DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 6, COLORADOTO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN WATER APPLICATIONS

IN WATER DIVISION 6

Pursuant to C.R.S. 37-92-302, you are hereby notified that the following pages comprise a resume of Applications and Amended Applications filed in the office of Water Division 6, during the month of April, 2018.

18CW3013 Moffat County. Talamantes Creek. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT TO ADD ALT. PT. OF DIVERSION. Applicant, Diamond Peak Cattle Company, LLC, c/o Balcomb & Green, P.C., P.O. Drawer 790, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602; 970-945-6546. Summary. This Application requests an additional alt. pt. of diversion for the Yarnell Ditch No. 2 to allow it to divert at the Rouff Ditch No. 1. A map showing the locations of the water rights is attached to application. Change of Water Right. Decreed Water Right for Which Change is Sought. Name of Structure. Yarnell Ditch No. 2. Orig. and all Relevant Subsequent Decrees. Orig. decree entered 9/22/1893, District Court, Routt County; Case No. 08CW89 entered 11/15/2010 as amended by Order dated 10/31/2013, Water Division 6. Decreed Pt. of Diversion as corrected in Case No. 08CW89: SE ¼ NE ¼, Sec. 13, T. 11 N., R. 102 W. at a pt. 2,474 ft. from the N. Sec. line and 114 ft. from the E. Sec. line of said Sec. 13; this may also be described as GPS coordinates UTM Zone 12, Easting 685134, Northing 4531491. Alt. Pt. of Diversion #1: As decreed in Case No. 08CW89, an Alt. pt. of diversion allows this right to divert at the Rafto Sparks Pipeline located in the SW ¼, NW ¼, Sec. 13, T. 11 N., R. 102 W., 6 th

P.M. at a pt. 1,400 ft. S. of the N. Sec. line and 960 ft. E. of the W. Sec. line of said Sec. 13; this may also be described as GPS coordinates UTM Zone 12, Easting 683828, Northing 4531779. Decreed Source of Water. Talamantes Creek. Approp. Date. 9/15/1886. Total Amt. Decreed to Structure. 1.0 cfs, absolute. Decreed Uses. Irr. of 34.6 acres of lands located in portions of Sec. 13 and 14, T. 11 N., R. 102 W. of the 6 th P.M. and Sec. 18, T. 11 N., R. 101 W. of the 6th P.M. Detailed Description of Proposed Change. Complete Statement of Change. Applicant requests to change 1.0 cfs decreed to the Yarnell Ditch No. 2 water right to include an additional alt. pt. of diversion for the amt. and uses confirmed in Case No. 08CW89. Accordingly, this change will not result in injury to any owner of or person entitled to use water under a vested water right or a decreed conditional water right. Historical Place and Amt. of Use. As confirmed in Case No. 08CW89, the Yarnell Ditch No. 2 has been historically used in the amt. of 1.0 c.f.s. for irr. of 34.6 acres of lands located in portions of Sec. 13 and 14, T. 11 N., R. 102 W., 6th P.M. and Sec. 18, T. 11 N., R. 101 W., 6th P.M. Addition of Alt. Pt. of Diversion. In addition to the already decreed pts. of diversion for the Yarnell Ditch No. 2, Applicant seeks to also divert at the following Alt. pt. of diversion: Rouff Ditch No. 1. As corrected in Case No. 08CW89, the headgate is located on the left and N. bank of the S. Fork of Talamantes Creek in the NW ¼, NE ¼, Sec. 14, T. 11 N., R. 102 W., 6th P.M, 1300 ft. from the N. Sec. line and 2582 ft. from the E. Sec. line. This location may also be described as GPS coordinates UTM Zone 12, Easting 682887, Northing 4531790. Remarks. By this Application, Applicant only seeks to change the pt. of diversion of the Yarnell Ditch No. 2 to the alt. pt. of diversion at the Rouff Ditch No. 1 to allow the water to be fed through a pressurized sprinkler system to irrigate the same lands that have been historically irrigated by this water right. Applicant does not request to change the place of use of this water right. Name and Address of Landowner Upon which any New or Modified Diversion Structure is Located. Applicant. 5 pgs.

