'; companies must find alternative to their 'bullying' ways. Process should be open and involve the public as well as industry; communication is essential to success. Company has bad attitude and poor safety record in other areas; do not answer question. Treated with total disregard by EUB and proponent. Bad attitude of resource companies toward landowners. Public's concerns are disregarded; oil companies always win. Compensation Ranch is their retirement fund, but there is a freeze on the land in the area because of other gas possibility; believe that this is unfair. Sour gas wells have diminished the value of land making it even more difficult for ranchers to make a profit.