Blackrod Project Update and Sir 1 Responses Secured

700, 444 – 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 0X8

Telephone: 403-215-8313
Fax: 403-262-5123
April 5, 2013
Steve Thomas Claire Classen

Applications Section Leader Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Energy Resources Conservation Board Resource Development
Suite 1000, 250 – 5 Street SW 111, Twin Atria Building
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0R4 4999, 98 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3
Dear Sir or Madam:
Re: Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project - Supplemental Information Request (SIR)

EPEA Application No. 001-301778
ERCB Application No. 1728831
Athabasca Oil Sands Area
Supplemental information requests regarding the Blackrod Commercial Project application were received
from the ERCB and ESRD on January 28, 2013. The attached document (Application for Approval of the
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project – Supplemental Information Request) provides the following in
relation to the supplemental information requests received:
• Project Update
• ERCB SIR 1 Responses
• ESRD SIR 1 Responses
If you have any questions with respect to the application please contact Michael Carteri, Project Manager
by e-mail at mike.carteri@pxx.ca or by telephone at (403) 536-4695.
Yours truly,
BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Chris Hogue
Vice-President, Operations
Attachment: BlackPearl Resources Inc. Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project - Project Update &
Supplemental Information Request Responses – Round 1
BlackPearl Resources Inc.
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project
Project Update & Supplemental
Information Request Responses - Round 1
April 2013
Submitted To:
Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board &
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Submitted By:
Calgary, Alberta
1.0 Project Update
2.0 Environmental Impact Assessment Update
3.0 References
Project
Update
1.0 General
2.0 Geology
3.0 Reservoir Engineering
4.0 Facilities
ERCB SIR 1 5.0

6.0
Environment
References
Responses
1.0 General
2.0 Air
3.0 Water
4.0 Terrestrial
5.0 Health
6.0 Approvals
AESRD SIR 1 7.0 Errata
Responses 8.0 References
PROJECT UPDATE
BlackPearl Resources Inc. April 2013
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Project Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 PROJECT UPDATE ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Revisions to the Project Area .............................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 Well Orientation...................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Reduced Area of Disturbance ................................................................................ 3
1.2 Central Processing Facility ................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Water Use ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT UPDATE .................................................................. 6
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Air Quality............................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Baseline Case ........................................................................................................ 6
2.3.2 Application Case .................................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Planned Development Case ................................................................................ 10
2.3.4 Mitigation and Monitoring ..................................................................................... 10
2.4 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 13
2.5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 13
2.5.2 Updated Baseline Case ....................................................................................... 13
2.5.3 Updated Application Case ................................................................................... 14
2.5.4 Updated Planned Development Case ................................................................. 24
2.5.5 Mitigation and Monitoring ..................................................................................... 27
2.5.6 Summary .............................................................................................................. 27
2.6 Surface Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 29
2.7 Aquatic Ecology ................................................................................................................ 29
2.8 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 29
2.8.1 Application Case .................................................................................................. 29
2.8.2 Summary of Residual Effects to Vegetation ........................................................ 61
2.9 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 61
2.9.1 Change in Habitat ................................................................................................ 62
2.9.2 Change in Movement ........................................................................................... 62
2.9.3 Change in Mortality Risk ...................................................................................... 62
2.9.4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 62
2.10 Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................ 62
2.10.2 Summary of Residual Effects to Biodiversity ....................................................... 66
2.11 Terrain and Soils ............................................................................................................... 66
2.11.3 Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 78
2.11.4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 78
2.12 Land Use and Management.............................................................................................. 79
2.13 Historical Resources ......................................................................................................... 79
2.13.1 Baseline Case ...................................................................................................... 79
2.13.4 Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 80
2.13.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 80
2.14 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use ............................................................. 80
Page i
2.14.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 80

2.14.2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 80
2.14.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 81
2.14.4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 85
2.15 Human Health Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... 86
2.15.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Results ............................................................ 86
2.15.2 Inhalation Assessment ......................................................................................... 87
2.15.3 Acute Inhalation Mixtures Assessment ................................................................ 90
2.15.4 Upset Scenarios Assessment .............................................................................. 91
2.15.5 Chronic Inhalation Results ................................................................................... 92
2.15.6 Chronic Inhalation Mixtures Assessment ............................................................. 95
2.15.7 Chronic Multiple Pathway Results ....................................................................... 97
2.15.8 Chronic Multiple Pathway Mixtures Assessment ............................................... 100
2.15.9 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................ 101
2.16 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment.............................................................................. 101
2.17 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement............................................................ 101
3.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 102
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Central Processing Facility Phase 1 Plot Plan (April 2013) .............................................A-1
Appendix B Updated Air Quality Assessment .....................................................................................B-1
Appendix C Noise Modeling Parameters ............................................................................................ C-1
Appendix D Application Case Noise Source Order Ranking .............................................................. D-1
Appendix E Seismic Borehole Data .....................................................................Provided Electronically
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1-1 Project Footprint (April 2013) .............................................................................................. 2
Figure 1.1-2 Comparison of Project Footprints (May 2012 and April 2013) ............................................ 4
Figure 1.3-1 Blackrod Water Source and Use Flow Chart ...................................................................... 5
Figure 2.3-1 Application Case Modeled Sound Levels (Without ASL) .................................................... 8
Figure 2.4-1 Grosmont Water Source and Disposal Wells ................................................................... 11
Figure 2.4-2 Existing and Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Wells .................................................... 12
Figure 2.5-1 Project Layout ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.5-2 Project Drainage ............................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.5-3 PDC Disturbance .............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 2.8-1 Updated Closure ELC ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 2.8-2 Updated Closure AWI ....................................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.8-3 Updated Closure Old Growth ELC .................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.8-4 Updated Closure Riparian Area ELC ................................................................................ 39
Figure 2.8-5 Updated Closure ELC Communities of Limited Distribution ............................................. 42
Figure 2.8-6 Updated Closure AWI Communities of Limited Distribution ............................................. 44
Figure 2.8-7 Updated Observed Rare and Uncommon Ecological Communities ................................. 46
Figure 2.8-8 Updated Closure ELC Potential to Support Rare Ecological Communities ...................... 48
Figure 2.8-9 Updated Observed Rare Vascular Plant Populations ....................................................... 49
Figure 2.8-10 Updated Observed Rare Nonvascular Plant Populations ................................................. 50
Figure 2.8-11 Updated Closure ELC Potential to Support Rare Vascular Plants ................................... 60
Figure 2.10-1 Application Case Ecosystem Biodiversity Potential for the LSA at Closure ..................... 65
Figure 2.11-1 Project Area and Soils Local Study Area .......................................................................... 67
Figure 2.11-2 Seismic Borehole Locations within the LSA ..................................................................... 69
Page ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.3-1 Application Case Modeled Sound Levels ........................................................................... 7
Table 2.3-2 Application Case Modeled dBA and dBC Sound Levels .................................................... 9
Table 2.5-1 Summary of Changes in Runoff Volumes and Streamflows for Baseline Case ............... 14
Table 2.5-2 Summary of Application Case Disturbance ...................................................................... 16
Table 2.5-3 Summary of Stream Crossings ......................................................................................... 18
Table 2.5-4 Significance Evaluation of Potential Impact on Surface Water
Hydrology-Application Case.............................................................................................. 19
Table 2.5-5 Summary of Changes in Runoff Volumes and Streamflows for Updated
Application Case ............................................................................................................... 22
Table 2.5-6 Planned Development Case Disturbance Areas .............................................................. 26
Table 2.5-7 Summary of Changes in Runoff Volumes and Streamflows for PDC ............................... 26
Table 2.8-1 Change in ELC Distribution from Baseline to Updated Application Case
Compared to Integrated Application at Closure Phase in the LSA ................................... 32
Table 2.8-2 Change in AWI Distribution from Baseline to Updated Application Case
Compared to Integrated Application at Closure Phase in the LSA ................................... 34
Table 2.8-3 Change in Old Growth Forest Distribution from Baseline to Updated
Application Case Compared to Integrated Application at Closure Phase in the
LSA ................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 2.8-4 Change in Riparian Area ELC Distribution from Baseline to Updated
Application Case Compared to Integrated Application at Closure Phase in the
LSA ................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 2.8-5 Change in Communities of Limited Distribution ELC Distribution from
Baseline to Application Case Compared to Integrated Application at Closure
Phase in the LSA .............................................................................................................. 41
Table 2.8-6 Change in Communities of Limited Distribution AWI Distribution from
Baseline to Updated Application Case Compared to Integrated Application at
Closure Phase in the LSA ................................................................................................. 43
Table 2.8-7 Change in ELC with Moderate to High Potential to Support Rare Ecological
Communities from Baseline to Updated Application Case Compared to
Integrated Application at Closure Phase in the LSA ......................................................... 47
Table 2.8-8 Change in ELC with Moderate to High Potential to Support Rare Vascular
Plants from Baseline to Updated Application Case Compared to Integrated
Application at Closure Phase in the LSA .......................................................................... 51
Table 2.8-9 Updated Site Specific Mitigation for Observed Rare Plant Populations ........................... 52
Table 2.9-1 Change in Moderate and High Habitat Suitability for Wildlife Indicators at the
Local Scale........................................................................................................................ 61
Table 2.10-1 Changes to Ecosystem Biodiversity Potential in the Terrestrial LSA for the
Updated Application Case ................................................................................................ 64
Table 2.11-1 Facilities and Infrastructure Within the Revised Project Area ........................................... 70
Table 2.11-2 Terrain Disturbance in the Soils LSA ................................................................................ 70
Table 2.11-3 Soil Quality Parameters in the Area of Direct Soil Disturbance ........................................ 72
Table 2.11-4 Land Capability Classification in the Soils LSA ................................................................ 72
Table 2.11-5 Soil Disturbance in the Soils LSA ..................................................................................... 75
Table 2.11-6 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects on Terrain and Soils –
Application Case ............................................................................................................... 77
Table 2.11-7 Significance Evaluation of Potential Residual Effects on Terrain and Soils –
Planned Development Case ............................................................................................. 78
Table 2.14-1 Timetable of the Mètis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing TLU Study for the
Proposed Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project ................................................................ 80
Table 2.14-2 Habitation Sites Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing .............................. 82
Table 2.14-3 Plant Harvesting Sites Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing .................... 82
Table 2.14-4 Hunting Sites Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing .................................. 83
Table 2.14-5 Fishing Sites Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing................................... 84
Table 2.14-6 Trapping Sites Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing ................................ 84
Table 2.14-7 Gathering Places Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing............................ 84
Table 2.14-8 Sacred Areas Identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing ................................. 85
Table 2.14-9 Summary of Issues/Concerns and Mitigation Measures .................................................. 85
Page iii
Table 2.15-1 Maximum Acute Inhalation RQ Values for the MPOI........................................................ 87

Table 2.15-2 Maximum Acute Inhalation RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group ...................................... 88
Table 2.15-3 Maximum Acute Inhalation RQ Values for the Worker Group .......................................... 89
Table 2.15-4 Maximum Acute Inhalation Mixture RQ Values for the MPOI ........................................... 90
Table 2.15-5 Maximum Acute Inhalation Mixture RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group ......................... 90
Table 2.15-6 Maximum Acute Inhalation Mixture RQ Values for the Worker Group ............................. 90
Table 2.15-7 Maximum Predicted SO2 Concentrations at the MPOI (Fl+LSA) for Project
Case and Upset Scenarios (Including Background) ......................................................... 92
Table 2.15-8 Maximum Predicted NO2 Concentrations at the MPOI (Fl+LSA) for Project
Table 2.15-9 Maximum Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations at the MPOI (Fl+LSA) for Project
Table 2.15-10 Maximum Chronic Inhalation RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................ 93
Table 2.15-11 Maximum Chronic Inhalation RQ Values for the Worker Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................ 94
Table 2.15-12 Chronic Inhalation ILCR Values for the Aboriginal Group (Carcinogens)......................... 95
Table 2.15-13 Chronic Inhalation ILCR Values for the Worker Group (Carcinogens) ............................. 95
Table 2.15-14 Maximum Chronic Inhalation Mixture RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................ 96
Table 2.15-15 Maximum Chronic Inhalation Mixture RQ Values for the Worker Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................ 96
Table 2.15-16 Maximum Chronic Inhalation ILCR Mixture RQ Values for the Aboriginal
Group (Carcinogens)......................................................................................................... 96
Table 2.15-17 Maximum Chronic Inhalation ILCR Mixture RQ Values for the Worker Group
(Carcinogens).................................................................................................................... 96
Table 2.15-18 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................ 97
Table 2.15-19 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway RQ Values for the Worker Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................ 98
Table 2.15-20 Summary of Pathway Contribution to Manganese Exposure for the
Aboriginal Group ............................................................................................................... 99
Table 2.15-21 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway ILCR Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Carcinogens).................................................................................................................. 100
Table 2.15-22 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway ILCR Values for the Worker Group
(Carcinogens).................................................................................................................. 100
Table 2.15-23 Chronic Multiple ExposurePathway Mixture RQ Values for the Aboriginal
Group (Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................... 101
Table 2.15-24 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway Mixture RQ Values for the Worker
Group (Non-Carcinogens) ............................................................................................... 101
Page iv
1.0 PROJECT UPDATE

BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) submitted an Application for Approval of the Blackrod
Commercial SAGD Project (the Project) to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
(AESRD) and the Energy and Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) in May 2012 (referred to as the
Integrated Application). Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs) were received from AESRD and the
ERCB in January 2013. Responses to the SIRs are provided in separate sections of this document, which
is organized into the following three parts:
• Project Update;
• ERCB SIR 1 Reponses; and
• AESRD SIR 1 Responses.
Since the submission of the Integrated Application in May 2012, updates to the Project include
modifications to the Resource Project Area (referred to as the Application Resource Area), identification
of the Development Area and associated drainage patterns for Phase 1 (see ERCB SIR 3 and 13), and a
revised Project Area (also referred to as the Project Footprint) that will optimize the well pad lay-out,
improve economic feasibility and reduce overall disturbance.
1.1 Revisions to the Project Area

1.1.1 Well Orientation
The revised Project Area is provided in Figure 1.1-1. Based on the performance of the second Pilot well
pair and as new geologic information is obtained, the well pads in each Phase will be optimized for
maximum recovery. As a result, the well pads associated with each Phase may change over-time as
information is continually obtained over the course of the Project.
The majority of the wells in the Integrated Application were being drilled in an east to west orientation.
This orientation required well pads to be located outside of BlackPearl’s lease holdings. This orientation
was based on the original Pilot well pair that was also drilled in an east-west orientation.
The Lower Grand Rapids (LGR1) is a clean and homogenous sand. As a result, the primary driver for the
well pad layout and drainage pattern design is bitumen thickness and proximity to the Central Processing
Facility (CPF). The second Pilot well pair has a horizontal well length of 950 m and is orientated south to
north. Based on the design of the second Pilot well pair, BlackPearl has modified the Phase 1 drilling
orientation to be north-south. This revision will allow BlackPearl to accomplish the following:
• allow for longer wells to be drilled on the initial drainage patterns;
• reduce of the number of well pads required to develop Phase 1;
• reduce the overall Project Footprint and associated disturbance; and
• remove previous well pads that were located outside of BlackPearl’s oil sands lease
holdings which alleviates previous conflicts with other oil sands stakeholders.
Page 1
¯
Athab a sc a R iver RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M
River
3BHH
22 23 24 19 20
B3B16
21
3BGG
3BDD 3BCC
B3B15
B3B13
TWP.77 3BBB 3BAA 3BFF

15 14 L3B2
13 18 17 16
B3B12
3BU 3BT 3BW 3BEE

3BY 3BZ B3B14
3BX
B3B11
S3B1
3BS 3BR 3BV
10 11 B3B8 12 B3B10
7 8 9
3BQ 3BO
3BP
B3B9
B3B7
Naming Convention
1A 3BAA
3BN 3BM
Well Pad
Phase Letter Phase Letter
L3B1 3AC
L3A1
3 2 1 L3A2
6
Log Deck (L) 5
Log Deck Number 4
B3B6 Phase
3BL 2A
3BK S3B1
Sump (S) Sump Number
Phase
B3A3
3AB
B3A1
3AA
B13 Borrow Pit (B) Borrow Pit Number
Phase
2B
1D
34
35 36
B3B1 1C 31 32 33
B21 B11
3BB 3BA 2C
1E 1B
B3B3 B12 1A
2G
3BD 3BC
2D
TWP.76 27
B3B2
26 25 30 29
B22 28
B3B4 S11
3BF 3BE
2F 2E CAMP S12
B3A2 L3A1
3AD CPF
3AF
3BH 3BG 3AG
B3B5 3AE
22 23 B3A3
24 19 20
21
CAMP
3BJ 3BI
3AI 3AH
Project Footprint FIGURE 1.1-1

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site Existing Blackrod Road
t6790_Figure01_Project_Footprint_20130703.pdf
Phase 2 Sump Site Permanent Operations Camp Site Waterbody PROJECT FOOTPRINT (APRIL 2013)
Phase 3A Log Deck Proposed Blackrod Road
PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Phase 3B PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
SCALE: 1: 50,000
UTM Zone 12N Meters
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011.
0 500 1,000
April 2013
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself,
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.
(All Locations Approximate)
1.1.2 Reduced Area of Disturbance

Based on a re-evaluation of the several factors including drilling orientation, the resultant changes to the
Project Area (Figure 1.1-2) include:
• removal of 14 well pads over the three Phases;
• relocation of 3 borrow pits;
• removal of 3 log decks;
• addition of a CPF access road; and
• relocation of the Operations Camp.
The original area of disturbance provided in the May 2012 Integrated Application (i.e., 966.4 ha) has been
reduced by 109.4 ha and is currently 857 ha.
1.2 Central Processing Facility

The primary change to the CPF from the May 2012 Integrated Application is the layout (Appendix A). As a
result of geotechnical work on the CPF, the location of Phase 1 of the CPF has been moved from the
west side to the east side. This change was made to reduce the soil handling for the construction of
Phase 1 of the CPF and to locate the heaviest loads on cut areas versus fill areas. The CPF layout
changes have been considered in the SIR responses.
1.3 Water Use

To clarify water use associated with the Project, additional information has been provided on water
sources for construction and operations (Figure 1.3-1). BlackPearl will track volumes and sources of all
water supplies (non-saline and saline) used for operations as per the requirements of AESRD and ERCB.
For any non-saline water uses, BlackPearl will apply for a Temporary Diversion License or Water Act
Licenses as needed.
Page 3
Athab a sc a R ive r
¯
RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M
v er
22
23 24 19 20 21
TWP.77
15 14 13 18 17 16
10 11
12 7 8 9
3 2 1 6 5 4
34 35 36 31 32 33
TWP.76 27 26 25 30 29 28
22 23 24 19 20 21
Project Footprint (April 2013) Original Footprint (May 2012) FIGURE 1.1-2
t6790_Figure_1_1_2_Comparison_of_Project_Footprints.mxd
Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site Phase 1 to 3B, Existing COMPARISON OF PROJECT FOOTPRINTS
Phase 2 Sump Site Permanent Operations Log Deck and Campsite Blackrod Road (MAY 2012 AND APRIL 2013)
Phase 3A Log Deck Camp Site Borrow Pit
Phase 3B Proposed Blackrod Road PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 50,000
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011. Meters
0 500 1,000
April 2013
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. (All Locations Approximate)
FIGURE 1.3 - 1
BLACKROD WATER SOURCE AND USE FLOW CHART
Blackrod Water Source and Use Flow Chart PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Refer to ESRD Figure 7-1 for detailed CPF 100%

Water Black Flow Diagram Steam April 2013
Well
Blackrod Commercial CPF Water Steam

Project Water Sources Treatment OTSG Separator Produced
Make-up Water Rapid
Steam Circulation
Condensate bed
Disposal wells
Grosmont
(saline)
CPF Utility
Drilling Water (Phase 2&3)
RO Tank Shower/Sink/ Solids Waste
Camp/Admn building Water Sewage trucked to
Supply (e) Camp/Administration Toilet Treatment
(c) Wandering River
Water Treatment Sewage Lagoon
Hydro Testing (Phase 2&3)
CPF Fill
LGR3 (Phase 1 only)
(undrinkable fresh (f) Phase 1: Make-up
water) Construction
(d) Water Supply (g)
Phase 1: make-up construction
camp water supply, until water
treatment facilities are in place.
Hydro-Test
(Phase 1 only) Tested and
Wandering River Discharged to
Municipal Environment
(potable)
(h)
Being evaluated as a
potential water source
for hydrotesting phase 1
Surface Water a) TDL required for use

b) Based on Phase 1 construction needs, will determine if a water act license is
Phase 1: Drilling (a) required. TDL required for use.
(Refer to ESRD Figure 20-1 for
c) Bottled water will be supplied for drinking needs
map of locations) d) Will not be used after Phase 1 is commissioned. TDL required for use.
- CPF Storm Pond Dust Control - if required (b) e) Camp/administration building supply from Grosmont will take effect once RO
commissioned at CPF
- Borrow Pits f) Needed for phase 1 CPF, initial plant fill to commission
Winter Road Construction g) LGR3 will supply water to camp during phase 1 construction
h) If required will source water from Wandering River for phase 1 hydro-testing
needs and as phase 1 construction camp water supply, until treatment facilities
are in place.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT UPDATE

2.1 Introduction
In light of changes to the Project Area and CPF presented in Section 1.0, the environmental assessments
included in the May 2012 Integrated Application have been reviewed to determine if any of the Project
changes affect the conclusions of these assessments. Based on this review, updated assessments for
each discipline are presented below.
2.2 Air Quality

Refer to Appendix B for the updated Air Quality Assessment.
2.3 Noise
The noise model was updated to reflect changes to the overall Project Area and the CPF. As with the
previous assessment, there is a Trapper’s Cabin located within approximately 580 m of the CPF
boundary which is considered a seasonably occupied dwelling in accordance with ERCB Directive 038.
As such, the Trapper’s Cabin has been included as a receptor in the noise assessment. Other than the
Trapper’s Cabin, there are no residential receptors within at least 5 km of the Project.
The updated equipment list (and associated noise levels), building dimensions, and tank dimensions are
provided in Appendix C.
2.3.1 Baseline Case

As in the Integrated Application, there are no significant industrial noise sources within the Project Area.
As such, a specific Baseline Case assessment was not conducted. The baseline noise levels were
assumed to be equal to the Ambient Sound Level (ASL) of 35.0 dBA during the night-time as prescribed
by ERCB Directive 038.
2.3.2 Application Case

The results of the Application Case noise modeling are presented in Table 2.3-1 and illustrated in
Figure 2.3-1. The modeled noise levels at the Trapper’s Cabin exceed the Permissible Sound Level
(PSL). As such, noise mitigation will be required for this specific receptor. The modeled noise levels at the
theoretical 1,500 m receptor locations are under the PSLs with the Project noise combined with the
35 dBA ASL. The order-ranked noise source contribution from the Project noise sources at the theoretical
1,500 m receptor with the highest noise levels (R13) are presented in Appendix D.
Page 6
TABLE 2.3-1
APPLICATION CASE MODELED SOUND LEVELS
ASL-Night Application Case LeqNight ASL + Application PSL-Night

Receptor (dBA) (dBA) Case LeqNight (dBA) (dBA) Compliant
Residential Receptors
Trappers Cabin (580 m from CPF) 35.0 42.7 43.4 40.0 NO
Theoretical 1,500 m Receptors
R-01 35.0 27.7 35.7 40.0 YES
R-02 35.0 24.1 35.3 40.0 YES
R-03 35.0 23.9 35.3 40.0 YES
R-04 35.0 24.3 35.4 40.0 YES
R-05 35.0 22.5 35.2 40.0 YES
R-06 35.0 24.2 35.3 40.0 YES
R-07 35.0 32.4 36.9 40.0 YES
R-08 35.0 29.0 36.0 40.0 YES
R-09 35.0 32.7 37.0 40.0 YES
R-10 35.0 29.4 36.1 40.0 YES
R-11 35.0 33.3 37.2 40.0 YES
R-12 35.0 34.3 37.7 40.0 YES
R-13 35.0 37.9 39.7 40.0 YES
R-14 35.0 35.1 38.1 40.0 YES
R-15 35.0 34.7 37.9 40.0 YES
R-16 35.0 30.8 36.4 40.0 YES
R-17 35.0 30.6 36.3 40.0 YES
R-18 35.0 25.0 35.4 40.0 YES
R-19 35.0 23.5 35.3 40.0 YES
R-20 35.0 24.5 35.4 40.0 YES
R-21 35.0 25.7 35.5 40.0 YES
R-22 35.0 25.7 35.5 40.0 YES
R-23 35.0 24.7 35.4 40.0 YES
R-24 35.0 24.8 35.4 40.0 YES
R-25 35.0 29.8 36.1 40.0 YES
R-26 35.0 29.8 36.1 40.0 YES
R-27 35.0 29.6 36.1 40.0 YES
R-28 35.0 24.3 35.4 40.0 YES
R-29 35.0 25.1 35.4 40.0 YES
R-30 35.0 27.5 35.7 40.0 YES
R-31 35.0 24.2 35.3 40.0 YES
R-32 35.0 28.5 35.9 40.0 YES
Page 7
R1
R32
R31
R2
R29 R30
R28 R3
R27
R4
Wellpads
R26
R5
R25 R7 R6
R24
R8
1,500m
R23 Radius
R9
R22
R10
Wellpads
R11
R21 CPF
Trappers
Cabin
R20 R12
R15
R13
R19 R14
R18 R16
R17
April 2013 FIGURE 2.3-1
UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing APPLICATION CASE MODELED SOUND LEVELS (WITHOUT ASL)
Although there is no reason to believe that PROJECT UPDATE

there are any errors associated with
the data used to generate this product
or in the product itself, users of these BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
data are advised that errors in the PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
data may be present
In addition to the broadband A-weighted (dBA) sound levels, the modeling results at the Trapper’s Cabin
and at most of the theoretical 1,500 m receptor locations indicated C-weighted (dBC) sound levels will be
less than 20 dB above the dBA sound levels, as shown in Table 2.3-2. As specified in ERCB
Directive 038, if the dBC - dBA sound levels are less than 20 dB, the noise is not considered to have a
low frequency tonal component. For those receptors with dBC - dBA sound levels greater than 20 dB, the
modeled noise levels are well below the 35 dBA ASL and the receptors are quite far from the CPF (the
source of most of the low frequency noise). The reason for the large difference between dBC and dBA
sound levels is due to the greater high frequency sound attenuation over large distances, which lowers
the dBA sound levels faster than the dBC sound levels. The noise sources at the CPF are not known to
have specific low frequency tonal components. In addition, other than at the Trapper’s Cabin (which will
require noise mitigation), there are no other residential receptors nearby. As a result, the likelihood of a
low frequency noise complaint is minimal.
TABLE 2.3-2
APPLICATION CASE MODELED dBA AND dBC SOUND LEVELS
Application Case Application Case

