With the exception of information relating to our corporate name change, the information set forth in the section of this annual report captioned "Business" is current as of March 25, 2002, unless an earlier or later date is indicated in that section. The information set forth in the sections of this annual report other than "Business" is current as of December 31, 2001, unless an earlier or later date is indicated in those sections.

We conduct our transactions in the currency of both the United States and Canada, although we consider the United States dollar to be our functional and reporting currency. All references to "dollars" in this annual report refer to United States or U.S. dollars unless specific reference is made to Canadian or CDN dollars. The rate of exchange of Canadian dollars to United States dollars as of December 31, 2001, was CDN $1.5928 to U.S. $1. For information relative to rates of exchange and currency conversion, see that section contained in explanatory note no. 2 to our consolidated financial statements captioned "Foreign Currency Translation".

Clean Energy Combustion Systems, Inc. ("we", "our company" or "Clean Energy") is a recently-organized development stage enterprise formed and organized on March 1, 1999 to market "burner units" based upon two innovative burner designs we acquired under license: our patented high-frequency valveless "pulse combustion technology" and our "diesel fuel combustion technology". These designs were originally invented by one of our founders, Mr. John D. Chato. Our principal focus to date has been to develop applications for our pulse combustion technology, which we believe has a wide variety of applications and competitive advantages. We have made significant progress in developing this technology, and a number of applications are now in a position to be introduced to the market having completed their primary development stage. We are not currently focusing on the development of our licensed diesel fuel combustion technology insofar as a number of similar patents exist, which limits its commercial potential.

We currently have one wholly-owned subsidiary, Clean Energy USA Inc. ("Clean Energy USA"), which will be licensed to carry out commercialization activities in North America. Our principal executive offices and research and development facilities are located at 7087 MacPherson Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5J 4N4, and our telephone number is (604) 435-9339.

A burner unit is a furnace or other combustion chamber which uses the combustion process to convert the chemical energy contained in various fuel sources, such as natural gas, propane, gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, or coal, into heat energy measured in "British Thermal Units" or "BTUs". The use of a burner unit to create heat energy is typically the first of a number of steps in which the heat energy is generated for use in a multiplicity of residential, commercial or industrial settings, ranging from simple one-step residential and light commercial applications where the heat energy is used merely to heat air or water, such as the case of space or water heaters, to complicated industrial multi-step applications where the heat energy is subsequently converted into one or more other forms of energy. An illustration of a multi-step industrial application would be electricity generation, where a public utility company first burns oil, natural gas or coal to create heat energy, then uses this form of energy to heat water in a boiler system to create steam energy, then uses this form of energy to run a turbine to create mechanical energy, and ultimately uses this form of energy to create a magnetic field to generate electrical energy. Since the heat generated by the combustion of carbon-based fuels in the burner units is generally "transferred" for other purposes as the end result of the first step in a process, the industry in which we compete, namely, manufacturers and sellers of products incorporating burner units, is commonly referred to as the "heat transfer" industry.

Our "pulse combustion technology", is a high-frequency valveless pulse burner technology which can operate on a variety of fossil fuels, including natural gas, propane, powdered coal, and hydrogen. This design facilitates the manufacture of highly-compact burner units that are more energy-efficient, and emit significantly lower levels of pollutants, than conventional steady-state combustion designs. We believe that the reason for these results can be explained as follows:

-1-

• In conventional steady-state combustion, a number of chemical reactions proceed together, principally those that convert chemical energy into heat energy and result in the release of heat, and those that produce unwanted byproducts such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). It is not possible to have one without the other. These differing chemical reactions do not, however, start up and proceed at the same rate. Chemical reactions that release heat in the combustion process, for example, generally occur earlier and finish more quickly than those that create unwanted by-products.

• In pulse combustion, the combustion process occurs in a steady series of pressurized pulses that create an extremely hot, turbulent and explosive combustion environment within each short pulse. These kinetic conditions accelerate the rate at which chemical energy is converted into heat energy, and convert a higher proportion of the chemical energy into heat energy. The extreme turbulence also maximizes heat transfer capabilities. The resulting energy efficiencies translate into cost savings. At the same time, if the pulses occur at a fast enough rate, the chemical byproducts created through the combustion process are reduced due to the accelerated completion of the heat conversion process as well as the more complete conversion of chemical energy into heat energy, thereby leading to reduced exhaust emissions. The NOx emission levels for our current water heater prototype, for example, tests at less than 10 parts per million, which is less than one-tenth of conventional st eady-state combustors. We believe based upon early testing that our pulse combustion technology will lead to similar reductions with respect to other unwanted byproducts of the combustion process, such as hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), and we intend to conduct characterization tests to confirm these early observations.

Currently, there are a limited number of pulse combustion products on the market, all of which principally target premium-priced high-efficiency water heater and boiler applications. These designs utilize a "tubular" configuration, and operate in the range of 60 to 70 cycles per second depending upon the configuration and application. Our pulse combustion design, on the other hand, utilizes an elongated or "linear" configuration, which operates at up to 350 to 1,600 cycles per second depending upon the configuration and application, or 6 to 22 times the rate of conventional tubular pulse combustion, leading to increased energy efficiencies and reduced emission levels. For a description and illustration of our "linear" design as compared to conventional "tubular" configured pulse combustion designs, see those sections of this annual report captioned "Business-How Conventional Pulse Combustion Technology Works" and "Business-How Our Pulse Combustion Technology Works". Due to the compactness, simplicity of design and lack of moving parts inherent in our technology, our design also allows burner units to be more inexpensively, easily and quickly manufactured, installed and serviced than conventional steady-state and tubular pulse combustion designs.

We are currently working on production proto-types for the following applications of this technology:

• a large natural gas-fueled industrial dryer for tissue paper;

• residential, commercial and industrial natural gas-fueled water heaters and boilers;

• a diesel-based burner to be used for heavy-duty special-purpose vehicles heaters;

• industrial and commercial burners which use coal as their energy source; and

• natural gas-fueled burners units for a pollution control system.

transportation, as pipelines are generally required to convey natural gas from source to location of intended use. Coal is also a logical fuel choice world-wide (including North America) due to its abundant supply, although there are still outstanding environmental issues relating to the burning of coal and the cost of scrubbing and other emission-control technologies required to reduce resultant pollutants, particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2) or "acid rain".

We believe the demand for cleaning burning fuels will continue as clean air legislation and public environmental pressures increase, particularly in the industrial countries. Even though our current focus is on natural gas and coal burning applications, our pulse combustion technology can also use other carbon-based fuels as its energy source. We have, for example, successfully burned gasoline, propane, and a powdered coal and hydrogen mix, and also believe our technology will be equally successful in burning diesel and oil.

