JPM LRP - 20140505

Upstream Americas – Heavy Oil Development
Mine Development: Shell Canada
JPM – Life of Mine 2013
Document Revision - 1
Owner / Author – Mine Development
Issue Date – March 2014
Security Classification - Confidential

Jackpine Mine 2013 Long Range Mine Plan Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................1-1

1.1. Mine and Tailings Plan ...........................................................................1-2
1.1.1. Mining Overview .......................................................................1-2
1.1.2. Tailings Overview ......................................................................1-3
1.2. Risks to plan ..........................................................................................1-4
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................2-1
2.1. Project Overview ....................................................................................2-1
2.2. Project Scope .........................................................................................2-1
3. MINING CRITERIA AND SITE LAYOUT.............................................................3-1
3.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................3-1
3.2. Site Layout .............................................................................................3-1
3.3. Geotechnical Design Criteria ...................................................................3-2
3.4. In-Pit and Perimeter Dykes.......................................................................3-3
3.5. In-Pit Overburden Disposal Areas ............................................................3-3
3.6. External Tailings Facility..........................................................................3-3
3.7. Construction Material Suitability ..............................................................3-3
3.8. Mine Planning Design Criteria .................................................................3-4
3.9. Tailings Modeling Criteria .......................................................................3-6
3.10. Tailings Parameters ................................................................................3-7
4. MINE PLAN RESULTS......................................................................................4-1
4.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................4-1
4.2. Mineable Bitumen Resource Estimation .....................................................4-1
4.3. Mine Plan Results Overview ....................................................................4-1
4.4. Mine Development Sequence ..................................................................4-5
4.5. Crusher Relocation ...............................................................................4-19
4.6. In-Pit Versus Fort Hill Dump ...................................................................4-22
4.7. Mine Drainage & Reclamation ..............................................................4-26
4.8. Clearing ..............................................................................................4-26
4.9. Drainage of Surficial Materials ..............................................................4-27
4.10. Reclamation and Closure ......................................................................4-27
5. TAILINGS MANAGEMENT .............................................................................5-1
5.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................5-1
5.2. Tailings Management Objectives .............................................................5-1
5.3. Tailings Products ....................................................................................5-1
5.4. Tailings Deposition Strategy ....................................................................5-3
UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Proprietary Information: This document contains proprietary information and may not be partly or wholly reproduced
without prior written permission from Shell Upstream Americas
5.5. Tailings Containment By Cell ...................................................................5-5

5.6. Tailings Deposition Schedule ...................................................................5-6
5.7. Directive 074 Compliance .......................................................................5-9
5.8. ETF Fill curves: DDA,SC1 & SC2 ...........................................................5-11
5.8.1. DDA .......................................................................................5-11
5.8.2. SC1 ........................................................................................5-12
5.8.3. SC2 ........................................................................................5-13
5.9. Fluid Cell 1 Fill Curve ..........................................................................5-15
5.10. Cell 1 Fill Curve ...................................................................................5-16
5.11. Cell 2 Fill Curve ...................................................................................5-17
5.12. Cell 3 Fill Curve ...................................................................................5-18
6. TECHNICAL RISKS..........................................................................................6-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Annual Ore and Waste Tonnes .................................................................................4-4

Figure 2 Annual Ore Grade & Annual Fines Content(wt%) ........................................................4-4
Figure 3 JPM General Layout .................................................................................................4-9
Figure 4 JPM Crest Advance ................................................................................................4-10
Figure 5 JPM Status Map 2014 ............................................................................................4-11
Figure 10 JPM Status Map 2032 ..........................................................................................4-16
Figure 13 Proposed Crusher Locations ..................................................................................4-20
Figure 14 JPM General Layout With In-pit Dumps ..................................................................4-24
Figure 15 Dump Haulage Comparison ..................................................................................4-24
Figure 16 797 Hours Comparison ........................................................................................4-25
Figure 17 797 Calculated Number Comparison .....................................................................4-25
Figure 18 Cell 2 Contingency ...............................................................................................4-25
Figure 19 Cell 3 Contingency ...............................................................................................4-26
Figure 20 NST Process Flow ...................................................................................................5-3
Figure 21 Annual MFT Inventory.............................................................................................5-7
Figure 22 Cumulative Tailings Generated ................................................................................5-8
Figure 23 DDA Fill Curve .....................................................................................................5-11
Figure 24 SC1 Fill Curve (NST).............................................................................................5-12
Figure 25 SC2 Fill Curve......................................................................................................5-13

Figure 26 DDA,SC1&SC2 Elevation Summary .......................................................................5-14

Figure 27 Fluid Cell 1 Fill Curve ...........................................................................................5-15
Figure 28 Cell 1 Fill Curve ...................................................................................................5-16
Figure 29 Cell 2 Fill Curve ...................................................................................................5-17
Figure 30 Cell 3 Fill Curve ..................................................................................................5-18

List of Tables
Table 1 LOM Design Parameters ............................................................................................2-2
Table 2 External Dump Volumes .............................................................................................3-2
Table 3 Standard Setbacks.....................................................................................................3-3
Table 4 Construction Criteria for First 3 Years ..........................................................................3-4

Table 5 Construction Criteria for Year 3 to EOL........................................................................3-4
Table 6 Material Densities and Swell Factors............................................................................3-6
Table 7 Tailings Properties .....................................................................................................3-7
Table 8 Mineable Resource Summary – 2013 to End of Life.......................................................4-1
Table 9 JPM Annual Production Schedule ................................................................................4-3
Table 10 Crusher Relocation Total Cost Comparison ...............................................................4-21
Table 11 Tailings Products Deposition .....................................................................................5-4

Table 12 Cell Details .............................................................................................................5-5
Table 13 Tailings Deposition Schedule ....................................................................................5-7
Table 14 Tailings Detailed Deposition Schedule......................................................................5-10

Jackpine Mine 2013 Life of Mine Plan 1-1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Jackpine Mine (JPM) Life of Mine was undertaken to provide the baseline plan for:
reserves reporting
lease boundary negotiations
operational and capital costing
setting Environmental Performance Initiatives (EPI) objectives
identifying risk and opportunities for longer term issues
Although alignment between the 2013 Life of Mine (LOM) and the 2013 Bitumen Production
Plan (BPP) exists, there is one key premise that drives differing results. The 2013 BPP
identified 32 Mm3 of water that will be eliminated from the closed loop system over the next 10
years through Water Management Opportunities (WMO). The WMO were not detailed by the
time the LOM planning work began in September 2013 therefore it was assumed that the WMO
were completed to manage the 32 Mm3 of water on schedule and the volume was excluded in
the LOM tailings and water balance. This assumption results in the 2013 LOM balancing for
tailings, whereas the 2013 BPP does not.
The 2013 LOM incorporated the 2013 BPP premise for Directive 074 compliance technologies
including:
Commercial centrifugation commences in 2016 ~ 1Mt yr 1 ramps to 1.25 yr 2,
maxes at 1.55 yr 3.
TT fines capture target at ~29% of total fines to extraction (includes 70% of fines
retained in deposited TT beach).
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) did not accept Shell’s application to accept the fines
capture in the TT deposit, which was determined after LOM planning began. The 2014 BPP
has de-rated the fines capture in the TT beach as compared to both the 2013 LOM and BPP.
The 2014 LOM will be undertaken by the Long Range Planning (LRP) group under Technical
Services. LRP is also accountable for the BPP and 1 Year Mine Plans. Moving forward, these
will be based on one mine plan to provide better alignment. A significant change in 2014
planning premise is the External Tailings Facility (ETF) is design height is reduced to 370m.
This is a loss of 10m, and 75 Mm3 of tailings containment. The risks to achieving the ETF
elevations were known when developing the 2013 LOM, however strategies were being
investigated to maintain the elevation at 380m including blast densification and additional toe
berms. Blast densification did not provide a clear position that guarantees that full height of the

JPM ETF can be achieved. Toe berms constructed within the approved mine footprint are now
planned to mitigate risk to allow planning up to 370 m el. Off lease space is required to enable
additional toe berm construction.
This following report summarizes the components of the LOM as follows:
Chapter 1: Executive Summary
Chapter 2: Introduction
Chapter 3: Mining Criteria & Site Layout
Chapter 4: Mine Plan Results
Chapter 5: Tailings Plan Results
Chapter 6: Technical Risks
Appendix A: Costing Report
Appendix B: Risk Register
1.1. MINE AND TAILINGS PLAN
1.1.1. MINING OVERVIEW