Receptor LeqNight (dBA) LeqNight (dBC) dBC - dBA Tonal
Residential Receptors
Trappers Cabin (580 m from CPF) 42.7 54.5 11.8 NO
Theoretical 1,500 m Receptors
R-01 27.7 49.0 21.3 POSSIBLE
R-02 24.1 44.8 20.7 POSSIBLE
R-03 23.9 40.4 16.5 NO
R-04 24.3 42.0 17.7 NO
R-05 22.5 39.9 17.4 NO
R-06 24.2 41.9 17.7 NO
R-07 32.4 52.7 20.3 POSSIBLE
R-08 29.0 46.3 17.3 NO
R-09 32.7 48.4 15.7 NO
R-10 29.4 45.0 15.6 NO
R-11 33.3 47.5 14.2 NO
R-12 34.3 48.0 13.7 NO
R-13 37.9 53.6 15.7 NO
R-14 35.1 48.3 13.2 NO
R-15 34.7 51.9 17.2 NO
R-16 30.8 49.6 18.8 NO
R-17 30.6 50.3 19.7 NO
R-18 25.0 43.4 18.4 NO
R-19 23.5 40.8 17.3 NO
R-20 24.5 41.8 17.3 NO
R-21 25.7 42.9 17.2 NO
R-22 25.7 42.9 17.2 NO
R-23 24.7 42.4 17.7 NO
R-24 24.8 43.7 18.9 NO
R-25 29.8 48.0 18.2 NO
R-26 29.8 51.0 21.2 POSSIBLE
R-27 29.6 51.1 21.5 POSSIBLE
R-28 24.3 44.0 19.7 NO
R-29 25.1 42.3 17.2 NO
R-30 27.5 44.1 16.6 NO
R-31 24.2 41.5 17.3 NO
R-32 28.5 48.4 19.9 NO
Page 9
2.3.3 Planned Development Case

As in the Integrated Application, there are no known future developments within a close enough proximity
to the Project to have an impact on the local noise climate. As such, a Planned Development Case (PDC)
noise assessment was not conducted.
2.3.4 Mitigation and Monitoring

The results of the noise modeling indicate that mitigation is required for the adjacent Trapper’s Cabin.
BlackPearl will commit to continued consultation with the owner of the Cabin to relocate the Cabin to a
location outside of the 1,500 m noise assessment zone where the noise levels are modeled to be well
under the PSL-Night. As such, no specific additional noise mitigation measures are required for the
Project equipment.
Although there are no specific construction noise level limits detailed by ERCB Directive 038, there are
general recommendations for construction noise mitigation. These include the following:
• conduct construction activity between the hours of 07:00 and 22:00 to reduce the
potential impact of construction noise;
• advise nearby residents of significant noise-causing activities and schedule these

events to reduce disruption to them;
• ensure all internal combustion engines are fitted with appropriate muffler systems; and
• take advantage of acoustical screening from existing on-site building to shield dwellings
from construction equipment noise.
As specified in ERCB Directive 038, follow-up noise monitoring is not required unless a formal complaint
has been filed with the local ERCB Field Office. If a complaint is filed, BlackPearl will follow-up in
accordance with the procedures identified in ERCB Directive 038.
2.4 Hydrogeology
Three changes to the Project have been made that relate to the hydrogeology component of the
Integrated Application. Descriptions of these changes are provided below.
The timing of the groundwater withdrawal from the Grosmont ‘D’ aquifer for the Baseline Case has
changed. As shown on Figure 1.5-4 (Volume 3 of the Integrated Application), groundwater withdrawal
begins in June 2012 and ends in December 2013. The timing has changed wherein withdrawal is now
currently planned to begin in June 2013 and end in June 2015. The withdrawal rates shown on
Figure 1.5-4 are unchanged. The timing of the start of withdrawal for the Application Case remains
unchanged at Q4 2015 (Figure 1.6-2, Volume 3 of the Integrated Application) as well as the groundwater
withdrawal rates. In addition, groundwater withdrawal from the Grand Rapids ‘B’ aquifer for the Pilot
Project is currently expected to continue to June 2015. These changes have no material effects on the
groundwater modelling results presented in Volume 3, Sections 1.5.2.5 and 1.6.1.1 of the Integrated
Application.
The Project Area has changed, which has resulted in changes to the locations of proposed Grosmont
source and disposal wells, and proposed groundwater monitoring wells as previously shown Figures 1.6-
1 and 1.8-2 in Volume 3 of the Integrated Application, respectively. The revised locations of proposed
Grosmont source and disposal wells are shown on Figure 2.4-1, and the revised locations of proposed
groundwater monitoring wells are shown on Figure 2.4-2. These revised locations have no effects on the
results of the Hydrogeology Assessment.
The planned layout of the CPF has changed from the layout shown on Figure 1.8-1 (Volume 3 of the
Integrated Application) to the layout shown in Appendix A. The changed layout has no effect on the
results of the Hydrogeology Assessment.
Page 10
¯
28 27 26 25 30 29 28
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP.77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4
33
10-36 (Proposed)
34
8-35 (Proposed) 36 (
! 32 33
(
!
(
!
1-35 (Proposed) 15-25 (Existing)
(
! (
!
13-25 (Proposed)
(
!
28
15-25 (Proposed)
27 26 25 30 29 28
2-25 (Exisiting)
(
!(!
2-25 (Proposed)
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP.76
16 15 14 13 18 17 16

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Grosmont Water Source Well (5)
t6790_Figure_2_4_1_Locations_Existing_Wells.mxd
Camp Site GROSMONT WATER SOURCE AND DISPOSAL WELLS

Phase 2 Sump Site
Permanent Operations
Phase 3A Log Deck Camp Site Grosmont Water Disposal Well (3) PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Phase 3B Proposed Blackrod Road
UTM Zone 12N SCALE: 1: 60,000
Imagery: 2011 SPOT5 © 2013 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
¯
River
22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP.77
15 14 13 18 17 16
10 11 12 7 8 9
3 2 1 6 5 4
9-36 (Proposed)
34
35 36 !
( 31 32 33
15-25 (Existing)
3-36 (Existing - directional) !

(
³ ! 13-30 (Proposed)
(
14-25 (Existing- directional) !
( !
(
13-30 (Proposed)
!
(
TWP.76 27 26 25 30 29 28
!
(
22 23
24
14-24 (Existing) 19 20 21

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site Viking Aquifer Monitoring Well
t6790_Figure_X_X_Monitoring_Wells_20130311.pdf
EXISTING AND PROPOSED

!
(
Phase 2 Sump Site Permanent Operations !
( Grand Rapids 'B' Monitoring Well GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
Phase 3A Log Deck Camp Site Grand Rapids 'B' Observation Well
!
(
Phase 3B Proposed Blackrod Road BottomHole-GrandRapids 'B'MonitoringWell PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Imagery: 2011 SPOT5 © 2013 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com
Meters
0 500 1,000
April 2013
2.5 Hydrology
2.5.1 Introduction
This section updates the surface water Hydrology Assessment (Volume 3, Section 2.0 of the Integrated
Application) in accordance with the Project changes described in the Project Update. Compared to the
original report, the primary changes in this updated assessment include the following.
• Updated the Hydrological Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) model configuration for Basin A2
by including additional creek channel cross section survey data.
• Provided the HSPF simulation results for all affected drainage basins for the Baseline, Application
and PDCs as required by the SIR.
• Conducted a full reassessment of the Application and PDCs based on the updated Project Footprint.
The changes also include that (1) the CPF area is divided into a plant site and fire buffer zone; and
(2) the proposed storm pond is moved to the southwest corner of the CPF plant site and will be
discharged to Basin D1 instead of Basin A2 as originally planned.
• Addressed the potential hydrology impacts with respect to possible withdrawal of surface water for
drilling, winter road construction and hydrostatic testing programs.
• Updated surface water drainage pathways for the updated Project Footprint.
Based on the updated assessment, the Project changes will not affect the significance evaluation of the
Project effects from the original assessment (Table 2.9-3 of Volume 3, Section 2.0 of the Integrated
Application). Details of the updated assessment are provided in the following sections.
2.5.2 Updated Baseline Case

HSPF modelling was used to perform a more detailed process-based assessment of the hydrologic
effects of the Baseline Case relative to Pre-development Case. Updates made to the HSPF modelling for
the Baseline Case include (1) improved representation of the Creek A2 channel in the model using
additional channel cross section survey data; and (2) simulations of all local basins that would be affected
by the proposed Project except Basin A1. Basin A1 was not included in this detailed modelling
assessment because the Project disturbance in this basin is negligible (Table 2.5-2). These changes are
intended to provide more accurate and more detailed results and are not relevant to the changes of the
Project.
The updated predictions of changes in runoff volumes and streamflows related to the Baseline Case
disturbances over the Pre-development Case are summarized in Table 2.5-1 (corresponding to Table 2.8-
2 of Volume 3, Section 2.0 of the Integrated Application).
The HSPF modelling results indicate that the effects of the Baseline Case on runoff volumes are greatest
for Basin B1 and B2, with an overall average increase of 6.1% over the Pre-development Case. The
change in magnitude in 2-year peak flow due to the Baseline Case disturbances was greatest in Basin
B1, with a predicted increase of 4.9%. There were no perceptible changes in the timing of peak flows.
Changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be large in some of the basins because
they are relative to very small flows. In most of the basins the net effect will be less years with zero flow.
Page 13
TABLE 2.5-1
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RUNOFF VOLUMES AND STREAMFLOWS FOR BASELINE CASE
Drainage Percentage of Worst case Average Change Average Change Average Change in
Area total existing change in runoff in Runoff in 2-Year Peak 2-Year Minimum
Basin (km2) disturbance (%) volume (%) Volume Flow Flow
A1 54.9 31.6% 4.6%
A2 37.0 37.3% 5.5% 5.2% 3.9% 11.1%
A (A1+A2) 91.9 33.9% 4.9% 4.8% 3.6% 9.9%
B1 2.2 43.7% 6.4% 6.1% 4.9% 17.3%
B2 2.4 44.3% 6.4% 6.1% 4.6% 10.7%
B3 8.2 30.9% 4.3% 4.2% 3.2% 9.8%
B4 10.4 29.0% 4.1% 4.1% 3.2% 8.7%
C 32.3 17.5% 3.3% 3.0% 2.3% 7.4%
D (D1+D2) 90.3 18.7% 2.7% 2.5% 1.9% 5.2%
D2 17.4 22.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.4% 4.6%
E1 7.0 17.1% 2.5% 2.4% 1.9% 6.4%
E2 9.0 27.2% 3.9% 3.8% 3.0% 8.1%
Total 253 25.6% 3.8%
2.5.3 Updated Application Case

This section describes the updated assessment of potential hydrological impacts of the proposed Project.
The updated Project Area is described, the potential effects identified and their severity assessed.
2.5.3.1 Updated Project Area

The Project will produce surface disturbances as well as potential stream disturbances in addition to the
Baseline Case. All three Phases of the Project were combined together to evaluate the total impacts of
the Project. Figure 2.5-1 shows the layout of the updated Project Area.
Page 14
25 30 29 28 27 26 25
¯
R18 R17
B1
19 20 21 22 23 24 B2 19 20
April 2013
21 22 23 24
FIGURE 2.5-1
PROJECT LAYOUT
PROJECT UPDATE
BLACKPEARL
B3
RESOURCES INC.
18 17 16 15 14
PROPOSED BLACKROD
13 18 17 16 15
COMMERCIAL
14 13
SAGD PROJECT
er
iv
R
a
c
s
a
7 b 1
a 8 9
th
10 11 Legend
12 7
A 8 9 10
B4 11 12 Project Area
Local Study Area
Drainage basins
Streams with Defined Channels
Drainages without Defined Channels
6
A2 T77 Lakes and Ponds
5 4 3 2 1
T76
6 5 Footprint Crossing
4 3 2 1 Stream Crossing
Drainage Crossing
T77
A1
Pilot Project
T76
Pilot Project Footprint
Blackrod Access Road
31 32 33 34 Project Footprint
35 36
3 31 32 33 34 Borrow Pit
C 35 36
CPF
CPF Access Road
Constuction Camp
Log Decks
Per Operations Camp
Phase 1 - Pads
30 29 Phase 1 - RoW
28 E1 27 26 25 Phase 2 - Pads
30 29 28 27 Phase 2 - RoW
26 25
Phase 3A - Pads
Phase 3A - RoW
Phase 3B - Pads
Phase 3B - RoW
Sumps
19 20 21 22
E2 23 24 19 SCALE: 1: 50,000
20 21 22 23 km
24
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2 (All Locations Approximate)
D2
18 17 16 UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
D1
R18 R17
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with
the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of
these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.
Surface Disturbances
Surface disturbances for the Project include a CPF, 54 well pads, 24 borrow pits, 3 sumps, 4 log decks, 2
camp sites and access corridors. Table 2.5-2 summarizes the extent of the spatial disturbances for the
updated Project Area in addition to the Baseline Case within individual basins. The total disturbed area
due to the Project is 857.2 ha, which is 3.4% of the Regional Study Area (RSA). The greatest percentage
area of disturbance due to the Project will be 11.2% in Basin B4 and 10.7% in Basin C.
TABLE 2.5-2
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION CASE DISTURBANCE
Land Type A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 C D1 D2 E1 E2 Total

Project Area (ha)
Multi-use Corridor 2.5 51.2 2.4 5.2 18.9 44.0 152.0 24.3 6.6 6.7 313.9
Borrow Pits 5.8 19.6 2.6 4.6 27.6 69.2 6.4 10.4 5.2 151.4
Camp Site 10.7 8.0 18.7
CPF Plant Site 18.4 9.1 54.8 82.3
Fire Buffer 17.3 9.3 14.0 40.6
CPF Road 0.9 0.9
Log Decks 0.6 0.7 2.5 3.8
Sump 10.2 0.2 2.9 13.3
Well Pads 6.8 18.0 4.0 5.9 19.3 43.9 90.8 27.7 7.8 8.0 232.2
Subtotal 15.1 146.9 6.5 13.8 43.0 116.3 343.7 127.3 24.8 19.9 857.2
Baseline Case (ha)
BP OSE 0.5 0.8 1.7 3.1
BP Pilot Project 8.2 8.2
Secondary Roads 7.4 4.4 8.9 20.7
Tertiary Roads 28.2 31.3 2.4 1.4 6.2 13.9 36.3 18.1 17.8 5.9 8.5 169.9
Cutlines 82.3 51.8 3.2 3.7 11.6 14.3 36.8 94.2 19.6 3.9 9.2 330.7
Cutlines 3D 22.4 93.9 6.0 122.3
Pipelines 5.7 31.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 4.4 12.3 4.1 13.1 0.3 4.5 81.1
Wells 5.1 10.3 0.8 1.2 3.9 7.4 21.6 16.0 8.5 3.9 3.5 82.3
Gravel Pits 0.8 1.2 2.0
Existing Cutblocks 1600 1197 81.3 85.4 195.6 195.7 270.9 1163 314.2 102.1 211.5 5418
Undisturbed Area 3749 2226 121 132 552 666 2397 5989 1233 561 644 18270
Basin Area 5487 3704 215 238 818 1041 3226 7294 1739 702 901 25365
Percentage Area of Project Disturbance 0.3% 4.0% 3.0% 5.8% 5.3% 11.2% 10.7% 0.0% 7.3% 3.5% 2.2% 3.4%
Percentage Area of Total Disturbance 32% 40% 44% 44% 32% 36% 26% 18% 29% 20% 29% 28%
Note: All overlapped areas of disturbance were removed from Baseline Case.
Central Processing Facility

The updated CPF will remain located in Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30 of Township 79, Range 17, W4M
(Figure 2.5-1). The CPF will have a total area of 122.9 ha, including an 82.3 ha plant site and 40.6 ha fire
buffer zone. The CPF plant site will be spread across three drainage basins: 54.8 ha in Basin D2, 18.4 ha
in Basin A2, and 9.1 ha in Basin C. A runoff coefficient value of 0.6 is adopted for the plant site. The
runoff from the plant site may be poorer in quality than the runoff from natural areas. It will be collected
and stored in a storm water pond as described in Section 2.5.3.2. Generally, the water will be tested and
released if water quality is within parameters specified in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Act approval. As the water will be released slowly and well after the surrounding natural runoff, much of it
will be lost to evaporation and infiltration. It was assumed in the assessment that the discharge from the
pond will be directed to Basin D1.
If required, a relatively small portion of the water collected in the storm water pond would be treated and
used for the drilling, hydrostatic testing and dust control programs of Phase 1, and winter road
construction. Details are provided in Section 2.5.3.1, Water Supply and Section 2.5.3.2, Runoff Volumes
and Streamflows.
Page 16
The fire buffer zone of the CPF will drain away from the plant site and flow freely onto the surrounding
undisturbed land. As a non-forested vegetation area, the runoff coefficient for the fire buffer zone is
estimated as 0.25.
Camp
A construction camp will be located immediately north of the CPF, with most of the area in Basin C and a
small portion in Basin A2 (Figure 2.5-1). An operation camp will be located to the southeast corner of the
CPF in Basin A2. The camp area will be constructed of gravel. The runoff coefficient for the camp area is
expected to be about 0.60, which is substantially higher than the Pre-development value of 0.20. The
water quality of the runoff from the camps is not expected to be substantially different from the runoff from
the undisturbed land so the water will be allowed to flow freely onto the surrounding undisturbed land.
Well Pads
As shown in Figure 2.5-1, 54 well pads will be distributed over the drainage basins, with most of them in
Basins C and B4. The total area of the well pads will be 232.2 ha. The well pads will be constructed of
gravel. The water quality of the runoff from the well pads is not expected to be substantially different from
the runoff from undisturbed areas. A berm will be constructed around each pad to control the surface
runoff. The runoff will be collected and stored in one corner away from the working area. Most of it will be
lost to evaporation and infiltration. If required, the water can be pumped off slowly after confirming that the
water quality meets standards. The runoff coefficient for the well pads is expected to be about 0.60.
However, as the runoff will be retained, a runoff coefficient value of 0.0 is adopted for these areas.
Log Decks
There will be 4 log decks with the total disturbed area of 3.8 ha in the updated Project Area (Figure 2.5-1):
2.5 ha in Basin C, 0.7 ha in Basin B4, and 0.6 ha in Basin A2. The log deck areas will have vegetation
cleared but ground level vegetation cover will remain. The runoff coefficient is estimated to be about 0.25.
Sump Areas
The majority of sump areas will be located in Basins A2 and C, with a disturbance area of 10.2 ha and
2.9 ha, respectively (Figure 2.5-1). Precipitation falling on the sump areas will be contained in the sumps
and will evaporate or be disposed of. No runoff will be generated from these areas (the runoff coefficient
equals 0.0).
Borrow Pits
As shown in Figure 2.5-1, borrow pits will be distributed through Basins A, B, C, D and E. These borrow
pits will be used for construction material. The total disturbance area for the borrow pits will be 151.4 ha.
Water collected in the borrow pits will either evaporate or seep into the ground. No runoff will be
generated from these areas.
Multi-Use Corridors (Access Corridors)

The multi-use corridors (access corridors) will consist of access roads and utility corridors. The total area
of the corridors is 313.9 ha (Figure 2.5-1). The runoff coefficient from the gravelled road surfaces is
expected to be about 0.60. The runoff from the road surface will be collected by ditches within the
corridor. The remaining area of the access corridor will be non-forested vegetation with a runoff
coefficient of about 0.25. As such, the average runoff coefficient for the corridors is estimated as 0.40.
CPF Access Road (Access Corridors)

The 0.8 km long road will provide access to the CPF from the existing road (Figure 2.5-1). The footprint of
the CPF road is 0.9 ha, located in the north half of 20-79-17 W4M. The runoff coefficient from the
gravelled road surfaces is expected to be about 0.60. The runoff from the road surface will be collected by
ditches within the corridor. The remaining area of the access corridor will be non-forested vegetation with
a runoff coefficient of about 0.25. As such, the average runoff coefficient for this corridor is estimated as
0.40.
Page 17
Stream Disturbances
Three locations have been identified where the access corridors will cross streams that have defined
channels (i.e., bed and banks). The locations are shown in Figure 2.5-1 and summarized in Table 2.5-3.
Crossing 1 will be the widest crossing where the bankfull width of the channel was estimated as 10 m by
TERA Environmental Consultants. A clear span bridge will be constructed for this crossing. All other
crossings will consist of culverts.
There will be at least three crossings of mapped drainages without defined channels where the drainage
pathways will be maintained with adequately sized culverts.
One of the proposed well pads is located on a mapped drainage in SW 23–76–18 W4M. The drainage
has no defined channels and the surrounding area is quite flat. The drainage will be directed around the
well pad and back to its original pathway.
Construction will be conducted using best management practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation
of watercourses. These practices include the installation of silt fences, seeding of disturbed areas and the
use of sediment traps in road ditches.
TABLE 2.5-3
SUMMARY OF STREAM CROSSINGS
Estimated Channel
Crossing Basin Location Width Disturbance Crossing Type
1 A2 NW 8-77-17 10 m Corridor Crossing Bridge
2 D2 SW 24-76-18 2m Corridor Crossing Culvert
3 C NE 35-76-18 1.5 m Corridor Crossing Culvert
Water Supply
Saline water from the Grosmont ‘D’ aquifer will be treated and used by the Project for process water,
which is not expected to result in losses of surface water.
In the first two years of Phase 1 (2014-2015), the water treatment facilities will unlikely be ready to treat
the saline water. In that case, BlackPearl may apply for a Water Act temporary diversion license to use
surface water for drilling, hydrostatic testing and maybe dust control, if required. BlackPearl would also
use surface water for winter road construction for the OSE program. Details for each item are provided
below:
Phase 1 Drilling Program

The duration of this practice, if undertaken, will be limited to the first two years of Phase 1 only
(2014-2015). Once the water treatment facilities are ready, the Grosmont (saline) water will be used.
BlackPearl anticipates a need for approximately 10,000 m3 of surface water per year.
Phase 1 Hydrostatic Testing

BlackPearl will have an onsite hydrostatic testing program during the construction of each phase of the
Project. BlackPearl will use treated Grosmont water for hydrostatic testing. BlackPearl is evaluating
optional sources of water for the Phase 1 construction period before the water treatment facilities are in
operation. The options include withdraw of surface water with a Water Act temporary diversion license. It
is anticipated that the Phase 1 hydrostatic testing will need about 20,000 m3 of water per year.
Dust Control
A dust control program is unlikely required for the Project because the trucking traffic will be minimal
outside of project construction periods while the production from Blackrod being pipeline connected.
BlackPearl plans to monitor the Phase 1 construction process and to evaluate the need for dust control.
Required water volumes will then be estimated and sourced, if required.
Page 18
Winter Road Construction

BlackPearl anticipates that more OSE programs will be carried out through the life of the Project, which
would require construction of ice roads in winter. BlackPearl estimates that the road construction would
require up to 5000 m3 of water each winter. Surface water will be used with a Water Act temporary
diversion license.
The required water for these activities as described above can be obtained from the CPF storm water
pond. The estimated total volume of water required for the Phase 1 drilling and hydrostatic testing
programs is 30,000 m3 per year, which is only 14% of the mean annual runoff volume that the storm water
pond would receive from the CPF plant site (based on the adopted runoff coefficient value of 0.6 for the
CPF plant site and mean annual precipitation for Fort McMurray, the mean annual runoff volume that the
pond would receive is estimated as 82.3 ha x 436 mm x 0.6 x 10 = 215,000 m3). The pond can also
supply water for the winter road construction which would take up to 2% of the mean annual runoff
volume. These withdrawals of water from the pond are not expected to have adverse impacts to surface
water hydrology. Instead, they will reduce the runoff volume increase due to the development of the CPF.
BlackPearl may also use water collected in the borrow pits. Diversion of water from the borrow pits for
these purposes is not expected to have perceptible residual effects.
2.5.3.2 Hydrologic Impact

The Project may potentially interact with the following hydrologic indicators in the RSA. These indicators
include:
• runoff volumes and streamflows;
• water levels and surface areas; and
• channel morphology and sediment concentrations.
A summary of the residual effects from the Project on these indicators is provided in Table 2.5-4. These
Project effects are evaluated in the following sections.
TABLE 2.5-4
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY-APPLICATION CASE
Temporal Context
Spatial Boundary
Impact Balance
Reversibility
Significance
Confidence
Probability
Frequency
Magnitude
Duration
Hydrological Indicator/Potential
Effect
1. Runoff Volume and negative RSA long-term Periodic reversible low high high not significant
Streamflows
2. Water Level and Surface Area negative LSA long-term Periodic reversible low high high not significant
3. Channel Morphology and negative RSA long-term Periodic reversible Negligible Low high not significant
Sediment Concentration
Runoff Volumes and Streamflows

Disturbances from the Project have the potential to cause changes to surface runoff characteristics.
Changes in surface drainage patterns or changes in the runoff coefficient may affect the runoff volumes,
flow rates, and timing of peak flows in the local streams. Water levels in the lake may also be affected. If
these changes are significant, they may in turn produce changes in the channel regime of the local
streams.
Page 19
There will be no significant changes in the surface drainage patterns due to the Project. Existing drainage
paths will be maintained. As shown in Figure 2.5-2, appropriate drainage will be provided at crossings of
defined watercourses and identified drainages and there will be no transfer of water from one drainage
basin to another along ditches and road right-of-ways. The only change to basin boundaries will occur at
the CPF plant site. The CPF plant site will be spread across three basins: A2, C and D2. Runoff from it
will be stored in a storm water pond. Generally, the water will be tested and discharged to Basin D1,
which would increase runoff volumes of this basin. However, because the pond will only be discharged
after a runoff event at a relatively small flow rate and the CPF plant site is equivalent to only 1.1% of the
Basin D1 area, no significant impacts are expected.
Page 20
27 26 25
¯
R18 R17
B1
19 20 21 22 23 24 April 2013
B2
19 20 21 22
23 24 FIGURE 2.5-2
PROJECT DRAINAGE
PROJECT UPDATE
BLACKPEARL
B3 RESOURCES INC.
18 17 16 PROPOSED BLACKROD
er
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 COMMERCIAL
Riv
13 SAGD PROJECT
a
Legend
sc
a
Project Area
b
a
th
Local Study Area
7 A 8 9 10 Drainage basins
11 12 7 8 9 10 Streams with Defined Channels
B4 11 12
Drainages without Defined Channels
Lakes and Ponds
Proposed Bridge
Proposed Culvert
Drainage Direction (Proposed)
6
A2
5 4 3 2
C 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 Pilot Project
Pilot Project Footprint
T77 Blackrod Access Road
T76 A1
T77 Project Footprint
T76 Borrow Pit
CPF
31 32 33 34 CPF Access Road
35 36 32
31
33 Constuction Camp
34 35 36
Log Decks
Per Operations Camp
Phase 1 - Pads
Phase 1 - RoW
Phase 2 - Pads
E1
30 29 Phase 2 - RoW
28 27 26 25 Phase 3A - Pads
30 29 28 27 26 25 Phase 3A - RoW
Phase 3B - Pads
Phase 3B - RoW
Sumps
20
19
21 22
E2 23 24 19 SCALE: 1: 50,000
20 21 22 23 km
24 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
D2
18 17 16 15 UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING
14 13 18 17 14
16 15 13
D1
R18 R17
The effect of the Project on runoff volumes in each individual drainage basin depends on the proportions
of the basin area that are used for the CPF, camp, log decks, multi-use corridors, remote sumps, well
pads, and borrow pits. The remote sumps and borrow pits will reduce runoff volumes and flood peaks
because water will not be released from these areas. Multi-use corridors, the CPF fire buffer zone, log
decks, and camps will increase both runoff volumes and flood peaks due to the reduction in vegetation
and the addition of less permeable surfaces. The CPF plant site and well pads will tend to reduce the
flood peaks because of the detention of runoff.
Runoff from the 82.3 ha CPF plant site will be collected in a storm water pond. This pond is required to
hold at least the runoff from a 10-year 24-hour rainfall of 64.6 mm. The volume of this runoff was
estimated as 31,900 m3 using the adopted runoff coefficient of 0.6 (82.3 ha x 64.6 mm x 0.6 x 10 =
31,900 m3). The 10-year peak runoff rate of 3.6 m3/s was estimated using the Rational Method. If
required, the pond will also provide additional storage capacity to collect the water required for the
Phase 1 drilling and hydrostatic testing programs, winter road construction or dust control, as described in
Section 2.5.3.1, Water Supply. The required total water volume for these activities except dust control is
up to 35,000 m3 per year as estimated by BlackPearl. Other factors such as the risk of flooding and
operations requirements will also be considered when determining the ultimate pond size. Runoff from the
CPF fire buffer zone and off-site areas will be diverted around the plant site and will not contribute to the
pond.
Changes in runoff volumes due to the Application Case were estimated assuming a worst case condition
of the disturbed areas being directly connected to the drainage network in the basins and that the
estimated runoff coefficients for each disturbance type are applicable for all runoff events. The combined
changes in runoff volumes for the Application Case are summarized in Table 2.5-5. Compared to the Pre-
development Case, the Application Case would generally result in increased runoff volumes, except for
Basin D2. The greatest changes in runoff volume for the Application Case will occur in Basin A2 with an
estimated increase of 5.6%. The Application Case will generally result in lower increases in runoff
volumes than the Baseline Case in all of the basins except Basins A2 and D. The increase in Basin A2
due to the Project (0.1%) over that for the Baseline case is negligible. The further increase of runoff
volume in Basin D over that for the Baseline Case is primarily due to discharges from the CPF storm
water pond. Withdrawals of water from the pond for drilling, hydrostatic testing, winter road construction or
dust control as described in Section 2.5.3.1, Water Supply would reduce this effect.
TABLE 2.5-5
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN
RUNOFF VOLUMES AND STREAMFLOWS FOR UPDATED APPLICATION CASE
Percentage of Worst case Average Average Change Average Change