The ability to efficiently burn fuel in order to conserve energy resources, while eliminating or minimizing the various pollutants resulting from the combustion process, has become worldwide economic and political issue as a result of increasing awareness and concerns over the past 25 years relative to energy conservation and the impact of pollution on our environment and health. One of the consequences of these concerns has been the imposition of ever increasing levels of regulatory restraints on emission levels and, to a lesser degree, fuel usage, particularly in the developing countries of the world. In the United States, for example, not only does the United States Environmental Protection Agency impose nationwide emission standards, but various states and their political subdivisions impose even more stringent emission standards. The best example of this is California, which imposes the most stringent automobile emission standards in the world, and the South Coast Air Qua lity Management District, a California regional governmental agency which imposes the strictest pollution control requirements in the world on a broad range of industrial and commercial emissions in the four counties comprising the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

One of the tools being developed by governments world-wide to combat climate change is the concept of emission credits or allowances, based on pollution reductions. The development of a commodity trading system, based on lowering emission levels creates an economic value associated with pollution control.

We believe that our pulse combustion technology, in particular, has the potential to bring dramatic improvements in both efficiency and pollution control, particularly in view of the existing limitations of conventional steady-state combustion and pollution control technologies which we believe are approaching, if not at, their theoretical limits of effectiveness. We anticipate that the various advantages of our technologies will afford us the opportunity to ultimately develop and introduce a large variety of different burner units cutting across a broad number of diverse industrial, commercial and residential heat transfer markets through a variety of commercial arrangements with established heat transfer industry partners, including licensing, royalty, joint venture and manufacturing agreements.

Our objective is to enter into licensing, royalty, joint venture or manufacturing agreements with established national and international heat transfer industry manufacturers which will result in the introduction of a variety of different burner units based upon our technology into various selected market segments.

We have no revenues to date, nor have we entered into any revenue producing contracts to date, although we are currently working on a number of proto-types under several proposal requests which could lead to development grants by manufacturers over the next four to six months, and contract revenues after twelve months.

We are authorized under our Certificate of Incorporation to issue common stock and preferred stock, with respect to the latter of which we have to date authorized the issuance of series 'A' convertible preferred stock, series 'B' convertible preferred stock and series 'C' convertible preferred stock (sometimes referred to in this annual report as "common shares", "preferred shares", "series 'A' preferred shares", "series 'B' preferred shares" and "series 'C' preferred shares", respectively).

Our company was formed and organized on March 1, 1999 under the name Clean Energy Technologies, Inc., by two groups of founders, whom we refer to as the "BO Group" and the "Alberta Group". We changed our corporate name to Clean Energy Combustion Systems, Inc. on May 20, 1999.

-3-

The "BO Group" is principally comprised of BO Tech Burner Systems Ltd. and several of their principals including Messrs. John D. Chato, John P. Thuot and Barry A. Sheahan and James V. DeFina. BO Tech Burner Systems Ltd., in turn, is part of a group of three affiliated British Columbia corporations, whom we refer to as the "BO Companies", who expended over CDN $4 million in primary development for our pulse combustion technology over the ten year period ended December 31, 1998. The other two member of the BO Companies are BO Gas Limited, a majority-owned subsidiary of BO Tech Burner Systems Ltd., and BO Development Enterprises Ltd., the majority-owned parent of BO Tech Burner Systems Ltd.

Mr. John D. Chato is the inventor of both our pulse combustion and diesel fuel combustion technologies, as well as the owner and licensor of our diesel fuel combustion technology. Messrs. Chato, Thuot and Sheahan are also officers and directors of each of the BO Companies, as well as direct or indirect shareholders of each of these companies through BO Development Enterprises Ltd. Mr. DeFina is a key employee of the BO Companies, as well as a direct or indirect shareholder of each of these companies.

Messrs. Chato, Thuot and Sheahan were appointed as executive officers and directors, and Mr. DeFina as one of our executive officers, as part of our formation. In connection with our formation, we issued 6,525,713 common shares to BO Tech Burner Systems Ltd., and a total of 1,074,287 common shares principally to Messrs. Chato, Thuot, Sheahan and DeFina, at nominal values. BO Tech Burner Systems Ltd. subsequently distributed 2,599,084 common shares held by it to BO Development Enterprises Ltd. in January 2000, while at the same time transferring an additional 753,724 common shares to BO Gas Limited. In January 2002, the balance of the common shares held by the various BO companies were distributed in principal part to the shareholders of those companies.

Conventional pulse combustion burner technology is a burner unit design comprised of two geometrically-configured adjoining channels and chambers-a combustion chamber and an exhaust channel or "tailpipe". As shown in the illustration below, most conventional pulse combustion burner units use a "tubular" configuration, similar to a bottle with an elongated neck. In operation, fuel and air are first injected from an intake channel into the combustion chamber (at the base of the bottle) where they are ignited with an ignition rod and commence burning (in the bottom portion of the bottle). The heat created by the combustion process then generates a pressure wave which travels from the combustion chamber through the tailpipe (the elongated neck of the bottle), carrying with it various gases or "effluents" resulting from the combustion process. As the effluent gases exit the tailpipe and the exterior of the combustion chamber cools, a partial vacuum is created within the combustion chamber which, in turn, pulls a new supply of air and fuel into the combustion chamber from the intake channel. This new fuel-air mixture is then compressed by effluent returning or "pulsing back" from the tailpipe, and ignites on its own without the need of the ignition rod as a result of this pressure increase and the remaining heat within the combustion chamber, causing the entire process to repeat. Most conventional pulse combustion technology, for example, operates at anywhere from 60 to 70 cycles per second depending upon the configuration and application. It is this oscillating or "pulsating" condition-hence, "pulse" combustion-which differentiates pulse combustion from conventional steady-state combustion, where combustion is provided through the steady or continuous burning of a flame, such as in the case of a kettle of water being heated on a gas stove.

-4-

Pulse combustion technology is not a new development. It has been in the public domain since early in the twentieth century, and was used in World War II to power the infamous V-1 "buzz bombs". Until recently, however, its use for commercial heat transfer applications has been relatively limited.

Pulse combustion technology was first applied to the manufacture of boilers in the late 1950's by Lucas Rotax in its "Pulsamatic" boiler. The introduction of the technology was short-lived, though, due to lack of strong marketing and the absence of incentive to buy high-efficiency boilers when gas prices were low.

The technology was reactivated in 1979 when Hydrotherm Corporation introduced its high-efficiency residential "Hydropulse" series of residential water boilers. Lennox International, Inc., also incorporated pulse combustion technology into several of its products in 1976 through a collaborative working agreement with the American Gas Association and the Gas Research Institute, and introduced several models of an ultra-high efficiency pulse-forced-air furnace into the marketplace in 1992.

Even though the higher efficiencies afforded by pulse combustion over conventional steady-state combustion is a well known fact in the residential and commercial heating industry, pulse combustion products still have not been widely introduced, and have had limited penetration in the markets they have been introduced into. We believe the principal reasons for this limited market penetration are higher manufacturing and installation costs, which translate into higher sales prices, as well as noise considerations. Indeed, to our knowledge the only significant manufacturers and marketers of pulse combustion burner units within the United States today are:

• Hydrotherm Corporation, which markets three natural gas-fueled pulse water boiler systems rated at from 100,000 BTUs/hr to 300,000 BTUs/hr for residential and commercial "hydronic" space heating purposes. In hydronic space heating, hot water is circulated in an enclosed system through a series of interconnected pipes located within a concrete slab in a building. As the hot water circulates, the heat it emanates warms the air spaces above and below the slab.