18CW3014, (94CW17, Water Div. 5; 02CW97, Water Div. 5; 09CW45, Water Div. 6), Rio Blanco County, APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE. 1. Name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of Co-Applicants: Puckett Land Company (“Puckett”), Attn: Eric R. Stearns, President & CEO, 5460 S. Quebec Street, #250, Greenwood Village, CO 80111-1917, (303) 762-1000, ericstearns@puckettland.com. Please address all correspondence to: Peter D. Nichols, Megan Gutwein, Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP, 1712 Pearl Street, Boulder, CO 80302, (303) 402-1600. The Oil Shale Corporation (“TOSCO”), c/o Mike Matison, ConocoPhillips Co., 3401 East 30th Street, Farmington, NM

87402. Please address all correspondence to: Jacques S. Ruda, 6000 East Evans Ave., #1-211, Denver, CO 80222, telephone: (303) 297-3800, Fax: (303) 297-9417, ruda@cmconline.com. 2. Name of structure: Puckett Enlargement of the Miller Ditch. 3. Description of Conditional Water Right: A. Original Decree: April 2, 1996, Case No. 94CW17, Water Division 5. The original application was filed in Water Division 6 on December 29, 1993 in Case No. 93CW126 and was transferred to Water Division 5. Pursuant to Case No. 94CW17, ¶ 6, this water right is administered as having been filed in 1993. B. Subsequent Decrees: Case No. 02CW97 (September 3, 2002, Water Division 5, diligence); Case No. 09CW45 (April 7, 2012, Water Division 6, diligence). C. Legal Description: In the NW1/4 NE1/4 of Sec. 25, T2S, R99W, 6th PM, at a point which is located approximately S85º10’W, 2160 feet from the northeast corner of said section 25 (approximately 202 feet from the North section line, and approximately 2150 feet from the East section line). A map showing the location of the point of diversion is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. D. Source of Water: Ryan Gulch, tributary to Piceance Creek, tributary to the White River. E. Appropriation Date: May, 1978. F. Amount: 1.0 cfs. G. Use: The Puckett Enlargement of the Miller Ditch was decreed absolute for irrigation in the amount of 1.0 cfs in Case No. 94CW17. Domestic, livestock, and industrial uses remain conditional in the amount of 1.0 cfs. 4. Application for Finding of Reasonable Diligence. A. Co-Applicant Puckett: Co-Applicant Puckett is a Colorado corporation that holds interests in approximately 44,300 acres of lands in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado and controls the right to develop the oil, gas, or oil shale minerals associated with these lands, including the Figure Four Ranch. The conditional water rights that are the subject of this Application were appropriated and are needed for the commercial development of Puckett’s oil, gas, coalbed methane, and/or oil shale minerals associated with these lands, including industrial, domestic, recreational, and other beneficial uses associated with such development. 