Drainage Total Change in Runoff Change in in 2 Year Peak in 2 Year
Basin Area (km2) Disturbance (%) Volume (%) Runoff Volume Flow Minimum Flow
A1 54.9 31.7% 4.3%
A2 37.0 39.9% 5.6% 4.6% 2.9% 12.9%
A (A1+A2) 91.9 35.0% 4.8% 4.4% 3.0% 11.1%
B1 2.2 43.7% 5.2% 4.9% 3.3% 18.7%
B2 2.4 44.4% 4.2% 3.4% 1.4% 12.5%
B3 8.2 32.5% 3.2% 2.6% 0.9% 12.6%
B4 10.4 36.0% 0.9% 0.1% -2.4% 12.9%
C 32.3 25.7% 2.5% 0.9% -1.3% 12.9%
D (D1+D2) 90.3 20.1% 4.7% 3.5% 1.7% 6.2%
D2 17.4 29.1% -0.5% -0.7% -2.2% 4.1%
E1 7.0 20.1% 0.8% 0.6% -0.4% 7.2%
E2 9.0 28.5% 3.0% 2.8% 1.7% 8.7%
Total 253 28.0% 4.1%
Page 22
HSPF modelling was also used to further assess the hydrologic effects of the Application Case relative to
Pre-development Case. Simulations for the Application Case incorporate the modifications for the Project
disturbances in addition to the Baseline Case, assuming a maximum-impact scenario with full
development of all project phases before any reclamation occurs. For most types of the Project
disturbances, the HSPF runoff parameters were adjusted to reflect the effects of clearing and soil
compaction. The effects of clearing were simulated using a 25% reduction in potential evapotranspiration
in cleared-but-vegetated areas such as utility corridors and the CPF fire buffer zone. An additional 75%
reduction in soil storage capacity was assumed where the land is compacted for gravel roads and well
pads. Areas of excavated pits and sumps were assumed to be non-draining and were removed from the
drainage contributing areas. Bermed well pads were assumed to release water only via groundwater
discharge; surface and shallow subsurface flows from the well pads were assumed to be lost to
evaporation. Runoff from the CPF plant site was assumed to be stored in the storm water pond and
discharged into Basin D1 after the runoff event.
Simulations were carried out for all basins except Basin A1 within which the disturbed area due to the
Project is negligible. Flow routing through Lake UL1 was also simulated. Runoff volumes, peak flows and
minimum flows for the Application Case were compared to the values for Pre-development Case. The
results are summarized in Table 2.5-5.
The effects for the Application Case on runoff volumes are greatest for Basin B1 with an overall average
increase of 4.9% over the Pre-development Case. Runoff volume increases are less apparent in wet
years but more noticeable in dry years. All the predicted average runoff volumes for the Application Case
are smaller than those for the Baseline Case except for Basin D where it slightly increases by
approximately 1%. In the other basins, the increases in runoff volumes for the Application Case will be
less than for the Baseline Case.
The changes in magnitude of the 2-year peak flow due to the Application Case range from a 2.4%
decrease in Basin B4 to a 3.3% increase in Basin B1, compared to the Pre-development Case. All the
predicted 2-year peak flows are smaller than those for the Baseline Case. There are no perceptible
changes in the timing of peak flows based on the simulation results.
Increases in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be large in some of the basins because
they are relative to very small flows; however, in general the Application Case will increase the minimum
flow from those for the Baseline Case. In most of the basins the net effect due to the Application Case will
be less years with zero flow.
Water Levels and Surface Areas

Annual peak water levels and surface areas in the streams may change slightly due to changes in annual
peak flow. These changes will be imperceptible compared to natural variability. Minimum water levels and
surface areas may be slightly higher due to increased minimum flows; however, zero flows will still occur
in most of these small basins.
The water level variation of Lake UL1 in Basin D2 was simulated in the HSPF model. The simulation
results suggest that the Application Case may cause summer monthly water levels to be up to 2 mm
higher than those for the Pre-development Case. Annual minimum water levels would be up to 6 mm
higher than the Pre-development Case. There are no perceptible effects on the annual maximum lake
levels. The increase in the lake surface area will be imperceptible compared to natural variability.
Levels in small waterbodies created by beaver dams are controlled by the height of the beaver dams
rather than by inflow volumes. Therefore, small changes in streamflows are not expected to affect the
water levels and surface areas of these features.
Channel Morphology and Sediment Concentrations

The Application Case will generally result in less runoff volume and smaller 2-year peak flows compared
to the Baseline Case. As such, changes in sediment concentrations would be smaller as well.
Page 23
2.5.4 Updated Planned Development Case

This section describes the updated assessment of potential hydrological impacts of the known future
developments on the local environment in the RSA. The PDC includes future disturbances from planned
developments in addition to all the updated Application Case disturbances. The Footprint of the updated
PDC is described and the impacts are identified.
2.5.4.1 Planned Development Area

The only known future development within the RSA is timber harvest.
Surface Disturbance
The only surface disturbance from the PDC is planned cutblocks, as shown in Figure 2.5-3. The planned
cutblocks take about 8% of the RSA. Distributions of the planned cutblocks are summarized in
Table 2.5-6. The greatest percentage of the cutblocks out of basin area is 31% in Basin B3.
Page 24
78-17-4 78-16-4
¯ r
B1
FIGURE 2.5-3
PDC DISTURBANCE
PROJECT UPDATE
April 2013
ve B2 BLACKPEARL
RESOURCES INC.
i
a R
77-19-4 77-18-4 PROPOSED BLACKROD
77-17-4 77-16-4 COMMERCIAL
B3 SAGD PROJECT
sc
ba
a
h B4
At
Legend
Project Area
Local Study Area
Drainage basins
Streams with Defined Channels
A2
A1 Drainages without Defined Channels
C Lakes and Ponds
Blackrod Access Road
Existing Disturbance Type

E1 BP 2012 OSE Footprint
BP Pilot Project Expansion
Secondary Roads
E2 Tertiary Roads
Cutlines
76-19-4 76-18-4 Cutlines 3D
D2
76-17-4 76-16-4 Existing Pipelines
Existing Wells
Gravel Pit / Existing Clearin*
UL1 Cut Blocks
Regenerating Cut Blocks
Planned Cut Blocks
D1
SCALE: 1: 100,000
km
0 1 2 3 4
75-19-4 75-18-4 75-17-4 75-16-4
UTM Zone 12N: SOURCING
TABLE 2.5-6
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE DISTURBANCE AREAS
Land Type A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 C D1 D2 E1 E2 Total

Planned Cutblocks (ha) 402.5 131.1 5.7 21.0 251.9 201.3 424.7 133.0 125.3 87.0 231.6 2015.1
Basin Area (ha) 5487 3704 215 238 818 1041 3226 7294 1739 702 901 25365
Percentage of basin 7% 4% 3% 9% 31% 19% 13% 2% 7% 12% 26% 8%
area as planned
cutblocks
Total Percentage of 39% 43% 46% 53% 63% 55% 39% 20% 36% 32% 54% 36%
Basin Area disturbed1
Notes: 1 Total disturbance includes planned cutblocks plus all disturbances considered in the Application Case.
A runoff coefficient value of 0.23 is adopted for the planned cutblocks based on the consideration of
vegetation regenerating in the long term.
Stream Disturbances
Based on observations of existing cutblocks, stream disturbances due to future timber harvest are not
expected.
2.5.4.2 Hydrologic Impact

A PDC assessment is only completed for a potential effect or indicator when the Application Case
assessment indicated the Project is likely to have an effect (i.e., there is a high probability that the Project
will interact with other developments to have a cumulative effect on the indicator). The Application Case
assessment identified that one potential effect, channel morphology and sediment concentrations, is
unlikely to occur and therefore is not carried forward into the PDC assessment. For the PDC assessment,
the hydrologic impact of existing activities, the Project and known future developments is evaluated using
the following hydrologic indicators:
• runoff volumes and streamflows; and
• water levels and surface areas.
Runoff Volumes and Streamflows

Changes in runoff volumes were estimated assuming a worst case condition of the disturbed area being
directly connected to the drainage networks in the basins and that estimated changes in runoff volumes
are summarized in Table 2.5-7. Compared to the Pre-development Case, the PDC would result in
increased runoff volumes except for Basin D2. The greatest increase of runoff volumes would occur in
Basin B3 with an estimated increase of 7.8%, as 31% of the basin area will be affected by planned
cutblocks (Table 2.5-7).
TABLE 2.5-7
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RUNOFF VOLUMES AND STREAMFLOWS FOR PDC
Percentage of Worst case Average Change Average Change Average Change in

Drainage Total Change in Runoff in Runoff in 2 Year 2 Year Minimum
Basin Area (km2) Disturbance (%) Volume (%) Volume Peak Flow Flow
A1 54.9 39.0% 5.4%
A2 37.0 43.4% 5.5% 5.1% 3.3% 13.3%
A (A1+A2) 91.9 40.8% 5.5% 5.3% 3.6% 12.3%
B1 2.2 46.4% 5.6% 5.1% 3.6% 7.3%
B2 2.4 53.2% 5.5% 4.6% 2.4% 6.8%
B3 8.2 63.3% 7.8% 6.8% 4.3% 18.7%
B4 10.4 55.4% 3.8% 2.7% -0.2% 16.2%
C 32.3 38.9% 4.2% 2.8% 0.1% 15.8%
D (D1+D2) 90.3 22.9% 4.9% 3.9% 2.1% 7.2%
Page 26
TABLE 2.5-7 Cont'd

Percentage of Worst case Average Change Average Change Average Change in
Drainage Total Change in Runoff in Runoff in 2 Year 2 Year Minimum
Basin Area (km2) Disturbance (%) Volume (%) Volume Peak Flow Flow
D2 17.4 36.3% -0.4% 0.3% -1.4% 4.9%
E1 7.0 32.5% 2.6% 2.2% 0.9% 7.4%
E2 9.0 54.2% 6.9% 6.4% 4.6% 13.4%
Total 253 35.9% 5.1%
HSPF modelling results for changes of runoff volumes are also presented in Table 2.5-7. The greatest
increases in runoff volumes are 6.8% in Basin B3 and 6.4% in Basin E2, which are associated with the
high percentage area of planned cutblocks.
As shown in Table 2.5-7, the predicted change in magnitude in 2-year peak flow for PDC is the greatest in
Basin E2, with an increase of 4.6%. There were no perceptible changes in the timing of peak flows.
Changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be large in some of the basins because
they are relative to very small flows. In most of the basins, the net effect will be less years with zero flow.
Water Levels and Surface Area

Annual peak water levels and surface areas in the streams may change slightly due to changes in annual
peak flow. These changes will be imperceptible compared to natural variability. Minimum water levels and
surface areas may be slightly higher due to increased minimum flows; however, zero flows will still occur
in most of these small basins.
The water level variation of Lake UL1 in Basin D2 simulated in the HSPF model suggests that the PDC
may cause summer monthly water levels to be up to 4 mm higher than those for the Pre-development
Case. Annual minimum water levels would be up to 9 mm higher than the Pre-development Case. There
are no perceptible effects on the annual maximum lake levels. The increase in the lake surface area will
be imperceptible compared to natural variability.
Levels in small waterbodies created by beaver dams are controlled by the height of the beaver dams
rather than by inflow volumes. Therefore, small changes in streamflows are not expected to affect the
water levels and surface areas of these features.
2.5.5 Mitigation and Monitoring

The drainage pathways around the Project components proposed to mitigate the potential Project impacts
on drainage patterns have been updated, as shown in Figure 2.5-2.
2.5.6 Summary
The surface water hydrology assessment has been updated with considerations of the Project changes
that have been made since the original submission. The updated assessment also provides more detailed
modelling results. The updated Application Case and PDC were reassessed. The results did not affect
the primary conclusions on the significance of the Project effects on surface water hydrology that were
drawn from the original assessment. An updated summary is provided in the following:
2.5.6.1 Baseline Case

A Baseline Case consisting of existing developments in the RSA was described and the effects of the
developments on the hydrology were quantified. Effects were evaluated for runoff volumes and
streamflows; water levels and surface areas; and channel morphology and sediment concentrations. The
average increases in runoff volumes were predicted to be up to 6.1% over the Pre-development Case.
The increases could be as high as 6.4% in the worst case condition. Increases in 2-year peak flows were
predicted to be up to 4.9% over the Pre-development Case. There is no perceptible change on annual
peak flows or on the timing of runoff hydrographs. Changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates
Page 27
appear to be large in some of the basins because they are relative to very small flows. In most of the
basins the net effect will be less years with zero flow.
The effect of the Baseline Case on water levels and surface areas was also assessed. Peak water levels
and surface areas in streams are not anticipated to change because annual peak flows have no
substantial changes. Changes in lake levels are small but summer water levels may be up to 8 mm higher
during dry years. There is no perceptible change in the annual maximum surface area in Lake UL1.
Channel morphology and sediment concentrations are not expected to change due to the baseline
developments because changes to the flow regime are small.
2.5.6.2 Application Case

The Application Case was described and the effects of the Project on the hydrology were assessed. All
phases of the Application Case were assumed to take place at the same time to assess the maximum
effect on the hydrology. Effects relative to the Pre-development Case and to the Baseline Case were
evaluated for runoff volumes and streamflows; water levels and surface areas; and channel morphology
and sediment concentrations.
The effects of the Application Case on runoff volumes were greatest for Basin B1 where the predicted
average increase is 4.9% over the Pre-development Case. The increase in magnitude in 2-year peak flow
due to development was greatest in Basin B1, with a predicted increase of 3.3%. In general, the
Application Case would result in decreases in both runoff volumes and peak flows compared to the
Baseline Case due to the detention of runoff from the Project area by some structures such as sumps,
borrow pits and bermed well pads. The simulations predicted no perceptible changes in the timing of peak
flows. Percentage changes in magnitude of annual minimum flow rates appear to be relatively large in
some of the basins because they were computed relative to very low flows. The predicted changes in
runoff volumes, peak flows and minimum flows in these small streams will be imperceptible compared to
natural variability.
The effects of the Application Case on water levels and surface areas are expected to be small or
imperceptible compared to natural variability. Predicted changes in lake levels are small but summer
water levels may be up to 6 mm higher during dry years. There is no perceptible change in the annual
maximum surface area in Lake UL1.
Channel morphology and sediment concentrations will not have adverse changes due to the Application
Case. The access corridor stream crossings will be designed to minimize the disturbance to the channels
so sediment inputs are not anticipated to increase.
2.5.6.3 Planned Development Case

The PDC was described and the potential effects of existing activities, the Project and known future
developments on the hydrology were assessed. Future timber harvest is the only disturbance considered
in the PDC in addition to the disturbances considered in the Application Case. Effects for the PDC were
evaluated for runoff volumes and streamflows and water levels and surface areas. Channel morphology
and sediment concentrations were not evaluated for the PDC since the residual effect was determined to
be unlikely to occur in the Application Case.
The effects of the PDC on runoff volumes would be the greatest for Basin B3 where the average increase
was predicted to be 6.8% over the Pre-development Case. This increase is primarily due to large
percentage area of planned cutblocks within the basin. The predicted change in 2-year peak flow due to
the PDC is the greatest in Basin E2, with an increase of 4.6%. In general, the PDC will further increase
runoff volumes and peak flows over those for the Application Case. The predicted changes in runoff
volumes and peak flows in these small streams are considered of low magnitude compared to natural
variability.
The effects of the PDC on water levels and surface areas are expected to be small or imperceptible
compared to natural variability. Changes in lake levels would be small but summer water levels may be
up to 9 mm higher during dry years. There would be no perceptible change in the annual maximum
surface area in Lake UL1.
Page 28
2.6 Surface Water Quality

There is no change in the Surface Water Quality Assessment conclusions.
2.7 Aquatic Ecology

The Aquatic Ecology Assessment presented in Volume 3, Section 4 of the Integrated Application has
been updated as a result of changes to the Project Area. The proposed Watercourse Crossing 2 located
at SW 19-76-17 W4M has been eliminated reducing the number of watercourse crossing from four to
three. In addition, the drainage crossing located in NE 36-76-18 W4M has moved farther northwest and is
located in SE 1-77-18 W4M.
Disturbance to both instream and riparian habitat has been reduced for the assessment following
revisions to the Project Area. Riparian habitat disturbance contributed by the Project was reduced from
10.5 ha to 9.2 ha as discussed in Volume 3, Section 4.7.3 of the Integrated Application. The riparian
disturbance presented in that section was a lower value of 10.2 ha as it did not include existing cutlines.
The instream habitat loss due to Project-related culvert installation in low quality habitat went from 250 m2
to 200 m2 as presented in Volume 3, Section 4.7.4 of the Integrated Application. Potential habitat
fragmentation was also reduced by eliminating one culvert crossing. Reduced disturbance does not alter
the conclusions of the assessments.
2.8 Vegetation
The Vegetation Assessment presented in Volume 4, Section 1.0 of the Integrated Application has been
updated as a result of changes to the Project Area (Figure 1.1-2).
The boundaries of the Vegetation Local Study Area (LSA) and RSA remain unchanged from the
Integrated Application, as such, there are no changes to the Baseline Case (Volume 4, Appendix 1A of
the Integrated Application). The assessment approach, temporal boundaries, the potential issues
identified and the indicators selected for the assessment also remain unchanged from the Integrated
Application.
The updated Project Area (857.0 ha) results in an 11% reduction from the original Project Area (966.4 ha)
presented in the Integrated Application.

A comparison of the measurable parameters in relation to the original and updated Project Area was
completed for the following vegetation indicators:
• Vegetation Communities;
• Wetlands;
• Old Growth Forests;
• Riparian Areas;
• Communities of Limited Distribution;
• Rare Ecological Communities; and
• Rare Plants.
This quantification of change allowed a determination of the validity of the assessment conclusions for
changes to native vegetation resulting from the Project. Habitat fragmentation was addressed qualitatively
due to a relatively minor (1.8%) reduction of the area of the Vegetation LSA cleared of vegetation (as
compared to the original Project Area).
Page 29
Two species level indicators, non-native and invasive plants and traditionally used plants, do not have
measurable parameters and were qualitatively assessed during the updated significance assessment. As
in the Integrated Application, the assessment of effects to traditionally used plants is not separate from
the direct loss or alteration of native vegetation.
As in the Integrated Application, the assessment period for the Application Case includes construction,
operation, decommissioning, reclamation and closure phases for the Project. Although the Project will be
constructed and operated in a series of phases, the Application Case was first considered as a maximum
disturbance scenario that assumes all phases of the Project are constructed and operational at the same
time. This approach results in a conservative evaluation of effects. Since mitigation of effects on native
vegetation is primarily associated with reclamation, assessment of effects at the closure phase was
completed to evaluate predicted residual effects following implementation of all applicable mitigation (e.g.,
reclamation). The temporal boundary of the closure phase extends 30 years beyond completion of
reclamation in 2050, to 2080.
The methods to predict closure phase vegetation communities were updated to use the updated Project
Area and to better reflect the intent of the Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Plan (Volume 1, Section
11.0) in response to various SIRs. Specifically, multi-use corridors located in peatlands are now predicted
to be a mosaic of peatlands, shallow peat wetlands and uplands at closure phase as compared to the
conservative prediction used in the Integrated Application that these locations would be entirely shallow
peat wetlands at closure phase. As previously stated in the Integrated Application, borrow pits will not be
located within peatlands. This has been reflected in the updated closure phase map by maintaining the
classification of peatlands within borrow pits at closure phase as compared to the conservative prediction
used in the Integrated Application that these locations would be entirely shallow peat wetlands at closure
phase. As previously stated in the Integrated Application, the results of the closure phase vegetation
community predictions are to be treated as conceptual. The target Ecosite Phases for the Project Area
will be updated at the time of reclamation based on the results of site-specific Pre-disturbance
Assessments (PDAs), monitoring and adjacent Ecosite Phases at the time of reclamation.
Loss or Alteration of Native Vegetation Communities

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the loss or alteration of native vegetation communities
(classified using Ecological Land Classification [ELC]) resulting from the Project. The change in native
vegetation cleared from the original Project Area is a 2.7% (87.0 ha) (Table 2.8-1) reduction at operation
phase. Most native ELCs have a reduction or no change in area cleared due to the updated Project Area
except for e1, f2, f3, k2, meadow and regenerating burn. The updated Project Area does not result in the
elimination of any ELC from the LSA. The overall reduction in native vegetation cleared and the resulting
reduction in alteration of native vegetation communities at closure phase do not change the magnitude of
predicted effects, the assessment criteria or significance conclusions. Figure 2.8-1 shows the predicted
distribution of ELCs within the LSA at closure phase.
Loss or Alteration of Wetlands

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the predicted loss or alteration of wetlands (classified
using Alberta Wetland Inventory [AWI]) resulting from the Project. The change in wetlands cleared from
the original Project Area is a 0.7% (13.6 ha) (Table 2.8-2) reduction at operation phase. Most AWI
classes have a reduction or no change in area cleared due to the updated Project Area except for BONS.
The updated Project Area does not result in the elimination of any AWI class from the LSA. Due to the
modification of the methods for predicting closure phase AWI classes, the area of STNN has decreased
at closure phase while the area of BONS and FONS has increased at closure phase as compared to the
areas of these AWI classes at closure phase in the Integrated Application. As in the Integrated
Application it is predicted, based upon current knowledge of reclamation techniques, that BTNN, FTNN
and SONS will decrease overall at closure phase, while the other wetland classes within the LSA will
increase. This change in distribution of wetland classes within the LSA at closure phase will be due to
upland borrow pits being partially reclaimed to MONG and STNN while well pads and multi-use corridors
within peatlands will be reclaimed to upland vegetation communities, STNN and BONS or FONS. The
reduction in wetlands cleared and the resulting reduction in alteration of wetlands at closure phase do not
change the magnitude of predicted effects, the assessment criteria or significance conclusions. Figure
2.8-2 shows the predicted distribution of AWI classes within the LSA at closure phase.
Page 30
Loss or Alteration of Old Growth Forests

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the predicted loss or alteration of old growth forests
(classified using ELC) resulting from the Project. The change in old growth forests cleared from the
original Project Area is a 3.2% (26.7 ha) (Table 2.8-3) reduction at operation phase. Most old growth forest
ELCs have a reduction or no change in area cleared due to the updated Project Area except k1. The
updated Project Area does not result in the elimination of any old growth forest ELC from the LSA. This
reduction in old growth forest cleared and the resulting reduction in alteration of old growth forest at
closure phase do not change the magnitude of predicted effects, or the assessment criteria or
conclusions. Figure 2.8-3 shows the predicted distribution of potential old growth by ELC within the LSA
at closure phase.
Loss or Alteration of Riparian Areas

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the predicted loss or alteration of native vegetation
communities in riparian areas (classified using ELC) resulting from the Project. The change in native
vegetation communities in riparian areas cleared from the original Project Area is a 0.7% (1.2 ha)
(Table 2.8-4) reduction at operation phase. Most riparian area ELCs have a reduction or no change in
area cleared due to the updated Project Area except d3 and k2. The updated Project Area does not result
in the elimination of any riparian area ELC from the LSA. This reduced clearing of native vegetation
communities in riparian areas and the resulting reduction in alteration of native vegetation communities in
riparian areas at closure phase do not change the magnitude of predicted effects, the assessment criteria
or significance conclusions. Figure 2.8-4 shows the predicted distribution of riparian area ELCs within the
LSA at closure phase.
Page 31
TABLE 2.8-1
CHANGE IN ELC DISTRIBUTION FROM BASELINE TO UPDATED

APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
Operation Phase Closure Phase
Updated Difference from Original Updated Difference from Original Updated Change from
Baseline Case Project Area Application Project Area Application Baseline
Total Area % Total Area % Total Area Total Area % Total Area Total Area
ELC (ha)1 Cover2 (ha) 1 Cover2 (ha) 1 %3 (ha) 1 Cover2 (ha) 1 %3 (ha) %3
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 4.2 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 3.9 0.1 3.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.6
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 527.8 8.6 419.8 6.8 30.6 7.9 586.2 9.6 -3.9 -0.7 58.4 11.1
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 155.9 2.5 128.8 2.1 18.2 16.5 603.8 9.8 -14.0 -2.3 447.9 287.3
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 130.8 2.1 116.8 1.9 5.7 5.1 437.0 7.1 3.9 0.9 306.2 234.1
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 183.2 3.0 139.2 2.3 -5.8 -4.0 185.0 3.0 1.5 0.8 1.8 1.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 265.2 4.3 237.7 3.9 12.5 5.6 762.2 12.4 -2.1 -0.3 497.0 187.4
e3 - dogwood Sw 224.9 3.7 210.7 3.4 12.5 6.3 305.7 5.0 9.0 3.0 80.8 35.9
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 27.5 0.4 23.4 0.4 0.5 2.2 74.9 1.2 -2.5 -3.2 47.4 172.4
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 38.7 0.6 29.2 0.5 -0.8 -2.7 168.3 2.7 -3.4 -2.0 129.6 334.9
f3 - horsetail Sw 117.1 1.9 83.1 1.4 -5.5 -6.2 285.6 4.7 3.8 1.3 168.5 143.9
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 365.0 5.9 316.5 5.2 6.9 2.2 415.4 6.8 -25.3 -5.7 50.4 13.8
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 391.0 6.4 336.2 5.5 8.1 2.5 552.2 9.0 -63.6 -10.3 161.2 41.2
Page 32
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 345.9 5.6 294.9 4.8 0.3 0.1 303.6 4.9 0.3 0.1 -42.3 -12.2
i2 - shrubby bog 66.2 1.1 63.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 188.0 3.1 29.6 18.7 121.8 184.0
j1 - treed poor fen 465.9 7.6 391.6 6.4 4.0 1.0 411.1 6.7 4.5 1.1 -54.8 -11.8
j2 - shrubby poor fen 19.8 0.3 18.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 77.8 1.3 41.3 113.2 58.0 292.9
k1 - treed rich fen 206.6 3.4 181.3 3.0 2.2 1.2 193.0 3.1 1.9 1.0 -13.6 -6.6
k2 - shrubby rich fen 16.6 0.3 15.3 0.2 -0.5 -3.2 27.5 0.4 7.9 40.3 10.9 65.7
k3 - graminoid rich fen 39.3 0.6 38.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.6 6.6
l1 – marsh 12.1 0.2 12.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.3 -2.1 -11.0 4.9 40.5
Shrubby Wetland* 236.0 3.9 202.2 3.3 5.0 2.5 248.6 4.1 13.1 5.6 12.6 5.3
Non-Forested / Natural Disturbance
Meadow* 2.0 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 -0.2 -11.1 2.3 <0.1 0.1 4.5 0.3 15.0
Regenerating Burn* 123.4 2.0 100.1 1.6 -6.8 -6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -123.4 -100.0
Native ELC Total 3,969.0 64.7 3,368.8 54.9 87.0 2.7 5,895.3 96.1 0.3 <0.1 1,926.3 48.5
Anthropogenic Disturbance
Regenerating Cutblock* 1,086.9 17.7 954.4 15.6 -5.8 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1086.9 -100.0
Cutblock* 634.8 10.3 585.9 9.5 30.7 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -634.7 -100.0
Anthropogenic* 445.6 7.3 1227.3 20.0 -111.9 -8.4 241.2 3.9 -0.3 -0.1 -204.4 -45.9
LSA Total 6,136.2 100.0 6,136.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 6,136.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes: 1 Total area may not add up to 6,316.4 ha due to rounding error.
2 Percent cover may not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
3 Percent change is proportional to the vegetation community.
* Additional classifications were created where the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) did not outline an equivalent vegetation community.
RGE. 18 W4M RGE. 17 W4M
¯
28 27 25 30 29 27
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15
9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
Ecological Land Classification
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw
c1 - Labrador
tea-mesic Pj-Sb
d1 - low-bush
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 d3 - low-bush 27
cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
e3 - dogwood Sw
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw
TWP. 76 f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 22
h1 - Labrador
tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
i1 - treed bog
i2 - shrubby bog
j1 - treed poor fen
j2 - shrubby poor fen
k1 - treed rich fen
k2 - shrubby rich fen
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15
k3 - graminoid rich fen
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
<25% shrub cover)
Shrubby Wetland
FIGURE 2.8-1
Vegetation Local
Watercourse
Study Area (450 m) UPDATED CLOSURE ELC
Waterbody
Existing Blackrod Road Anthropogenic Disturbance PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_1_Updated Closure ELC