• Lennox International, Inc., which markets two natural gas-fueled forced-air pulse combustion furnaces for space heating, ranging from 50,000 BTUs/hr to 100,000 BTUs/hr output.

• Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., which markets:

• two lines of natural gas or propane fueled boilers for commercial and small business purposes, namely, a line of low pressure models rated at between 500,000 to 750 BTUs/hr input, and a line of high pressure models rated at between 500,000 to 700,000 BTUs/hr input; and

• two lines of pulse boilers used for hydronic heating purposes, rated at between 300,000 to 1,400,000 BTUs/hr input.

Each of these competitors positioned their pulse combustion products as premium-priced, "higher efficiency" alternatives to conventional steady-state combustion product lines.

All of Lennox's, Fulton's and Hydrotherm's pulse combustion products utilize a long "tubular" design. For example, in the case of the Lennox unit, the tube is approximately eight feet long and is looped or coiled vertically for space efficiency. The principal operational feature of the conventional tubular design is the low number of repetitive combustion pulses or cycles at which it operates, typically 60 to 70 cycles per second.

There are also numerous manufacturers and marketers of conventional steady-state combustion products within the United States that compete with pulse combustion products, including Cleaver Brooks, Raypack, Inc., AERCO International Inc. and Weben-Jarco, as well as Lennox, Fulton and Hydrotherm.

-7-

As discussed below in greater specificity, our pulse combustion technology affords the following principal competitive advantages over conventional steady-state combustion and conventional tubular pulse combustion technologies:

• Our pulse combustion technology enables burner units to emit:

• significantly lower emissions than conventional steady-state combustion technology, and

• significantly lower emissions of oxides of nitrogen, commonly known as "NOx", than conventional tubular pulse combustion technologies, and comparable or slightly lower emission levels than these technologies with respect to emissions other than NOx.

• Our pulse combustion technology allows unlimited size or output variations with our pulse blade design, as opposed to conventional "tub" pulse burners which have no scalability and thus are very limited in operating efficiently outside their comparatively narrow application range;

• Our pulse combustion technology enables very fast warm-up or ramp-up time to optimum efficiencies as compared to large conventional boiler systems that take some time to get up to temperature from cold start or turn down point.

• Our pulse combustion technology results in significantly smaller and lighter burner units and systems than allowed by both steady-state combustion and conventional tubular pulse combustion technologies due to our compact and simple linear design, and the elimination of the need for an external primary heat exchanger. This advantage is compounded in multi-burner scale-up configurations. Moreover, our burner units are so much more compact in size that rather than performing complete boiler system replacements that it can actually be installed into the existing boiler unit thereby saving considerable capital cost. You should note that a burner unit retrofit is a fraction of the cost of a complete boiler replacement.

• Our pulse combustion technology allows burner units to be designed for operation at optimum energy conversion efficiencies and low emission levels at differing pre-selected output levels due to our integrated modular design and resultant turn-down capability. While conventional steady-state combustion and tubular pulse combustion units can also operate on a similar modular basis, they can only do so when aligned in a bank of separate burner systems, while our design allows us to incorporate numerous combustion chambers within a single combustion system. This advantage allows us to compound the size and weight advantage which the compact size of our pulse burner technology already affords us on a unit-versus-unit comparison basis.

• Our pulse combustion technology allows burner units to be manufactured and installed at significantly lower costs than steady-state combustion and conventional tubular pulse combustion technologies due to our simplicity of design, compact size and lack of moving parts.

• Background: Among the principal considerations is evaluating a burner unit are its relative "energy conversion efficiencies", which refers to its overall ability to convert the maximum amount of chemical energy contained in the fuel into heat energy through the combustion process, and to then apply or transfer this heat for the intended purpose. The ultimate economic measure of energy conversion efficiencies is fuel savings. Essentially, a burner unit which is more energy conversion efficient will use a lesser amount of fuel to generate and transfer a required level of

-8-

heat than a less efficient combustion unit. The energy conversion efficiency of a burner unit can be broken down into the following constituent elements:

• Heat Output Efficiency: As discussed earlier, a burner unit uses the combustion process to convert the chemical energy contained in various fuel sources into heat energy measured in BTUs. The term "heat output efficiency" simply refers to the ability of the combustion process to effectively convert the maximum amount of chemical energy contained in the selected fuel into heat energy. For example, ten cubic feet of natural gas could potentially produce 1,000 BTUs of heat energy assuming its entire chemical energy was converted into heat energy through the combustion process-although, as a practical matter, perfect heat output efficiency never occurs due to a number of variables. To the extent chemical energy is not converted into heat energy, it is discharged as part of the exhaust stream in the form of various post-burn chemical gases including NOx, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide-resulting in unextracted or "wasted" heat energy potential.

• Heat Transfer Efficiency: As previously discussed, the commercial application of a burner unit is to act as a "heat transfer" device to heat water or air. The term "heat transfer efficiency" simply refers to the ability of the heat transfer surfaces of the combustion unit to effectively "transfer" the maximum amount of heat generated by the combustion process to warm the water or air, instead of allowing any of this heat to be discharged as part of the exhaust stream-resulting in unapplied or "wasted" heat energy.

• Start-Up Efficiencies: All combustion units, including both conventional steady-state and pulse combustion units, require a period of time to "warm-up" before they attain optimum combustion temperatures. Generally speaking, the bigger the combustion unit in terms of BTU output capacity, the longer the warm-up period. The warm-up time for a conventional steady-state 10 million BTU/hour boiler, for instance, is approximately two hours.

• Energy Conversion Efficiency Advantages of Pulse Combustion Over Conventional Steady-State Combustion: Energy conversion efficiencies associated with pulse combustion are significantly higher than those of conventional steady-state combustion for the following reasons:

• Heat Output Efficiencies: Pulse combustion results in significantly higher heat output efficiencies than conventional steady-state combustion since the more turbulent combustion environment and internal combustion pressures resulting from the repetitive pulse combustion cycles promote more thorough combustion. Consequently, a greater proportion of chemical energy per unit of fuel is converted into heat energy instead of being wasted or discharged as part of the exhaust stream.