Shell currently has regulatory approval to mine Jackpine Mine located on oil sands lease 13.
The ore tonnage throughput on average is 62Mt per year from 2013-2056(EOL). Comparably,
in the 2013 JPM BPP, the production target is ranging from 67 to 73Mt/year until
Debottlenecking phase 3 (DB3) and the plant upgrades associated with it come online in 2018.
Increasing the rate to 80-88Mt/year in 2019 and beyond.
This LOM plan uses ARENA model results based on historical mine performance as the target
production for the mine life and recovery assumption from the Technical Services Long Range
Planning (formerly Mid Range Planning) which is the AER compliance recovery+2% starting in
2014.
The LOM presented balances with respect to mine waste and tailings. The mining direction at
JPM is primarily driven by the opening of tailings and fluid storage capacity, dyke footprint and
the demand for useable construction material. The general mine direction prioritizes clearing of
Fluid Cell 1 (FC1) and the dyke 2 footprint before it is needed in 2016. Mining direction then
moves to the east of FC1 to clear the dyke 1 area before advancing north to clear the cell 2a
and 2b footprints.
A capture rate of 80% of the total suitable construction material is assumed for dyke
construction. Due to the geotechnical re-assessment of construction material modelling and
the associated reduction in forecast construction material availability, there is an increase in
overall waste movement to supply the dykes with construction material to build containment.

The lower construction material availability is compounded by the on-going requirement to use
construction material in the DDA, which was previously planned to cease in 2013.
EODA has been eliminated as a waste dump location from previous mine plans; the gradual
reduction in size of the dump due to changes in ETF design and Syncrude boundary
negotiations has resulted in a volume too small to justify the cost required to re-handle the RMS
that is currently there (RMS7). The Jackpine Mine EODA Change Form (MTS-13-101) was
issued by Mine Development in November 21, 2013 to communicate this change.
In addition to the LOM plan, two additional assessments were completed:
JPM crusher relocation study
Utilization of Fort Hills dump versus in pit dumps.
The crusher is proposed to be re-located in 2037 to accommodate tailings deposition to in-pit
Cell 2. According to the mine sequence, tailings will be poured at the crusher’s current location
requiring it to be relocated. The crusher relocation assessment included in this report highlights
that one crusher move near the current location of the surge bin will provide the most economic
balance between crusher and surge feed conveyor costs versus ore haulage costs.
The waste planning deviates from the 2013 Bitumen Production Plan (BPP) once WODA
reaches capacity. In the BPP, WODA reaches its design limits in Q1 2022 and the majority of
mine waste is deposited in-pit as there is no other external locations available. In this LOM, the
Fort Hills dump is used once WODA reaches capacity.
Details of the mine plan are located in Section 4.
1.1.2. TAILINGS OVERVIEW

Ongoing geotechnical performance monitoring of the ETF identified the need for additional toe
berms and/or blast densification to raise the ETF to its full design height. As a result, the
following was included in the LOM;
This plan has incorporated the construction of toe berms to the north and south of
the ETF.
It allows for waste provision for an in-pit buttress along the south wall of the JPM
pit.
Blast densification of the ETF beaches is included in the costing.
Since the development of this LOM, blast densification trials were completed and they did not
provide a clear position that guarantees full height of the ETF can be achieved.
The BPP 2013 outlined that a minimum of 32Mm3 of water will be eliminated from the closed
loop system over the next 10 years. For the purpose of the spatial plan the 32 Mm3 has been
excluded from the tailings material balance in this LOM however the capital required for the

water reduction project (2016-2019) outlined in the 2013 BPP is included in the LOM costing
report.
Shell has selected Thickened Tailings (TT) combined with centrifuge technology to achieve
Directive 074 compliance by 2019.
A field trial for the centrifuge technology is currently underway at JPM and assumes the
following:
Centrifuge cake will be deposited directly into the DDA.
Centrifuge technology will capture 1.55 Mt of MFT annually in full operations.
Once in-pit space is available for tailings, centrifuge technology will be replaced by Non
Segregating Tailings (NST) for directive compliance.
Currently, tailings are being deposited in the DDA and Sand Cell Phase 1 (SC1) of the ETF.
Sand Cell Phase 2 (SC2) is planned to receive tailings starting in 2014. The DDA and SC1 are
designed to manage the storage of TT, MFT, centrifuge cake, WT, CST and water. SC2 will be
mainly used for sand containment and a minimal water inventory to float a transfer barge.
Water levels are maintained in DDA1 as a fluid buttress for SC1 until the ponds are combined in
2017. CST will replace mine waste as the main source of material to raise the DDA. Due to
height difference between DDA and SC1, the DDA will be filled with WT and CST at a quicker
rate with the intent of the containment dykes reaching the same elevation as SC1. SC1 will
continue to operate as an upstream, sand constructed dyke, however, its vertical advance will
be stopped at 352m in order to close the elevation differential with the DDA.
1.2. RISKS TO PLAN
Tailings Containment:
The successful tailings containment at JPM relies on the following:
blast densification of the ETF beaches and waste buttresses to achieve 381m final
elevation;
availability of construction material; and
delivery of the transfer system for fluids to in-pit FC1.
Tailings Fines Capture:
The technology risk of centrifugation and NST technology.

Directive compliance, however there are opportunities to claim credit for fines in
existing beaches at higher rates than those outlined in Alberta Energy Regulator
(AER) Directive.
The successful delivery and densification of the thickened tailings beaches in
DDA1.
Water Management:
32 Mm3 of water needs to be eliminated from the closed-loop system over the 10
year plan.
Mining Sequence:
Management of south pit wall instability concerns.

2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
As of March 2013, Shell Albian Sands consists of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project’s (AOSP)
two mines, Muskeg River Mine and the Jackpine Mine, which have a nameplate capacity of
155,000 and 110,000 bbl per calendar day, respectively. In 2007, the original 100,000 bbl
Muskeg River Mine Approval was renewed and amended to produce 270,000 bbl per calendar
day. Current production at the Muskeg River Mine remains at 155,000 bbl per day target.
The Jackpine Mine (JPM) is planned in 2 stages, Jackpine Mine Phase 1 (JPM) and the
Jackpine Mine Expansion(JPME). JPM was approved in 2004, includes a 200,000 bbl/cd
mining and extraction facility on the east side of Lease 13. In 2007, Shell submitted the
Jackpine Mine Expansion application to include additional mining areas and processing facilities
for an additional capacity of 100,000 bbl/d. A Joint Review Panel (JRP) hearing for JPME was
held in November 2012, and approval granted in December 2013.
2.2. PROJECT SCOPE
The objective of the 2013 Plan is to identify key areas of risks for the JPM Project, provide input
into the longer term component of the Directive 074 plan, as well as provide an update of the
recommended strategy for JPM development. The following are the notable design premises
for the 2013 plan
Updated geological model
Lease13 plan completed without PCA pit expansion
Reserve pit 2013 with updated chin are used for planning purpose
PCA east is not accessible beyond zero edge until 2017; PCA south until 2018
Base case production is DB1 tonnage provided by the ARENA model
Recovery taken from Mid Range Planning (MRP) – compliance recovery + 2%
starting 2014
Construction material parameters issued by Geotech group – Aug 2013, First 3
years used MRP parameters
In Pit Dyke and Dump slopes 8.5:1 upstream and downstream
FC1 is available in Q1 2016 as required – Driven by projects delivery timeline for
infrastructure
Commercial centrifuge production commences in 2016

Following capacities were incorporated:

o ETF capacity from Jan 2013 of 564.6 Mm3
o WODA capacity of 139 Mbcm
ETF capping with CST and not overburden
Mine Engineering Standard 2013 were followed with the exceptions listed below:
Table 1 LOM Design Parameters
Description Value to be used (BPP2013)
Density of Ore (t/m3) 2.08
Density of Waste (t/m3) 2.08
MFT Density (t/m3) 0.37
CST cell construction average dry density (t/m3) 1.75
CAST BAW slope 3.40%

3. MINING CRITERIA AND SITE LAYOUT
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes mining criteria and site layout and includes;
Site layout
Geotechnical design criteria
Mine and tailings planning design criteria
Mineable resource evaluation
3.2. SITE LAYOUT
The general site layout for the study includes the following major components;
mine pit
plant site and infrastructure,
external waste disposal areas,
external tailings disposal areas,
Mine Pits
The pit is bounded by Syncrude’s Aurora South project to the East, the Muskeg River to the
west and Lease 88 and 89 to the north.
Plant and Site Infrastructure
The plant is located just West of JPM Cell 1. Current site infrastructure includes the extraction
plant, ore preparation facilities and tailings lines.
JPM is approved to produce 200,000 bbl/d, with current capacity at 110,000 bbl/d.
External Waste Disposal Areas
There are a two external waste structures associated with this plan: The West Overburden
Disposal Area (WODA) approved with JPM Phase 1, and the Fort Hills dump applied for in
JPME. The volumes available in the external dumps over the life of mine, are provided in Table
2. The available capacity of the Fort Hills dump is 418 Mbcm, however, the mine plan only
require 90 Mbcm dump space before going back to the in-pit dump on the west side of lease 13.