UTM Zone 12N: SCALE: 1: 60,000
Ecological Land Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2013c;
km
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c.; Road: IHS Inc. 2011c.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
TABLE 2.8-2
CHANGE IN AWI DISTRIBUTION FROM BASELINE TO

UPDATED APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
Updated Project Area Difference from Original Updated Project Area Difference from Original Updated Change from
Baseline Case Application Application Baseline
Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area
AWI1 (ha) % Cover (ha) % Cover (ha) %2 (ha) % Cover (ha) %2 (ha) %2
Bog
BONS 155.0 2.5 131.0 2.1 -6.8 -4.9 188.0 3.1 29.6 18.7 33.0 21.3
BTNN 345.9 5.6 294.9 4.8 0.3 0.1 303.6 4.9 0.3 0.1 -42.3 -12.2
Fen
FONG 39.3 0.6 38.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.6 6.5
FONS 46.6 0.8 40.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 113.1 1.8 50.0 79.3 66.5 142.8
FTNN 672.7 11.0 573.2 9.3 6.2 1.1 604.2 9.8 6.5 1.1 -68.5 -10.2
Swamp
SONS 258.7 4.2 228.1 3.7 5.3 2.4 240.7 3.9 12.3 5.4 -18.0 -7.0
STNN 784.3 12.8 674.4 11.0 8.5 1.3 903.1 14.7 -108.7 -10.7 118.8 15.1
Page 34
Marsh
MONG 7.2 0.1 7.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.2 -2.1 -15.2 4.6 63.8
Shallow Open Water
WONN 5.0 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4
Wetland Total 2,314.7 37.7 1,992.7 32.5 13.6 0.7 2,411.6 39.3 -11.7 -0.5 96.9 4.2
Notes: 1 Wetlands are classified according to the AWI (Halsey et al. 2004).
28 27
RGE. 18 W4M 25 30 29
RGE. 17 W4M 27
¯ Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15
9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
Alberta Wetland Inventory

TWP. 76 BONS - Shrub bog
no permafrost
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 BTNN - Wooded Bog 22
no permafrost nor
internal lawns
FONG - Graminoid fen
no patterning
FONS - Shrub fen
no patterning
FTNN - Wooded fen
no patterning nor
internal lawns
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 SONS - Shrub swamp 15
STNN - Wooded swamp

MONG - Graminoid marsh
WONN - Open water
Upland
Vegetation Local FIGURE 2.8-2

Watercourse
Study Area (450 m)
UPDATED CLOSURE AWI
Waterbody
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_2_Updated Closure AWI

Alberta Wetland Inventory: TERA Environmental Consultants 2013c;
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
TABLE 2.8-3
CHANGE IN OLD GROWTH FOREST DISTRIBUTION FROM BASELINE TO

UPDATED APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
Difference from Difference from Updated Change
Baseline Case Updated Project Footprint Original Application Updated Project Footprint Original Application from Baseline
% of % of
Total % of Total Total
Total Old Total Old Total Total Old Total Total
Old Growth Ecosite Area % % of Growth Area % % of Growth Area Area % % of Growth Area Area
Phase1 (ha) Cover ELC Area2 (ha) Cover ELC Area2 (ha) %3 (ha) Cover ELC Area2 (ha) %3 (ha) %3
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 2.6 <0.1 60.7 0.3 2.6 <0.1 61.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 61.5
c1 - Labrador 3.9 0.1 100.0 0.4 3.3 0.1 100.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.1 82.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.6 -15.4
tea-mesic Pj-Sb
d1 - low-bush 8.0 0.1 1.5 0.8 4.7 0.1 1.1 0.5 1.4 42.4 297.6 4.8 50.8 11.0 13.5 4.8 289.6 3620.0
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush 46.3 0.8 29.7 4.5 37.2 0.6 28.9 4.3 7.6 25.7 130.1 2.1 21.5 4.8 18.7 16.8 83.8 181.0
cranberry Aw-Sw
Page 36
d3 - low-bush 38.5 0.6 29.4 3.8 32.7 0.5 28.0 3.7 0.9 2.8 70.2 1.1 16.1 2.6 5.6 8.7 31.7 82.3
cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 4.6 0.1 2.5 0.5 4.1 0.1 2.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 134.6 2.2 72.8 5.0 -5.1 -3.7 130.0 2826.1
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 118.4 1.9 44.6 11.6 100.1 1.6 42.1 11.5 2.8 2.9 258.5 4.2 33.9 9.6 3.7 1.5 140.1 118.3
e3 - dogwood Sw 139.4 2.3 52.6 13.7 125.6 2.0 59.6 14.4 1.7 1.4 135.0 2.2 44.2 5.0 3.3 2.5 -4.4 -3.2
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.3 0.7 53.8 1.5 -1.7 -4.0 40.3 100.0
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 4.8 0.1 12.4 0.5 3.0 <0.1 10.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 32.6 0.5 19.4 1.2 -0.8 -2.4 27.8 579.2
f3 - horsetail Sw 45.5 0.7 38.9 4.5 34.5 0.6 41.5 4.0 0.2 0.6 77.1 1.3 27.0 2.9 -5.5 -6.7 31.6 69.5
g1 - Labrador 223.8 3.7 61.3 21.9 195.7 3.2 61.8 22.4 10.5 5.7 324.3 5.3 78.1 12.0 6.5 2.0 100.5 44.9
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador 167.5 2.7 42.9 16.4 142.0 2.3 42.2 16.3 1.2 0.9 324.5 5.3 58.8 12.0 8.5 2.7 157.0 93.7
tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
Wetland
i1 - treed bog 49.2 0.8 14.2 4.8 45.0 0.7 15.3 5.2 0.0 0.0 303.0 4.9 99.8 11.2 0.2 0.1 253.8 515.9
j1 - treed poor fen 146.8 2.4 31.5 14.4 124.4 2.0 31.8 14.3 2.5 2.1 390.7 6.4 95.0 14.5 4.2 1.1 243.9 166.1
k1 - treed rich fen 21.6 0.4 10.5 2.1 18.0 0.3 9.9 2.1 -2.2 -10.9 171.6 2.8 88.9 6.4 2.6 1.5 150.0 694.4
Old Growth Total 1,020.8 16.6 872.9 14.2 26.7 3.2 2,697.6 44.0 53.74 2.04 1,676.7 164.2
Notes: 1 Old growth is derived from ‘date of origin’ from AVI (Al-Pac 2010).
4 The Integrated Application had the incorrect Old Growth Total at closure phase of 2,729.3 ha. The correct Old Growth Total at closure phase for the Integrated Application is 2,643.9 ha and this corrected total
has been used for the comparison in the Project Update.
27 26 25
¯
30 29
28
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34

28 27 b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw
26 25 30 29 28 c1 - Labrador 27
tea-mesic Pj-Sb
d1 - low-bush
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
TWP. 76 d3 - low-bush
cranberry Sw
21 22
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
23 24 19 20 21 e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw22
e3 - dogwood Sw
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
16 15 14 13 18 h1 - Labrador
17 16 tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 15
i1 - treed bog
j1 - treed poor fen
k1 - treed rich fen
FIGURE 2.8-3
Vegetation Local
Watercourse
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_3_Updated Closure Old Growth Ecosite Phases
Study Area (450 m) UPDATED CLOSURE OLD GROWTH ECOSITE PHASES

Waterbody
Existing Blackrod Road Anthropogenic Disturbance PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT

km
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c; Road: IHS Inc. 2011c.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
TABLE 2.8-4
CHANGE IN RIPARIAN AREA ELC DISTRIBUTION FROM BASELINE TO UPDATED APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Baseline Case Application Case

Difference from Difference from Original
Updated Project Footprint Original Application Updated Project Footprint Application Updated Change from Baseline
Total Area % of Total Total Area % of Total Total Area Total Area % of Total Total Area Total Area
Riparian ELC1 (ha) % Cover % of ELC Riparian Area2 (ha) % Cover % of ELC Riparian Area2 (ha) %3 (ha) % Cover % of ELC Riparian Area2 (ha) %3 (ha) %3
Forested Upland Riparian Areas
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw 11.6 0.2 2.2 5.1 11.2 0.2 2.7 4.9 0.4 3.7 14.8 0.2 2.5 6.4 0.0 0.0 3.2 27.6
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw 13.6 0.2 8.7 5.9 13.6 0.2 10.5 5.9 0.6 4.6 19.7 0.3 3.3 8.5 0.1 0.5 6.1 44.9
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw 6.8 0.1 5.2 3.0 6.2 0.1 5.3 2.7 -0.1 -1.6 9.5 0.2 2.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 39.7
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 22.9 0.4 12.5 10.0 22.3 0.4 16.1 9.7 0.5 2.3 22.8 0.4 12.3 9.9 0.6 2.7 -0.1 -0.4
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw 15.7 0.3 5.9 6.8 15.6 0.3 6.6 6.8 0.1 0.6 32.7 0.5 4.3 14.2 -0.6 -1.8 17.0 108.3
e3 - dogwood Sw 40.4 0.7 18.0 17.6 39.6 0.6 18.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.7 13.2 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 1.3 <0.1 4.7 0.6 1.3 <0.1 5.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 <0.1 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
f3 - horsetail Sw 0.4 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 <0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 <0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 125.0
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj 2.9 <0.1 0.8 1.3 2.9 <0.1 0.9 1.2 0.1 3.6 3.1 0.1 0.7 1.4 -0.5 -13.9 0.2 6.9
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb 10.4 0.2 2.6 4.5 10.3 0.2 3.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.3 3.3 8.0 -1.3 -6.6 7.9 76.0
Wetland Riparian Areas
i1 - treed bog 6.6 0.1 1.9 2.9 6.1 0.1 2.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.1 2.2 2.8 <0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0
i2 - shrubby bog 3.9 0.1 6.0 1.7 3.9 0.1 6.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 2.1 1.7 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.6
j1 - treed poor fen 5.9 0.1 1.3 2.6 4.7 0.1 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.1 1.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -18.6
j2 - shrubby poor fen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 <0.1 3.6 1.2 1.8 180.0 2.8 100.0
k1 - treed rich fen 3.9 0.1 1.9 1.7 2.2 <0.1 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 <0.1 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -43.6
k2 - shrubby rich fen 12.8 0.2 77.3 5.6 11.7 0.2 76.2 5.1 -0.4 -3.3 13.1 0.2 47.7 5.7 -0.2 -1.5 0.3 2.3
k3 - graminoid rich fen 5.9 0.1 15.1 2.6 5.7 0.1 14.8 2.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.1 15.2 2.8 0.3 4.9 0.5 8.5
l1 - marsh 7.9 0.1 65.0 3.4 7.9 0.1 65.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.1 47.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3
Shrubby Wetland* 11.6 0.2 4.9 5.0 10.8 0.2 5.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.2 4.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.6
Non-Forested / Natural Disturbance Riparian Areas
Meadow* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regenerating Burn* 1.5 <0.1 1.2 0.7 1.5 <0.1 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.5 -100.0
Total Native Riparian Area 186.2 3.0 4.7 81.0 178.0 2.9 5.3 77.4 1.2 0.7 223.4 3.6 3.8 97.1 0.1 0.0 37.3 20.0
Anthropogenic Disturbance Riparian Areas
Regenerating Cutblock* 24.6 0.4 2.3 10.7 24.3 0.4 2.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -24.6 -100.0
Cutblock* 7.1 0.1 1.1 3.1 6.9 0.1 1.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.1 -100.0
Anthropogenic* 12.1 0.2 2.7 5.3 20.9 0.3 1.7 9.1 -1.1 -5.0 6.6 0.1 2.7 2.9 -0.1 -1.5 -5.5 -45.5
Total Riparian Area 230.0 3.7 230.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 230.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes: 1 Vegetation communities classified using ELC within a 50 m radius of waterbodies.
Page 38
27 26 25
¯
30 29
28
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34

d1 - low-bush
28 27 26
cranberry Aw
25 30 29 28 d2 - low-bush 27
cranberry Aw-Sw
d3 - low-bush
cranberry Sw
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
TWP. 76 e3 - dogwood Sw
21 f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw
22 23 24 19 20 21
f3 - horsetail Sw
22
g1 - Labrador
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador
tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
i1 - treed bog
i2 - shrubby bog
j1 - treed poor fen
16 15 14 j2 - shrubby poor fen
13 18 17 16 k1 - treed rich fen 15
l1 - marsh
Shrubby Wetland

Watercourse
Study Area (450 m) UPDATED CLOSURE RIPARIAN AREA ELC
Waterbody
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_4_Updated Closure Ripairna Area ELC


km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
Loss or Alteration of Communities of Limited Distribution

The updated Project Area results in a small increase in the predicted loss or alteration of communities of
limited distribution classified using ELC resulting from the Project. There will be no change to the loss or
alteration of communities of limited distribution classified using AWI as a result of the updated Project
Area. The change in communities of limited distribution classified by ELC cleared from the original Project
Area is a 0.1% (0.1 ha) (Table 2.8-5) increase at operation phase. There was no change in communities
of limited distribution classified by AWI cleared from the original Project Area at operation phase
(Table 2.8-6). The communities of limited distribution that will have increased clearing as compared to the
Integrated Application are f2, k2 and meadow, while all other communities of limited distribution will have
either reduced clearing or no change in clearing. The increases in clearing for these communities of
limited distribution range in area from <0.1 ha to 0.8 ha. No communities of limited distribution will be
eliminated from the LSA as a result of the updated Project Area. New communities of limited distribution
will not be created within the LSA as a result of the alteration of native vegetation communities resulting
from the updated Project Area. This small increase in communities of limited distribution cleared and the
resulting small increase in alteration of communities of limited distribution at closure phase do not change
the magnitude of predicted effects, the assessment criteria or significance conclusions. Figure 2.8-5
shows the predicted distribution of communities of limited distribution classified by ELC within the LSA at
closure phase. Figure 2.8-6 shows the predicted distribution of communities of limited distribution
classified by ELC within the LSA at closure phase.
Habitat Fragmentation
The Integrated Application used the quantification of habitat fragmentation in the LSA as a result of the
Project to inform a qualitative assessment for the significance of this residual effect. The updated Project
Area resulted in a relatively minor (1.8%) reduction of the area of the Vegetation LSA cleared of
vegetation as compared to original Project Area. The reduced number of wells and length of multi-use
corridor will have a minor reduction in potential edge effects and fragmentation of habitat within the LSA,
however, given the small scale of the changes, they do not affect the assessment criteria ratings or
significance conclusions and a complete quantification of habitat fragmentation is not warranted. The
update did not result in any alterations to the assessment criteria or significance conclusions for the
potential residual effect of habitat fragmentation of native vegetation communities, wetland vegetation
communities and native vegetation communities in riparian areas.
Introduction and Colonization of Weeds and Non-native Invasive Species

The Integrated Application qualitatively assessed the potential residual effect of loss or alteration of native
vegetation as a result of the introduction and colonization of weeds and non-native invasive species. In
general, invasive species are most prevalent where the ground has been disturbed by anthropogenic
activity. The updated Project Area will result in an 11% reduction in the area of anthropogenic disturbance
as a result of the Project. The updated Project Area did not result in any alterations to the assessment
criteria or significance conclusions for the potential residual effect of loss or alteration of native vegetation
communities as a result of the introduction and colonization of weeds and non-native invasive species.
Page 40
TABLE 2.8-5
CHANGE IN COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION ELC

DISTRIBUTION FROM BASELINE TO APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
Difference from Original Difference from Original Updated Change from
Baseline Case Updated Project Area Application Updated Project Area Application Baseline
ELC Communities of Limited Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area
Distribution1 (ha) % Cover (ha) % Cover (ha) %3 (ha) % Cover (ha) %3 (ha) %3
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw 4.2 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
c1 - Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb 3.9 0.1 3.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw 27.5 0.5 23.4 0.4 0.5 2.2 74.9 1.2 -2.5 -3.2 47.4 172.4
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw 38.7 0.6 29.2 0.5 -0.8 -2.7 168.3 2.7 -3.4 -2.0 129.6 334.9
Wetland
j2 - shrubby poor fen 19.8 0.3 18.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 77.8 1.3 41.3 113.2 58.0 293.0
k2 - shrubby rich fen 16.6 0.3 15.3 0.2 -0.5 -3.2 27.5 0.4 7.9 40.1 10.9 65.4
k3 - graminoid rich fen 39.3 0.6 38.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.6 6.5
l1 – marsh 12.1 0.2 12.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.3 -2.1 -11.0 4.9 40.2
Meadow* 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 2.3 <0.1 0.1 4.5
Page 41
1.6 -0.2 -11.1 0.3 14.9

Total 164.1 2.7 146.3 2.4 -0.1 -0.1 417.9 96.1 41.6 11.1 253.8 154.7
Notes: 1 Communities of limited distribution classified using ELC that cover less than 1% of the LSA.
27 26 25
¯
30 29
28
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
TWP. 76
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22

c1 - Labrador
tea-mesic Pj-Sb
16 15 14
j2 - shrubby poor fen
13 18 17 16 k2 - shrubby rich fen 15
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
<25% shrub cover)
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_5_Updated Closure ELC Communities of Limited Distribution

Watercourse
Study Area (450 m) UPDATED CLOSURE ELC COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
Waterbody

km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
TABLE 2.8-6
CHANGE IN COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION AWI DISTRIBUTION

FROM BASELINE TO UPDATED APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
Updated Project Area Difference from Original Updated Project Area Difference from Original Updated Change from
Baseline Case Application Application Baseline
Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area
AWI1 (ha) % Cover (ha) % Cover (ha) %2 (ha) % Cover (ha) %2 (ha) %2
Fen
FONG 39.3 0.6 38.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.6 6.5
FONS 46.6 0.8 40.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 113.1 1.8 50.0 79.2 66.5 142.8
Marsh
MONG 7.2 0.1 7.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.2 -2.1 -15.1 4.6 63.8
Shallow Open Water
WONN 5.0 0.1 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.4
Total 98.1 1.6 91.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 172.0 2.8 48.2 38.9 73.9 75.3
Notes: 1 Wetlands are classified according to the AWI (Halsey et al. 2004).
Page 43
27 26 25 30
¯
29
28
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27
TWP. 76
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22
16 15 Alberta Wetland Inventory

14 13 18 17 16 FONS - Shrub fen 15
no patterning
FONG - Graminoid fen
no patterning
MONG - Graminoid marsh
WONN - Open water
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_6_Updated Closure AWI Communities of Limited Distribution

Watercourse
Study Area (450 m) UPDATED CLOSURE AWI COMMUNITIES OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
Waterbody
Alberta Wetland Inventory: TERA Environmental Consultants 2013d;
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
Loss or Alteration of Rare Ecological Communities

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the loss or alteration of rare ecological communities
through a reduction of clearing of ELCs with greater (i.e., high to moderate) potential to support rare
ecological communities. Additionally, no observed rare or uncommon ecological communities are directly
impacted by the updated Project Area (Figure 2.8-7). The change in ELCs with greater potential to
support rare ecological communities cleared from the original Project Area is a 3.0% (53.6 ha)
(Table 2.8-7) reduction at operation phase. Most ELCs with greater potential to support rare ecological
communities have a reduction or no change in area cleared due to the updated Project Area except for
e1, f2 and k2. The updated Project Area does not result in the elimination of any ELC with greater
potential to support rare ecological communities from the LSA. The overall reduction in ELC with greater
potential to support rare ecological communities cleared and the resulting reduction in alteration of ELC
with greater potential to support rare ecological communities at closure phase do not change the
magnitude of predicted effects, the assessment criteria or significance conclusions. Figure 2.8-8 shows
the predicted distribution of ELCs with greater potential to support rare ecological communities within the
LSA at closure phase.
Loss or Alteration of Rare Plant Populations

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the loss or alteration of rare plant populations through a
reduction of clearing of ELCs with greater (i.e., high to moderate) potential to support rare vascular plants.
The updated Project Area results in a decrease in the loss or alteration of rare plant populations through
directly impacting less observed rare vascular and nonvascular plant populations (Figures 2.8-9 and
2.8-10, respectively).
The change in ELCs with greater potential to support rare vascular plants cleared from the original Project
Area is a 4.0% (87.7 ha) (Table 2.8-8) reduction at operation phase. Most ELCs with greater potential to
support vascular plants have a reduction or no change in area cleared due to the updated Project Area
except for e1, f2, f3 and meadow. The updated Project Area does not result in the elimination of any ELC
with greater potential to support rare vascular plants from the LSA. Table 2.8-9 details the additional
observed rare plants, their relation to the updated Project Area and proposed mitigation to avoid and
minimize interactions with the Project. The overall reduction in ELC with greater potential to support rare
vascular plants cleared and the resulting reduction in alteration of ELC with greater potential to support
rare vascular plants at closure phase do not change the magnitude of predicted effects, or the
assessment criteria or conclusions. Figure 2.8-11 shows the predicted distribution of ELCs with greater
potential to support rare vascular plants within the LSA at closure phase.
Page 45
TWP.78
31
6
32
5
RGE.18 W4M
4 3 2 1 6 5
RGE.17 W4M
4 3 2
¯
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
awl-fruited
sedge - water
sedge marly fen
6 5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
mud sedge - scheuchzeria /

peat moss fen
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.76
)
"
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
river alder / ostrich
16 15 14
fern shrubland
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9" 10
) 11
river alder / ostrich

fern shrubland
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_7_Updated Observed Rare and Uncommon Ecological Communities.mxd
)
"
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
FIGURE 2.8-7
Project Area Existing Blackrod Road
Vegetation Local UPDATED OBSERVED RARE AND
Study Area (450 m) Watercourse UNCOMMON ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
TWP.75
Rare and Uncommon Ecological PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Waterbody
Communities Observed
)
"
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2013;
km
0 1 2
April 2013
TABLE 2.8-7
CHANGE IN ELC WITH MODERATE TO HIGH POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
FROM BASELINE TO UPDATED APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
ELC with moderate to high Baseline Case Updated Project Area Application Updated Project Area Application Baseline
potential to support rare Ranked Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area
ecological communities1 Potential (ha) % Cover (ha) % Cover (ha) %3 (ha) % Cover (ha) %3 (ha) %3
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw high 4.2 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw high 527.8 8.6 419.8 6.8 30.6 7.9 586.2 9.6 -3.9 -0.7 58.4 11.1
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw high 183.2 3.0 139.2 2.3 -5.8 -4.0 185.0 3.0 1.5 0.8 1.8 1.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw moderate 265.2 4.3 237.7 3.9 12.5 5.6 762.2 12.4 -2.1 -0.3 497.0 187.4
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw high 27.5 0.4 23.4 0.4 0.5 2.2 74.9 1.2 -2.5 -3.2 47.4 172.4
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw high 38.7 0.6 29.2 0.5 -0.8 -2.7 168.3 2.7 -3.4 -2.0 129.6 334.9
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb moderate 391.0 6.4 336.2 5.5 8.1 2.5 552.2 9.0 -63.6 -10.3 161.2 41.2
Wetland
j1 - treed poor fen moderate 465.9 7.6 391.6 6.4 4.0 1.0 411.1 6.7 4.5 1.1 -54.8 -11.8
j2 - shrubby poor fen moderate 19.8 0.3 18.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 77.8 1.3 41.3 113.2 58.0 292.9
k2 - shrubby rich fen high 16.6 0.3 15.3 0.2 -0.5 -3.2 27.5 0.4 7.9 40.3 10.9 65.7
Page 47
k3 - graminoid rich fen high 39.3 0.6 38.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.6 6.6
l1 – marsh high 12.1 0.2 12.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.3 -2.1 -11.0 4.9 40.5
Shrubby Wetland* high 236.0 3.9 202.2 3.3 5.0 2.5 248.6 4.1 13.1 5.6 12.6 5.3
Total 2,227.3 36.3 1,868.1 30.5 53.6 3.0 3,156.9 51.4 -9.0 -0.3 929.6 41.7
Notes: 1 Percent change is proportional to the vegetation community.
27 26 25
¯
30 29
28
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

TWP. 76 b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw
d1 - low-bush
21 22 23 cranberry Aw
24 19 20 21 e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw 22
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
h1 - Labrador
tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
j1 - treed poor fen
16 15 14 13 18 17 j2 - shrubby poor fen
16 15
l1 - marsh
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_8_Updated Closure ELC Potential to Support Rare Ecological Communities
Shrubby Wetland
FIGURE 2.8-8
Vegetation Local
Watercourse UPDATED CLOSURE ELC POTENTIAL TO
Study Area (450 m)
SUPPORT RARE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Existing Blackrod Road Waterbody PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
TWP.78
¯
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77
18 17 16 15 14
(
! 13
(
! 18 17
)
" 16 15
(
! (!
!(! 14
(
!
!
( (
((
! !!
(
7 8 9 !
(
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
!
(
(
!
)
"
(
!
6 5 4 3 2 !
(
1 6 5
(
!
4
)
"
(
! 3 2
#
!
(
(
! (
!
(
!
31 32 33 34 35
!
(
36 31 32
!!
( 33 34
(
(!
! ( 35
( (
! !!(
#!
D
D
(
!
!
( (!
(
(
!
(
!
)
"
)
" D
)
"
30 29
D
(
!
(
!
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
TWP.76 D
)
"
D(
! " D
) D
!
( (
!
!
(
(
!
)
"
(
! (
!
(!
!(
!
(
)
"
D
(
!
General Status of Alberta Wild 21

19
)!
"
20 (
22 23 24 19 20
Species and List of Tracked
!!
(( 21 22 23
(
! !)"
("
!
( )
)
"
and Watched Elements Species !
(
(
!
( bog adder's-mouth
(
!
)!
" ()
!
(
!
(
"(!
! (
! !
( ) !
" (
( bur-reed
)
" )
"(!
(!
! (
!
( fox sedge
18 ! 17
( golden saxifrage
16 15 14
#
! 13 18 17 16
( northern beech fern
15 14
!
( small butterwort
!
( tall blue lettuce
! #
General Status of Alberta Wild Species

) arctic starflower
"
7
) alder-leaved buckthorn 9
8 10 11 12 7
"
8
) bristly buttercup
9"
) 10 11
"
) broad-fruited sedge
"
) coralroot species
"
) ostrich fern
" )
"
) spotted coralroot
"
) white wintergreen
#
6 5 4 3 2 1
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_9_Updated Observed Rare Vascular Plant Populations.mxd
"
6
List of Tracked and
5 4 3 2
Watched Elements Species

# goldthread
Rare Vascular Plants Observed Project Area Watercourse FIGURE 2.8-9

D on Project Area
Vegetation Local UPDATED OBSERVED RARE VASCULAR PLANT POPULATIONS
Waterbody
TWP.75 Rare Vascular Plants Observed
Study Area (450 m)
No Longer on Project Area Existing Blackrod Road PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
D

km
0 1 2
April 2013
TWP.78

RGE.18 W4M

RGE.17 W4M

¯


TWP.77 125 )
"
39 )
"
) 143

38
"

144

10
""
))
56
)
"
)
" 31
36

116

35 D

)
33
"

27

)
"
D
)
"
26 ")
)
"
23 )
"
115 30

)
" 11
53 97
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
72
)
"
28
)
"
142 55 52 )
" 24 ")
)
"

130 25
50
)
"
20

) D
)
"
)
"
3 85 32

141 ")")
" )
"

2
""
)
22

)
100
)"
" )
83
)"
" )
48 132
)
"
51
D
D
)
"
74 106
9
71 87 7 134
)
"

)
"

17 54

47 ) 8 "
)
"
44 ") ") 18 ") 49 ) 127 88

D
" ) " ) "
37 D
)"
" ) )
)
"
) 21 57
"
45 59
"
29 ")
)
"
16 ")
)
"
78

46

70

) 147

43

TWP.76 138
42 ")")
)
")
" " )
" )
"
D
73
)"
" )
)
"
1 )
" 14 )
" "
) 40
) "
)"
")
") )
"
)
" )
" )
" 99
41 96
)
"

92 4 12 145 118
34 13

76 122 94

146

103

)
"
101 )
"

t6790_VEG_2_8_10_Updated Observed NonNative and Invasive Plants.mxd
Project Area

Rare Vascular Plants Observed Existing Blackrod Road
D on Project Area Vegetation Local
!