1. Puckett’s Integrated System: As decreed in Case No. 07CW242 on October 2, 2012, the subject water rights are features of an integrated water supply project or system comprised of the water rights and structures associated with the White River-Figure Four Pipeline, originally decreed in Case No. W-196, Water Division 5, July 16, 1971, and the PLC-1, PLC-2, and PLC-3 water rights, originally decreed in Case No. 07CW242, Water Division 5, October 2, 2012. Work on one feature of this integrated project or system shall be considered in finding that diligence has been shown in the development of water rights for all features of the integrated project or system. B. Co-Applicant Conoco: Co-Applicant TOSCO is a Delaware Corporation qualified to do business in the State of Colorado. TOSCO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company and has been since January 1, 2003. Collectively, TOSCO and ConocoPhillips are referred to as “Conoco.” Conoco holds interest in fee in over 37,700 acres of oil shale lands in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties. The conditional water right that is the subject of this Application was appropriated and is needed for the commercial development of Conoco’s oil shale properties, including industrial, domestic, municipal, environmental, recreational, irrigation, power, mining, retorting, refining, dust control and reclamation uses associated with such development. Conoco has expended funds in development of ownership information and surveys of its oil shale properties and adjacent properties. 1. Oil Shale Research and Development. The commercial development of oil shale is a necessary prerequisite to beneficial use of the water rights described herein and Conoco has expended considerable effort towards commercial development of oil shale and oil shale plants of commercial size, since April, 2012. Conoco’s work includes: a. Research regarding environmental, health and social issues related to development, assessment of available oil shale and water resources, and availability of permits and other approvals; b. Engineering assessments regarding existing and new technology for commercial development; c. Evaluation of the technical feasibility of storage facilities and pump/pipeline facilities for Conoco’s integrated systems of water rights for development of oil shale; d. Evaluation of the economics of oil shale development; and e. Evaluation of the water requirements for Conoco’s planned oil shale development. f. In summary, Conoco has conducted extensive research and study and has expended substantial sums in connection with developing improvements in its development processes for Oil Shale. 2. Conoco has also conducted activities to manage the surface of its oil shale lands in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, including negotiating right-of-way and other agreements with other landowners and oil shale claim owners, negotiating grazing leases to manage the surface property, negotiating resource development leases, and the development and management of a man camp at the Ertl Dutton tract. C. Economic Conditions: Energy prices are notoriously volatile and are driven by a wide variety of factors including supply, demand, geo-politics, and severe weather. See, e.g., U.S. Energy Information Administration, Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty (Oct. 2009). Economic