• Heat Transfer Efficiencies: In conventional steady-state combustion, a zone of air called a "boundary layer" is created adjacent to the interior surfaces of the combustion unit, including those being used for heat transfer purposes. This layer acts as a barrier which essentially channels the heat energy generated by the combustion process away from the exterior surface areas and down the middle of the exhaust pathway, allowing a significant portion of the heat energy created to be wasted without application for heating purposes. This boundary layer affect does not occur in pulse combustion, however, since the more turbulent combustion environment and internal combustion pressures resulting from the repetitive pulse combustion cycles forces a greater proportion of the heat energy to circulate against the heat transfer surfaces, resulting in less wasted heat energy than conventional steady-state combustion. For example, most conventional steady-state combustion units have a heat transfer efficiency rating in the 70% to 85% range, meaning that a corresponding percentage of the heat created is actually transferred to the targeted medium. By way of comparison, most conventional "tubular" pulse combustion units on the market today have a heat transfer efficiency rating in the range of 90% to 96%.

• Start-Up Efficiencies: As the result of its repetitive on-off cycling, pulse combustion can attain optimal combustion temperatures much more quickly than conventional steady-state combustion, which translates into both fuel savings and less operational downtime while the burner unit warms-up. The warm-up time for a 10 million BTU/hour pulse combustion boiler, for instance, would be approximately two minutes, as compared to the two hour warm-up time noted above for a comparable conventional steady-state boiler.

-9-

• Energy Conversion Efficiency Advantages of Our Pulse Combustion Technology Over Conventional "Tubular" Pulse Combustion: The various energy conversion efficiencies afforded by pulse combustion result from the more turbulent combustion environment and internal combustion pressures resulting from the repetitive pulse combustion cycles. Our pulse combustion design, as a consequence, can deliver greater energy conversion efficiencies than conventional tubular pulse combustion designs as a result of the greater number of burning cycles at which our design operates. Conventional tubular pulse combustion units, for instance, generally operate at only 60 to 70 cycles per second. Our pulse combustion technology, on the other hand, operates at anywhere from 350 to 1,600 cycles per second depending upon the configuration and application, or 6 to 22 times the rate of conventional tubular pulse combustion, leading to better heat output, heat trans fer and start-up efficiencies.

• Background: There has been increased worldwide awareness and concern over the past 25 years over the effect of atmospheric pollutants on the environment and people's health, leading to ever-increasing levels of regulatory emissions constraints, particularly in the developed countries of the world. In order to address these concerns and satisfy current and anticipated regulatory requirements, prospective purchasers are now demanding burner units which emit significantly lower levels of post-burn chemical gases, including NOx, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and other residual gases such as unburned hydrocarbons, while maintaining the energy conversion efficiencies necessary to minimize fuel costs.

• There is an inverse relationship between heat output efficiency and emission levels. As discussed previously, heat output efficiencies are a function of the completeness of the burning process. The more compete the process, the greater amount of the chemical components of the fuel will be converted into heat energy, and the less amount of unconverted fuel, in the form of various post-burn chemical gases, will be emitted as part of the exhaust stream.

• The amount of pollutants is also a function of the level of "excess air" used in the combustion process, as measured as a percentage of oxygen contained in the exhaust stream. Simply put, the combustion process requires, at a minimum, two quantities of oxygen-the first quantity of oxygen representing that amount necessary to bond and chemically react with the fuel as part of the combustion process in order to convert its chemical energy into heat energy, and the second quantity of oxygen representing an additional amount necessary to maintain a "stable" combustion environment. If there are insufficient quantities of this latter amount of additional oxygen in the combustion environment, referred to as "excess air", then the combustion process will sputter or be "unstable", resulting in reduced energy conversion efficiencies. By way of example, natural gas-fueled water heaters typically operate with excess air rates of 30% to 40% of the exhaust stream, which constitutes approx imately 30% to 40% of the amount of additional oxygen required to burn the natural gas and convert it into heat energy.

From an emission control standpoint, the greater amount of excess air the better. Specifically, the excess air promotes the re-burning of the various post-burn chemical gases from the primary combustion process, and consequentially lowers emissions. Excess air is not beneficial, however, from a heat transfer efficiency standpoint, since the excess air captures or "steals" the heat generated by the primary combustion 

-10-

---

process, which makes it unavailable for the intended heat transfer purposes. The more excess air-the greater the loss in heat transfer efficiency. As a consequence of this dynamic, operators of burner units are faced with the following "no-win" choice: if their primary requirement is pollution control-they must operate their burner unit at "richer" oxygen levels and bear the attendant greater fuel costs due to the resulting loss of heat transfer efficiency; and if their primary requirement is lower fuel costs-they must operate their burner unit at increased emission levels.

• Emission Control Advantages of Pulse Combustion Over Conventional Steady-State Combustion: As previously discussed, if the pulses occur at a fast enough rate, the chemical byproducts created through the kinetic combustion process are reduced due to the accelerated completion of the heat conversion process as well as the more complete conversion of chemical energy into heat energy, thereby leading to reduced exhaust emissions. The NOx emission levels for our current water heater prototype, for example, test at less than 10 parts per million, which is less than one-tenth of conventional steady-state combustors. We believe based upon early testing that our pulse combustion technology will lead to similar reductions with respect to other unwanted byproducts of the combustion process, such as hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO), and we intend to conduct characterization tests to confirm these early observations. Of equal importance, pulse combustion can maint ain stable combustion at significantly lower excess air rates than conventional steady-state combustion as a result of its combustion dynamics. As a result, higher heat transfer efficiencies can be maintained with pulse combustion as compared to conventional steady-state combustion, resulting in improved fuel savings, while at the same time lowering emission levels.

• Emission Control Advantages of Our Pulse Combustion Technology Over The Conventional "Tubular" Pulse Combustion: The ability of the pulse combustion unit to completely burn fuel results from the more turbulent combustion environment and internal combustion pressures resulting from the repetitive pulse combustion cycles. Our pulse combustion design, as a consequence, has demonstrated significantly reduced NOx emissions than conventional tubular pulse combustion designs, and also shows reduced amounts of CO as a result of the turbulent environment's effective mixing of the hydrocarbons in the fuel and oxygen in the air. As previously noted, pulse burner units using the conventional tubular pulse combustion configuration typically operate at 60 to 70 cycles per second. Our pulse combustion technology, on the other hand, operates at anywhere from 350 to 1,600 cycles per second depending upon the configuration and application, which transl ates into significantly lower emissions.

• In February, 1994, the Center for Emissions Research, and Certification, Inc., an independent testing agency under the auspices of the Southern California Air Quality Management District located conducted a series of tests at their facilities in the City of Industry, California, of a 30,000 to 94,000 BTU/hour natural gas-fueled residential water heater demonstration unit using our cylindrical pulse combustion design. These tests followed a test protocol developed by the Southern California Air Quality Management District. The average NOx emissions of these tests, based upon three test runs conducted and monitored by the Center using their testing equipment, was 9.5 Ng/Joule.

• In May, 1994, the American Gas Association Laboratories, an independent testing laboratory, conducted a series of tests at their facilities in Cleveland, Ohio, on an 8,000 BTU/hour natural gas-fueled water heater demonstration unit using our linear pulse combustion design. These tests followed the same test protocol developed by the Southern California Air Quality Management District and used by the Center for Emissions Research, and Certification, Inc. in conducting its tests. The average NOx emissions of these tests, based upon a series of test runs conducted and monitored by the American Gas Association Laboratories using their testing equipment, was 5.5 Ng/Joule.