Study Area (450 m) Watercourse !

TWP.75 Rare Vascular Plants Observed Rare Nonvascular
"

D
No Longer on Project Area Plants Observed Waterbody

)
"

km
0 1 2
April 2013
TABLE 2.8-8
CHANGE IN ELC WITH MODERATE TO HIGH POTENTIAL TO SUPPORT RARE VASCULAR PLANTS FROM BASELINE TO UPDATED
APPLICATION CASE COMPARED TO INTEGRATED APPLICATION AT CLOSURE PHASE IN THE LSA
Application Case
ELC with moderate to high Baseline Case Updated Project Area Application Updated Project Area Application Baseline
potential to support rare Ranked Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area Total Area
vascular plants1 Potential (ha) % Cover (ha) % Cover (ha) %3 (ha) % Cover (ha) %3 (ha) %3
Forested Upland
b3 - blueberry Aw-Sw moderate 4.2 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
d1 - low-bush cranberry Aw moderate 527.8 8.6 419.8 6.8 30.6 7.9 586.2 9.6 -3.9 -0.7 58.4 11.1
d2 - low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw moderate 155.9 2.5 128.8 2.1 18.2 16.5 603.8 9.8 -14.0 -2.3 447.9 287.3
d3 - low-bush cranberry Sw moderate 130.8 2.1 116.8 1.9 5.7 5.1 437.0 7.1 3.9 0.9 306.2 234.1
e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw high 183.2 3.0 139.2 2.3 -5.8 -4.0 185.0 3.0 1.5 0.8 1.8 1.0
e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw high 265.2 4.3 237.7 3.9 12.5 5.6 762.2 12.4 -2.1 -0.3 497.0 187.4
e3 - dogwood Sw high 224.9 3.7 210.7 3.4 12.5 6.3 305.7 5.0 9.0 3.0 80.8 35.9
f1 - horsetail Pb-Aw high 27.5 0.4 23.4 0.4 0.5 2.2 74.9 1.2 -2.5 -3.2 47.4 172.4
f2 - horsetail Pb-Sw high 38.7 0.6 29.2 0.5 -0.8 -2.7 168.3 2.7 -3.4 -2.0 129.6 334.9
f3 - horsetail Sw high 117.1 1.9 83.1 1.4 -5.5 -6.2 285.6 4.7 3.8 1.3 168.5 143.9
g1 - Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj high 365.0 6.0 316.5 5.2 6.9 2.2 415.4 6.8 -25.3 -5.7 50.4 13.8
Page 51
h1 - Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb high 391.0 6.4 336.2 5.5 8.1 2.5 552.2 9.0 -63.6 -10.3 161.2 41.2
Wetland
k3 - graminoid rich fen high 39.3 0.6 38.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 2.6 6.6
l1 – marsh high 12.1 0.2 12.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.3 -2.1 -11.0 4.9 40.5
Shrubby Wetland* high 236.0 3.9 202.2 3.3 5.0 2.5 248.6 4.1 13.1 5.6 12.6 5.3
Meadow* moderate 2.0 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 -0.2 -11.1 2.3 <0.1 0.1 4.5 0.3 15.0
Total 2,720.7 44.3 2,300.3 37.6 87.7 4.0 4,690.3 76.5 -85.2 -1.8 1,969.6 72.4
Notes: 1 Percent change is proportional to the vegetation community.
TABLE 2.8-9
UPDATES SITE SPECIFIC MITIGATION FOR OBSERVED RARE PLANT POPULATIONS
Legal UTM(s)
Common Location Plot Abundance and Relation to Zone 12U
Name (rank)1 Scientific Name (W4M) ID Distribution2 Project Area Discussion Mitigation Measures3 NAD 83
alder-leaved Rhamnus 4-25-76-18 37 Less than 5% On proposed Project This is one of three populations of alder-leaved Where topsoil is to be stripped, a 395033E
buckthorn alnifolia cover throughout Area. Located on the buckthorn observed within and near the LSA. rare plant specialist will 6163924N
(S3 / Sensitive) h1/STNN east side of a proposed This is the only population of alder-leaved transplant some of the impacted
vegetation well pad adjacent to a buckthorn observed on the Project Area. plants to suitable habitat off the
community that proposed multiuse Observed within h1/STNN. Project Area prior to construction
extends off the corridor. A planned cutblock will impact this population. during PDAs.
Project Area.
Anastrophyllum Anastrophyllum 8-11-77-18 27 2 cm x 2 cm On proposed Project This is one of five populations of Anastrophyllum Relocate a portion of the log to a 394769E
liverwort helleranum area on Area. Located within a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. This receiving site in a suitable 6169177N
(S2) decorticated log proposed borrow pit is the only population of Anastrophyllum habitat. Potential receiving sites
(Collection (middle). liverwort observed on the Project Area. There is will be located during PDAs.
#7180) an additional sub-population of this population Moving of the host material can
(9-11-77-18 W4M) on the Project Area and an occur during clearing or prior to
additional sub-population of this population (1- construction with a rare plant
11-77-18 W4M) off of the Project Area. specialist present.
Observed within f3.
A planned cutblock will impact this population.
Page 52
An additional population of Anastrophyllum

liverwort, located off of the Project Area, will be
impacted by a planned cutblock.
9-11-77-18 35 On decorticated On proposed Project This is one of five populations of Anastrophyllum 394766E
log Area. Located within a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. This 6169263N
(Collection proposed borrow pit is the only population of Anastrophyllum
#7178) (middle). liverwort populations observed on the Project
Area. There is an additional sub-population of
this population (8-11-77-18 W4M) on the Project
Area and an additional sub-population of this
population (1-11-77-18 W4M) off of the Project
Area. Observed within h1/STNN.
An additional population of Anastrophyllum
impacted by a planned cutblock.
bog adder's- Malaxis 3-25-76-18 75 13 plants in 4 On proposed Project This is one of two populations of bog adder’s- Fence and avoid the population, Four
mouth paludosa patches on Area. Located within a mouth observed within and near the LSA. This is if feasible, by narrowing the area patches
(S1 / May Be At mossy proposed well pad the only population of bog adder’s-mouth of disturbance for the well pad. located at
Risk) hummocks. (southeast corner). observed on the Project Area. Observed within If avoidance of the population is 395170E
Patches vary in j1/FTNN. not feasible, use a large bucket 6163810N;
size between backhoe to transplant the 395172E
3 cm x 10 cm population and associated 6163721N;
and 1.5 m x species to suitable habitat off the 395179E
10 cm. Project Area prior to construction 6163725N;
with a rare plant specialist and
present. Potential receiving sites 395183E
will be located during PDAs. 6163750N.
TABLE 2.8-9 Cont’d
Legal UTM(s)
bristly buttercup Ranunculus 14-25-76-18 905 Less than 5% On proposed Project This is one of two populations of bristly buttercup The location of the population in 395351E
(S3 / Sensitive) pensylvanicus cover throughout Area. Located on a observed within and near the LSA. This is the relation to the planned 6165105N
Shrubby proposed multi-use only population of bristly buttercup observed on developments will be confirmed
Wetland/SONS corridor. the Project Area. Observed within Shrubby during the PDA for this site.
vegetation Wetland/SONS.
community that During construction of above
extends off the ground pipelines or transmission
Project Area. lines, minimize travel off the
access road at this location to the
extent practical. When travel off
of the access road is required,
construct a temporary travel
surface using one of the following
options: a) in frozen conditions,
snow; b) in wet areas or areas
that may undergo freezing and
thawing during construction, mat
over.
Page 53
If construction of below ground

pipelines is required at this
location, strip and salvage topsoil
from the trench and areas where
grading is necessary for safe and
level workspace. Strip topsoil to a
depth of 15 cm; isolate topsoil
from other spoil piles; and
identify by labelled stakes or
flags. Recontour drainage bed
and banks to preconstruction
conditions. Redistribute salvaged
topsoil over the right-of-way at
the location from which it was
stripped.
Calicium lichen Calicium 4-25-76-18 37 On river alder On proposed Project This is one of eight populations of Calicium Relocate a portion of the 395032E
(SNR) adaequatum (Collection Area. Located within a lichen observed within and near the LSA. This is branches this population occurs 6163924N
#7360) proposed well pad the only population of Calicium lichen observed on to a receiving site in a suitable
(middle). on the Project Area. Observed within h1/STNN. habitat prior to construction. A
A planned cutblock will impact this population. rare plant specialist will move the
An additional population of Calicium lichen, host material during the PDA
located off of the Project Area, will be impacted during the growing season prior
by a planned cutblock. to construction.
Legal UTM(s)
Calypogeia Calypogeia 4-25-76-18 37 Decorticated log On proposed Project This is the only population of Calypogeia It is anticipated that it will not be 395032E
liverwort suecica (Collection # Area. Located within a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. feasible to alter the site of this 6163924N
(S1) 7357) proposed well pad Observed within h1/STNN. well pad in order to avoid this
(middle). A planned cutblock will impact this population. location.
If avoidance is not feasible,

relocate a portion of the log to a
receiving site in a suitable
habitat. Potential receiving sites
will be located during PDAs.
Moving of the host material can
occur during clearing or prior to
construction with a rare plant
specialist present.
fishbone beard Usnea filipendula 2-25-76-18 8 On a tree snag On proposed Project This is one of two populations of fishbone beard If feasible, relocate a portion of 395707E
lichen (Collection Area. Located within a lichen observed within and near the LSA. This is the snag to a receiving site in a 6163564N
(S3 / Sensitive) #3007) proposed well pad the only population of fishbone beard lichen suitable habitat. Potential
(middle). observed on the Project Area. Observed within receiving sites will be located
Page 54
d2. during PDAs. Moving of the host

A planned cutblock will impact this population. material can occur during
clearing or prior to construction
with a rare plant specialist
present.
However, if it is not feasible to
relocate a portion of the host
snag then it is recommended that
bark disk transplants be utilized.
golden Chrysosplenium 3-31-76-17 1324 20 to 50 plants in On proposed Project This is 1 of 15 populations of golden saxifrage Install a culvert at the drainage From
saxifrage iowense a 35 m x 1 m Area. Located on a observed within and near the LSA. This is the during site preparation of the 397534E
(S3? / area along a proposed multiuse only population of golden saxifrage observed on access road. Minimize alteration 6165297N to
Sensitive) drainage. corridor. the Project Area. There are two additional sub- of natural drainage patterns by 396835E
population of this population (6 and 7-31-76-17 aligning culverts with the 6165354N.
W4M) located off of the Project Area. Observed drainage.
within f3/STNN with snakeskin liverwort.
Five additional populations of golden saxifrage, Restore preconstruction contours
located off of the Project Area, will be impacted as soon as practical post-
by planned cutblocks. construction.
TERA has previously documented golden
saxifrage colonizing an Alliance Pipeline right-of- During construction of above
way following construction (Alliance Pipeline ground pipelines or transmission
Limited Partnership 2002). TERA has also lines, minimize travel off the
observed golden saxifrage recolonizing access road at this location to the
disturbance at a variety of locations since this extent practical.
documented occurrence. It is anticipated that the
species will recolonize the multi-use corridor Recontour drainage bed and
following construction, providing preconstruction banks to preconstruction
contours at the site are restored and flow is conditions.
maintained through a culvert.
Legal UTM(s)
lustrous beard Usnea glabrata 2-25-76-18 8 On a tree snag On proposed Project This is one of seven populations of lustrous If feasible, relocate a portion of 395695E
lichen (Collection Area. Located within a beard lichen observed within and near the LSA. the snag to a receiving site in a 6163561N
(S3 / Sensitive) #3007) proposed well pad This is the only population of lustrous beard suitable habitat. Potential
(middle). lichen observed on the Project Area. Observed receiving sites will be located
within d2. during PDAs. Moving of the host
present.
many-spored Melanohalea 4-25-76-18 37 On river alder On proposed Project This is one of two populations of many-spored Relocate a portion of the 395032E
camoflage multispora (Collection Area. Located within a camoflage lichen observed within and near the branches this population occurs 6163924N
lichen #7359) proposed well pad LSA. This is the only population of many-spored on to a receiving site in a suitable
(S2S4 / (middle). camoflage lichen observed on the Project Area. habitat prior to construction. A
Undetermined) Observed within h1/STNN. rare plant specialist will move the
Page 55
A planned cutblock will impact this population. host material during the PDA
during the growing season prior
to construction.
naked kidney Nephroma 9-11-77-18 35 On dead aspen On proposed Project This is one of five populations of naked kidney If feasible, relocate a portion of 394766E
lichen bellum (Collection Area. Located within a lichen observed within and near the LSA. This is the dead tree to a receiving site 6169263N
(S2 / Secure) #7165) proposed borrow pit the only population of naked kidney lichen in a suitable habitat. Potential
(middle). observed on the Project Area. Observed within receiving sites will be located
h1/STNN. during PDAs. Moving of the host
Two additional populations of naked kidney clearing or prior to construction
lichen, located off of the Porject Area, will be with a rare plant specialist
impacted by planned cutblocks. present.
relocate a portion of the host tree
then it is recommended that bark
disk transplants be utilized.
Legal UTM(s)
northern beech Phegopteris 4-30-76-17 1114 About 1,000 On proposed Project This is one of two populations of northern beech The location of the population in Patch from
fern connectilis plants in 7 Area. Located on a fern observed within and near the LSA. This is relation to the planned 396599E
(S2 / May Be At patches. proposed multi-use the only population of northern beech fern developments will be confirmed 6163826N to
Risk) Patches range in corridor and a proposed observed on the Project Area. Observed within during the PDA for this site. 396545E
size from 1 m x well pad (south side). e2. 6163825N to
1 m to 15 m x Fence and avoid the portion of 369574E
15 m. This the population on the proposed 6163376N to
population well pad, if feasible, by reducing 396584E
extends off of or re-arranging the workspace. 6163841.
the Project Area
for at least 12 m. If avoidance of the portion of the
population on the proposed well
pad is not feasible or if a portion
of the population is located on a
proposed access road, use a
large bucket backhoe to
transplant the population and
associated species to suitable
Page 56
habitat off the Project Area prior

to construction with a rare plant
specialist present.
During construction of above

ground pipelines or transmission
lines, minimize travel off the
access road at this location to the
extent practical. When travel off
of the access road is required,
construct a temporary travel
surface using one of the following
options: a) in frozen conditions,
snow; b) in wet areas or areas
that will undergo freezing and
thawing during construction, mat
over.
Legal UTM(s)
northern beech See above See above See See above See above See above If construction of below ground See above
fern above pipelines is required at this
(S2 / May Be At location, strip and salvage topsoil
Risk) (cont’d) from the trench and areas where
grading is necessary (for safe
and level workspace). Strip
topsoil to a depth of 15 cm and
isolate topsoil from other spoil
piles and identify by labelled
stakes or flags. Recontour
drainage bed and banks to
preconstruction conditions.
Redistribute salvaged topsoil
over the right-of-way at the
location from which it was
stripped.
peg lichen Cladonia 7-24-76-18 1474 In moss on a soft On proposed Project This is the only population of peg lichen Fence and avoid the portion of 395852E
(S1?) subcariosa stump Area. Located within a observed within and near the LSA. Observed the population on the proposed 6162370N
(Collection proposed well pad within e3. well pad, by reducing or re-
Page 57
#1111) (northeast corner). arranging the workspace.

pepper-spore Rinodina freyi 4-25-76-18 37 On river alder On proposed Project This is one of eight populations of pepper-spore Relocate a portion of the 395032E
lichen (Collection Area. Located within a lichen observed within and near the LSA. This is branches this population occurs 6163924N
(S1) #7360) proposed well pad the only population of pepper-spore lichen on to a receiving site in a suitable
(middle). observed on the Project Area. Observed within habitat prior to construction. A
h1/STNN. rare plant specialist will move the
An additional population of pepper-spore lichen, during the growing season prior
located off of the Project Area, will be impacted to construction.
by a planned cutblock.
powdered Heterodermia 2-25-76-18 8 On a tree snag On proposed Project This is one of three populations of powdered If feasible, relocate a portion of 395707E
fringed lichen speciosa (Collection Area. Located within a fringed lichen observed within and near the LSA. the snag to a receiving site in a 6163564N
(S2 / May Be At #3007) proposed well pad This is the only population of powdered fringed suitable habitat. Potential
Risk) (middle). lichen observed on the Project Area. Observed receiving sites will be located
within d2. during PDAs. Moving of the host
The other two populations of powdered fringed clearing or prior to construction
lichen, located off of the Project Area, will be with a rare plant specialist
impacted by planned cutblocks. present.
Legal UTM(s)
Riccardia Riccardia 8-11-77-18 27 2 cm x 2 cm on On proposed Project This is one of eight populations of Riccardia It is anticipated that it will not be 394769E
liverwort palmata one decorticated Area. Located within a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. This feasible to alter the site of this 6169177N
(S1) log proposed borrow pit is the only population of Riccardia liverwort borrow pit in order to avoid this
(Collection (middle). observed on the Project Area. There is an location.
#7180) additional sub-population of this population (9-
11-77-18 W4M) located on the Project Area and Relocate a portion of the log to a
an additional sub-population of this population receiving site in a suitable
(1-11-77-18 W4M) located off of the Project habitat. Potential receiving sites
Area. Observed within f3. will be located during PDAs.
A planned cutblock will impact this population. Moving of the host material can
Two additional populations of Riccardia occur during clearing or prior to
liverwort, located off of the project area, will be construction with a rare plant
impacted by planned cutblocks. specialist present.
9-11-77-18 35 2 patches of 1 On proposed Project This is one of eight populations of Riccardia 394766E
cm x 1.5 cm and Area. Located within a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. This 6169263N
2 cm x 1.5 cm on proposed borrow pit is the only population of Riccardia liverwort
a decorticated (middle). observed on the Project Area. There is an
log additional sub-population of this population (8-
Page 58
(Collection 11-77-18 W4M) located on the Project Area and

#7172) an additional sub-population of this population
(1-11-77-18 W4M) located off of the Project
Area. Observed within h1/STNN.
Two additional populations of Riccardia
impacted by planned cutblocks.
rock ramalina Ramalina 9-11-77-18 35 On dead aspen On proposed Project This is one of two populations of rock ramalina If feasible, relocate a portion of 394766E
(S2 / May Be At intermedia (Collection # Area. Located within a observed within and near the LSA. This is the the dead tree to a receiving site 6169263N
Risk) 7166) proposed borrow pit only population of rock ramalina observed on the in a suitable habitat. Potential
(middle). Project Area. Observed within h1/STNN. receiving sites will be located
A planned cutblock will impact this population. during PDAs. Moving of the host
material can occur during
present.
relocate a portion of the host tree
then it is recommended that bark
disk transplants be utilized.
snakeskin Conocephalum 3-31-76-17 1324 50 thalli in a On proposed Project This is one of eight populations of snakeskin Apply the same mitigation From
liverwort conicum 60 m x 1 m area Area. Located on a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. This recommended for golden 396835E
(S2) along a proposed multiuse is one of two populations observed on the saxifrage at Plot ID 132. 6165354N to
drainage. corridor. Project Area. There are three additional sub- 396867E
population of this population (2, 6 and 7-31-76- 6165329N.
17 W4M) located off of the Project Area.
Observed within f3/STNN with golden saxifrage.
Two additional populations of snakeskin
liverwort, one located off of the Project Area, will
be impacted by planned cutblocks.
Legal UTM(s)
snakeskin Conocephalum 9-36-76-18 854 50 thalli in a On proposed Project This is one of eight populations of snakeskin Fence and avoid the portion of 396294E
liverwort conicum shrub swamp Area. Located within a liverwort observed within and near the LSA. This the population on the proposed 6166219N
(S2) proposed well pad is one of two populations observed on the well pad, if feasible, by narrowing
(southeast corner) and Project Area. Observed within Shrubby the area of disturbance for the
adjacent to a proposed Wetland/SONS. well pad.
multiuse corridor. A planned cutblock will impact this population. If avoidance of the portion of the
An additional population of snakeskin liverwort, population on the proposed well
located off of the Project Area, will be impacted pad is not feasible, re-direct
by a planned cutblock. seasonal surface flow of water
around the lease site to ensure
that drainage patterns and
moisture regimen is maintained.
Stenocybe Stenocybe 4-25-76-18 37 On river alder On proposed Project This is one of ten populations of Stenocybe Relocate a portion of the 395032E
lichen pullatula (Collection Area. Located within a lichen observed within or near the LSA. This is branches this population occurs 6163924N
(S2S4) #7360) proposed well pad the only population of Stenocybe lichen on to a receiving site in a suitable
(middle). observed on the Project Area. Observed within habitat prior to construction. A
h1/STNN. rare plant specialist will move the
Page 59
An additional population of Stenocybe lichen, during the growing season prior

located off of the Project Area, will be impacted to construction.
by a planned cutblock.
tall blue lettuce Lactuca biennis 10-25-76-18 6 5 individuals in a On proposed Project This is one of two populations of tall blue lettuce Fence and avoid the portion of 395918E
(S2 / May Be At 10 m x 10 m Area. Located on a observed within and near the LSA. This is the the population off the proposed 6164658N
Risk) area proposed multiuse only population of tall blue lettuce observed on multi-use corridor.
corridor. the Project Area. An additional sub population Transplant or salvage seed from
was observed on the Project Area (see below). the portion of the population that
Observed within Meadow. is on the Project Area, based on
1375 In a 10 m x 10 m On proposed Project This is one of two populations of tall blue lettuce life stage at time of construction. 395948E
area Area. Located on a observed within and near the LSA. This is the Potential receiving sites will be 6164648N
proposed multiuse only population of tall blue lettuce observed on located during PDAs. The
corridor. the Project Area. An additional sub population transplanted individuals or
was observed on the Project Area (see above). salvaged seed will be planted in
Observed within an area classified as a suitable habitat prior to
Anthropogenic. construction under the direction
of a rare plant specialist.
Notes: 1 Definitions of rarity ranks are included in the footnotes of the Appendices. Species on the List of Tracked and Watched Elements (ACIMS 2011a) have S-ranks in bold text.
2 Populations may be made up of multiple sub-populations, all within 1 km of each other.
3 Suitable transplant locations will be located in areas that will remain undisturbed for the duration of the Project.
4 Rows with strikethrough text were on the Project Area in the Integrated Application but are not on the updated Project Area.
5 Bold Site IDs are for rare plant populations that are newly on the updated Project Area.
27 26 25 30
¯
29
28
Athabasca River
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
TWP. 77
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
28 27 26 25 30 29 28
Ecological Land Classification 27
d1 - low-bush
cranberry Aw
d2 - low-bush
cranberry Aw-Sw
TWP. 76 d3 - low-bush
cranberry Sw
21 e1 - dogwood Pb-Aw
22 23 24 19 20 e2 - dogwood Pb-Sw
21 22
e3 - dogwood Sw
f3 - horsetail Sw
g1 - Labrador
tea-subhygric Sb-Pj
h1 - Labrador
16 15 14 tea/horsetail Sw-Sb
13 18 17 16 k3 - graminoid rich fen15
l1 - marsh
Meadow (upland with
<6% tree cover and
<25% shrub cover)
Shrubby Wetland
t6790_VEG_Fig_2_8_11_Updated Closure ELC Potential to Support Rare Vascular Plants
FIGURE 2.8-11
Vegetation Local
Watercourse UPDATED CLOSURE ELC POTENTIAL TO
Study Area (450 m) SUPPORT RARE VASCULAR PLANTS
Existing Blackrod Road Waterbody PROJECT UPDATE - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
2.8.2 Summary of Residual Effects to Vegetation

The updated Project Area represents a minor change from the original Project Area presented in the
Integrated Application and results in a reduction in area of disturbance resulting from the Project. The
potential residual effect of loss or alteration of native vegetation was reassessed based on the updated
Project Area through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantification of measurable
parameters for native vegetation communities, wetlands, old growth forests and communities of limited
distribution was combined with qualitative evaluations for the indicators previously listed as well as habitat
fragmentation as well as the introduction and colonization of weeds and non-native invasive species. The
potential residual effect of loss or alteration of rare ecological communities and rare plant populations was
reassessed based on the updated Project Area through a combination of quantitative and qualitative
methods. Quantification of measurable parameters for rare ecological communities and rare plants was
combined with qualitative evaluations. The predicted effects associated with the updated Project Area are
comparable to those presented in the Integrated Application. Therefore, the characterization of effects
(i.e., criteria ratings) and conclusions of the effects assessment for vegetation presented in the Integrated
Application remain the same. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the potential
residual effects on vegetation are predicted to be not significant.