conditions such as low oil prices have prevented the development of oil shale, but economists are predicting that world energy prices, led by oil, will increase in the near future. See, e.g. World Bank, World Bank Raises 2017 Oil Price Forecast (Oct. 20, 2016); U.S. Energy Information Administration, Crude oil prices expected to increase slightly through 2017 and 2018 (Jan. 12, 2017). Current economic conditions are adverse to oil shale production. Pursuant to section 37-92-301(4)(c), C.R.S. (2017), current economic conditions beyond the control of applicant that adversely affect the feasibility of perfecting a conditional right shall not be considered sufficient to deny a diligence application so long as other facts and circumstances that show diligence are present. D. Diligence Activity Co-Applicant Puckett: During this diligence period, in continuing the development of the conditional water rights, Co-Applicant Puckett has been engaged in the legal defense and protection of the subject water rights and has been diligent in the continued development of the water rights involved, including expenditures for legal, consulting, and engineering work. The foregoing activities are described in more detail as follows. 1. Retained SGM to evaluate the physical and legal water availability for potential future development and use of the Figure Four Pipeline water right. SGM provided PLC with a Figure Four Pipeline Hydrology Assessment report that is the first phase in a series of steps needed to prepare for a potential water pumping and storage project. 2. Investigated proposed reservoir site to store water as indicated in the yield study by SGM, including: a. 20,000 acres on Figure Four lands owned by Applicant; b. The size, location, and volume of abutments; and c. Identified preliminary alignment of pipeline from point of diversion to reservoir site utilizing existing pipeline corridors and areas outside of areas of environmental concern. 3. Entered into a Lease Agreement with TC Landco, LLC to provide surface location for the Figure 4 Pipeline pump station and associated facilities. 4. Entered into discussions with EV Ranch regarding a potential land acreage swap to provide surface location for the Figure 4 Pipeline pump station and associated facilities. 5. Entered into discussions with the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) regarding a right-of-way from PLC’s point of diversion to the leased acreage acquired by PLC from TC Landco, LLC for PLC’s pump location. 6. Entered into discussions with White River Electric to ensure adequate power supply to the Figure 4 Pipeline pump station and associated facilities. 7. Entered into grazing leases with ranchers on the Reagle Ranch. 8. Performed work on various structures related to these water rights, including cleaning ditches, dredging a small pond, and repairing a flume. 9. Attended various meetings, conferences (Colorado Water Congress, webinars, and seminars) to understand state and local water programs and the Colorado Water Plan developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Interbasin Compact Committee and Yampa River Basin Roundtable. 10. Reviewed the water resume of applications as published by the Water Court for Water Division 6 for protection of the subject conditional right. As a result, PLC has filed Statements of Opposition to numerous applications in the White River and Piceance Creek basins, and participated in these cases to prevent injury to the subject conditional water right. PLC expended approximately $4,388.00 on legal services and $18,972.00 on engineering services in connection with this work. E. Diligence Activity Co-Applicant Conoco: 1. Each month during the diligence period, attorneys for Co-Applicant Conoco have reviewed the water resume of applications as published by the Water Clerk for Water Division 5 and Division 6 for protection of the subject conditional right. As a result, Co-Applicant has filed Statements of Opposition to a large number of applications in the Colorado River, White River, and Piceance Creek basins, and participated in these cases to prevent injury to its decreed water rights. 2. Bishop-Brogden Associates, Inc., consulting engineers, has investigated regional ground water parameters and has visited the site of the water rights owned by Co-Applicant in the Piceance Basin on several occasions. 3. Since April 2012, in addition to those engineering costs detailed above, Co-Applicant has invested in gaging studies, gauging equipment, site surveys, correlation studies, ecological studies, and hydrological studies on the water rights in the Piceance Basin. Co-Applicant believes that at such time as the commercial development of oil shale commences, all of its water rights will be necessary for the construction and operation of its oil shale related projects. 4. Bishop-Brogden and Associates has conducted, since April 2012, ongoing studies regarding the projected water need of Co-Applicant’s proposed oil shale projects and the projected water yield of Co-Applicant’s integrated portfolio of oil shale water rights. 5. Co-Applicant has worked to protect its water rights during the diligence period by opposing water right applications that could potentially injure the water rights that are part of its integrated system and negotiating with other water users to ensure its water rights are adequately protected. 6. Co-Applicant has expended in excess of $478,652.31 on the work and studies detailed above. 7. Co-Applicant incurred substantial costs in excess of $487,136.51, in addition to those listed above for outside legal services, outside