• In February, 1997, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, or "CANMET", conducted a series of tests at our research and development facilities of (1) a 15,200 BTU/hour natural gas-fueled industrial drying furnace unit using linear pulse combustion configuration, and (2) a 10,700 BTU/hour combination natural gas and powdered coal-fueled industrial drying furnace unit. All tests were conducted and 

-11-

monitored by CANMET using its own test protocols and testing equipment. CANMET reported zero parts per million NOx and sulfur dioxide emissions for all of these tests, with the exception of one anomalous NOx reading on one test arising from the intentional addition of air through a coal feeding orifice. This was done to demonstrate that NOx are immediately formed if conventional combustion conditions are simulated.

• In a comparison test at our laboratory on November 29 and 30, 2001, conducted for the purpose of our application for a CE-CERT and ICAT grant, we conducted efficiency tests on a standard 32,000 BTU/hr off-the-shelf domestic water heater. We then replaced the conventional burner on that unit with a pulse combustion burner of comparable BTU output, and compared the results under identical operating conditions. Data from these tests showed an increase in efficiency from 78.7% to 82.2%, bringing the efficiency level to the upper limit for a non-pressurized, non-condensing system. This is the upper limit possible for a system that is not designed to capture the heat present in the moisture-laden exhaust. In systems wherein this moisture is condensed and the heat captured, the system efficiency rises to 96%.

As part of this test we also measured NOx emission levels. When using the conventional burner, the water heater demonstrated NOx emissions of 89 parts per million. When using our pulse combustion burner, the water heater demonstrated NOx emissions of only 7 ppm, an amount that is lower than that currently proposed for the Southern California Air Quality Management District for the year 2005. Set forth below is a summary of our emission results from this test:

	Gas in Btu/hr	O2 %	CO2 %	CO ppm	NOx ppm	NO ppm	Exhaust Temp ° F	Exhaust efficiency
Water heater equipped with conventional off-the-shelf burner	32,126	5.7	8.6	0	89	89	470.3	78.7
Water heater equipped with pulse combustion burner	32,367	5.7	8.6	0	7	7	368.7	82.2

Testing results on a wide variety of applications and fuels, such as natural gas, diesel, gasoline and powdered coal, have consistently indicated extremely low emission levels from the high frequency pulse combustion process. We believe that our pulse combustion technology is so effective in reducing the emissions of post-burn chemical gases that it can be utilized as a relatively inexpensive pollution control device, not only for NOx but also for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. In these cases our burner units would be installed as secondary combustors to re-burn the emissions-laden exhaust from a commercial or industrial process, while at the same time generating heat energy which can be used for various heat transfer applications, such as electricity co-generation, consequentially reducing operating costs. The cost to manufacture, install and operate our burner units for these applications should be significantly cheaper than current scrubber applica tions, which reduce NOx emissions but do not make use of the waste fuel energy and which, themselves, become a waste product. Co-generation is the process of supplying both electric and steam energy from the same power source-that is, combustion heat generated from a single process is used to create both electric or mechanical and steam energy. A scrubber is a chemical or electrostatic process used to remove pollutants from an exhaust stream after combustion.

Our pulse combustion burner units are significantly smaller than conventional steady-state and tubular pulse combustion units of equivalent output due to the following considerations:

• our burner units require a smaller combustion chamber to generate equivalent heat output and heat transfer capabilities than conventional steady-state and tubular pulse combustion units due to the geometric configuration of our design as well as the higher number of pulse cycles at which our unit operates; and

-12-

• conventional steady-state and tubular pulse combustion units require separate, large external heat exchangers to transfer heat energy, regardless of application, while the walls of our burner design act as primary heat exchange surfaces.

This size advantage is extremely important where limited floor or room space considerations apply. For instance, the core of a 150,000 BTU/hr low pressure boiler system utilizing our pulse combustion configuration is approximately the size of a briefcase, and weighs approximately 50 pounds, exclusive of the jacketing, muffler and a secondary heat exchanger connected to the tailpipe. By way of comparison, a low pressure boiler system utilizing a conventional pulse combustion tubular design contains a combustion chamber which is approximately two feet in diameter and three feet in height, and weighs in excess of 200 pounds. The size of conventional steady-state combustion units, in turn, which consist of a burner and an external heat exchanger, equal or exceed that of conventional tubular combustion units of comparable output. This dramatically decreases the size requirement for secondary heat exchange, which is one of the largest cost elements of conventional designs.

As previously discussed, one of the principal advantages of our pulse design is that it lends itself readily to the joining together on a side by side basis of separate but integrated operating "modules", each module containing one or more combustion units that work in concert. This modular design affords the following advantages over both conventional steady-state combustion and tubular pulse combustion designs:

• Turn-down Capability: All conventional and pulse burners operate at an optimum energy conversion efficiency and emission levels based upon their design, measured in terms of BTU output. A 100,000 BTU/hour conventional steady-state furnace, for example, is designed to operate most efficiently at a level of fuel-mixture, referred to as the "turn-down ratio", which would generate 100,000 BTUs of heat energy per hour after taking into consideration the inefficiencies inherent in that particular design. If the unit is operated at levels above or below the rated optimum output in order to regulate or adjust heat output by either increasing or decreasing the amount of incoming air and fuel, then the heat output and heat transfer efficiencies will decline and emission levels increase.

• No Downtime For Maintenance and Repair: The modular design of our pulse combustion technology also allows for easy assembly and disassembly, enabling the operator to repair or replace sections of the burner unit in most configurations while maintaining full energy output from the remaining modules. This feature is particularly important in commercial and industrial applications requiring continuous operation such as hospitals and schools, where the significant costs incurred in repairs and routine maintenance of the heating system and, in some cases, the cost of backup units, are virtually eliminated.

-13-

Conventional tubular pulse designs employ mechanical flapper valves on the intake. A mechanical valve, i.e., one that mechanically opens and closes, is limited in speed of operation by the flexibility and durability of the valve material. Moreover, the maximum speed of operation of a valve operated mechanically is limited to approximately 150 cycles per second. Our pulse combustion design, on the other hand, is aerodynamically valved and has no moving parts. As such, our design affords increased operating reliability and reduced manufacturing, maintenance and repair costs.

Our pulse combustion burner unit has the capability to use any carbon-based fuel as its energy source. Although most of our testing to date has been done with natural gas and powdered coal, we have also successfully burned gasoline, propane, and a powdered coal and hydrogen mix, and believe our burner technology will also successfully burn diesel and oil.

One of the principal drawbacks of conventional tubular pulse combustion is the cost and effort required to dampen its operating noise to levels commensurate with conventional steady-state combustion units. As previously discussed, conventional tubular pulse combustion units operate at approximately 60 to 70 cycles per second due to their configuration. The oscillating pressure waves from these cycles create a corresponding low frequency standing sound wave, resulting in a very loud, continuous and deep level of operating noise. Due to the relatively long length of this sound wavelength, technically complicated and expensive dampening technology is required in order to mute the operating noise to levels commensurate with conventional steady-state combustion.