As the Project Update resulted in a reduced Project Area and the change was relatively minor (total
Project Area changed is 0.1% of the Vegetation RSA), a complete quantitative reassessment at the RSA
scale is not warranted. The update did not result in any alterations to the assessment criteria or
significance conclusions.
2.9 Wildlife
The updated Project Area is reduced from the original Project Area presented in the Integrated
Application by approximately 109.4 ha, and the total length of linear disturbance is reduced by 41.3 km.
This is a 2% and 1.3% reduction in area of disturbance within the 300 m and 1 km Wildlife LSAs,
respectively.
A comparison of the area of moderate and high suitability habitat within the original and updated Project
Area was completed for the wildlife indicators. Moderate and high suitability habitat was determined
according to the habitat suitability ratings derived for local-scale habitat suitability models (Volume 4,
Appendix 2C, Section 2C.2.4, and response to AESRD SIR 164). This quantification of change allowed a
determination of the validity of the assessment conclusions for changes to wildlife habitat resulting from
the Project. Table 2.9-1 summarizes the change in moderate and high suitability habitat that would be
affected by the updated Project Area compared to the original Project Area.
TABLE 2.9-1
CHANGE IN MODERATE AND HIGH HABITAT

SUITABILITY FOR WILDLIFE INDICATORS AT THE LOCAL SCALE
Area of Moderate and High Suitability Habitat (ha)

Indicator LSA1 Original Project Area Updated Project Area Difference2 % Change2
Beaver 440.4 34.9 34.5 - 0.4 - 1.1%
Black bear 3636.2 643.9 561.4 - 82.5 - 12.8%
Fisher 2771.1 353.8 285.4 - 68.4 - 19.3%
Lynx/snowshoe hare 3640.3 642.9 546.5 - 96.4 - 15.0%
Moose3 4253.8 494.1 434.9 - 59.2 - 12.0%
Northern goshawk 118.3 20.2 17.9 - 2.4 - 11.6%
Old forest birds 2729.6 366.8 321.6 - 45.2 - 12.3%
Sandhill crane 424.2 33.7 28.4 - 5.3 - 15.8%
Western toad 4567.8 571.8 509.3 - 62.5 - 10.9%
Notes: 1 300 m LSA or 1 km LSA, as appropriate for the indicator (refer to Volume 4, Section 2.3, Table 2.3 2 of the Integrated Application).
2 Negative values represent a reduction from the original Project Area to the updated Project Area.
3 Moderate and high suitability habitat for moose is based on the LSA HSI model, as discussed in response to AESRD SIR 164.
Page 61
2.9.1 Change in Habitat

The updated Project Area results in a reduction in the predicted area of direct habitat disturbance
resulting from the Project. The change in direct habitat disturbance to suitable habitat for the wildlife
indicators from the original Project Area ranges from approximately 1% to 19% (Table 2.9-1). For both the
local and regional scales, this reduction in direct habitat loss does not change the magnitude of predicted
effects, or the assessment criteria or conclusions, for any of the indicators. Since the updated Project
Area does not result in substantial changes to the CPF, sensory effects relate to noise (e.g., reduced
habitat effectiveness) do not change substantially from the assessment. The reduced number of wells
and length of multi-use corridor will have a minor reduction in potential edge effects and fragmentation of
habitat within the LSA, however, given the small scale of the changes, they do not affect the assessment
criteria ratings or conclusions.
2.9.2 Change in Movement

The reduction in multi-use corridors will have a minor reduction in predicted effects on movement of some
wildlife, such as moose. However, the reduction will not change the magnitude of the predicted effects,
and there is no change in the assessment conclusions regarding changes in wildlife movement.
Additional information regarding wildlife movement and proposed mitigation to maintain habitat
permeability for species at risk and moose is provided in the responses to AESRD SIRs 142, 144 and
156.
2.9.3 Change in Mortality Risk

The updated Project Area has a reduced area of disturbance, however, there is no expected change in
traffic volume. As a result, a minor reduction in the potential for direct mortality resulting from the Project
is expected, but the effects are comparable to those presented in the Integrated Application. Potential
indirect mortality risk associated with access (e.g., predator/prey dynamics, hunting/trapping pressure,
unsuitable amphibian breeding sites in road ditches) is also reduced by a minor amount compared to the
original Project Area, given the reduction in length of multi-use corridor for the updated Project Area.
These changes are minor, and do not affect the assessment criteria ratings or conclusions related to
mortality risk for any of the indicators.
2.9.4 Summary
The updated Project Area represents a minor change from the original Project Area presented in the
Integrated Application, and results in a reduction in area of disturbance and length of multi-use corridor
resulting from the Project. The predicted effects associated with the updated Project Area are comparable
to those presented in the Integrated Application. Therefore, the characterization of effects (i.e., criteria
ratings) and conclusions of the effects assessment for wildlife presented in the Integrated Application are
still considered valid. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the potential residual
effects on wildlife are predicted to be not significant.
2.10 Biodiversity
The Biodiversity Assessment presented in Volume 4, Section 3.0 of the Integrated Application has been
updated as a result of changes to the Project Area (Figure 1.1-2). The boundaries of the Terrestrial and
Aquatic LSAs and RSAs remain unchanged from the Integrated Application and as such, there are no
changes to the Baseline Case (Volume 4, Appendix 3A of the Integrated Application). The assessment
approach, temporal boundaries, the potential issues identified and the indicators selected for the
Biodiversity Assessment also remain unchanged from the Integrated Application.
The updated Project Area (857 ha) results in an 11% reduction from the original Project Area (966.4 ha)
presented in the Integrated Application.
The methods to assess Ecosystem Biodiversity Potential (EBP) are the same as those used for the
Biodiversity Assessment in Volume 4, Section 3.4 of the Integrated Application. Landscape Biodiversity
Potential was not recalculated for the Project Update, given the relatively small scale of change to the
Project Area when compared to the Terrestrial RSA (i.e., a change representing 0.08% of the Terrestrial
RSA). Conclusions regarding changes to Landscape Biodiversity Potential were determined qualitatively.
Page 62

Direct Effects to Biodiversity Due to Clearing of Vegetation
The direct effects to biodiversity due to clearing of vegetation for the Project are similar to those
determined for the Biodiversity Assessment in Volume 4, Section 3.5.2 of the Integrated Application.
Areas attributed to high, moderate, low and unrankable Ecosystem Biodiversity Potential were quantified
for their respective change relative to the reference conditions of the Baseline Case and the original
Application Case and are provided in Table 2.10-1.
The updated Project Area results in a slight increase in high and unrankable EBP areas (0.1% and 2.6%,
respectively), compared to the original Project Area. Conversely, the areas of moderate and low EBP
showed a decrease (2.8% and 2.2%, respectively) when compared to the original Project Area. However,
the EBP for the updated closure phase decreases in areas of high, low and unrankable EBP (a decrease
of 2.8%, 0.2% and 0.01%, respectively). A portion of the decrease in low EBP areas may be attributed to
the change in the predicted ecosite phase at closure based on the updates to the methods used to
interpret the C&R as described in Section 2.8.1 of this report. The predicted mosaic of ecosite phases in
reclaimed peatlands will result in more areas of moderate EBP when compared to the Integrated
Application, which assumed that reclaimed peatlands would return areas with low EBP. A minor increase
(2.2%) in moderate EBP areas is predicted for the updated Closure Phase, compared to the Closure
Phase in the Integrated Application. The EBP of the Terrestrial LSA based on the updated Project Area
(Figure 2.10-1) at closure will be similar to the EBP at closure presented in the Integrated Application.
Page 63
TABLE 2.10-1
CHANGES TO ECOSYSTEM BIODIVERSITY POTENTIAL

IN THE TERRESTRIAL LSA FOR THE UPDATED APPLICATION CASE
Updated Construction and Operation Phases1 Updated Closure Phase2

Change Change Change from Change from Change Change Change from Change from
Ecosystem From From Original Original From From Original Original
Biodiversity Baseline Application Baseline Baseline Application Application Application Baseline Baseline Application Application
Potential Case (ha) Case (ha) Case3 (ha) Case4 (%) (ha) (%) Case (ha) Case3 (ha) Case4 (%) (ha) (%)
High 1,708.5 1551.4 -157.1 -9.2 1.5 0.1 3017.9 1309.4 76.6 -43.4 -2.8
Moderate 2,301.9 2051.2 -250.7 -10.9 -59.9 -2.8 3298.1 996.2 43.3 46.4 2.2
Low 1,489.8 1297.2 -192.6 -12.9 -29.8 -2.2 1760.8 271.0 18.2 -3.0 -0.2
Unrankable 2,911.4 3511.7 600.3 20.6 88.1 2.6 334.5 -2576.9 -88.5 -0.2 -0.01
Page 64

¯

Athab a sc a R iver

TWP. 77

TWP. 76

!

Project Area
%,.1. /'*(
,&(0'
-. (
/1
,/
'+/
($)

Terrestrial Local Study Area High

#

"#

!
Existing Blackrod Road Moderate
Hydrography Low !
2

!

Waterbody Unranked


km
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
t6790_VEG_Fig3.1_1_Jan2012.mxd
Indirect Effects to Biodiversity in the Terrestrial LSA Due to Operations Activities

The indirect effects to biodiversity in the Terrestrial LSA due to operations activities associated with the
Project are similar to those discussed in the Biodiversity Assessment in Volume 4, Section 3.5.2 of the
Integrated Application. The reduced Project Area does not alter the magnitude of these effects, as the
change in Project Area is minor and positive (i.e., less area is to be disturbed). Due to the minor nature of
the changes to the Project Area, the assessment criteria and significance conclusions presented in
Table 3.6-3 of the Biodiversity Assessment in Volume 4, Section 3.5.2 do not change.
Indirect Effects to Biodiversity in the Aquatic LSA Due to Impacts to Habitat

The updated Project Area requires one less watercourse crossing than the original Project Area. This will
result in less disturbance of the Aquatic Ecology LSA and, therefore, it is expected that the indirect effects
on biodiversity due to impacts to aquatic habitat will be lessened. Due to the relatively minor nature of this
change, the assessment criteria and significance conclusions presented in Table 3.6-3 of the Biodiversity
Assessment in Volume 4, Section 3.5.2 do not change.
Indirect Effects to Biodiversity in the Aquatic LSA Due to Mortality Events

The updated Project Area requires one less watercourse crossing than the original Project Area. This will
result in less disturbance of the Aquatic Ecology LSA and therefore it is expected that the indirect effects
on biodiversity due to increased mortality in the aquatic environment will be lessened. Due to the
relatively minor nature of this change, the assessment criteria and significance conclusions presented in
Table 3.6-3 of the Biodiversity Assessment in Volume 4, Section 3.5.2 do not change.
2.10.2 Summary of Residual Effects to Biodiversity

As a result of the updated Project Area, assessment criteria for direct effects to biodiversity due to
clearing of vegetation and indirect effects to biodiversity due to operations activities and impacts to
aquatic habitat and increased mortality events in the aquatic environment were re-evaluated. Due to the
minor nature of change (total Project Area changed is 1.3% of the Terrestrial LSA and there is one less
watercourse crossing in the Aquatic LSA), the update did not result in any alterations to the assessment
criteria, and therefore, significance conclusions.

As the Project Update resulted in a reduced Project Area and the change was relatively minor (total
Project Area changed is 0.08% of the Terrestrial RSA), a complete quantitative reassessment at the RSA
scale is not warranted. The update did not result in any alterations to the assessment criteria or
significance conclusions.
2.11 Terrain and Soils

The Terrain and Soils Assessment presented in Volume 4, Section 4 of the Integrated Application has
been updated as a result of changes to the Project Area (Figure 2.11-1) and revised air modeling
information.
Page 66
¯
Twp 77 - Rge 18 W4M

Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M
Atha basc a River
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M

Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
FIGURE 2.11 - 1
Legend PROJECT AREA AND SOILS LOCAL STUDY AREA
Pha se 1 Pha se 3B CPF and Access Ro ad Sumps Water
PROJECT UPDATE -
Pha se 2 Borrow Pit Constu ction Camp Access Roa d Soils Lo cal Study Area BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Pha se 3A Log Decks Opera tions Camp Hyd rography
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus G eomatics (2013), Blackbridge Geomatics (2010), Paragon (2013) km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors as soc iated with the data us ed to generate this produc t or in the product itself,
users of these data are adv ised that errors in the data may be present. (All Locations Approximate)
The boundaries of the Soils LSA and RSA remain unchanged from the Integrated Application; as such,
there are no changes to the Baseline Case (Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.0). The assessment
approach, temporal boundaries, the potential issues identified and the indicators selected for the
assessment also remain unchanged from the Integrated Application.
The changes to the Project Area and the revised air modeling information do not result in changes to the
significance of residual effects presented in the Integrated Application. All residual effects are considered
not significant. As in the Integrated Application, residual effects were determined following the
implementation of applicable mitigation measures. The mitigation measures provided in the Integrated
Application, as amended where applicable in the responses to the SIRs are still considered appropriate
given the changes to the Project Area. Noteworthy amendments to the mitigation measures as detailed in
the SIR responses include the following:
• shallow organic soils will not be over-stripped and admixed with subsoil to provide a
peat mineral mix;
• soil salvaged as part of road construction will not be windrowed/stockpiled along the
road; and
• borrow material used for road building in shallow wetland areas will be removed during
reclamation.
The revised Terrain and Soils Assessment is provided in Section 2.11.1 for the Application Case and
Section 2.11.2 for the Planned Development Case.
As requested by AESRD, previously completed seismic borehole logs were reviewed to determine if
relevant soil information was available for incorporation into the Project Update. Thousands of seismic
shot points and associated borehole logs were reviewed; while most of the data was of limited use, many
of the sites reviewed contained comments regarding muskeg (peat) depth. Approximately 6,000 seismic
shot points were considered relevant; these sites are presented on Figure 2.11-2. Figure 2.11-2 includes
simplified baseline soil mapping, where the baseline soil map units as presented in the Integrated
Application are categorized into Organic map units (MLD, MUS, MRN and HLY) or Mineral map units
(remaining soil map units). As shown on Figure 2.11-2, there is a very good correlation between Organic
map units and those seismic shot points containing 1-9 m of peat as well as Mineral map units and shot
points with no noted peat depth. The listing of relevant seismic shot points and the associated comments
are provided in Appendix E.
Page 68
¯
Twp 77 Rge 17 W4M

Twp 77 Rge 18 W4M
Athabasca River
Twp 77 Rge 17 W4M

Twp 76 Rge 17 W4M
Legend
Organic Soil Map Units FIGURE 2.11 - 2
Peat Depth (m): 0 Hydrography
(HLY, MLD, MRN, MUS) SEISMIC BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
Peat Depth (m): 1.0 - 2.0 Water WITHIN THE LSA
Mineral Soil Map Units
(BMT, DOV, ELS, FIR, HRR, LVK, STP)
Peat Depth (m): 2.1 - 4.0 Soils Local Study Area SCALE: 1: 36,000 PROJECT UPDATE -
Rough Broken Soil Map Unit km BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Peat Depth (m): 4.1 - 7.0 0 0.5 1 PROPOSED BLACKROD
Peat Depth (m): 7.1 - 9.0 Disturbed Land (All Locations Approximate)
UTM Zone 12N

Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus Geomatics (2013),
Paragon (2013), TER A Environmental Consultants (2012)
April 2013
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

Potential Effects
As described in the Integrated Application, the Project may affect terrain diversity, soil quality and soil
diversity through direct disturbance as a result of Project construction and subsequent reclamation while
potentially acidifying emissions during operations may cause soil acidification if the level of Potential Acid
Input (PAI) is greater than the soil’s critical load.
Terrain diversity, soil quality and soil diversity project effects are primarily associated with the area of
direct surface disturbance and are most likely to occur during construction. The revised Project Area
(Figure 2.11-1) is approximately 857 ha, or approximately 14% of the Soils LSA. The revised Project Area
is approximately 109 ha smaller than that presented in the Integrated Application.
A comparison between the original and revised Project Areas is provided in Table 2.11-1. The Project
Area, with the exception of the log decks (approximately 3.8 ha), is anticipated to have direct soil
disturbance. The assessment of direct Project effects on terrain and soils resources is based on a direct
disturbance area of 853 ha (the Project area without the log decks).
TABLE 2.11-1
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE REVISED PROJECT AREA
Project Facilities and Original Project Revised Project Change in Project Revised Proportion Revised Proportion
Infrastructure Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) of Project Area (%) of Soils LSA (%)
Well Pads 278.2 232.2 -46 27.1 3.8
Borrow Pits 179.6 151.4 -28.2 17.7 2.5
Log Decks 6.5 3.8 -2.7 0.4 0.1
Sumps 13.4 13.3 -0.1 1.5 0.2
Multi-use Corridors 356.1 313.9 -42.2 36.6 5.1
CPF 124.3 123.82 -0.5 14.4 2.0
Camp 8.3 18.73 10.4 2.2 0.3
Total Project Area 966.4 857.1 -109.3 100.0 14.0
Area of Direct Soil Disturbance1 959.9 853.3 -106.6 99.5 13.9
Notes: 1 The area of direct soil disturbance does not include the log decks.
2 Includes CPF access road.
3 Includes construction and operations camps.
Terrain Diversity
Table 2.11-2 shows the area of each terrain type in the Soils LSA that will be disturbed. The maximum
area of direct soil disturbance (853.3 ha) is assumed for both the construction and operations phases.
TABLE 2.11-2
TERRAIN DISTURBANCE IN THE SOILS LSA
Conditions at Conditions Following Decommissioning and

Baseline Conditions During Construction and Operations Reclamation
Change in %
Terrain Change in Area Area Change
(Parent % of Area of % of Relative to Baseline % Change Area of % of Relative to Relative
Material) Area Soils Terrain Soils (e.g., the Area of Direct Relative to Terrain Soils Baseline to
Types (ha) LSA Types (ha) LSA Soil Disturbance) (ha) Baseline Types (ha) LSA (ha) Baseline
Glaciofluvial 73.8 1.2 73.8 1.2 0 0 73.8 1.2 0 0
overlying
glacial till
Glacial till 3,788.9 61.7 3,269.3 53.3 -519.6 -8.5 3,269.3 53.3 -519.6 -8.5
Organic 2,037.5 33.2 1,736.9 28.3 -300.6 -4.9 1,736.9 28.3 -300.6 -4.9
Page 70
TABLE 2.11-2 Cont'd

Change in %
Terrain Change in Area Area Change
(Parent % of Area of % of Relative to Baseline % Change Area of % of Relative to Relative
Material) Area Soils Terrain Soils (e.g., the Area of Direct Relative to Terrain Soils Baseline to
Types (ha) LSA Types (ha) LSA Soil Disturbance) (ha) Baseline Types (ha) LSA (ha) Baseline
Rough 62.5 1 61.3 1.0 -1.2 < -0.1 61.3 1.0 -1.2 < -0.1
Broken
Water 6.5 0.1 6.5 0.1 0 0 6.5 0.1 0 0
Disturbed 167.2 2.7 988.61,3 16.1 821.41,3 13.4 153.82 2.5 -13.4 -0.2
Land
(Anthropoge
nic)
Reclaimed 0 0 - - 0 0.0 834.83 13.6 834.8 13.6
Soils
Total4 6,136.4 100 6,136.4 100 0 0 6,136.4 100 0 0
Notes: 1 The change in area considers that 31.9 ha of previously disturbed land occur within the Project Area.
2 Disturbed land remaining in the LSA includes previously disturbed land outside the Project Area (not attributed to the Project), as well as
previously disturbed access roads falling inside the Project Area which will not be reclaimed.
3 The area of direct disturbance is 853.3 ha.
4 Totals may not add due to rounding.
During the Decommissioning and Reclamation Phase, most of the area of direct disturbance (853.3 ha) is
assumed to be reclaimed. The previously disturbed access roads and active wells (18.5 ha) falling inside
the Project Area will remain disturbed. As outlined in the C&R Plan (Volume 1, Section 11.0 of the
Integrated Application), upland mineral terrain types will generally be reclaimed to upland reclaimed
landscapes, with the exception of borrow pit centers. Approximately 25% of each upland borrow will be
reclaimed to wetland or transitional soil types in the resulting depression. A portion of the Organic terrain
affected by the Project (e.g., well pads and access roads constructed on deep peat) will not be reclaimed
to wetland or Organic types, but instead will be reclaimed to upland islands containing a portion of upland,
transitional and Organic soil types.
Residual Effects
The residual effect of the Project on terrain diversity is that a loss of terrain types will occur. Although the
loss of terrain types is considered to be permanent, and consequently have a negative impact balance, all
previously undisturbed areas within the Project Area will be reclaimed. As the Project disturbs a maximum
extent of 8.5% of any particular terrain type within the Soils LSA, the magnitude is low (less than 15% of
any terrain type disturbed) and the residual effect considered to be not significant. Confidence in this
rating is high; the data used in this assessment was collected in the field from within the Soils LSA and
there is a good understanding of cause-effect relationships and in the proposed mitigation measures.
Soil Quality
Disturbance related to construction and reclamation of the Project can lead to changes in soil quality
through compaction, wind erosion, water erosion, and changes in reclamation suitability (through
admixing and contamination). Table 2.11-3 provides the area of direct soil disturbance associated with
each compaction risk, wind erosion risk, water erosion risk and reclamation suitability rating.
Page 71
TABLE 2.11-3
SOIL QUALITY PARAMETERS IN THE AREA OF DIRECT SOIL DISTURBANCE
Area to be disturbed During Proportion of Soils

Soil Quality Parameters Rating/Class Construction and Operations (ha) Proportion of Project Area (%) LSA (%)
Compaction Risk High 733.9 86.0 12.0
Moderate 86.3 10.1 1.4
Low 0 0 0.0
Not rated2 33.1 3.9 0.5
Total1 853.3 100 13.9
Wind Erosion Risk High 0 0 0.0
Moderate 0 0 0.0
Low 820.2 96.1 13.4
Not rated2 33.1 3.9 0.5
Total1 853.3 100 13.9
Water Erosion Risk High 1.2 0.1 0.0
Moderate 259.5 30.4 4.2
Low 560.7 65.7 9.1
Not rated3 31.9 3.7 0.5
Total1 853.3 100 13.9
Upper lift Reclamation Good 39.7 4.7 0.6
Suitability Good-Fair 230.2 27.0 3.8
Fair 249.6 29.3 4.1
Not rated4 333.7 39.0 5.4
Total1 853.3 100 13.9
Lower Lift Reclamation Good 6.9 0.8 0.1
Suitability Fair 158.1 18.5 2.6
Fair-Poor 354.5 41.5 5.8
Not rated4 333.7 39.0 5.4
Total1 853.3 100 13.9
Notes: 1 Totals may not add due to rounding, total area does not include log decks.
2 “Not rated” includes rough broken and disturbed land.
3 “Not rated” includes disturbed land.
4 “Not rated” includes rough broken, disturbed land and Organic soils.
Changes to soil quality in combination with changes to moisture regime may result in changes to land
capability classification ratings. Table 2.11-4 shows the area within each land capability class during the
Baseline, Construction, Operations and Decommissioning Phases. The Post Closure Land Capability
Classification in the LSA is shown on Figure 100-2 in response to AESRD SIR 100a.
TABLE 2.11-4
LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN THE SOILS LSA

Area of Change in Area of Change in
Land % of Land % of Area Relative % Change Land % of Area Relative % Change
Capability Area Soils Capability Soils to Baseline Relative to Capability Soils to Baseline Relative to
Class (ha) LSA Class (ha) LSA (ha) Baseline Class (ha) LSA (ha) Baseline
2 2,397.4 39.1 2,129.2 34.7 -268.2 -4.4 2,450.8 39.9 53.4 0.9
3 1,425.5 23.2 1,181.1 19.2 -244.4 -4.0 1,556.4 25.4 130.9 2.1
4 92.4 1.5 69.1 1.1 -23.3 -0.4 69.1 1.1 -23.3 -0.4
5 1,985.0 32.3 1,700.7 27.7 -284.3 -4.6 1,837.3 29.9 -147.7 -2.4
(Undisturbed
soil)
5 (Disturbed 167.2 2.7 988.6 16.1 821.41,3 13.4 153.8 2.5 -13.4 -0.2
Land)
Page 72
TABLE 2.11-4 Cont'd

Land % of Land % of Area Relative % Change Land % of Area Relative % Change
Capability Area Soils Capability Soils to Baseline Relative to Capability Soils to Baseline Relative to
Water (not 6.5 0.1 6.5 0.1 0 0.0 6.5 0.1 0.0 0.0
rated)
Rough Broken 62.5 1.0 61.3 1.0 -1.2 < -0.1 62.5 1.0 0.0 0.0
(not rated)
Total4 6,136.4 100 6,136.4 100 0 0 6,136.4 100 0 0
Notes: 1 The change in area considers that 31.9 ha of previously disturbed land occur within the Project Area.
Compaction
As shown in Table 2.11-3, most (86%) of the Project Area is at high risk for compaction. The high
compaction risk is associated with imperfect or wetter drainage regime and finer (with higher clay content)
textured materials.
Erosion
As shown in Table 2.11-3, nearly all of the Project Area (96%) is at low risk for wind erosion. This low risk
is due to higher moisture conditions and finer textured materials that are well-aggregated. Most of the
Project Area is at low risk for water erosion (66%) with approximately 30% at moderate risk. Slope
classes within the Soils LSA are generally low (less than 5%). As soil stockpile slopes will be steeper than
the surface topography, water erosion risk is considered moderate to high while in stockpile prior to
vegetation establishment.
Reclamation Suitability (Admixing and Contamination)

The Project Area consists of soils that are considered “Suitable” for reclamation; that is, they have
suitability ratings of Good, Fair or Poor. Organic soil types are not rated. The upper lift (topsoil) of the
Project Area is rated as Good (5%), Good-Fair (27%) or Fair (29%). The lower lift is mostly comprised of
soil falling in the Fair-Poor category (42%), with 19% in the Fair category. The soils rated as Fair-Poor are
primarily limited by fine textured (clayey) subsoil.
Land Capability
Land capability classification is used as the quantitative indicator of soil quality (see Volume 4, Section
4.3.4 of the Integrated Application). Land capability may be affected by compaction, erosion,
contamination and admixing. These potential effects can be largely prevented or limited through the use
of the mitigation measures provided in the C&R Plan (Volume 1, Section 11.0 of the Integrated
Application), as amended where applicable in the responses to the SIRs.
Changes to the soil moisture regime from Baseline Case over the life of the Project also have the
potential to alter the land capability rating. Table 2.11-4 shows the changes in land capability class as a
result of changes in soil moisture regime over the life of the Project.
Soil moisture regime is most likely to be affected when Project facilities and infrastructure are constructed
in wetland areas characterized with deep peat accumulations (Organic soils with baseline land capability
rating of Class 5). Where well pads and access roads are constructed in deep peat areas, most of the
peat will be left in place and the pad will be constructed with geogrid and woven geotextiles. Upon
reclamation, these pads will be recontoured to resemble upland islands containing a portion of upland,
transitional and Organic soil types.
Page 73
The soil moisture regime of borrow areas within upland areas may also be affected; it is expected that a
portion of the borrow pits will have an area that will fill with water and eventually become a wetland.
Approximately 25% of each upland borrow will be reclaimed to wetland or transitional soil types in the
resulting depression.
Changes in land capability classification are anticipated as a result of reclamation strategies proposed for
well pads and borrow areas (C&R Plan, Volume 1, Section 11.0 of the Integrated Application as amended
in responses to SIRs).
As outlined in Table 2.11-4, during the Construction and Operations Phases, approximately 988.6 ha are
considered to be disturbed (Class 5, Disturbed Land) within the Soils LSA. This includes approximately
167 ha previously disturbed land, as well as the area of new direct soil disturbance associated with the
Project (821.4 ha).
Following decommissioning and reclamation, a net gain in Class 2 and 3 soils is anticipated (53 ha and
131 ha, respectively), with a corresponding reduction in Class 4 and 5 soils (23 ha and 148 ha,
respectively). The previously disturbed access roads and active well pads (18.5 ha) falling inside the
Project Area will remain disturbed.
Residual Effects
The residual effect of the Project on soil quality is that changes in land capability classification will occur.
Although the changes in land capability classification following decommissioning and reclamation will be
permanent, the changes are considered to be neutral. The land capability ratings show a net decrease in
Class 4 and 5 soils and an increase in Class 2 and 3 soils due to the creation of upland islands where
well pads are situated in deep peat areas. Except the previously disturbed access roads and active well
pads (18.5 ha), the existing disturbance (previously disturbed lands) within the Project Area will be
reclaimed. The impact balance is considered to be neutral, because while the net capability for forestry is
increased, the area of wetlands is decreased, which is considered to be a negative effect on wetlands.
Given the magnitude of the effect is low (less than 3% change in each land capability class), the residual
effect is considered to be not significant. Confidence in this rating is considered moderate. The data used
in this assessment was collected in the field from within the Soils LSA, but the soil moisture regimes
following reclamation are based on a conceptual reclamation plan. There is an incomplete understanding
of how the land capability rating may change over time following final reclamation.
Soil Diversity
Disturbance related to construction (e.g., site grading, soil salvage) and reclamation (e.g., re-contouring,
soil replacement) will result in alteration of soil types within the Project Area. Table 2.11-5 provides the
area of each soil type within the Soils LSA that will be disturbed. The maximum area of direct soil
disturbance (853.3 ha) is assumed for both the Construction and Operations Phases.
Page 74
TABLE 2.11-5
SOIL DISTURBANCE IN THE SOILS LSA