consulting fees, in house salaries and expenses in the maintenance of its water rights between April 2012 and April 2018. 5. Location of proposed area to be irrigated: Puckett anticipates that some irrigation may occur in connection with the industrial uses. The lands on which such incidental irrigation use by Puckett or Puckett’s contractees may occur include the lands shown on Exhibit 1. 6. Land ownership information: Co-Applicants. WHEREFORE, Co-Applicants seeks entry of a decree confirming that the Co-Applicants have exercised reasonable diligence toward completion of the appropriations for the decreed uses, and continuing the subject conditional water rights in full force and effect for another six-year diligence period. (11 pages, including Exhibit)

18CW3015 (09CW080, Water Division 5), RIO BLANCO COUNTY. APPLICATION FOR FINDING OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE. Caerus Piceance LLC (“Caerus”), c/o Matthew A. Wurtzbacher, P.E., 1001 17th Street, Suite 1600, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 565-4600, c/o Jennifer M. DiLalla, Atty. Reg. No. 40319 and William D. Davidson, Atty. Reg. No. 49099, Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C., 2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302,(303) 443-8782, jdilalla@mwhw.com; wdavidson@mwhw.com; Greeno No. 1 Ditch: Original decree: Case No. 81CW400, entered November 2, 1984, in District Court, Water Division No. 5 (“81CW400 Decree”). Prior diligence decrees: Case No. 88CW323, entered April 12, 1989 (“88CW323 Decree”); Case No. 95CW080, entered February 24, 1996 (“95CW080 Decree”); Case No. 02CW036, entered July 15, 2003 (“02CW036 Decree”); and Case No. 09CW080, entered April 26, 2012 (“09CW080 Decree”), all in District Court, Water Division No. 5. Legal description of point of diversion: On the East bank of Hunter Creek in the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 South, Range 97 West of the 6th P.M., at a point whence the SE corner of said Section 8 bears South 25˚26’50” East 871.7 feet, being 646 feet from the East line and 474 feet from the South line of said Section 8, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to the application. Source: Hunter Creek, tributary to Piceance Creek, tributary to the White River. Appropriation date: May 27, 1966. Amount: 2.83 cubic feet per second (“c.f.s.”). Use: Irrigation and stock-watering (fully absolute); industrial purposes (fully conditional). Greeno No. 1 Ditch 1930 Appropriation: The 81CW400 Decree separately confirmed an absolute water right for the Greeno No. 1 Ditch with an appropriation date of January 1, 1930 (“Greeno No. 1 Ditch 1930 Appropriation”). The Greeno No. 1 Ditch 1930 Appropriation, which is not the subject of this Application, is decreed for 0.17 c.f.s., absolute, for irrigation purposes. Greeno No. 2 Ditch: Original decree: The 81CW400 Decree. Prior diligence decrees: The 88CW323 Decree, the 95CW080 Decree, the 02CW036 Decree, and the 09CW080 Decree. Legal description of point of diversion: On the West bank of Hunter Creek in the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 South, Range 97 West of the 6th P.M., at a point whence the SE corner of said Section 8 bears South 25˚26’50” East 871.7 feet, being 646 feet from the East line and 474 feet from the South line of said Section 8, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to the application. Source: Hunter Creek, tributary to Piceance Creek, tributary to the White River. Appropriation date: May 27, 1966. Amount: 2.67 c.f.s. Use: Irrigation and stock-watering (fully absolute); industrial purposes (fully conditional). Greeno No. 2 Ditch 1930 Appropriation: The 81CW400 Decree separately confirmed an absolute water right for the Greeno No. 2 Ditch with an appropriation date of January 1, 1930 (“Greeno No. 2 Ditch 1930 Appropriation”). The Greeno No. 2 Ditch 1930 Appropriation, which is not the subject of this Application, is decreed for 0.33 cfs, absolute, for irrigation purposes. Greeno No. 3 Ditch: Original decree: Case No. 81CW401, entered November 2, 1984, in District Court, Water Division No. 5 (“81CW401 Decree”). Prior diligence decrees: Case No. 88CW324, entered April 12, 1989 in District Court, Water Division No. 5 (“88CW324 Decree”), the 95CW080 Decree, the 02CW036 Decree, and the 09CW080 Decree. Legal description of point of diversion: On the East bank of Hunter Creek in the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 9, Township 3 South, Range 97 West of the 6th P.M., at a point whence the SW corner of said Section 9 bears South 12˚05’51” West 4,214.9 feet, being 4,603 feet from the East line and 4,748 feet from the South line of said Section 9, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to the application. Source: Hunter Creek, tributary to Piceance Creek, tributary to the White River. Appropriation date: May 27, 1966. Amount: 2.5 c.f.s. Use: Irrigation and stock-watering (fully absolute); industrial purposes (fully conditional). Greeno No. 3 Ditch 1930 Appropriation: The 81CW401 Decree separately confirmed an absolute water right for the Greeno No. 3 Ditch with an appropriation date of January 1, 1930 (“Greeno No. 3 Ditch 1930 Appropriation”). The Greeno No. 3 Ditch 1930 Appropriation, which is not the subject of this Application, is decreed for 0.5 c.f.s., absolute, for irrigation purposes. Greeno No. 4 Ditch:

Original decree: The 81CW401 Decree. Prior diligence decrees: The 88CW324 Decree, the 95CW080 Decree, the 02CW036 Decree, and the 09CW080 Decree. Legal description of point of diversion: On the West bank of Hunter Creek in the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 9, Township 3 South, Range 97 West of the 6th P.M., at a point whence the SW corner of said Section 9 bears South 12˚05’51” West 4,214.9 feet, being 4,603 feet from the East line and 4,748 feet from the South line of said Section 9, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to the application. Source: Hunter Creek, tributary to Piceance Creek, tributary to the White River. Appropriation date: May 27, 1966. Amount: 2.5 c.f.s. Use: Irrigation and stock-watering (fully absolute); and industrial purposes (fully conditional). Greeno No. 4 Ditch 1930 Appropriation: The 81CW401 Decree separately confirmed an absolute water right for the Greeno No. 4 Ditch with an appropriation date of January 1, 1930 (“Greeno No. 4 Ditch 1930 Appropriation”). The Greeno No. 4 Ditch 1930 Appropriation, which is not the subject of this Application, is decreed for 0.5 c.f.s., absolute, for irrigation purposes. Taylor Reservoir: Original decree: Case No. 81CW404, entered November 2, 1984, in District Court, Water Division No. 5 (“81CW404 Decree”). Prior diligence decrees: Case No. 88CW325, entered April 12, 1989, in District Court, Water Division No. 5, the 95CW080 Decree, the 02CW036 Decree, and the 09CW080 Decree. Legal description of point of diversion: The dam is located in the SE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 South, Range 97 West of the 6th P.M., at a point whence the SE corner of said Section 8 bears South 68˚25’06” East 591.7 feet, being 646 feet from the East line and 474 feet from the South line of said Section 8, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A to the application. Source: Hunter Creek, tributary to Piceance Creek, tributary to the White River. Appropriation Date: May 27, 1966. Amount: 89 acre-feet, conditional. Use: Irrigation, stock-watering, industrial, and domestic purposes. Taylor Reservoir 1914 Appropriation: The 81CW404 Decree separately confirmed an absolute storage water right for Taylor Reservoir with an appropriation date of July 12, 1914 (“Taylor Reservoir 1914 Appropriation”). The Taylor Reservoir 1914 Appropriation, which is not the subject of this application, is decreed for 81 acre-feet, absolute, for irrigation purposes. Subject Water Rights: Together, the conditional water rights for the Greeno No. 1 Ditch, Greeno No. 2 Ditch, Greeno No. 3 Ditch, Greeno No. 4 Ditch, and Taylor Reservoir are referred to in this Application as the “Subject Water Rights.” Detailed outline of work and expenditures toward completion of the appropriation and application of the water to beneficial use: Diligence Period and Caerus’ acquisition of Subject Water Rights: The diligence period for the Subject Water Rights is April 2012 through April 2018 (“Diligence Period”). In July 2017, Caerus acquired all the assets of Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (“Encana”) in the Piceance geologic basin, including Encana’s water rights and associated infrastructure and Encana’s surface and subsurface interests (“Encana Acquisition”). The Subject Water Rights were part of the Encana Acquisition. Integrated system: In decrees entered on September 17, 2017, in Case Nos. 16CW3044 and 16CW3045, the Water Court for Water Division 5 found that the Subject Water rights were part of Encana’s “extensive integrated system to supply water in connection with its oil and gas drilling operations in the Piceance geologic basin, and its planned future oil shale operations in that basin.” 16CW3044 Decree, ¶ 8.1, Ex. A, Ex. B; 16CW3045 Decree, ¶ 9.1, Ex. A, Ex. B. In the 09CW080 Decree, the Court found that the Subject Water Rights were “an integral part of the water system to supply [Encana’s] projects and related uses in the North Piceance project area, which comprises, among other federal gas drilling units, the Eureka, Double Willow, Story Gulch, Figure 4, North Parachute, and nearby units.” 09CW080 Decree, ¶¶ 9.b, 9.c. “When a project or integrated system is comprised of several features, work on one feature of the project or system shall be considered in finding that reasonable diligence has been shown in the development of the water rights for all features of the entire project or system.” C.R.S. § 37-92-301(4)(b); 09CW080 Decree, ¶ 9.b. Consequently, all work and expenditures by Encana and Caerus in connection with their oil and gas drilling operations in the Piceance geologic basin, including without limitation the North Piceance project area, directly and indirectly constitute part of Encana’s and Caerus’ reasonable diligence in developing the Subject Conditional Water Rights to be used in Caerus’ water system, which supplies those oil and gas drilling operations and related uses. Encana’s diligence work and expenditures: During the Diligence Period, and until consummation of the Encana Acquisition, Encana worked diligently to develop the Subject Water Rights, complete the appropriation, and place the water to beneficial use, as demonstrated by the following activities and expenditures: Encana spent at least $119,559,764 on drilling, completion, and facility costs for wells drilled in the North Piceance project area. Operation of the producing wells requires fresh water for well workovers, roadway dust suppression, pipeline testing, system cleaning and flushing, and environmental requirements. Encana spent at least $76,037,831 in direct capital costs for water infrastructure in