Table 2 External Dump Volumes
Dump Volume Available (MBCM)
WODA 140
Ft Hills Dump 418
External Tailings Disposal Areas

There are three external tailings disposal areas currently underway at JPM. The DDA, Sand Cell
1(SC1) and Sand Cell 2(SC2). The mine and tailings balances for this study begin as of January
2013, and the volume remaining in these structures was determined and incorporated as part of
the material balances using LIDAR digital terrain surveys.
3.3. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA
The following sections outline the geotechnical criteria applied.

Ultimate Pit Slopes and External Waste Disposal Areas
The JPM ultimate pit walls and external waste disposal designs are based on the guidelines set
forth by the geotechnical department along with guidelines set in the Shell Mine Engineering
Standards (2013).
Base of Feed 225 limit
It has been determined that mining limitations need to be incorporated into the pit floor to
prevent future possibilities of harm to individuals, asset loss, or damage to reputation. As such,
it was determined in the Devonian Geohazard Protocol that a minimum limit of 225m elevation
would be incorporated into the pit base of feed designs for JPM.
Physical Limits and Offsets
Proximity to features such as waterways, infrastructure and adjacent lease boundaries may
require the need for offsets to be incorporated into the pit design. The Mine Engineering
Standards (2013), defines the offset to be incorporated where appropriate, and which are
outlined in Table 3.

Table 3 Standard Setbacks
Description Standard Setback

Lease boundaries 65 meters
Waterway creek or river 100 meters
External tailings facility ETF 200 meters - toe of the ETF to crest of mine pit
Waste Disposal Areas 200 meters - toe of the waste dump to crest of mine pit
Plant site 150 meters
Power lines and pipelines 50 meters from CL. or 30 meters from edge of R/W
whichever governs
Minimum mining width, cable shovel with 150 meters
double backup
3.4. IN-PIT AND PERIMETER DYKES
In-pit dykes were designed based on the standards provided in the 2009 Norwest Geotechnical
Report, as well as designs provided from the Geotech Design Group. For the study, full dyke
shells were designed, dykes were not split into their individual components for shell/core/berm
given the long range nature of the study. Upon geotechnical review and when full detailed
designs of the dykes are completed the slopes may need to be adjusted to account for varying
ground and dyke footing conditions. The criteria of 8.5H:1V was used to design the in-pit dykes.
A perimeter dyke for Cell 1 and Cell 2 was incorporated into the plan for tailings containment
purposes. This dyke follows the same criteria outlined above. A 50m crest was used in all
structures.
3.5. IN-PIT OVERBURDEN DISPOSAL AREAS
When required, the study includes the placement of in-pit waste to cell 4. All other waste is
placed in WODA or Fort Hills dump.
3.6. EXTERNAL TAILINGS FACILITY
The ETF is currently active, with both fluid and solid tailings disposal ongoing. The remaining
available capacity of ETF is 564Mm3 as of Jan 2013.
The ETF is divided into the DDA, SC1 and SC2. The DDA and SC1 are active until 2028 and
SC2 until 2030.
3.7. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL SUITABILITY
The construction material criteria was aligned with the 2013 Bitumen Production Plan (BPP) for
the first 3 years shown in Table 4 and then was updated to Table 5 for the remainder of the
mine life.

Table 4 Construction Criteria for First 3 Years
Generalized Waste Model Coding Criteria (for first 3 years)

Drain
General Fill (%) Structural Sand Reclamation Undifferentiated
Formation / Shell (%) Fill (%) (%) Material (%) Fill (%)
Lower McMurray 1w 56% 26% 0% 0% 100%
Lower McMurray 1 56% 47% 0% 0% 100%
Lower McMurray 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Middle McMurray 80% 73% 0% 0% 100%
Upper McMurray 75% 58% 0% 0% 100%
Overburden (Muskeg) 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Overburden (NonMuskeg) 30% 21% 30% 0% 100%
Table 5 Construction Criteria for Year 3 to EOL
Generalized Waste Model Coding Criteria

Drain
General Fill (%) Structural Sand Reclamation Undifferentiated
Formation / Shell (%) Fill (%) (%) Material (%) Fill (%)
Lower McMurray 1w 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Lower McMurray 1 100% 90% 0% 0% 100%
Lower McMurray 2 70% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Middle McMurray 100% 85% 0% 0% 100%
Upper McMurray 70% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Overburden (Muskeg) 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Overburden (NonMuskeg) 60% 0% 30% 0% 100%
3.8. MINE PLANNING DESIGN CRITERIA
Geological Model
The 2013 Geological model was utilized for this phase of the study, which was the basis for the
2013 reserves reporting.
Mineable Ore Criteria
Upon receipt of the geological model, mining criteria were applied to discriminate between ore
and waste, following the AER (ID 2001-07) definitions. The mining criteria consist of:
minimum 3 m thickness at 7% bitumen grade for ore separation criteria;
minimum 3 m thickness for waste separation criteria.

For production scheduling additional mining dilution criteria have been applied:
0.5m swap thickness for ore bitumen grade dilution.
TVBIP Pit Definition

TV:BIP 12:1 is the minimum pit limiting criteria prescribed by the AER to define the minimum
surface mineable oil sands limit. TV:BIP is not a direct economic based pit limiting criterion
rather it is indicative.
TV:BIP is defined as follows:
TV:BIP = (Ore Volume + Interburden Volume + Overburden Volume)

Volume of Bitumen in Place
Pit Shells
The 2013 Reserves pits were utilized for this phase of the study, with an adjustment to the Chin
area after economic analysis identifies that optimum pit crest is required to scale back to the NE
direction.
Mine Production Rate
The LOM study assumes an annual production rate of 62Mt, which equates to approximately
100,000 bbl/day.
Bitumen Recovery
The compliance recovery curve was aligned with MRP( the compliant recovery curve plus 2%).
Whenever the average bitumen content of the diluted as-mined ore is less than or equal to 11
percent bitumen:
Compliant Recovery = -190.497 + 50.843G - 2.350G2

where G is the average weight percent bitumen content of the diluted ore for a period.
A recovery factor of 86.58% was assigned when the bitumen grade is greater than 11 weight
percent bitumen.