The noise generated by our pulse combustion technology, on the other hand, operates at between 350 and 1,600 cycles per second depending upon the configuration, and can be "tuned" to create a standing sound wave in that frequency range. Although this continuous sound wave is equally loud, albeit at a higher pitch, than that associated with conventional tubular pulse combustion, it nevertheless lends itself to relatively simple and inexpensive dampening technologies due to the short longitudinal length of its wavelength, which affords it significant competitive advantages over conventional tubular pulse combustion technology.

The cost to manufacture and install a conventional steady-state 100 million BTU/hr boiler can exceed $10 million, and could take three years to design, manufacture and install from the date the order is placed. A conventional tubular pulse combustion boiler with comparable output would likely be equally expensive.

Due to the simplicity and compact size of our design, including the lack of moving parts, we believe that we can design, manufacture and install a pulse combustion boiler system with comparable output at a significantly lower cost, and a significantly shorter design-through-installation period. For example, we estimate that the 100 million BTU/hr pulse combustion boiler system mentioned would cost approximately one-half of that of a conventional tubular pulse combustion boiler with comparable output, and would have approximately one-third the weight and take up approximately one-third of the floor space of the comparable tubular pulse combustion boiler.

The principal competitive disadvantage of our pulse combustion technology is that our design is new and unique, and no products based upon our pulse combustion technologies and configurations have been commercially produced or sold to date, either by our company or by any of our competitors. Moreover, while the higher efficiencies afforded by pulse combustion are well known in the residential and commercial heating industry, we believe that conventional pulse combustion products have not been widely accepted in this market segment due to their higher product cost, noise and vibration, 

-14-

limitation in BTU generation capacity, and technical performance issues relating to their tubular design. In order to establish market acceptance, we will need to both satisfactorily educate prospective purchasers of our products, including burner manufacturers and retailers, relating to the benefits of our technology over both conventional pulse and steady state combustion technologies. We will also have to develop internal and external manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. For a more comprehensive description of these issues, see that section of this annual report captioned "Uncertainties And Risk Factors-Uncertainties And Risks Generally relating To Our Company And Our Business".

Burner units are used worldwide for numerous commercial, industrial, residential and specialty heat transfer applications. The following list of heat transfer markets applications is instructive:

Both our pulse combustion technology and our diesel fuel combustion technology have completed their respective research and development stages, and the next step in exploiting these technologies is to introduce these technologies to the various markets in order to build market penetration and share and product knowledge and acceptance. Given the broad range of potential applications and markets for our burner technologies, we anticipate that we will introduce our technologies to these potential markets through a number of different strategies and approaches, including the following types of arrangements:

Our burner designs have recently completed their primary development stage and are now in a position to be introduced to the market. We are currently working on a variety of production proto-types under various proposals or proposal requests which would lead to the initial introduction of the following burner units using our technologies. These pending proposals and proposal requests are summarized below, in the approximate order in which we believe they may lead to commercial revenues.

The proposals described above are those which we believe we can bring to market in a comparatively short period of time without excessive cost and manpower. We have also worked on a number of proposals over the past two year which have merit, including those described below, but which we are not in a position to actively pursue at this time due to a number of reasons, including high costs and lack of current funding, long lead times to market, lack of facilities, or failure to procure a binding commitment from a manufacturer to proceed with the proposal.

• Pulse Combustion Burners for Burning Coal: There are two proposals for coal burning pulse combustion burners as discussed below in greater detail. The first proposal is to market coal-fired burner units in China using our pulse combustion technology commencing with 13 million BTU/hour commercial building designs. The second proposal is pursuant to a request from the Province of Alberta to submit a grant proposal to the province to develop large-output coal burning pulse combustion burners for electrical generation plants, which would be beneficial for the province given its large coal reserves. As discussed below, we have successfully tested a proto-type burner for the China project, but our ability to scale-up the proto-type into a production model has been stayed pending our acquisition of a significantly larger research & development and testing facility and engineering personnel and additional funds. If the grant proposal is accepted by the Province of Albe rta, we may be able to use the funds to acquire the larger research & development and testing facility and personnel necessary to advance large industrial applications of our coal burning pulse combustor unit to the commercial stage. The knowledge and experience gained from that project can then be used to complete the smaller commercial and municipal burner units contemplated under the Jie Li proposal. We believe these projects represent a beta-site opportunities for Clean Energy to demonstrate the additional advantages of our pulse combustion technology to burn coal in a number of commercial and industrial settings.

• China Coal Project: On January 25, 2001, we entered into a letter of intent with Jie Li International Environmental Group, Inc., to provide them a license for the marketing in China of coal-fired burner units using our pulse combustion technology. The letter of intent superceded an earlier letter of intent dated May 31, 2000 with the principals of Jie Li. Jie Li, in turn, procured an order from Tian Long Holdings Group Ltd for 500 coal burning pulse combustion-based boiler retrofits, each involving at least two of our burners (or 1,000 burner units in total), at a price of $20,000 per burner unit, to be used to produce steam for the heating of public buildings under Tian Longs' control. This order was contingent upon the installation of a 13 million BTU/hr production pilot model at a facility in the city of Jinan in Shandong province, and that model achieving efficiency and emission reduction targets. Tian Long is a subsidiary of the China National Rail Min istry and operates the Shandong province hub branch of the railway, and also controls numerous subsidiary companies operating in the areas of high-tech products, shipping, hotel and restaurants, trading companies, social services, heavy industry, advertising and printing, and heating and cooling. As part of the negotiations with Jie Li and Tian Long, Clean Energy sent an engineering team to Jinan in April, 2000 to review the feasibility of the project and to meet with Tian Long personnel, followed up with a marketing and financial team visit in August, 2000 to again meet with Tian Long personnel and to finalize the letter of intent and purchase commitment with Jie Li.

The design, development and production of the first retrofit unit involved two stages, as follows:

• First, our ability to successfully design, construct and operate a proto-type model, including controls and coal feeder, that can burn China's relatively poor-quality coal in a powdered form. (Previously, the only coal we had burned with our pulse combustion technology was a natural gas-powdered coal mixture). We accomplished this step in December 2000, when we successfully tested a 330,000 BTU/hr proto-type burner. As anticipated, the burner resulted in high heat output efficiencies and relatively low NOx emission levels. As well, our testing also indicated an extremely low sulfur dioxide emission rate, which has led to additional investigation of this beneficial aspect of the 

-18-

high-frequency pulse burn given potential acid rain-reduction industrial applications. At the latest point of our actively development work we were continuing to modify the design in an attempt to further reduce emission levels, as well as improving the design of the coal feeding system.

