Box 1057

                                                                                Rimbey, Alberta

                                                                                T0C 2J0

                                                                                October 24, 2007.

M L.F

EUB,

Calgary, Alberta.

 

M L.F

 

Re: Letter sent to you from (MR.D.E) Berkana Energy Corp., dated Oct. 1, 2007, copy of which was mailed to me registered mail, post marked on October 4, 2007 and received Oct. 9, 2007.

 

I have enclosed a copy of D,s letter with reference points on it.

Re: paragraph 2. I stick with my position.  A rental review has never happened. Murphy’s letter to me dated Nov. 24, 2006 (which you have a copy of) states in part “we look forward to meeting with you………..to review the annual rental”. This meeting never happened. Approx. 7 days later I received a letter from Murphy Oil explaining that Murphy had divested its entire interest in referenced agreements to Berkana effective Aug. 1, 2006.( you have a copy of). Neither Murphy nor Berkana have met with me for a rental review.

 

 In paragraph 2, Mr. D.E states in part “attempts to reclaim the wellsite have been met with opposition and access issues”. This again is erroneous.

 

 A Murphy Oil representative came to my house on Oct. 25, 2006 and told me Murphy Oil would be contacting me over the winter to discuss reclamation plans. I was never contacted by Murphy or anyone to discuss these plans.

 

 Please have Mr.D.E explain in full detail the opposition he has been met with as referred to above. Please keep in mind that the proposed meeting between Murphy Oil and me to discuss the reclamation plans never took place.

 

In paragraph 2, Mr. D.E makes mention of me returning the cheque for 3500 dollars.

 

Please note that I was never granted a rental review and to expect a land owner to receive the same land rental fee in 2012 as received in 2002 is beyond the comprehension of any reasonably informed person. In paragraph 3 Mr. D.E implies acceptance of the 3500 dollars as agreement to this amount. With this type of attitude acceptance of the 3500 dollars dated February 22, 2007 could be used by Berkana as acceptance for the next 5 year lease rental.

   

In a letter dated March 13, 2007 from Berkana to me (you have a copy), please note in paragraph 3 that Berkana is implying that the lease rental is tied to their  

production from the site. Berkana’s exact words “Considering that there will be no oil and gas operations on the surface lease, the Pipeline has been abandoned and the Wellhead cut and capped, Berkana is of the opinion that $3,500.00 per year is more than adequate compensation.” 

 

 

 

 

2

Berkana is leasing land from me and it is very obvious that Mr D.E has no idea on real estate values. I would like to remind Mr. D.E that I am the lesser and Berkana is the lessee and neither Berkana nor Mr. D.E has the right to unilaterally dictate my lease rental amount.

 

In paragraph 3, Mr. D.E makes mention of past lease rental amounts. I imagine this is as clear as mud to you as Mr. D.E has not shown or explained what he is referring to.  Please have Mr. D.E provide you and me with this information. It is very obvious to me that Mr. D.E is not well versed or acquainted with outstanding issues surrounding the Berkana lease on 6-21-42-3W5.

 

In paragraph 4, Mr. D.E states in part “Berkana and its predecessor have attempted to resolve the issues of reclamation without success”. This is again more erroneous information. I have never met or in any way been in contact with any Berkana personnel about attempting to resolve the issues of reclamation. It is almost insulting to have to answer to a letter so fraught with error, but I shall carry on.

 

In paragraph 5 Mr. D.E has chosen to use bold font for part of the paragraph. I am not sure what Mr. D.E is trying to say or emphasize. Please have Mr. D.E clarify.  Mr. D.E also states in part ”Field Personnel have been prevented from entering the wellsite and right of way…………………”.  I have never been contacted by anyone from Berkana about wanting to access the lease. I have written a letter to Mr.D.E(copy enclosed) to try to determine what he is referring to when he says in part “been prevented from entering…”.  The letter was mailed Oct 12, 2007. As of today I have not received an answer.

 

Mr. D.E stated in part in Paragraph 5 “For Mr. F to imply that these issues have been “allowed to grow rampant” and unattended is less than complete and accurate”. I never implied or made such a statement. I said “The weeds on the lease site including Canada thistle have been allowed to grow rampant and spread for years.” I stick to that statement and do not in anyway accept Mr. D.E version. (you have a copy).

 

In paragraph 7, Mr. D.E emphasizes the word approximate in bold font and quotation marks. It is my observation and opinion that 8.84 km is not approx. 5km. That has about the same meaning as an 88 year old man saying he is approx. 50 years old. For the record, Berkana’s survey is still in error. Berkana has also failed to follow rules and regulations as set out by the EUB in the application process.

 

Berkana’s letter of October 1, 2007 has failed to address many of the concerns expressed in my letter of Sept 7, 2007. Please have Mr. D.E respond to all the questions and concerns raised in my letter of September 7, 2007.

 

 

 

 

3

One of the many concerns Berkana has failed to address in their letter to you is their overdue payment of 1325 dollars for crop loss on pipeline right of way.  

 

Berkana’s action of not paying annual lease payment (now overdue 7 months) until I notify them that I have changed my mind about accepting it and agree to their unrealistic terms is nothing short of extortion.

 

For the EUB to in any way allow Berkana Energy to carry on with any further gas/oil development before first cleaning up their mess and liabilities left behind them would be criminal on behalf of the EUB. It is paramount the EUB fully understand the crap and corruption that has been bestowed upon me by the EUB and the oil/gas industry over the years. Please pass copy of this letter to Mr. W.T, and have him acknowledge receipt of same.

 

Back to Mr. D.E’s letter. Paragraph 6 states in part “Berkana is interested in resolving these issues and is open to suggestions”. The term “these Issues” is illusional and does not address most of the issues I have with Berkana.

 

Mr. D.E makes reference in paragraph 6 to the Surface Rights Board as a means of mediation. It is apparent to me that Mr.D.E is not familiar with the rules of the SRB. The SRB requires photocopies of all correspondence to and from the operator with respect to negotiations for the current review. To reiterate for the umpteenth time, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RENTAL REVIEW.

 

As mentioned earlier it is insulting to try to answer a letter so fraught with error, but I shall carry on.

 

In reference to Mr. D.E’s suggestion that Berkana is open to any suggestion: I suggest that a completely informed and knowledgeable person from Berkana make arrangements with me (via letter mail) for a meeting at my home in an attempt to resolve all outstanding issues. I have never met or spoken with any Berkana personnel and it is my experience that Berkana has very limited knowledge or is being intentionally ignorant of the outstanding issues surrounding the lease on 6-21-42-3W5 and related pipeline ROW.

 

Please note that this letter and all or any other correspondence between the EUB, Berkana Energy and me will be posted on the WWW (Internet) at my discretion.

 

Cc: Berkana energy

      All other interested parties

 

 

 

                                                                               

                                                                                Mr. A.F

 

NOTE:  As of December 3, 2007, neither the EUB nor Berkana have addressed my concerns. The landowners of Alberta continue to be  treated like peons by the EUB and the oil/gas industry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d