Material densities and Swell Factors

Table 6 shows the material densities and swell factors that were used for production scheduling.
Table 6 Material Densities and Swell Factors
Overburden Oil Sand Bitumen

Bulk Density (t/m3) 2.08 2.08 1.007
10% at dykes
Swell Factor, placed N/A
15% at dumps
3.9. TAILINGS MODELING CRITERIA
A tailings model was created specifically for use by the mine development team and
incorporates the Mine Engineering Standards (2013).
Stream Composition and Cyclone Performance
Stream composition is based on simplified cyclone models. To calculate tailings stream
masses, TSRU is first calculated based on extraction sand/fines. The remaining sand/fines are
split between the CST and TT streams as per the cyclone performance equations outlined in the
Preliminary Tailings Planning Guidelines.
Sand to underflow (CST)
% of sand to underflow = ( 0.004*( X*100)^2-0.525*X*100+97.954)/100
Where X = % fines is the fines content in the extraction ore after rejects.
Fines to underflow (CST)
% fines to underflow = (0.27*(X*100)^2-0.215*X*100+38.986)/100
Fines to Overflow (TT)
The fines fraction reporting to the TT stream is: (Extraction fines – CST fines – TSRU fines).
Hydrocarbons to Underflow (CST)
Bitumen to the cyclone = (feed ore bitumen –breaker rejects– recovered bitumen – TSRU
bitumen), where bitumen in the TSRU is taken as 9% of the feed ore bitumen.
% bitumen to underflow = (0.026*(X*100)^2-0.192*(X)+37.598)/100

Hydrocarbons to Overflow (TT)

The bitumen fraction reporting to the TT stream is: (Bitumen to cyclone – Bitumen to CST)
3.10. TAILINGS PARAMETERS
The tailings model uses the parameters set forth in the Mine Engineering Standard 2013. The
densities and MFT runoff parameters are outlined in Table 7. All calculations and reported
tonnages are based on Sieve Hydrometer (SH) fines measurements.
Table 7 Tailings Properties
Dry Density
Stream % Fines (1) to MFT (2)
(t/m3)
CST Cell 1.75 50%
CST Beach 1.51 50%
TT 0.85 30%
TSRU 0.93 40%
WT 1.51 25%
MFT 0.37 N/A
NST (on-spec) 1.62 20%
NST (off-spec) 1.55 50%
CT (on-spec) 1.62 20%
CT (off-spec) 1.55 50%
Note: (1) Fines refers to SH fines, (2) MFT is calculated as a % of fines by mass.
NST is produced with a target sand to fines ratio (SFR) of 4.5, on a SH basis. NST is assumed
to be on-spec 85% of the operating time and off-spec 15% of the time. On-spec NST has a
pipeline solids content of 67% and should have a reduced tendency to segregate, while off-spec
NST has a pipeline solids content of 57% and is expected to have an increased tendency to
segregate. The deposited dry density of off-spec products is lower than that of the on-spec
tailings.

4. MINE PLAN RESULTS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the mine plan and includes;

Mineable resource estimation
Mine production forecast
Mine development sequencing
Haulage and crusher re-location
Mine drainage and reclamation
4.2. MINEABLE BITUMEN RESOURCE ESTIMATION
An estimate of the mineable oil sands resource was determined for each ultimate pit. In order to
determine mineable oil sands quantities, the pits were sub-divided into 50 m x 50 m x 15 m
mining blocks. For each mining block, quantities for overburden, interburden, ore grade, fines
content, and oil sands were calculated. Weight percent bitumen of the oil sands was calculated.
Based on the above criteria and analysis, a summary of the mineable resource is provided in
Table 8. The mineable resource estimates for the TV:BIP 12:1 limit at corresponding nominal ore
production rates of 62 Mt per year will support a mine life of approximately 43 years.
Table 8 Mineable Resource Summary – 2013 to End of Life
Waste Ore Ore Diluted Grade Diluted Fines Recovered Bitumen

Pit
(Mbcm) (Mbcm) (Mt) (wt.%) (wt.%) (Mbbls)**
JPM 887 1,265 2,632 11.40 14.47 1,625

** Bitumen volume is sum of annual production.
4.3. MINE PLAN RESULTS OVERVIEW
Mine Production
The mine plan ore tonnage targets were established using historical performance data from the
existing JPM operation. The plan meets the annual production requirements of 62M tonnes per
annum for a total Life of Mine ore tonnage of 2,632Mtonnes or 1,625Mbbls over a 43 year mine

life. Table 9 provides the annual production schedule and Figure 1 illustrates the annual
tonnages and barrels per day.
A consistent grade of 11-12% is maintained over the life. The fines varies between 14-16% until
2030 then jumps to 16-18% until EOL. A summary of the weighted average ore characteristics
is included in Table 9 JPM Annual Production Schedule. Figure 2 show the JPM Annual Grade
and Fines respectively.

Table 9 JPM Annual Production Schedule
Waste Ore
Total Oil Sands Diluted Bitumen Fines (laser) Recovered Waste:Ore

Year
(Mt) (Mt) Grade (wt%) (wt%) Bitumen (Mbbl) Ratio (t/t)
2013 52 63 11.30 17.83 38 0.83

2014 58 63 11.06 16.27 37 0.93
2015 53 59 11.23 12.51 36 0.90
2016 48 62 11.05 15.40 37 0.78
2017 44 63 11.12 13.41 38 0.70
2018 44 61 12.13 12.27 40 0.72
2019 44 60 12.09 11.42 39 0.74
2020 44 60 11.57 13.12 37 0.74
2021 44 62 11.61 10.92 39 0.71
2022 44 63 11.83 11.14 40 0.70
2023 44 61 11.75 13.45 39 0.71
2024 34 60 11.76 13.18 38 0.57
2025 34 60 11.21 15.80 36 0.57
2026 34 62 11.45 13.53 38 0.55
2027 39 63 11.50 12.59 39 0.62
2028 39 61 11.91 10.46 40 0.63
2029 39 60 12.20 10.63 39 0.65
2030 39 60 11.96 13.05 38 0.66
2031-2035 210 305 10.79 16.32 178 0.69
2036 - 2040 251 305 12.13 12.05 201 0.82
2041-2045 270 305 11.28 15.10 187 0.88
2046-2050 175 305 11.05 16.31 182 0.57
2051-2056 160 311 13.38 19.81 186 0.51
TOTAL 1,844 2,632 11.40 14.47 1,625 0.70

Jackpine Mine 2013 Long Range Mine Plan Report 4-4
Figure 1 Annual Ore and Waste Tonnes
Figure 2 Annual Ore Grade & Annual Fines Content(wt%)

4.4. MINE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE
The January 1, 2013 as-built surface was used as the starting point for the plan. The
annual ore tonnage mined is approximately 62Mt/year based on DB1 targeted
production. The mine development sequence begins in 2013 and production continues
until 2056. Overburden is stripped in advance of mining and the sequence targets a 6
month ore inventory in support of production tonnages. The mining sequence was
scheduled using the XPAC mine scheduling software. The ore profile is determined by
XPAC and in turn provides the overburden and interburden required to complete the ore
schedule. The XPAC waste profile is then manually smoothed by moving overburden
and interburden forward in the plan when needed to smooth equipment requirements.
The mine plan was scheduled to target total recovered barrels for each
period.
A target minimum diluted bitumen grade of 10.9% was set in the schedule.
Some years were below 10.9% (i.e., 2031-2035) due to a lack of available
high grade ore for blending.
The total tonnes of ore to the plant were capped based on the grade profile.
The face advance direction was dictated by ore grade blending and by
clearing dyke footprint in conjunction with waste placement requirements
after external dumps are full.
Three factors which include opening up space for tailings containment, clearing the dyke
footprint on time, and maintaining the sufficient inventory of the construction material are
the main drivers for the mine sequencing at JPM. The focus is on clearing the dyke
footprint in the nose area for the FC1 planned to be operational in 2016. Any delays in
mining of the FC1 area leads to delay of the fluid transfer schedule from the ETF to FC1
resulting in containment issues. Upon mining out FC1, mining progresses east to clear
the footprint for Cell1. However, the mining activity advancing east will be constrained
by the zero-edge PCA boundary in 2016. Shell is currently evaluating different options
on defining the most economic mine plans near the PCA and the commitment made to
AER is to provide the final mine plan near the PCA five years prior to mining in this
area. As a result of this commitment, the mine direction of the PCA shifts north in 2016,
east in 2017 and south in 2018. Between year 2021 and 2028, Cell 1 will be mined out
and mining will continue advancing north clearing Dyke 3 and Dyke 4 areas exposing the
Cell 2 footprint. The mining direction then shifts to the east side of the lease and
exposing the footprint for Cell 3. After the footprint for cell 3 has been exposed, the
mining direction shifts to the west side of the lease progressing West of Dyke 4 finishing
in the far southwest side until the end of mine life.