• The second step was to scale-up the proto-type burner into a full 13 million BTU/hr production model, and then install it at a facility located in the city of Jinan. In order for Clean Energy to accomplish that step, we would need to acquire a significantly larger research & development and testing facility and procure additional engineering assistance. Since our burner design can be easily scaled-up, the principal remaining issue in designing and manufacturing a production model will be improvements to the coal feeding system. Once we acquire those facilities, we anticipate that it would take us at least twelve months to improve and equip the facility and to design, test and manufacture the proto-type production burner, at a total cost of at least $1.1 million for the facilities and equipment. We have reviewed several facilities and negotiated a lease-purchase for one facility, however, determined that we would not proceed until we could raise sufficient funds to proce ed with both this project as well as our other pending natural gas burner projects discussed in this section.

Clean Energy commenced work on this project in March 2000. As the result of our inability to scale-up the proto-type burner into a production model due to inadequate facilities and resources, the completion of the project has been stayed since January 2001 following our successful testing of the prototype pending our relocation or access to larger facilities. Jie Li informed us that it would reactivate discussion with Tian Long once we were ready to proceed. Assuming the successful reactivation of the project, we would most likely readdress the terms of the installation of demonstration units and subsequent order of pulse combustion-based boiler retrofits based upon circumstances with Jie Li and Tian Long at that time. Assuming the project is successfully reactivated, we would based upon our previous discussions with Jie Li and Tian Long most likely form a joint venture in China with Tian Long for the manufacture and sale of burner units once cost savings and volume productio n considerations make on-site manufacturing in China a viable alternative. In this case Clean Energy would be paid an ongoing royalty based on units manufactured by the joint venture, which would approximate our profit margin in manufacturing burner units. The ultimate form of association will be subject to a number of factors under consideration, including the protection of our intellectual property rights. Since the letter of intent governing this project does not address its legal status in the event of a substantial delay, we believe the agreement underlying the letter of intent would most likely not be legally enforceable should any of the parties prospectively decide not to reactivate the project.

• Alberta Coal Project: Pursuant to a request by the Alberta Ministry of Innovation and Science in August 2001, Clean Energy is currently preparing a grant proposal to the Alberta Energy Research Institute ("AERI") to fund the testing and development of large industrial coal burning pulse combustion burners for electrical generation plants, which would be beneficial for the province given its large coal reserves. The AERI was established by the province in August 2000 to invest for research in technology to enhance the sustainable economic development of Alberta's energy resources. The development of clean coal burning for electricity generation is one of the primary targeted areas for research and development stated by AERI. We anticipate that we will request in the range of CDN $5 to $10 million in funds as an Industrial Research Program grant, which is focused on projects that involve a step-change in energy technology and/or environmental performance. It is anticipated that the grant proposal will be submitted by the end of 2002.

• Pulse Combustion Burner to Create "Zero Oxygen" Low Excess Air Reducing Gas: We have worked on proposals for two companies to develop proto-type burner units which can deliver a 100% oxygen-free hydrogen reducing gas. For the first application, we successfully designed and tested a 365,000 BTU/hr proto-type burner unit which delivered hydrogen reducing gas which enhanced the operation of an industrial catalytic absorption pollution control system. This application was not finalized due to a change in the manufacturer's line of business. Under the second application, we designed and successfully tested an 8,000 BTU/hr proto-type burner unit which delivered a hydrogen reducing gas that could be used to

-19-

enhance the production of electricity by a recently developed line of fuel cells. This application was not finalized as the result of technical issues not related to our technology. Although these proposals did not lead to contracts, there are many industrial processes which require oxygen-free hydrogen reducing gases, and we intend to pursue these opportunities in the longer-term given our success in designing and developing proto-types.

We currently fabricate our burner units at our facilities located in Burnaby, British Columbia, although some components are purchased to our specifications from suppliers or subcontractors. Most of these components are standard parts or fabrication projects available from multiple sources at competitive prices. We believe that we would be able to secure alternate supply sources or suppliers or subcontractors if any of these become unavailable. Given the limitations of our internal manufacturing capability, we anticipate that we will rely upon strategic partners or third party contract manufacturers or suppliers to satisfy future production requirements as demand for our products increase.

As of December 31, 2001, we had two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Clean Energy USA, a Nevada corporation, and Clean Energy Technologies (Canada) Inc., a British Columbia corporation ("Clean Energy Technologies"). We originally formed Clean Energy Technologies on February 16, 1999, to focus on and to act as a cost center for our pulse combustion research and development activities. On December 31, 2001, however, we transferred ownership of Clean Energy Technologies to Mr. John D. Chato, a founder and a director of our company and the inventor of our technologies, in order to preserve its ability to fully procure Canadian research and development tax credits.

In December, 2001, we formed a new wholly-owned subsidiary, Clean Energy USA, a Delaware corporation, for the dual purpose of managing pulse combustion technology research & development activities and commercializing our pulse combustion technology through licensing and royalty agreements in North America. On January 1, 2002, Clean Energy USA entered into a research and development agreement with Clean Energy Technologies on a cost plus basis, pursuant to which Clean Energy Technologies provides pre-approved budgeted pulse combustion research and development services to Clean Energy USA, and invoices the latter company for its budgeted costs, related overhead and a 10% mark-up.

Our principal activities since our formation in March 1999 have been research and development activities in adapting our proto-types into production models. Our research and development team is comprised of three employees of Clean Energy Technologies, including Messrs. Chato and DeFina, and two consultants to Clean Energy Technologies, Dr. William Jackson (who is one of our directors) and Mr. Denver Collins. Our gross research and development expenses amounted to $397,006, $400,377 and $221,037 for our 2001, 2000 and 1999 fiscal periods, respectively. Our research and development budget for fiscal 2002 is $450,000, which will be paid to Clean Energy Technologies under our pulse combustion research and development contract with that company.

One of our objectives in meeting our operating expenses is to fund a significant portion of our research and development expenditures through grants. Previously, the BO companies have procured CDN $1,785,000 in grants for developmental purposes. Clean Energy has recently been approved for a CDN $90,000 grant to fund our phase I industrial tissue dryer characterization study by the Industrial Research Assistance Program of the Canadian federal government's National Resource Counsel.

We had previously applied for approximately $400,000 in matching grants from CE-CERT and ICAT with respect to the development of a residential natural gas-fueled water heater for the California market. This application was declined in 2001 after being short-listed, however, we re-applied in early 2002 and have been advised that our application has been submitted to the final phase of the approval process with a recommendation by the screening committee for funding in a reduced amount of $240,000. Final awarding of the CE-CERT and ICAT grants is scheduled to be announced in April, 2002.

-20-

We are also in the process of preparing, and hope to file by the end of 2002, a CDN $5 to $10 million grant application with the Alberta Energy Research Institute to fund the testing and development of large coal burning pulse combustion burners for electrical generation plants.

Our contract and grant procuring efforts are being headed by Dr. William Jackson, who is our principal scientist and one of our directors. Dr. Jackson is also coordinating our contacts with the U.S. Department of Energy and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, to name a few, in our efforts to further promote the development of our technologies and to have them designated as best available technologies.