the Piceance geologic basin, including without limitation costs for wells, pipelines, pits, storage tanks, river outtakes, and satellite facilities that were used to divert, store, and transfer both fresh water and flowback/produced water for use in connection with Encana’s oil and gas drilling operations. Encana devoted significant personnel resources to its integrated water system. During the Diligence Period, Encana employed four full-time water systems engineers and one full-time hydrogeologist who managed, constructed, developed, monitored, operated, and maintained Encana’s water rights and integrated water system, including associated infrastructure, for use in Encana’s oil and gas drilling operations. An additional seven Encana employees managed water movement and facilities at the field level and were supported by fifteen to twenty independent contractors. This team of Encana employees and independent contractors was responsible for short- and long-term water balance planning, water treatment operations, fresh water diversions, water recycling, water accounting and reporting, water capital infrastructure planning and construction, and all other operations related to Encana’s integrated water system. Encana spent at least $198,949 in legal fees for activities related to development and protection of its water rights, including the Subject Water Rights. Those activities included, without limitation, filing and prosecuting applications in water court for other water rights within Encana’s integrated system; monitoring the water court filings of other water users to protect its water rights, and participating in water court cases as an objector; developing and maintaining its supply of fresh water; and entering into and maintaining water supply agreements with other water users. Caerus’ diligence work and expenditures: During the Diligence Period, as of and following consummation of the Encana Acquisition, Caerus worked diligently to develop the Subject Water Rights, complete the appropriation, and place the water to beneficial use, as demonstrated by the following activities and expenditures: Caerus acquired all of Encana’s assets in the Piceance geologic basin. Of Caerus’ total expenditure on the Encana Acquisition, $122,000,000 was allocated to acquisition of Encana’s water rights and associated infrastructure and facilities, including without limitation the Subject Water Rights and associated infrastructure and facilities. As a result of the Encana Acquisition, Caerus engaged a project management team to lead Caerus in an internal company-wide evaluation of all of Caerus’ assets, including water rights and associated infrastructure and facilities. One outcome of the asset and infrastructure project will be a determination of the highest and best use of Caerus’ water rights, following the Encana Acquisition, in relation to Caerus’ operations. Of Caerus’ total expenditure of $532,600 for the project management team’s work, approximately $65,000 is associated with the project management team’s evaluation and assessment of water rights and associated infrastructure and facilities. Caerus asked its water rights counsel to complete a detailed inventory of Caerus’ water rights. To date, Caerus has spent $5,727 on the water rights inventory, the purpose of which is to determine the highest and best use of Caerus’ water rights, including without limitation the Subject Water Rights, following the Encana acquisition. Caerus spent approximately $18,578 in legal fees for activities related to development and protection of its water rights, including the Subject Water Rights. Those activities included, without limitation, filing and prosecuting applications in water court for other water rights within Caerus’ integrated system; monitoring the water court filings of other water users to protect its water rights, and participating in water court cases as an objector; developing and maintaining its supply of fresh water; and entering into and maintaining water supply agreements with other water users. Names and addresses of owners or reputed owners of the land upon which any new diversion or storage structure, or modification to any existing diversion or storage structure, is or will be constructed or upon which water is or will be stored, including any modification to the existing storage pool: Caerus owns the land on which Taylor Reservoir is located.

You are hereby notified that you will have until the last day of June, 2018 to file with the Water Court a Verified Statement of Opposition, setting forth facts as to why a certain Application should not be granted or why it should be granted only in part or on certain conditions. A copy of such Statement of Opposition must be served on the Applicant or the Applicant’s Attorney, with an affidavit or certificate of such service being filed with the Water Court, as prescribed by Rule 5, C.R.C.P. The filing fee for the Statement of Opposition is $158.00, and should be sent to the Clerk of the Water Court, Division 6, 1955 Shield Dr. Unit 200, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487.

MARY ANN NINGERCLERK OF COURT

ROUTT COUNTY COMBINED COURTWATER DIVISION 6

/s/ Kristen Lande Curry Deputy Court Clerk