Figure 3 JPM General Layoutshows the mine footprint with dyke and dump locations, and
Figure 4 JPM Crest Advanceprovides the mine sequence. Progression maps of the mine
sequence are provided in Figure 5 to

Figure 12.
Year 2013 to 2015

Mining continues in the nose area pushing east and finishing in2015. All the waste
material goes to WODA. Dyke2 construction begins in Q4 of 2014. A minimal 1% of the
dyke has been constructed at the end of 2014 and 4% by the end of 2015.
Year 2016 to 2020

Mining continues west and to the southern limit avoiding PCA south upon the completion
of opening up FC1 tailings space and Dyke2 footprint. The focus is then centered on
blending ore grade and exposing Dyke1 footprint. FC1 is completed and has been in
use since 2016. Waste continues to be placed in WODA.
Year 2021 to 2028

The mining face continues to progress in a southwest direction, mining out the entirety of
Cell1, at which point northward progression is commenced to expose Cell2 with a focus
on creating footprint for Dyke3 and the utilization of mined construction material.
Dyke 1 is completed in these years and the southern half of dyke 3 is started. The
intermediate Dyke2i begins construction in 2025 and is approximately 40% complete by
the end of 2028. The intermediate dyke allows tailings to be placed in Cell2a before the
entire Cell2 footprint and enclosing dykes can be completed.
WODA is filled to capacity and the Fort Hills Dump (FHD) is activated in 2028.
Predevelopment work for FHD (access roads, power, trailers) commences in 2025.
Progressive reclamation of WODA has been ongoing on the lower elevations and the
closure of WODA is expected to commence immediately after completion.
Year 2029 to 2034

Mining continues northward completing the exposure of Dyke2i footprint. It continues to
expose Dykes 3 and 4 as well as creating the tailings contain areas in Cells 2a and 2b
exposing dyke 2i footprint and dyke 4 footprint. Dyke2i is being constructed along with
Dyke3 and Dyke4.
All of the construction material is being placed in dykes during this period while the
remaining non-suitable construction material continues to be hauled to FHD. On
average 33% of the total mine waste is hauled to FHD resulting in an incremental
trucking fleet of 3 trucks to compensate for the distance.
Year 2035 to 2045

Mining progresses east towards the pit walls, exposing dyke 5, while maintaining a small
advance in the western direction for ore blending purposes. The southern portions of
Dykes 3 and 4 are completed to provide ultimate capacity for Cell2a, which is filled and

overtops into Cell2b in 2041. The northern portions of Dyke 3 and 4 are completed in
2045. Dyke 5 is also nearing completion at 99%.
Ex-pit waste continues to the FHD until 2042 and then waste is placed in-pit west of
dyke 4 to in-pit Dump1.
Reclamation of Cell1 begins with overburden capping in 2040 and re-vegetation in 2041.
ETF capping commences in 2041 to 2043 with re-vegetation beginning in 2044.
Year 2045 to EOM

The eastern portion of the mine is completed in 2045 and mine operations move to the
west to complete Lease 13 mineable resource. The west side is mined from northeast to
southwest.
All dyke construction is completed by 2047 and efforts move to complete the Muskeg
River in-pit berm. The berm acts as a seepage barrier from process effected water
entering into the Muskeg Creek in the event that Cell4 will contain tailings. In the Lease
13 mine scenarios no tailings are placed in Cell4.
Waste is placed in in-pit dumps west of Dyke4 or in the Muskeg Creek in-pit berm.

Figure 3 JPM General Layout

Figure 4 JPM Crest Advance

Proprietary Information: This document contains proprietary information and may not be partly or wholly reproduced without prior written permission from Shell
Upstream Americas
Figure 5 JPM Status Map 2014

Upstream Americas

Upstream Americas

Upstream Americas

Upstream Americas

Upstream Americas



4.5. CRUSHER RELOCATION
The crusher is currently located on the base of feed (BOF) of Cell 2a. Tailings will be
deposited into Cell 2a requiring the crusher to be relocated by 2037. The previous
crusher relocation plan completed in FED3 Mine Plan was to locate the crusher to the
North side of the pit highwall, north of Dyke4. However, in this version of the LOM plan,
this is no longer feasible since Dyke4 North will not be fully constructed and it will not be
possible to route the conveyor across Dyke4 to the plant. As a result, a crusher
relocation study was initiated as part of this LOM.
As the mine operation advances, the average ore haul distance increases as the mining
face becomes further away from the plant location. This leads to lower truck
productivity. To maintain mine productivity and bitumen capacity at the forecasted rates
through the remaining mine life, either more trucks are required or conveyors are
needed to reduce the truck haul distance. The crusher relocation study assesses the
trade-offs in economic benefits between the addition of more trucks versus relocating the
crusher.
The purpose of this assessment is intended to evaluate and conclude the most
economically feasible strategy to relocate the crusher location before 2037 based on the
current JPM mine plan sequence.
In the JPM study, 3 locations were assessed as outlined in Figure 13:

Figure 13 Proposed Crusher Locations

Upstream Americas
Of the 3 locations, 4 scenarios were considered:

1. 2 crusher moves (1st move in 2037 to east of dyke 3-Location A, then in 2048 to
the SW side of dyke 4-Location B). This creates a short haul distance till the
EOL.
2. Move the crusher to the east of dyke 3 (Location A) and leave it there till the
EOL. This gives a short haul for the first 10 years, but then the haul distance
significantly increases in the last 8 years.
3. Move the crusher to the SW area of dyke 4(Location A). This gives long haul
distance in the first 10 years, but a shorter one in the last 8 years.
4. Move the crusher close to the current location of the surge bin(Location C). This
gives a longer ore haul distance for the life of mine and save the cost of the
conveyors.
The following table summarizes the total cost of the project for each option.
Table 10 Crusher Relocation Total Cost Comparison
Total
Escalation at
CAPEX OPEX Total Cost 2% NPV at 6%
Option 1 (Two Crusher Moves) $ 1,032 $ 1,617 $ 2,649 $ 3,058 $ 1,959
Option 2(Long Crusher Move East) $ 979 $ 2,273 $ 3,252 $ 3,702 $ 2,474
Option 3(Short Crusher Move West) $ 657 $ 1,771 $ 2,427 $ 2,796 $ 1,801
Option 4(Close to the Surge bin) $ 620 $ 1,699 $ 2,320 $ 2,692 $ 1,700
The total cost of each option above is calculated based on the required truck fleet size and
conveyor capacity to maintain the forecasted production. Although Option 4 utilizes more
trucks, shorter conveyor length results in the most cost effective option. The recommendation is
to incorporate option 4 into LOM planning, however further validation is required.

4.6. IN-PIT VERSUS FORT HILL DUMP
Two mine scenarios were developed for the JPM LOM. The base case uses of FHD as
shown previously in Figure 3. An alternate case assessed an in-pit dump along Dyke3
as shown Figure 14. The base case gives an average waste haul of 14.4km whereas
using the in-pit dump has an average dump haul of 3.6km and the resulting hour
comparison in truck hours is provided in Figure 16 797 Hours Comparison.
The FHD option includes a haul road to the FHD with three waterway crossings at a cost
of $180M plus three additional trucks to maintain production rates. The total incremental
cost (Capex and Opex) to haul to FHD is $350M. The incremental cost to haul to FHD is
offset by the tailings containment gained in the plan by eliminating the in-pit dump. Cell
2 gains a tailings contingency on average of 5 months (Refer to Figure 18) and Cell 3
gains a contingency average of 12 months(Refer to

Figure 19). The Fort Hills option also helps to mitigate risks associated with mining the
footprint required for the in-pit dump.
Due to the risk mitigations and the additional tailings containment gained in the mine
plan, the recommendation is to dump to FHD rather than in-pit dumping. Further work is
required to validate this recommendation.

Figure 14 JPM General Layout With In-pit Dumps
Figure 15 Dump Haulage Comparison

18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
KM
W Ft Hills
8.00
Inpit Dump
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056

Figure 16 797 Hours Comparison

160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
HOURS
80,000
60,000
40,000
W Ft Hills
20,000
Inpit Dump
0
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
Figure 17 797 Calculated Number Comparison
30.00
W Ft Hills
Inpit Dump
25.00
20.00
UNIT
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
Figure 18 Cell 2 Contingency
60
50
40
Months
30
20
10
0
2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052
Contengency no ft hills Contengency ft hills

Figure 19 Cell 3 Contingency
25
20
15
Months
10
0
2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055
Contengency no ft hills Contengency Ft hills
4.7. MINE DRAINAGE & RECLAMATION
Site development beginning up to five years in advance of production will consist of the
following activities:
merchantable timber harvest;
clearing and grubbing (mulching when beneficial);
surface water management;
collection and finger ditching;
basal aquifer capture;
overburden de-watering, and
muskeg removal
4.8. CLEARING
Tree clearing and grubbing activities will generally take place during the winter months,
approximately 4-5 years in advance of the active mining operations.