Under the terms of the Pulse Combustion Technology License, we have no obligation to pay any royalty or license fees to Ravenscraig. The term of the Pulse Combustion Technology License expires upon the earlier of March 5, 2019 or the lapse of the newest underlying patents for the pulse combustion technology, including any patented improvements. The oldest pulse combustion technology patent expires in July 2006, and the newest current pulse combustion technology patent expires in July 2012. For further information concerning the underlying patents for the pulse combustion technology, see the section of this annual report captioned "Business-Patents and Proprietary Rights".

We are generally prohibited under the Pulse Combustion Technology License from sublicensing our rights to the pulse combustion technology, or otherwise assigning our rights as licensee under the Pulse Combustion Technology License, to any third party without Ravenscraig's prior consent. Ravenscraig, in turn, is also generally prohibited from selling its rights to the pulse combustion technology, or otherwise assigning its rights as licensor under the Pulse Combustion Technology License, to any third party without our prior consent.

We have sublicensed our rights to the pulse combustion technology to our new, wholly-owned subsidiary, Clean Energy USA Inc. effective January 1, 2002, but have limited commercialization rights to the continent of North America. This sublicense has been undertaken with the prior consent of Ravenscraig.

We are obligated under the Pulse Combustion Technology License to pay or to reimburse Ravenscraig for all costs its incurs to file and prosecute new or additional patents for the pulse combustion technology in any country. We are also obligated to pay or to reimburse Ravenscraig for prosecuting and defending patent infringement claims relating to the pulse combustion technology, and to pay any damages arising from these claims.

We have the right under the Pulse Combustion Technology License to acquire full ownership of the pulse combustion technology from Ravenscraig on or after March 5, 2004, based upon the occurrence of conditions revolving around our success or failure in procuring a listing of our common shares on a "national market", which is defined under the Pulse Combustion Technology License to constitute The New York Stock Exchange, The American Stock Exchange or The Nasdaq Stock Market, including both the SmallCap and National Markets. We refer to this purchase right as the "Pulse Combustion Technology Option". Specifically:

• We have the right, commencing March 5, 2004, to elect to acquire full ownership of the pulse combustion technology from Ravenscraig for the payment of CDN $1, so long as our common shares have been accepted for listing or quotation on a national market by the date we notify 

-21-

Ravenscraig that we are exercising this option and we tender payment. We have made no application to date to obtain any listing or quotation, and we can give no you assurance that we will make any application.

• Ravenscraig, in turn, has the right to terminate the Pulse Combustion Technology License anytime after March 5, 2004, if our common shares are not actively trading on a national market by the date it exercises its termination right. In order to exercise this right, Ravenscraig must give us 90-days notice accompanied by the payment of CDN $1. Should Ravenscraig exercise this termination right, we will lose all rights to market burner products using the pulse combustion technology unless we subsequently procure the listing or quotation of our common shares on a national market by the end of our 90-day cure period, or are able to exercise other protective rights described below which we retain to acquire the pulse combustion technology.

• Should Ravenscraig exercise its termination right, and should we fail to procure the listing or quotation of our common shares on a national market by the lapse of our 90-day cure period, we can nevertheless acquire full title to the pulse combustion technology by paying Ravenscraig the sum of CDN $525,000 within ten business days of the end of our 90-day cure period, subject to downward adjustment, plus interest on the amount which has accrued since January 1, 1999 at the rate of 13% per annum. In order to be entitled to receive the full CDN $525,000, Ravenscraig must remit to us concurrent with our payment all series 'B' preferred shares which are then outstanding, as well as 593,750 common shares. If Ravenscraig is unable to tender all 593,750 common shares, the CDN $525,000 cash consideration we must pay to Ravenscraig will be reduced on a pro rata basis based upon the number of common shares which Ravenscraig actually remits to us.

• If our common shares are not actively trading on a national market by March 5, 2004, and should Ravenscraig not exercise its termination right by that date, then we may pay Ravenscraig the sum of CDN $1 and demand that Ravenscraig exercise its termination right within 90 days of our demand, in which case we may, in turn, elect to acquire full ownership of the PCB Technology on the terms described above. If Ravenscraig fails to make its election by the end of our 90 day demand period, full title to the pulse combustion technology will automatically revert to us.

• Should we acquire full title to our pulse combustion technology by reason of any of the above purchase rights, Ravenscraig will nevertheless retain the right to reacquire our pulse combustion technology should we later become bankrupt or insolvent, or be threatened with bankruptcy or insolvency, or make an assignment in favor of our creditors.

In order to be approved for listing on The New York Stock Exchange, The American Stock Exchange or The Nasdaq Stock Market, Clean Energy would need to satisfy enumerated quantitative and qualitative listing standards. For example, for listing on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market, Clean Energy would generally be required to show: (1) shareholders' equity, market capitalization or net income of at least $5,000,000, $50,000,000 or $750,000 respectively; (2) at least 300 roundlot shareholders; (3) a public float of at least 1,000,000 shares with a market value of at least $5,000,000; and (4) a minimum bid price of $4 per share. For listing on The American Stock Exchange, Clean Energy would generally be required to show: (1) a public float with a market value of at least $15,000,000, or pre-tax income of at least $750,000 and a public float with a market value of at least $3,000,000; (2) shareholders' equity of at least $4,000,000; (3) a minimum bid price of $3 per share; (4) and public f loat of at least 500,000 shares held by at least 800 public shareholders, or 1,000,000 shares held by at least 400 public shareholders. Quantitative listing criteria for The New York Stock Exchange are more stringent than those enumerated above for The Nasdaq Stock Market or The American Stock Exchange. Clean Energy would need to significantly improve our financial performance, including increasing our shareholders' equity and generating meaningful revenues and profits, and demonstrate a substantial shareholder base and public float in order to attain a listing on a national market. We can give you no assurance we will satisfy the listing criteria for any national market by March 5, 2004.

For further information concerning risks associated with the termination of the Pulse Combustion Technology License, see that section of this annual report captioned "Uncertainties And Risk Factors-Uncertainties And Risks Generally relating To Our Company And Our Business-The Loss Of Our Technology 

-22-

Licenses As A Consequence Of Our Failure To List Our Common Shares On A National Market Would Likely Force Us To Suspend Our Operations, Liquidate Our Assets, And Wind-Up And Dissolve Our Company".

On March 5, 1999, in consideration of the sum of $10 paid to Mr. John D. Chato, we entered into a Diesel Fuel Combustion Technology License with Mr. Chato under which he granted us an exclusive worldwide license to design, engineer, manufacture, market, distribute, lease and sell burner products using the diesel fuel combustion technology, and to sublicense and otherwise commercially exploit the diesel fuel combustion technology. We are obligated under the Diesel Fuel Combustion Technology License to pay Mr. Chato or his assignees a 10% royalty based upon our net profits, after reasonable allowance for bad debts and the allocation of administrative a