4.9. DRAINAGE OF SURFICIAL MATERIALS
Drainage of muskeg and shallow overburden will be required from the mine pit areas. Surface
water drainage activities have been scheduled to take place 2-3 years ahead of mining
operations. This will allow for two seasons of active drainage in the muskeg and shallow
overburden prior to muskeg removal and mining.
4.10. RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE
Reclamation materials are scheduled to be removed one year ahead of mining

operations, typically during the winter months. Materials will be hauled to stockpiles for
future reclamation and whenever possible, will be direct placed onto areas that are ready
to be reclaimed.
An integrated Closure and Reclamation Plan (ICC&R) for JPM was submitted to Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Department (AESRD) and the AER in December 2011 as
a condition of JPM’s EPEA approval. The 2013 JPM LOM plan used the 2011 ICC&R to
guide cell and dyke heights to achieve a similar closure surface.

5. TAILINGS MANAGEMENT
5.1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes the tailing management strategy in JPM;

Tailings management objectives
Tailings products
Tailings deposition strategy
Tailings deposition results
Tailings plan critical path
5.2. TAILINGS MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
The tailings management objectives for the JPM are;

Long term deposition of all tailings products during life of mine
D074 compliance
Reclamation and closure timing
5.3. TAILINGS PRODUCTS
Several extraction processes produces different types of tailings. The produced tailings have
different chemical and physical properties. These tailings products needs specific and proper
handling for deposition in specific tailings cells based on their material properties.
Brief descriptions of various kind of tailings are described below.
Coarse Sand Tailings (CST)
Coarse Sand Tailings are produced from the cyclone underflow. It is coarser in size than other
type of tailing produced during the extraction processes. CST has rapid settling properties and
good internal shear strength. Along with deposition in tailings cells, CST has the ability to be
used for dyke and beach construction as well as sand capping.
Fine Tailings ( TT and MFT)
Fine tailings consist of the silt and clay. The fine tailings are produced from the cyclone
overflow. This product will be thickened at the process plant (Thickener), transported to the
ETF or in-pit cells through a dedicated pipeline, and then stored in a separate containment

pond(ETF). The thickened tails (TT) will settle to a low density deposit at a very flat beach
angle.
Fines not captured in the coarse sand beach deposit will produce a second source of fine
tailings, called TFT. Thin Fine Tailings (TFT) at approximately 8% solids content (the fines go
with the water). After approximately six months the fines settle to 30% to 35% solids and are
referred to as Mature Fine Tailings (MFT). This MFT will remain in a fluid-like state for decades
because of its very slow consolidation rate (Kasperski 1992, MacKinnon 1989).
Tailings Solvent Recovery Unit Tailings (TSRU)
TSRU tailings originate from the TSRU (High Temperature Froth Treatment) and consist
predominately of fines and an asphaltene component containing intermixed clay and fine
tailings. This material is silt sized and has depositional characteristics similar to those of
thickened tailings. The TSRU tailings also have trace amounts of volatile solvent residuals. To
reduce solvent emissions to the atmosphere, the TSRU tailings will be deposited sub-aqueous.
TSRU is currently deposited at MRM and is not included in the containment requirements at
JPM.
Whole Tails ( WT)
Whole tails, also known as bypass tailings, are produced when the cyclones are down or being
bypassed . Properties are similar to the Coarse Sand Tailings stream.
Centrifuge Cake (CC)
MFT centrifuge dewatering is a two –step process. The first step involves MFT dewatering
using horizontal solid bowl scroll centrifuge technology with flocculant addition, forming two
streams:
1) relatively solids free water having 0.5% to 1% solids, returned to the tailings water
system for recycle;
2) cake at 60% solids by weight soft soil material capturing greater than 95% of the
solids. Cake is roughly half the volume of the original MFT tailings
The second step involves subsequent dewatering of the cake by natural processes:
consolidation, desiccation and freeze-thaw via 1 to 2 m thick annual lifts, delivering a trafficable
surface that can be reclaimed.
Non-segregating Tailings (NST)

NST is a specified recombination of the CST stream and the TT stream, with the addition of
MFT to encourage non-segregation of the fines during deposition. The water content is
controlled by the operation of the cyclone and thickener, and by the addition of recycle water.
The coarse-to-fine ratio is controlled by the mixture specification. NST will only be deposited in-
pit, beginning in Cell1 in 2029.
Figure 20 NST Process Flow
5.4. TAILINGS DEPOSITION STRATEGY
Methodology
Muck3D software is used for 3D staging of ETF. The ETF will provide out-of-pit containment for
tailings until 2030. A portion of the tailings will be deposited in the in-pit cell in 2029.
In-pit tailings placement is modelled with a mass balance spreadsheet that tracks , NST, CST,
WT, TT, and MFT. Volume-elevation filling curves and cell availability dates were based on the
mine spatial plan. The model assumes horizontal material deposition, with no beach slopes,
which is reasonable for long range planning.
In-Pit Deposition
In-pit has two types of tailings containment cells; solids and fluids.
Solids Cells
Tailings products are deposited into the ETF and in-pit as shown in the table below:

Table 11 Tailings Products Deposition
CST WT TT NST CC
SC1
SC2
DDA
Cell 1 - 4
Fluid Cell1
The following streams are deposited into Fluid Cell 1:
Mine water
MFT generated by the segregation of fines from the other tailings streams
MFT transferred from ETF
Process affected water from the plant
MFT for the NST plant
Cell Filling Methodology

The development of the solids storage cells proceeds as follows:
Solid tailings elevations require a 3m freeboard to top of dyke during deposition and
dyke construction;
Cells are ultimately filled to within 8 m of the top of the cell by discharging NST into
the active cell;
The final 5 m of the cell is capped with coarse sand to produce a cap with sufficient
strength to support the overburden capping operation and promote drainage of the
tailings deposit.
The development of the fluids storage cells proceeds as follows:
Fluid levels require a 3m freeboard to the top of dyke during deposition and dyke
construction;
Cells from which MFT is actively being harvested for NST require a 3m water zone
in addition to the 3m freeboard
Once MFT is fully extinguished from a cell the volume available can be filled with
CST/WT/NST/Mine Waste to the ultimate freeboard elevation or reclaimed with
water to be an end pit lake.

Finally, the cell, if backfilled, is capped with 5m coarse sand to produce a cap with
sufficient strength to support the overburden capping operation and promote
drainage of the tailings deposit.
5.5. TAILINGS CONTAINMENT BY CELL
Cell Containment
The ETF and tailings cells containment volumes and availability date are shown in Table 12.
Table 12 Cell Details
Max Storage
Max dyke
Cell Type Available Volume Availability
Elevation (m)
Mm3
ETF Fluids & solids 381 571 Current
Fluid Cell1 Fluids 301 50 2016
Cell1 NST,CST&TT 320 274 2029
Cell 2 NST,CST&TT 310 368 2037
Cell 3 NST,CST&TT 310 195 2047

5.6. TAILINGS DEPOSITION SCHEDULE
The individual tailings stream tonnages produced for deposition over the project are shown in .
Table 13 Tailings Deposition Schedule. Figure 21 Annual MFT Inventory outlines the MFT generated
annually over the life of mine and the cumulative MFT generated is provided in
Figure 22.

Table 13 Tailings Deposition Schedule
Plant Tailings
Year CST (MT) WT (MT) TT (MT) TSRU (Mt) NST (MT) Total(Mt)
2013 31.80 12.44 5.51 1.17 - 51
2014 32.32 12.48 5.11 1.12 - 51
2015 31.60 11.81 3.82 0.93 - 48
2016 33.11 12.31 3.82 0.95 - 50
2017 32.46 12.58 5.28 1.14 - 51
2018 32.56 12.16 3.92 0.96 - 50
2019 31.86 11.80 3.55 0.90 - 48
2020 31.48 11.83 4.02 0.96 - 48
2021 33.47 12.33 3.53 0.92 - 50
2022 33.67 12.44 3.64 0.94 - 51
2023 32.33 12.19 4.25 1.00 - 50
2024 31.46 11.84 4.05 0.96 - 48
2025 30.83 11.85 4.71 1.04 - 48
2026 32.71 12.34 4.30 1.01 - 50
2027 33.36 12.49 4.10 0.99 - 51
2028 33.20 12.18 3.36 0.89 - 50
2029 15.08 6.79 0.93 0.88 28.59 24
2030 14.76 6.78 1.11 0.95 27.92 24
2031 18.71 7.13 1.29 1.06 24.76 28
2032 21.37 7.23 1.48 1.14 21.23 31
2033 21.16 7.08 1.36 1.08 21.07 31
2034 20.56 6.86 1.29 1.04 20.47 30
2035 19.92 6.83 1.51 1.14 19.77 29
2036 24.19 9.06 1.13 0.98 16.27 35
2037 22.03 8.19 1.06 0.96 20.71 32
2038 21.61 7.98 0.98 0.91 20.30 31
2039 22.07 6.17 1.10 0.92 19.53 30
2040 22.26 6.25 1.16 0.94 19.67 31
2041 25.07 7.35 1.61 1.16 15.30 35
2042 25.60 7.47 1.60 1.15 15.59 36
2043 22.24 6.48 1.54 1.12 19.65 31
2044 18.95 5.47 1.41 1.05 23.53 27
2045 18.95 5.47 1.41 1.05 23.54 27
2046 19.85 5.65 1.33 1.03 24.69 28
2047 16.88 4.88 1.51 1.11 29.08 24
2048 16.76 4.79 1.37 1.04 28.92 24
2049 16.18 4.66 1.38 1.04 27.87 23
2050 24.64 7.14 1.46 1.07 15.03 34
2051 22.69 6.57 1.50 1.11 20.10 32
2052 22.72 6.62 1.58 1.15 20.12 32
2053 22.18 6.47 1.55 1.12 19.63 31
2054 21.69 6.24 1.38 1.03 19.17 30
2055 32.82 9.47 5.08 1.04 0.00 48
Total 1,089 376 107 44 563 1,617
Figure 21 Annual MFT Inventory

250.00
200.00
150.00
M m3
100.00
50.00
0.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
Years
Total MFT generated Cumulative Mm3 Total MFT Consumed Cumulative Mt Mm3
Figure 22 Cumulative Tailings Generated

5.7. DIRECTIVE 074 COMPLIANCE
The current Directive 074 strategy is to manage tailings at JPM through Thickened Tailings (TT)
and Centrifuge technology. With the current integrated mine and tailings management, JPM will
achieve compliance by 2019 as shown in Table 13. Shell has initiated a 2 year commercial
scale trial of a centrifuge plant in 2014. MFT will be processed at 0.4 Mtpa for the trial.
In 2016 the plan is to have the full scale centrifuge plant in operations at a processing rate of 2
Mtpa. MFT at DDA is pumped to SC1 to create an MFT inventory that will be used in the
centrifuge process. Densified MFT or Centrifuge Cake from the centrifuge plant will be
deposited into DDA.
As mining activities advance, JPM transitions from an external disposal method for tailings to in-
pit disposal through the introduction of NST technology. In 2026, mining activities will be
sufficiently advanced to allow for in-pit tailings disposal and NST is expected to come online in
2029. As soon as the NST plant is operational, the centrifuge plant will then be
decommissioned. NST deposit will maintain the overall fine capture required for the directive
074 compliance. As mentioned in the previous section, Solid Filled deposits will be capped with
5m of hydraulically placed Coarse Sand Tailings (CST) in order to achieve a trafficable surface
for reclamation.
At Closure, approximately 16 Mm3 of MFT is remaining for treatment. Shell committed to MFT
free lakes during the JPME hearing, and this commitment is also reflected in the draft EPEA
approval provided to Shell in late 2013. The tailings plan is based on centrifuging the remaining
MFT during mine operation.

Table 14 Tailings Detailed Deposition Schedule

Additional Fines Source to JPM Fines in Other
JPM Fines Sequestered in DDAs
D074 Fines Sequestered Targets and Performance Balance Tailings
Annual Cumulative
ETDA TT (DDA1) Inpit DDAs Fines Seq. Fines Seq. Annual Cumulative
CST as % of as % of Annual D074 Fines Annual % % of Fines Beach /
Ore Fines to Capping Total Extraction Cumulative Extraction D074 Fines Seq Fines Seq. Seq. Target MFT Stacked Fines
Year Extraction TT deposit Centrifuge NST Fines Fines Seq. Feed Fines Seq. Feed Seq. Target Target (%) (%) TSRU to Reclaim (4) Sand / Cell Balance (6)
(8) (Mt) (Mt) (Mt) (Mt) (Mt) (Mt) (%) (Mt) (%) (Mt) (%) (5) (5) MRM (Mt) (Mt) MFT Run-off (Mt)
2010 1.10 0.15 - - - 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.22 0.20 0.68 68% 0.13 - 0.40 0.42 - 0.00
2011 4.20 0.44 - - - 0.44 0.11 0.59 0.11 1.05 0.25 0.42 46% 0.54 - 1.90 1.32 0.00
2012 4.68 0.69 - - - 0.69 0.15 1.28 0.13 1.87 0.40 0.37 41% 0.42 - 1.00 - -
2013 6.31 1.79 - - 1.17 2.96 0.47 4.24 0.26 3.15 0.50 0.94 67% 0.57 - 0.99 1.78 -
2014 5.66 1.62 - - 1.04 2.67 0.47 6.91 0.31 2.83 0.50 0.94 76% 0.51 - 0.85 1.63 -
2015 3.80 1.11 - - 0.55 1.66 0.44 8.57 0.33 1.90 0.50 0.87 78% 0.34 - 0.69 1.11 -
2016 3.68 1.08 1.00 - 0.69 2.76 0.75 11.33 0.39 1.84 0.50 1.50 88% 0.33 1.00 0.51 1.07 -
2017 5.99 1.71 1.25 - - 2.96 0.49 14.29 0.40 3.00 0.50 0.99 90% 0.54 1.25 1.97 1.77 -
2018 3.79 1.11 1.55 - - 2.66 0.70 16.95 0.43 1.90 0.50 1.40 95% 0.34 1.55 1.24 1.10 -
2019 3.35 0.98 1.50 - - 2.48 0.74 19.43 0.46 1.67 0.50 1.48 100% 0.30 1.50 1.09 0.98 -
2020 4.06 1.18 1.55 - - 2.73 0.67 22.16 0.48 2.03 0.50 1.35 103% 0.37 1.55 1.31 1.20 -
2021 3.28 0.96 1.55 - - 2.51 0.76 24.67 0.49 1.64 0.50 1.53 107% 0.30 1.55 1.06 0.96 -
2022 3.41 1.00 1.55 - - 2.55 0.75 27.21 0.51 1.70 0.50 1.50 110% 0.31 1.55 1.11 0.99 -
2023 4.32 1.25 1.55 - - 2.80 0.65 30.02 0.52 2.16 0.50 1.30 111% 0.39 1.55 1.41 1.27 -
2024 4.08 1.19 1.55 - - 2.74 0.67 32.75 0.53 2.04 0.50 1.34 113% 0.37 1.55 1.33 1.20 -
2025 5.18 1.49 1.55 - - 3.04 0.59 35.79 0.54 2.59 0.50 1.17 113% 0.47 1.55 1.71 1.52 -
2026 4.41 1.28 1.55 - - 2.83 0.64 38.62 0.54 2.20 0.50 1.28 114% 0.40 1.55 1.27 1.46 -
2027 4.04 1.18 0.50 - - 1.68 0.42 40.30 0.53 2.02 0.50 0.83 113% 0.36 0.50 1.21 1.29 -
2028 3.04 0.89 - - - 0.89 0.29 41.19 0.53 1.52 0.50 0.59 110% 0.27 - 0.86 1.02 -
2029 3.03 0.25 - 3.86 0.17 4.27 1.41 45.46 0.56 1.52 0.50 2.82 117% 0.27 3.48 0.29 1.67 -
2030 3.99 0.32 - 3.77 0.26 4.35 1.09 49.81 0.58 1.99 0.50 2.18 122% 0.36 2.85 0.32 1.80 -
2031 4.93 0.40 - 3.34 0.70 4.44 0.90 54.25 0.60 2.46 0.50 1.80 125% 0.44 1.92 - 1.96 -
2032 6.08 0.48 - 2.87 0.95 4.30 0.71 58.55 0.61 3.04 0.50 1.41 126% 0.55 0.85 - 2.09 -
2033 5.33 0.43 - 2.84 0.83 4.09 0.77 62.64 0.62 2.67 0.50 1.53 128% 0.48 1.17 - 1.93 -
2034 5.06 0.40 - 2.76 0.78 3.95 0.78 66.59 0.62 2.53 0.50 1.56 129% 0.46 1.20 - 1.85 -
2035 6.38 0.50 - 2.67 1.01 4.17 0.65 70.77 0.63 3.19 0.50 1.31 129% 0.57 0.45 - 2.08 -
2036 4.05 0.33 - 2.19 0.74 3.25 0.80 74.01 0.63 2.02 0.50 1.61 130% 0.36 1.15 - 1.58 -
2037 3.65 0.30 - 2.79 0.59 3.68 1.01 77.69 0.64 1.83 0.50 2.01 133% 0.33 1.98 - 1.63 -
2038 3.28 0.27 - 2.73 0.53 3.53 1.08 81.22 0.65 1.64 0.50 2.15 135% 0.30 2.08 - 1.53 -
2039 3.56 0.31 - 2.62 0.55 3.48 0.98 84.70 0.66 1.78 0.50 1.95 137% 0.32 1.77 - 1.53 -
2040 3.92 0.34 - 2.65 0.60 3.59 0.92 88.29 0.67 1.96 0.50 1.83 138% 0.35 1.63 - 1.61 -
2041 6.29 0.53 - 2.06 1.12 3.71 0.59 92.01 0.67 3.15 0.50 1.18 137% 0.57 - - 2.02 -
2042 6.17 0.52 - 2.10 1.09 3.71 0.60 95.72 0.66 3.08 0.50 1.20 136% 0.56 0.09 - 2.00 -
2043 5.92 0.50 - 2.65 0.93 4.08 0.69 99.79 0.67 2.96 0.50 1.38 136% 0.53 0.69 - 2.00 -
2044 5.22 0.44 - 3.18 0.71 4.33 0.83 104.12 0.67 2.61 0.50 1.66 137% 0.47 1.51 - 1.93 -
2045 5.22 0.44 - 3.17 0.71 4.33 0.83 108.45 0.68 2.61 0.50 1.66 138% 0.47 1.51 - 1.93 -

Upstream Americas
5.8. ETF FILL CURVES: DDA,SC1 & SC2
5.8.1. DDA
There is marginal contingency in 2013. The situation will change at the beginning of year 2014
when the dyke in the DDA is raised with CST and excessive water will get transferred to SC1 to
increase the contingency storage of TT in the DDA. Also, SC2 will be in operations at the end
of 2014.
Figure 23 DDA Fill Curve
355
350
345
Elevation (m)
340
335
330
325
320
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
DDA Dyke Free Board DDA Pond

5.8.2. SC1
The dyke construction reaches maximum elevation of 381 meters in 2025. From year 2026 to
2028, the drop of water elevation is due to the transfer of MFT to FC1. For SC1, the required
beach length is 150m.
Figure 24 SC1 Fill Curve (NST)
390
380
370
Elevation (m)
360
350
340
330
320
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
SC1 Dyke Water Elevation MFT Elevation Free Board

5.8.3. SC2
SC2 is the last external cell. In order to be comply with the 200m horizontal beach length, the
pond level is significantly lower than the dyke elevation.
Figure 25 SC2 Fill Curve
390
380
370
Elevation (m)
360
350
340
330
320
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
SC2 dyke SC2 Pond Free Board

In 2016, SC1 and DDA reach the same elevation. In 2017, SC1 and the DDA will merge into
one structure. SC1 reaches ultimate elevation in 2025 and SC2 reaches ultimate elevation in
2030. The geotechnical height differential between SC1 and SC2 is maintained during this
staging.
Figure 26 DDA,SC1&SC2 Elevation Summary

5.9. FLUID CELL 1 FILL CURVE
FC1 is the only fluid cell at JPM. The FC1 is utilized for the containment of the mine water, MFT
and the source of process affected water. This cell is on the critical path for the overall tailings
containment strategy as it is required in 2016 to alleviate fluid containment at the ETF. The
MFT stored in FC1 will be utilized for the NST plant.
Figure 27 Fluid Cell 1 Fill Curve
320.0
310.0
300.0
FC1 Elevation
290.0
280.0
270.0
260.0
Years
Freeboard Tailings Elevation Dyke Elevation

5.10. CELL 1 FILL CURVE
Cell 1 is the first in-pit dyke and it will constructed in advance to provide contingency capacity if
ETF reaches maximum capacity ahead of the planned schedule.
Figure 28 Cell 1 Fill Curve
340
320
300
Height (m)
280
260
240
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Years
Cell1 tailings height Free Board Dyke1

Dykes including the intermediate dyke 2i for Cell 2a will be built first for tailings containment.
Dyke 2i are submerged when Cell 2a and cell 2b join together. Cell2a overtops into Cell2b in
2043 as shown in the graph. Cell 2a maintains the 300m elevation and the curve in Figure 29
begins to show the filling of Cell 2b.
320
310
300
290
Height (m)
280
270
260
250
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
years
Cell2b tailings height Free Board Intermediate Dyke Cell2 Lowest Dyke

Cell 3 is the last solid filled in-pit dyke. Sufficient contingency is available within this cell
320
310
300
290
Height (m)
280 cell3
Dyke3S
270
Dyke6
260
250
240
2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 2052 2054 2056 2058
Years

6. TECHNICAL RISKS
A risk register of over 20 technical risks are highlighted in Appendix B.

The ETF not achieving the planned elevation of 381m is identified as the major risk to this plan.
The second high risk is the availability of construction material. Shortfalls in construction
material will effect dyke construction and delay building necessary tailings containment.
Mitigations to this risk include construction dykes with CST or the use of a borrow pit for
additional construction material.


JPM LRP - 20140505

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JPM LRP - 20140505

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Upstream Americas – Heavy Oil Development

Mine Development: Shell Canada

JPM – Life of Mine 2013

Owner / Author – Mine Development

Issue Date – March 2014

Security Classification - Confidential

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................1-1

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

5.5. Tailings Containment By Cell ...................................................................5-5

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Figure 1 Annual Ore and Waste Tonnes .................................................................................4-4

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Figure 26 DDA,SC1&SC2 Elevation Summary .......................................................................5-14

Figure 30 Cell 3 Fill Curve ..................................................................................................5-18

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Table 4 Construction Criteria for First 3 Years ..........................................................................3-4

Table 11 Tailings Products Deposition .....................................................................................5-4

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

1.1. MINE AND TAILINGS PLAN

1.1.1. MINING OVERVIEW

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

1.1.2. TAILINGS OVERVIEW

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

1.2. RISKS TO PLAN

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

2.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.2. PROJECT SCOPE

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Following capacities were incorporated:

Description Value to be used (BPP2013)

Density of Ore (t/m3) 2.08

Density of Waste (t/m3) 2.08

MFT Density (t/m3) 0.37

CST cell construction average dry density (t/m3) 1.75

CAST BAW slope 3.40%

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

3. MINING CRITERIA AND SITE LAYOUT

3.2. SITE LAYOUT

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Table 2 External Dump Volumes

Dump Volume Available (MBCM)

Ft Hills Dump 418

External Tailings Disposal Areas

3.3. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CRITERIA

The following sections outline the geotechnical criteria applied.

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Table 3 Standard Setbacks

Description Standard Setback

3.4. IN-PIT AND PERIMETER DYKES

3.5. IN-PIT OVERBURDEN DISPOSAL AREAS

3.6. EXTERNAL TAILINGS FACILITY

3.7. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL SUITABILITY

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

Table 4 Construction Criteria for First 3 Years

Generalized Waste Model Coding Criteria (for first 3 years)

Table 5 Construction Criteria for Year 3 to EOL

Generalized Waste Model Coding Criteria

3.8. MINE PLANNING DESIGN CRITERIA

UA – Upstream Americas March 2014

TVBIP Pit Definition

TV:BIP = (Ore Volume + Interburden Volume + Overburden Volume)