Soil Map Dominant Soil % of Soil % of Area Relative % Change Soil % of Area Relative % Change
Unit Series or Area Soils Types Soils to Baseline Relative to Types Soils to Baseline Relative to
(Symbol) Variant (ha) LSA (ha) LSA (ha) Baseline (ha) LSA (ha) Baseline
ELS Ells River 83.5 1.4 81.8 1.3 -1.7 0.0 81.8 1.3 -1.7 0.0
ELSpt Ells River-pt 39.9 0.6 33 0.5 -6.9 -0.1 33 0.5 -6.9 -0.1
FIRxt Firebag-xt 9.2 0.1 9.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
HLY Hartley 37.6 0.6 21.2 0.3 -16.4 -0.3 21.2 0.3 -16.4 -0.3
HLYzz Hartely-zz 14.9 0.2 14.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.2 0.0 0.0
HRR Horse River 313.4 5.1 227.1 3.7 -86.3 -1.4 227.1 3.7 -86.3 -1.4
HZMaa Hazelmere 2,015.8 32.8 1,785.6 29.1 -230.2 -3.8 1,785.6 29.1 -230.2 -3.8
HZMaapt Hazelmere-pt 317 5.2 279 4.5 -38.0 -0.6 279 4.5 -38.0 -0.6
LVK Livock 64.7 1.1 64.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 64.7 1.1 0.0 0.0
MLD McLelland 791.9 12.9 669.6 10.9 -122.3 -2.0 669.6 10.9 -122.3 -2.0
MLDxt McLelland-xt 536.6 8.7 454.2 7.4 -82.4 -1.3 454.2 7.4 -82.4 -1.3
MLDzz McLelland-zz 275.2 4.5 250.2 4.1 -25.0 -0.4 250.2 4.1 -25.0 -0.4
MRN Mariana 163.9 2.7 143.1 2.3 -20.8 -0.3 143.1 2.3 -20.8 -0.3
MUS Muskeg 217.2 3.5 183.4 3.0 -33.8 -0.6 183.4 3.0 -33.8 -0.6
STP Steepbank 293.2 4.8 233 3.8 -60.2 -1.0 233 3.8 -60.2 -1.0
STPpt Steepbank-pt 467.5 7.6 396 6.5 -71.5 -1.2 396 6.5 -71.5 -1.2
STPzz Steepbank-zz 258.7 4.2 234 3.8 -24.7 -0.4 234 3.8 -24.7 -0.4
Water Water 6.6 0.1 6.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.1 0.0 0.0
RB Rough Broken 62.5 1 61.3 1.0 -1.2 0.0 61.3 1.0 -1.2 0.0
DL Disturbed Land 167.2 2.7 988.6 16.1 821.41,3 13.4 153.82 2.5 -13.4 -0.2
Reclaimed Reclaimed Soil 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 834.83 13.6 834.8 13.6
Soil
Total4 6,136.4 100 6,136.4 100 0.0 6,136.4 100 0.0 0.0
Notes: aa = not modal soil correlation area, pt = peaty, an organic horizon with depth greater than 10 cm, zz = atypical subgroup, xt = glacial
till found between 30 and 99 cm.
1 The change in area considers that 31.9 ha of previously disturbed land occur within the Project Area.
During the Construction and Operations Phases, 988.6 ha of land are considered to be disturbed within
the Soils LSA. This includes approximately 167 ha of previously disturbed land as well as the disturbance
associated with the Project. Within the Project Area, 821.4 ha of new disturbance are attributed to the
Project; 31.9 ha of previously disturbed also fall within the Project Area.
As shown in Table 2.11-5, the Project Area will be constructed on a number of soil types. As a result of
Project construction, the soil types associated with the Project Area are considered altered or lost. Upon
reclamation soil function will be restored; however, the soil type is considered to be “reclaimed soil” not
the pre-disturbance soil type. The soil type with the largest area affected is Hazelmere (HZM and HZMpt),
with 268 ha to be disturbed. This equates to a 4.4% decrease in area compared to baseline conditions.
The McClelland (MLD) soil type and variants have the second largest area affected, with 230 ha to be
disturbed (3.7% decrease in area when compared to baseline conditions). The Steepbank (STP) soil type
and variants, the third most affected soil type, will lose approximately 156 ha (or 2.6%) when compared to
pre-disturbance conditions. The change in each of the remaining soil types accounts for less than 3% of
the Soils LSA.
Page 75
Residual Effects
The residual effect of the Project on soil diversity is that a loss of soil types will occur. Although loss of soil
types is considered to be permanent and, consequently, have a negative impact balance, all previously
undisturbed areas within the Project Area will be reclaimed (considered reclaimed soils). Upland mineral
reclaimed soils will generally replace pre-disturbance upland mineral soil types. Some Organic soil types
will be reclaimed (geotextile and fill removed), but portions of well pads and roads will be reclaimed as
upland islands with upland mineral soil. Given the Project disturbs a maximum extent of 4.4% of any soil
type (HZMaa and HZMaapt) within the Soils LSA, the magnitude is low (less than 15% of any soil map
unit is disturbed) and the residual effect is considered to be not significant. Confidence in this rating is
high; the data used in this assessment was collected in the field from within the Soils LSA and there is a
good understanding of cause-effect relationships and in the proposed mitigation measures.
Soil Acidification
Potentially acidifying emissions as a result of Project operations (e.g., CPF emissions) have the potential
to cause soil acidification if the level of PAI is greater than the soil critical load. The critical loads for the
mapped soil types in the Soils LSA and Soils RSA are presented in the Integrated Application (Tables 4A-
15 and 4A-20, respectively, of the Terrain and Soils Baseline Appendix; Volume 4, Appendix 4A).
The Air Quality Assessment was revised as requested by AESRD (Appendix B); the new air modeling PAI
results are similar to those presented in the Integrated Application. As shown in Figures 123-1 and 123-2
of the AESRD SIR 1 Responses, there are no areas within the Soils LSA or Soils RSA that receive PAI
emissions above the soil critical load for the Baseline Case.
The new results for the Application Case indicate that approximately 0.02 ha of soil located within the
proposed CPF may receive PAI greater than the soil critical load. This area, where the STP soil unit and
the 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr isopleth intersect, is shown in detail on Figure 123-5 of the AESRD SIR 1
Responses. A very small volume of soil (approximately 24 m3) is at risk for soil acidification due to critical
load exceedance.
Residual Effects
Given the very small area (0.02 ha) within the Soils LSA that receives PAI emissions above the soil
critical load, the potential residual effect of the Project on soil acidification is considered negative and of
low magnitude (less than 100 km2 within any 4X4 township floating block will have the mid-CV case
critical load exceeded due to PAI). Consequently, the effect of the Project on soil acidification is
considered to be not significant. Confidence in this rating is moderate; the Soils LSA and RSA maps used
in this assessment were based on data collected in the field; however, the soil critical loads and the PAI
isopleths were determined through modelling and there is an incomplete understanding of how the soil
may be affected by acid inputs.
Significance Evaluation Summary for the Application Case

The change (reduction) in the Project Area did not change the residual effects of the Project on terrain
and soil resources from those presented in the Integrated Application. The revised PAI modeling indicates
that a very small area of soil (0.02 ha) is predicted to have the critical load exceeded for the Application
Case. While the impact balance and magnitude have been updated to reflect this very small increase, the
final significance for each potential residual effect, including soil acidification, is not significant. A
summary of the residual effects and their classification is provided in Table 2.11-6.
Page 76
TABLE 2.11-6
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON TERRAIN AND SOILS – APPLICATION CASE
Temporal Context
Spatial Boundary
Impact Balance
Reversibility
Significance
Confidence
Probability
Frequency
Magnitude
Duration
Discipline Indicator/Potential
Residual Effect
1. Terrain Diversity
(a) loss of terrain types negative Soils LSA long-term continuous permanent low high high not
significant
2. Soil Quality
(a) changes in land capability classification neutral Soils LSA long-term continuous permanent low high moderate not
significant
3. Soil Diversity
(a) loss of soil types negative Soils LSA long-term continuous permanent low high high not
significant
4. Soil Acidification
(a) increase in area of soils at or above negative Soils LSA long-term continuous reversible low high moderate not
critical load and Soils significant
RSA

Terrain Diversity, Soil Quality and Soil Diversity
Potential cumulative effects on terrain diversity, soil quality and soil diversity for the PDC are related to
direct disturbance within the Soils LSA and RSA. As in the Integrated Application, there are no other
overlapping known future developments within the Soils LSA or RSA that are anticipated to disturb the
terrain and soils resource (forestry cutblocks are not considered soil disturbances). Consequently, the
PDC is not considered further for terrain diversity, soil quality or soil diversity.
Soil Acidification
Cumulative effects on soil acidification are related to the amount of PAI falling within the Soils LSA and/or
RSA attributed to existing activities, the proposed Project and known future developments. The emissions
from existing activities in the region have the potential to contribute to the Application Case PAI isopleths
within the Soils LSA and RSA. The cumulative effects on soil acidification for the PDC are presented in
the section below.
Results from the PDC indicate that approximately 0.05 ha of the LSA may have critical loads exceeded.
As in the Application Case, the potential exceedance occurs on an area mapped as Steepbank, which
has a critical load of 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr (Figure 123-8 of the AESRD SIR 1 Responses). A very small
volume of soil (approximately 60 m3) is at risk for acidification due to critical load exceedance given the
0.05 ha area and an estimated average topsoil salvage depth of 12 cm.
Residual Effects
Given the very small area (0.05 ha) within the Soils LSA that receives PAI emissions above the soil
critical load, the potential cumulative effect of soil acidification is considered negative and of low
magnitude (less than 100 km2 within any 4X4 township floating block will have the mid-CV case critical
load exceeded due to PAI). Consequently, the effect of the Project in combination with existing activities
and known future developments on soil acidification is considered to be not significant. Confidence in this
rating is moderate; the Soils LSA and RSA maps used in this assessment were based on data collected
in the field; however, the soil critical loads and the PAI isopleths were determined through modelling and
there is an incomplete understanding of how the soil may be affected by acid inputs.
Page 77
Significance Evaluation Summary for the Planned Development Case

Table 2.11-7 provides the significance evaluation of the potential residual effects on terrain and soils for
the PDC.
TABLE 2.11-7
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

RESIDUAL EFFECTS ON TERRAIN AND SOILS – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE
Temporal Context
Impact Balance
Reversibility
Significance
Confidence
Probability
Frequency
Magnitude
Boundary
Duration
Spatial
Potential Residual Effects
1. Terrain Diversity
(a) loss of terrain types - - - - - - - - -
2. Soil Quality
(a) changes in soil quality due to compaction, - - - - - - - - -
erosion, reclamation suitability (admixing
and/or contamination)
(b) changes in land capability classification - - - - - - - - -
3. Soil Diversity
(a) loss of soil types - - - - - - - - -
4. Soil Acidification
(a) increase in area of soils at or above negative Soils LSA long-term continuous reversible low high moderate not
critical load and RSA significant
2.11.3 Monitoring
Monitoring will be conducted as described in the Integrated Application.
2.11.4 Summary
The reduction in the Project Area and the revised air modeling information do not result in changes to the
significance of residual effects presented in the Integrated Application. All residual Project effects are
considered not significant.
Following the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the potential effects of the Project
(Application Case) on terrain diversity, soil quality, soil diversity and soil acidification are considered to be
not significant. The residual effects for each of the above issues are summarized below.
The Project will have a negative, permanent, low magnitude effect on terrain diversity. While the
pre-disturbance terrain types will be lost within the area of direct disturbance, these areas will be
reclaimed, which will restore landscape function. Given the Project disturbs a maximum extent of 8.5% of
any particular terrain type within the Soils LSA, the magnitude is low and, consequently, the residual
effect considered not significant.
The Project will have a neutral, permanent, low magnitude effect on soil quality. The land capability
ratings show a net increase in Class 2 and 3 soils and a corresponding decrease in Class 4 and 5 soils
due to the creation of upland islands where well pads are situated in deep peat. Given the magnitude of
the effect is low (less than 3% change in each land capability class), the residual effect is considered to
be not significant.
The Project will have a negative, permanent, low magnitude effect on soil diversity. While the
pre-disturbance soil types will be lost, all areas disturbed as a result of the Project will be reclaimed
(considered reclaimed soils). Given the Project disturbs a maximum extent of 4.4% of any soil type within
the Soils LSA, the magnitude is low and, consequently, the residual effect is considered to be not
significant.
Page 78
Approximately 0.02 ha of soil located in the Soils LSA are predicted to receive PAI emissions above the
soil critical load for the Application Case. As such, a negative, low magnitude environmental effect
associated with soil acidification. The effect of the Project on soil acidification is considered to be not
significant.
Potential cumulative effects on terrain diversity, soil quality and soil diversity for the PDC are related to
direct disturbance within the Soils LSA and RSA. There are no other overlapping known future
developments with the Soils LSA or RSA that are anticipated to disturb the terrain and soils resource.
Cumulative effects on soil acidification are related to the amount of PAI falling within the Soils LSA and/or
Soils RSA related to known future developments in combination with the Project. Approximately 0.05 ha
of soil located within the Soils LSA are predicted to receive PAI emissions above the soil critical load for
the PDC. The effect associated with soil acidification under the PDC is considered negative and of low
magnitude. Consequently, the effect of the Project and known future developments on soil acidification
within the Soils LSA and Soils RSA is considered to be not significant.
2.12 Land Use and Management

The Land Use and Management Assessment (Volume 5, Section 1.0 of the Integrated Application)
assessed Land Use Plans and Zoning; Unique Sites and Special Features; Protective Dispositions;
Surface Dispositions; Access and Linear Disturbances; Existing Disturbances; Topography; Forestry;
Coal, Metallic and Industrial Mineral Dispositions; Aggregate Resources; Hunting; Trapping; Fishing; and
Non-consumptive Recreation. Changes to the Project Area have reduced the area of disturbance by
109.4 ha. Given this reduction, the predicted residual effects for Land Use noted in the Integrated
Application are expected to be similar and the conclusions remain unchanged.
2.13 Historical Resources

Revisions to the Project Area will impact lands not assessed during the Historical Resources Impact
Assessment (HRIA) conducted in November 2011 under Archaeological Research Permit 11-283.
Historical Resources Act Clearance for Project developments will be obtained prior to construction. As
such, the magnitude of any negative residual effects of the updated Project on historical resources will
still be low or moderate (i.e. within regulatory levels of acceptance).
2.13.1 Baseline Case

Revisions to the Project Area do not affect the predictions of the archaeological sensitivity model included
in the original Baseline Case for historical resources, which will be used to guide the supplemental HRIA
field studies.
An application will be made to Alberta Culture for a new Archaeological Research Permit to conduct a
supplemental HRIA of those portions of the Project Area added since completion of the field studies
conducted under Permit 11-283. Results of the supplemental HRIA may result in changes to the Baseline
Case for historical resources (i.e., if previously unrecorded historical resource sites are identified).

Application of the updated Project Area to the archaeological sensitivity model indicates that most of the
Project Area continues to have relatively low potential for archaeological sites. Revised portions of the
Project Area that were not ground-truthed during the HRIA conducted under Permit 11-283 do include
some areas with moderate to high potential for archaeological sites.
As specified in the original Schedule of Historical Resources Act Requirements for the Project, the HRIA
field studies will target areas considered to have moderate or high potential for archaeological sites and
address whether or not physical disturbances associated with the updated Project Area are likely to
impact historic resources. The final report for the supplemental HRIA will be submitted to Alberta Culture
for review, and Historical Resources Act Clearance for the updated Project Area will be obtained prior to
construction. Should any historical resources be encountered during construction of the Project, the
Historical Resources Contingency Plan (Volume 5, Appendix 2A of the Integrated Application) will be
implemented.
Page 79
Given the above, no revisions to the final impact ratings for the Application Case are warranted.

No revisions to the final impact ratings for the PDC are warranted.
2.13.4 Monitoring
Recommendations and requirements for monitoring of historical resources are dependent upon results of
the supplemental HRIA. Should any historical resources sites be newly recorded which warrant
monitoring during construction, this will be communicated to BlackPearl and to Alberta Culture.
2.13.5 Summary
Revisions to the Project Area will impact lands not assessed during the HRIA conducted under
Permit 11-283, some of which have at least moderate potential for historical resources. These lands will
be subject to a supplemental HRIA prior to construction. The Baseline Case for the Project may be
altered as a result of the supplemental HRIA studies.
Since Historical Resources Act Clearance must be obtained prior to construction and the Historical
Resources Contingency Plan will still be implemented in the event that any previously unrecorded
historical resources are discovered during construction, revisions to the Project Area will not change the
final impact ratings for the Application Case or for the Planned Development Case. The magnitude of any
negative residual effects of the updated Project on historical resources will be low or moderate (i.e. within
regulatory levels of acceptance).
2.14 Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Land Use

Since the filing of the Integrated Application in May 2012, Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing
conducted a Traditional Land Use (TLU) study with TERA. The following provides the results of this study
for the Project. Refer to AESRD SIR 1 for information regarding the status of TLU studies with
participating Aboriginal communities.
2.14.1 Introduction
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing is located at Athabasca, approximately 84 km west of Lac La
Biche. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing is a Local of Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1. Métis Local
#2010 Athabasca Landing is located approximately 110 km southwest of the proposed the Project.
A TERA-assisted TLU study, including a map review, community and Elder interviews and an overflight,
was conducted with Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing (Table 2.14-1). Field reconnaissance focused
on the portion of asserted traditional territory of Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing on Crown lands
potentially disturbed by Project activities (i.e., Project Area).
TABLE 2.14-1
TIMETABLE OF THE MÈTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING

TLU STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Initial Meeting Map Review Overflight Site Visit Results Review Report Acceptance
August 28, 2012 August 28, 2012 August 29, 2012 August 29, 2012 December 19, 2012 January 2, 2013
2.14.2 Methods
The map review meeting was held with Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing Elders and community
members on August 28, 2012 in Boyle, Alberta. During this meeting, members of the Métis Local #2010
Athabasca Landing community and its executive examined the regional Project map with TERA TLU
facilitators to determine what areas should be surveyed during the overflight. During the map review and
field reconnaissance, identification of TLU sites and discussions of potential mitigation strategies were
carried out directly with participating Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing representatives. All identified
Page 80
TLU sites in the Project Area were documented and proposed mitigation strategies were recorded and
discussed at the site with the Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members.
This information was used to create two separate reports, a detailed community-specific report and this
public summary report. The detailed community report documents Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing
TLU involvement and the results of the map review, interviews and field reconnaissance, including the
confidential and proprietary information provided by the TLU study participants. Before the community
report was prepared and submitted, the community conducted a review to confirm the accuracy of all
information and approve any confidential and proprietary information included in the report. Review of the
community report occurred with Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing on December 19, 2012. The
report was accepted by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing on January 2, 2013.
In the event that TLU sites requiring mitigation are identified during construction, the accepted and proven
mitigative strategies outlined in Volume 5, Section 3.3.2 of the Integrated Application will be implemented.
The specific mitigation measures that may be implemented will be dependent on the type of concern or
site identified.
2.14.3 Results
The following subsections provide the results of the TLU study completed with Métis Local #2010
Athabasca Landing for the Project. TERA would like to thank the following community members of Métis
Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community for their time and assistance:
Elders: Evelyn Charlton; Bertha Clark-Jones; and Mabel Howse.
Community Members: Darryl Shott; Dale Beauchamp; and Brenda Henson.
Issues and Concerns

Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing members identified some broad concerns related to the Project
during the community and Elder interviews, map review and overflight. In particular, they expressed
concerns about a potential increase in traffic due to Project activities and the cumulative impact of
development over the Project’s 30 year life span.
Several Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members expressed concerns about a
potential increase in traffic and existing cutlines and oil and gas roads due to Project activities.
Travelways are essential for conducting traditional activities, and impacts on actively-used trails should be
reduced and mitigated. Today many of the historic travelways are roads and cutlines.
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members expressed concern about the cumulative
effects on wildlife, water and vegetation of past and on-going development in the region. Community
members reported that both animals and plants are much less abundant now than when they were
younger, and believe that pollution is negatively affecting the water, animals and plants. Also, noise is
scaring animals away. Living things are becoming unhealthier or moving out of the area. Elders also felt
that in general, industrial development is bringing down water levels and this is causing some plants to
wither from dryness and some fish to die from warmer water and pollution.
Trails and Travelways

Community members identified the Athabasca River as an historic travelway used by Métis Captain Shott
and that Métis artifacts would be present along the shorelines of this river. Tributaries of the Athabasca
River were likely used as gathering places for the Métis.
No other historic trails and travelways or waterways used for travel were identified in the Project Area.
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members are concerned about the potential increase
of traffic due to Project activities, but did not request any specific mitigation.
Page 81
Habitation Sites
Four habitation sites were identified by community members during the TLU study with the nearest site
located approximately 12 km north of the Project. Table 2.14-2 details habitation sites identified by Métis
Local #2010 Athabasca Landing for the Project.
TABLE 2.14-2
HABITATION SITES IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING
Site Description Distance from Project Age Requested Mitigation

Cabin near Skeleton Lake 108 km southeast Current None
Trapping cabin at Windy Lake 110 km southeast Current None
Settlement area west of Buck Lake 105 km southeast Current None
Cabin at Pelican Portage 12 km north Historic None
Community members identified the Buck Lake area as an historic habitation site and west of Buck Lake is
also a settlement area. Community members also identified a cabin southeast of Skeleton Lake and a
trapping cabin at Windy Lake. A habitation site at Pelican Portage, approximately 12 km north of the
Project was also reported. During the aerial survey one crew member said that at Buck Lake, between
North Buck and Johnson Lakes, there had been some archaeological digs at one time, but that funding
had run out. Since then the area had been destroyed by ATVs.
No habitation sites were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any mitigation
strategies related to habitation sites to be implemented for the Project.
Plant Harvesting
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing members identified several plant harvesting sites during the TLU
study, with the nearest site located approximately 103 km southeast of the Project. Table 2.14-3 details
plant harvesting areas identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing during the TLU study. Elders
reported that berries have traditionally been harvested and community members continue to pick
blueberries, raspberries, Saskatoon berries, high bush and low bush cranberries, hazelnuts, pin cherries
and choke cherries in the area.
TABLE 2.14-3
PLANT HARVESTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING
Site Description Distance from Proposed Development Age Requested Mitigation

Medicinal plants and berry harvesting at North Buck Lake 103 km southeast Current None
Berry harvesting sites along northeast corner of Buck Lake 102 km southeast Current None
Berry harvesting southeast of Skeleton Lake 112 km south Current None
Blueberry harvesting sites south of Baptiste Lake 115 km southwest Current None
Medicinal plants near Buffalo Lake 124 km southwest Current None
Berry harvesting sites were identified along the northeast corner of Buck Lake and southeast of Skeleton
Lake. Sites for blueberry harvesting were identified by community members south of Baptiste Lake. At
North Buck Lake, approximately 103 km southeast of the Project, the survey crew identified a site for
berry harvesting. At this site, blueberries, raspberries, Saskatoon berries, high bush and low bush
cranberries, hazelnuts, pin cherries and choke cherries were harvested.
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members also identified harvesting areas for medicinal
plants. During the map review meeting, harvesting areas for medicinal plants were identified near Buffalo
Lake. In the North Buck Lake/Big Johnson Lake area community members commonly harvest medicinal
plants as well as berries.
No plant harvesting sites were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any
mitigation strategies related to plant harvesting sites to be implemented for the Project.
Page 82
Hunting
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members identified several hunting grounds during the
TLU study, with the nearest site approximately 6 km southeast of the Project. Table 2.14-4 details hunting
sites identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing during the TLU study.
Moose and woodland caribou are present within the Métis traditional territory as the mixed forest provides
an ideal habitat for them. Specific hunting areas were identified at North Buck Lake and southeast of
Skeleton Lake during the map review. Deer, moose and elk are hunted in these locations in the fall and
early winter. Ducks and geese are hunted in the area in the fall. Community members also identified an
active moose hunting area used by community members approximately 52 km southwest of the Project.
Moose are typically hunted in the fall. These community members noted that the game trails cannot be
seen during the aerial survey due to the densely treed areas.
TABLE 2.14-4
HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING

Active moose hunting area 52 km southwest Current None
Active hunting at North Buck Lake 103 km southeast Current None
Pelican sighting at unnamed slough 48 km southwest Current None
Active hunting southeast of Skeleton Lake 112 km south Current None
Woodland caribou observed south of the Project and 6 km southeast Historic None
east of the Athabasca River
During the map review and aerial survey, community members identified a large area south of the Project
and east of the Athabasca River, where woodland caribou have been observed in the past. Elders also
said that black deer have been observed in the North Buck Lake area within the last four years,
explaining that black deer are rare species and had not been seen since the 1930s. During the aerial
survey, the crew observed no wildlife other than pelicans located at an unnamed slough, approximately
48 km southwest of the Project.
No hunting locations were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any
mitigation strategies related to hunting locations to be implemented for the Project.
Fishing
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing members noted that all lakes in their traditional territory are
harvested for subsistence. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members identified fishing
areas during the TLU study, with the nearest site located approximately 73 km south of the Project.
Table 2.14-5 details the fishing sites identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing for the Project.
Baptiste Lake was identified as a fishing area and community members noted that commercial fishing
once took place there. Community members said that Poachers Landing, located on the Athabasca River,
is also a fishing area. Trout, white fish, pike and sturgeon are caught in the Athabasca River at this
location. North Buck Lake is another location where members fish for pike, perch, walleye and white fish.
The survey crew said stocked pickerel and ling cod are also fished at this location. Johnson Lake is also
used for fishing.
Page 83
TABLE 2.14-5
FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING

Fishing area at Poachers Landing, Athabasca River 73 km south Current None
Active fishing area at North Buck Lake 103 km southeast Current None
Fishing area at Johnson Lake 105 km southeast Current None
Fishing area and old commercial fishing area at 109 km southwest Historic None
Baptiste Lake Current
No fishing locations were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any
mitigation strategies related to fishing locations to be implemented for the Project.
Trapping
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members identified several trap lines and trapping
areas during the TLU study, with the nearest site located approximately 12 km north of the Project.
Table 2.14-6 details trapping areas identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing for the Project.
TABLE 2.14-6
TRAPPING SITES IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING

Active trapping area at North Buck Lake 103 km southeast Current None
Trapper’s cabin and trapping near Windy Lake 110 km southeast Current None
Trapping area southeast of Skeleton Lake 112 km south Current None
Trapline at Pelican Portage 12 km north Historic None
Traplines at Big Johnson Lake 105 km southeast Current None
During the map review and aerial flight several trapping areas, traplines and a trapper’s cabin were
identified. Active trapping areas were identified near Buck, North Buck, Big Johnson, Windy and Skeleton
lakes. A Community member reported that her grandfather once had a trapline and cabin at Pelican
Portage. Community members also reported that a trapper’s cabin is located near Windy Lake, but the
cabin was not observed during the survey. A community member reported that active traplines in the area
are far less common than they were 40 years ago.
No trapping locations were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any
mitigation strategies related to trapping to be implemented for the Project.
Gathering Places
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members identified several gathering areas during the
map review and aerial survey, with the nearest site located approximately 55 km southwest of the Project.
Table 2.14-7 details gathering areas identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing for the Project.
Community members indicated that there are several gathering areas that are still active and can
generally be found southeast of the proposed development.
TABLE 2.14-7
GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING

Gathering areas at North Buck Lake 103 km southeast Current None
Gathering areas at North Birch Lake 245 km southeast Current None
Gathering areas at Big Johnston Lake 105 km southeast Current None
Public speaking workshop for women at Calling Lake 55 km southwest 1970s None
Page 84
Community members said the entire Baptiste Lake region was used as a gathering area. Historically, the
Métis likely used the tributaries of the Athabasca River as gathering places. Specific gathering areas were
identified during the aerial survey at North Birch Lake, Big Johnson Lake and North Buck Lake. An Elder
also reported that she used to facilitate workshops in the 1970s at Calling Lake. The workshops assisted
women in public speaking.
No gathering sites were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any mitigation
strategies related to gathering sites to be implemented for the Project.
Sacred Areas
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing community members identified three sacred areas during the TLU
study, with the nearest site located approximately 101 km southeast of the Project Area. Table 2.14-8
details sacred areas identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing for the Project.
TABLE 2.14-8
SACRED AREAS IDENTIFIED BY MÉTIS LOCAL #2010 ATHABASCA LANDING
Distance and Direction from Project Area Site Description Age Requested Mitigation
106 km southeast Sacred area around North Buck Lake -- None
101 km southeast Sacred area at North Buck Lake -- None
103 km southeast Sacred area northeast of North Buck Lake -- None
No sacred areas were identified in the Project Area. Participants have not recommended any mitigation
strategies related to sacred areas to be implemented for the Project.
2.14.4 Summary
The issues identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing through their TLU study for the Project are
summarised in Table 2.14-9. Concerns were addressed by mitigation measures described in the
Integrated Application to be implemented for the Project and were reviewed with Métis Local #2010
Athabasca Landing during their TLU study.
TABLE 2.14-9
SUMMARY OF ISSUES/CONCERNS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Distance and Requested BlackPearl Proposed

Location Direction from Project Description Issue/Concern Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures
-- -- Potential -- None BlackPearl site security will monitor use of Project
increase in access. BlackPearl will implement sight-line and access
traffic due to control measures on linear corridors to discourage
Project public access and use (e.g., installing earth berms,
activities mounding, transplanting larger trees/shrubs, rollback,
reclaiming seismic lines at intersections with other
linear corridors). Although there is potential for
increased access in the Project Area and LSA resulting
from the Project, with application of the above
measures, accessibility across the Project Area and in
the TLU LSA is not expected to increase substantially.
-- -- Cumulative -- None Potential Project-related cumulative effects are
impact of mitigated with implementation of the proposed
development mitigation measures provided in the Integrated
over Application, including the following design and
Project’s construction measures:
30 year life • the Project Area will be minimized to the extent
span practical (e.g., existing linear corridors will be used
for access and installation of new infrastructure,
where feasible; Project developments will be
integrated with other proposed land use activities
to reduce new disturbance; multi-well pads will be
used to reduce the number of well pads required);
Page 85
TABLE 2.14-9 Cont'd

Distance and Requested BlackPearl Proposed
Location Direction from Project Description Issue/Concern Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures
-- See above See above See above See above • sight-line and access control measures will be
implemented to reduce predator and human
mobility and efficiency;
• reclamation of disturbed sites will be initiated as
soon as the work areas are no longer required and
will be carried out progressively over the lifespan
of the Project; and
• site preparation and construction activities will be
timed for fall and early winter to reduce
disturbance to wildlife.
The significance conclusions of the Integrated Application with regard to traditional land and resource
use, cultural sites and activities remain unchanged with the findings of the Métis Local #2010 Athabasca
Landing TLU study. In the event that TLU sites requiring mitigation are identified during construction, the
accepted mitigative strategies outlined in Volume 5, Section 3.3.2 of the Integrated Application will be
implemented. The specific mitigation measures that may be implemented will be dependent on the type of
concern or site identified.
2.15 Human Health Risk Assessment

2.15.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Results
The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) results were updated for acute and chronic exposures
based on the revised Air Quality Assessment. The Air Quality Assessment has been updated to include
the following:
• changes to the Project Area and CPF;
• the Air Quality model was updated with a meteorological dataset that is consistent the
AESRD air quality modelling guide (i.e., MM5); and
• ambient background air concentrations for Common Air Contaminants (CACs) have
been added to the predicted air quality concentrations for CACs (SO2, NOx, NO2, CO
and PM2.5).
Further details in regards to the changes made to the Air Quality Assessment of continuous emissions
are provided in Appendix B. There were no other changes to the inputs, assumptions, methods or model
versions described in the Air Quality Assessment.
In addition, an update to the upset scenario assessment was completed to address intermittent Project
emissions. The upset scenario also included the addition of ambient background concentrations to the
updated results as requested by AESRD SIR 14. Further details in regards to the methods used by the
Air Quality Assessment for the upset scenario are provided in Appendix B.
As described in the HHRA, it is important to distinguish between the health effects that might occur from
acute exposures of short duration and effects that might occur following chronic or long-term exposure. In
addition, further distinction was made between chronic inhalation and multiple pathway exposures since
the pathway of exposure will also influence the potential health effects associated with each of the
Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs). Finally, the HHRA results present acute and chronic mixture
assessments for the inhalation and multiple pathway exposures and the acute inhalation assessment
contains an assessment of upset scenarios.
In recognition of the influence of duration and pathway of exposure, risk estimates were segregated into
the following sections:
• acute inhalation that includes mixture and upset scenario assessments;
Page 86
• chronic inhalation assessment that includes an evaluation of mixture risks; and
• chronic multiple pathways assessment that includes mixture risks.
2.15.2 Inhalation Assessment

Acute Inhalation Results
Updated acute inhalation risk estimates, expressed as Risk Quotient (RQ) values, were based on
assumed exposure periods that range from a few minutes (e.g., 10-minute SO2) to 24 hours (e.g., PM2.5).
TABLE 2.15-1 to 2.15-3 present the maximum RQ values calculated for the Maximum Point of
Impingement (MPOI) (i.e., FL-MPOI and LSA-MPOI) and the receptor groups (i.e., Aboriginal and
Worker). Predicted RQ values at all locations are below 1.0 indicating that adverse health effects on an
acute basis are not expected for the Application Case or PDC.
TABLE 2.15-1
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION RQ VALUES FOR THE MPOI
COPC Averaging Period Base Case Application Case PDC

1,3-butadiene 24hr-max 2.2E-03 2.4E-03 2.5E-03
Acetaldehyde 1hr-max 1.5E-03 4.8E-03 4.8E-03
Acrolein 1hr-max 6.0E-02 1.8E-01 1.8E-01
Aliphatic alcohol group 1hr-max 2.2E-05 3.7E-05 3.7E-05
Aliphatic aldehyde group 1hr-max 3.5E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-04
Aliphatic C5-C8 1hr-max 1.6E-04 4.4E-02 4.4E-02
Aliphatic ketones group 1hr-max 2.9E-04 4.9E-03 4.9E-03
Aniline 1hr-max 2.6E-06 9.0E-06 9.1E-06
Aromatic C9-C16 1hr-max 7.2E-09 1.1E-05 1.1E-05
Arsenic 1hr-max 7.4E-04 1.4E-03 1.4E-03
Benzene 1hr-max 5.4E-04 9.8E-03 9.8E-03
Aliphatic C2 to C4 1hr-max 1.1E-03 1.5E-02 1.5E-02
Cadmium 24hr-max 1.2E-03 3.1E-03 3.1E-03
Carbon disulphide group 1hr-max 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 2.3E-04
Chromium 1hr-max 2.3E-04 2.3E-04 2.4E-04
CO 1hr-max 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01
CO 8hr-max 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.3E-01
Copper 1hr-max 8.9E-06 2.5E-04 2.5E-04
Dichlorobenzene 1hr-max 1.1E-07 5.6E-06 5.6E-06
Ethylbenzene 1hr-max 5.4E-05 5.5E-05 5.5E-05
Formaldehyde 1hr-max 1.3E-02 6.6E-02 6.6E-02
Hydrogen Sulphide 1hr-max 5.7E-03 8.3E-03 8.4E-03
Methacrolein 1hr-max 1.2E-03 4.1E-03 4.1E-03
Methanol 1hr-max 2.0E-05 2.5E-05 2.5E-05
Naphthalene 1hr-max 2.0E-05 5.5E-04 5.5E-04
Nickel 1hr-max 4.3E-03 2.2E-02 2.2E-02
NO2 EPA Statistic(1) 6.3E-01 6.3E-01 6.3E-01
Piperidine Group 1hr-max 4.1E-05 2.7E-03 2.7E-03
PM2.5 24hr-8th 4.4E-01 5.9E-01 5.9E-01
SO2 10min-max 2.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.7E-01
SO2 EPA Statistic(2) 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.5E-01
Styrene 1hr-max 1.6E-07 7.8E-07 7.8E-07
Toluene 1hr-max 2.5E-04 4.2E-04 4.2E-04
Vanadium 1hr-max 7.5E-05 3.3E-04 3.3E-04
Xylenes 1hr-max 9.0E-04 9.1E-04 9.1E-04
Zinc 1hr-max 4.8E-05 1.6E-04 1.6E-04
Notes: (1) Maximum 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations.
(2) Maximum 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations.
Page 87
TABLE 2.15-2
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

CO 1hr-max 1.6E-02 5.4E-02 5.4E-02
CO 8hr-max 5.5E-02 8.6E-02 8.6E-02
Copper 1hr-max 1.1E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-04
Nickel 1hr-max 5.5E-03 9.4E-03 9.4E-03
PM2.5 24hr-8th 4.4E-01 4.4E-01 4.7E-01
SO2 10min-max 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.7E-01
Zinc 1hr-max 6.2E-05 6.9E-05 7.8E-05
Page 88
TABLE 2.15-3
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION RQ VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP

CO 1hr-max 2.0E-02 7.1E-02 7.1E-02
CO 8hr-max 6.3E-02 1.1E-01 1.1E-01
Copper 1hr-max 8.4E-06 1.4E-04 1.4E-04
Nickel 1hr-max 4.5E-03 1.3E-02 1.3E-02
PM2.5 24hr-8th 3.9E-01 5.0E-01 5.2E-01
SO2 10min-max 2.0E-01 2.2E-01 2.3E-01
Zinc 1hr-max 5.2E-05 9.3E-05 9.3E-05
Page 89
2.15.3 Acute Inhalation Mixtures Assessment

The results of the updated acute mixture assessment are provided below. The RQ values presented in
the tables represent the highest RQ value for each mixture, out of all of the locations within a specific
group. The acute inhalation mixture results are presented in Tables 2.15-4 to 2.15-6 for the MPOI
(i.e., LSA-MPOI and FL-MPOI combined), Aboriginal group and Worker group. Most of the predicted
mixture RQ values are below 1.0 indicating that adverse health effects resulting from acute inhalation
mixtures are not expected for the Baseline Case, Application Case or PDC. However, the predicted RQ
value for the respiratory irritant group at the MPOI exceeds 1.0 for both the Application Case and PDC.
The discussion of these exceedances (see below) focused on the LSA MPOI or the location with the
highest RQ values.
TABLE 2.15-4
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE MPOI
Mixture Base Case Application Case PDC

Eye irritants 7.6E-02 2.6E-01 2.6E-01
Nasal irritants 7.5E-02 2.6E-01 2.6E-01
Respiratory irritants 9.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.1E+00
Reproductive & developmental toxicants 3.1E-03 5.6E-02 5.6E-02
Neurotoxicants 1.3E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03
Note: (1) Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that
predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure
estimates exceeded the exposure limit.
TABLE 2.15-5
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

Respiratory irritants 5.3E-01 6.8E-01 6.9E-01
TABLE 2.15-6
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP

The maximum mixture RQ value for the respiratory irritants group was predicted to be 1.1 in the
Application Case. The relative contribution of primary COPCs to the RQ value is NO2 (56%) and SO2
(33%). The RQ value for the respiratory irritants mixture is thought to overstate the actual risk for
combined exposure to these COPCs, based on the following rationale:
• The maximum RQ values for NO2 and SO2 were less than 1.0 on an individual basis.
• NO2 is the primary contributor, comprising 56% of the mixture at the LSA-MPOI.
Page 90
• The mixture RQ values are unlikely to exceed 1.0 as the NO2 concentrations used in the mixture
calculation are based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) statistic (i.e., 188 ug/m3), and
hourly concentrations are predicted to exceed the EPA statistic less than 0.1% of the time since the
1-hour max is predicted to be 368 ug/m3 and the 1-hour 9th is predicted to be 188 ug/m3.
• The mixture RQ values are unlikely to exceed 1.0 as the SO2 concentrations used in the mixture
calculation are based on the EPA statistic (i.e., 196 ug/m3), and hourly concentrations are predicted to
be below the value of 196 ug/m3 100% of the time.
• The isopleth map for 1-hour NO2 concentrations within the LSA for the Application Case (Appendix B,
Figure B-5) and 1-hour SO2 concentrations within the LSA for the Application Case (Appendix B,
Figure B-13) show that the maximum concentrations of NO2 and SO2 are not predicted to occur at the
same location; in fact, these locations are approximately 68 km apart. The maximum NO2
concentration is predicted to occur next to the Project CPF while the maximum SO2 concentration is
predicted to occur in the northeast corner of the LSA.
Therefore, an adverse health effect for the acute respiratory irritants mixture for the MPOI is unlikely to
occur.
2.15.4 Upset Scenarios Assessment

The Air Quality Assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.0 of the Integrated Application) identified four upset
scenarios that involved modelling emissions during various emergency flaring scenarios or an emergency
shutdown scenario resulting in operation of the CPF with a backup power unit. The upset scenarios are
defined as follows:
• Upset 1: High pressure flare is ignited due to a failure with the inlet fuel gas control. In this scenario
the CPF will shut down, with the primary source of emissions being the flare.
• Upset 2: Produced gas is burned in the high pressure flare instead of being directed to the fuel
systems for the CPF. It is likely that the other sources at the CPF would continue to operate normally
while flaring produced gas. However, the CPF would be burning natural gas (instead of mixed gas)
while the produced gas is flared.
• Upset 3: The low pressure flare is activated as a result of a vapour recovery unit (VRU) malfunction.
This scenario assumes that one of the two VRUs has failed resulting in flaring of vapours. It is likely
that the other emission sources at the plant would continue to operate normally during this scenario.
• Upset 4: Emergency power generators may run occasionally during certain plant upsets as well as for
routine maintenance. In this scenario it was assumed that all backup generators were running
simultaneously (one at each phase: 1, 2 and 3) in addition to all other normal emissions at the
Project.
TABLE 2.15-7 to 2.15-9 provide the predicted maximum upset scenario concentrations for SO2, NO2 and
PM2.5, respectively. In all circumstances, the predicted upset scenario concentrations based on the
updated air quality assessment are below health based exposure limits used in the HHRA and as a result,
no adverse health effects are expected.
Page 91
TABLE 2.15-7
MAXIMUM PREDICTED SO2 CONCENTRATIONS AT

THE MPOI (FL+LSA) FOR PROJECT CASE AND UPSET SCENARIOS (INCLUDING BACKGROUND)
Scenario 1-hour (ug/m3) (1) 10 minute maximum (ug/m3)

Project 27 179
Upset 1 46 142
Upset 2 46 142
Upset 3 62 184
Upset 4 46 184
Health based exposure limit 196 500
Note: (1) Represents the 99th percentile of the daily maximum of the hourly concentrations
TABLE 2.15-8
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATIONS AT

THE MPOI (FL+LSA) FOR PROJECT CASE AND UPSET SCENARIOS (INCLUDING BACKGROUND)
Scenario 1-hour (ug/m3) (1)

Project 79
Upset 1 110
Upset 2 110
Upset 3 110
Upset 4 112
Health based exposure limit 188
Note: (1) Represents the 98th percentile of the daily maximum of the hourly concentrations
TABLE 2.15-9
MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS AT THE

MPOI (FL+LSA) FOR PROJECT CASE AND UPSET SCENARIOS (INCLUDING BACKGROUND)
Scenario 24-hour (ug/m3) (1)

Project 9.5
Upset 1 13
Upset 2 18
Upset 3 18
Upset 4 18
Canada Wide Standard 30
Note: (1) Represents the 98th percentile or 8th highest value of the daily average concentrations.
2.15.5 Chronic Inhalation Results

This section focuses on the predicted effects of long-term inhalation exposure to the COPCs. Separate
assessments of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs were conducted (depending on the exposure
limit selected for the COPCs) due to the differences in calculating and interpreting risk estimates.
Non-carcinogens
The results of the non-carcinogenic assessment are expressed as RQ values. The maximum RQ values
calculated for the Aboriginal and Worker group based on the updated Air Quality Assessment are
presented in Tables 2.15-10 and 2.15-11. All chronic RQ values were less than 1.0, suggesting that the
predicted long-term air concentrations of the COPCs are not expected to result in adverse health effects
for the Baseline Case, Application Case or PDC.
Page 92
TABLE 2.15-10
MAXIMUM CHRONIC INHALATION RQ VALUES

FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)
COPC Base Case Application Case PDC

1,3-Dioxolane 5.5E-11 9.3E-09 9.3E-09
Acrolein 1.4E-02 1.5E-02 1.6E-02
Aliphatic alcohol group 4.8E-06 4.8E-06 5.0E-06
Aliphatic aldehyde group 2.4E-02 2.8E-02 3.1E-02
Aliphatic C2-C4 9.3E-05 1.9E-03 2.0E-03
Aliphatic C5-C8 1.3E-04 3.2E-04 3.4E-04
Aliphatic C9-C16 3.9E-03 3.9E-03 4.1E-03
Aliphatic ketones group 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 2.0E-06
Aluminum 2.6E-05 8.4E-05 9.0E-05
Aniline 6.6E-06 1.2E-03 1.2E-03
Aromatic C9-C16 group 8.8E-04 8.8E-04 9.2E-04
Barium 2.2E-05 4.7E-05 4.9E-05
Carbon disulphide group 3.8E-04 3.8E-04 4.5E-04
Chromium 2.6E-04 3.2E-04 3.5E-04
Cobalt 1.3E-04 8.8E-04 9.3E-04
Copper 2.6E-05 1.6E-04 1.7E-04
Cyclohexane 1.2E-06 1.4E-05 1.4E-05
Dichlorobenzene 2.2E-07 1.7E-06 1.8E-06
Ethylbenzene 8.4E-05 8.4E-05 8.5E-05
Formaldehyde 2.5E-03 5.1E-03 5.4E-03
Hexane 4.5E-04 8.0E-04 8.5E-04
Hydrogen Sulphide 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.2E-02
Lead 2.9E-05 4.5E-05 4.7E-05
Manganese 8.9E-05 6.2E-04 6.6E-04
Methacrolein 2.8E-03 2.8E-03 3.4E-03
Methanol 4.2E-06 4.2E-06 4.2E-06
Naphthalene 6.0E-04 3.5E-03 3.6E-03
NO2 7.0E-02 1.2E-01 1.2E-01
Phenothiazine group 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.4E-06
PM2.5 2.9E-01 3.2E-01 3.3E-01
Silver 7.6E-05 9.1E-05 9.4E-05
Styrene 6.4E-07 6.4E-07 6.4E-07
Toluene 1.7E-05 1.7E-05 1.8E-05
Vanadium 3.4E-04 7.6E-04 8.1E-04
Xylenes 1.9E-04 1.9E-04 1.9E-04
Page 93
TABLE 2.15-11
MAXIMUM CHRONIC INHALATION RQ VALUES

FOR THE WORKER GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

1,3-Dioxolane 2.9E-11 2.5E-08 2.5E-08
Acrolein 7.6E-03 4.0E-02 4.1E-02
Aliphatic C2-C4 5.8E-05 5.0E-03 5.0E-03
Aliphatic C5-C8 7.0E-05 7.0E-04 7.2E-04
Aliphatic C9-C16 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 2.5E-03
Aluminum 2.0E-05 7.7E-05 8.2E-05
Aniline 3.5E-06 3.2E-03 3.2E-03
Barium 1.5E-05 8.0E-05 8.3E-05
Chromium 2.0E-04 2.4E-04 2.7E-04
Cobalt 1.1E-04 6.4E-04 6.8E-04
Copper 2.2E-05 1.2E-04 1.3E-04
Hexane 2.4E-04 1.5E-03 1.6E-03
Lead 1.9E-05 1.1E-04 1.2E-04
Manganese 8.2E-05 4.7E-04 4.9E-04
Methanol 1.9E-06 3.1E-06 3.2E-06
NO2 7.5E-02 1.5E-01 1.6E-01
PM2.5 2.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.8E-01
Silver 4.3E-05 8.5E-05 8.6E-05
Styrene 3.1E-07 5.4E-07 5.4E-07
Toluene 9.4E-06 2.3E-05 2.3E-05
Vanadium 2.6E-04 6.4E-04 7.0E-04
Xylenes 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 1.1E-04
Carcinogens
Tables 2.15-12 and 2.15-13 present the calculated Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) values based
on the updated air quality assessment for the Project (Application minus Baseline Case) and Future (PDC
minus Baseline Case) scenario for the Aboriginal and Worker group, respectively. All ILCR values
represent predicted incremental lifetime cancer risks per 100,000 individuals in the population. All
predicted ILCR values were predicted to be less than 1 in 100,000, indicating that the incremental
contributions from the Project emission and Future sources are associated with an essentially negligible
degree of risk.
Page 94
TABLE 2.15-12
CHRONIC INHALATION ILCR VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (CARCINOGENS)
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks (per 100,000)

Project Scenario Future Scenario
COPC (Application minus Baseline) (PDC minus Baseline)
1,3-butadiene 4.1E-04 7.4E-04
Acetaldehyde 1.0E-03 1.2E-03
Arsenic 6.9E-03 7.4E-03
Benzo(a)Pyrene equivalent(1) 1.3E-04 1.4E-04
Benzene 3.6E-02 3.7E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.0E-01 1.0E-01
Cadmium 2.4E-03 2.6E-03
Chromium VI 9.3E-04 4.2E-03
Nickel 1.8E-02 1.9E-02
Note: (1) Consists of the following COPCs: 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, benz(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene,
indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene and phenanthrene.
TABLE 2.15-13
CHRONIC INHALATION ILCR VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP (CARCINOGENS)

1,3-butadiene 3.2E-03 3.4E-03
Arsenic 5.5E-03 6.0E-03
Benzene 9.4E-02 9.2E-02
Cadmium 6.6E-03 6.8E-03
Nickel 1.2E-02 1.5E-02
2.15.6 Chronic Inhalation Mixtures Assessment

The non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic inhalation mixture assessment results based on the updated Air
Quality Assessment for the Aboriginal and Worker group are presented in Tables 2.15-14 to 2.15-17. All
chronic inhalation mixture RQ values were less than 1.0, indicating that the risk of additive effects
occurring as a result of the combined exposure to COPCs with common chronic toxicological endpoints is
low for the Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC. Similarly, the mixture ILCR values for the
Aboriginal and Worker group were less than 1.0 for the carcinogenic mixtures in the chronic inhalation
assessment for both the Project and Future scenarios.
Page 95
TABLE 2.15-14
MAXIMUM CHRONIC INHALATION

MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

Hepatotoxicants (Liver effects) 8.8E-04 8.8E-04 9.2E-04
Renal toxicants (Kidney effects) 1.1E-03 2.7E-03 2.8E-03
Reproductive and developmental toxicants 4.9E-06 1.6E-05 1.6E-05
Immunotoxicants 2.6E-05 1.6E-04 1.7E-04
TABLE 2.15-15

MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

Hepatotoxicants (Liver effects) 4.9E-04 1.2E-03 1.2E-03
Renal toxicants (Kidney effects) 5.9E-04 6.2E-03 6.3E-03
Immunotoxicants 2.2E-05 1.2E-04 1.3E-04
TABLE 2.15-16

ILCR MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (CARCINOGENS)

Mixture (Application minus Baseline) (PDC minus Baseline)
Lung carcinogens 2.8E-02 3.4E-02
Leukemogens 3.7E-02 3.7E-02
TABLE 2.15-17

ILCR MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP (CARCINOGENS)

Mixture (Application minus Baseline) (PDC minus Baseline)
Lung carcinogens 2.5E-02 3.2E-02
Leukemogens 9.7E-02 9.5E-02
Page 96
2.15.7 Chronic Multiple Pathway Results

As in the chronic inhalation assessment, separate assessments were completed for non-carcinogenic and
carcinogenic exposures in the multiple pathway assessment to reflect the different approaches used in
calculating and interpreting the risk estimates. Predicted health risks are expressed as RQ values for the
non-carcinogenic COPCs, and as ILCR values for the carcinogenic COPCs. RQ values are presented for
the Baseline, Application and PDC, while ILCR values are provided for the Project and Future scenarios.
Non-carcinogens
RQ values based on the updated Air Quality Assessment for the non-carcinogenic COPCs are provided
for the most sensitive life stage for the Aboriginal and Worker groups in Table 2.15-18 and 2.15-19. All
multiple pathway RQ values for the Baseline, Application and PDC for the Aboriginal and Worker group
were less than 1.0, with the exception of manganese in the Aboriginal group. For all of the COPCs,
negligible changes in RQ values were predicted between the Baseline and Application Cases, indicating
that the incremental change associated with the Project is negligible. Overall, the potential for adverse
non-carcinogenic health effects is anticipated to be low. Further discussion of the manganese RQ values
greater than 1.0 (RQ=2.2) for all assessment cases, is provided below.
TABLE 2.15-18
CHRONIC MULTIPLE EXPOSURE

PATHWAY RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

Aluminum 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01
Antimony 9.8E-01 9.9E-01 9.9E-01
Barium 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01
Cadmium 3.4E-01 3.4E-01 3.4E-01
Chromium 3.1E-03 3.1E-03 3.1E-03
Chromium VI 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.2E-01
Cobalt 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 3.5E-01
Copper 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01
Lead 7.4E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01
Manganese 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Nickel 5.1E-02 5.1E-02 5.1E-02
Silver 5.6E-04 6.6E-04 6.7E-04
Strontium 2.7E-01 2.7E-01 2.7E-01
Tin 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02
Vanadium 6.9E-01 6.9E-01 6.9E-01
Zinc 9.2E-01 9.2E-01 9.2E-01
Pyrene 8.7E-07 9.2E-07 1.1E-06
2-Methylnaphthalene 2.3E-07 2.7E-07 3.1E-07
Aliphatic C17-C34 group 1.6E-05 1.8E-05 2.2E-05
Aniline 5.6E-09 1.3E-06 1.3E-06
Aromatic C17-C34 7.2E-07 1.0E-06 1.2E-06
Aromatic C9-C16 1.8E-05 1.8E-05 1.9E-05
Aromatic ketones 4.1E-05 8.7E-05 9.4E-05
Phenothiazine 8.4E-03 4.1E-02 4.2E-02
Page 97
TABLE 2.15-19

PATHWAY RQ VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

Aluminum 4.3E-01 4.3E-01 4.3E-01
Antimony 8.1E-03 7.0E-02 7.1E-02
Barium 2.8E-03 2.8E-03 2.8E-03
Cadmium 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.3E-03
Chromium 3.7E-05 3.7E-05 3.7E-05
Chromium VI 4.6E-03 4.6E-03 4.6E-03
Cobalt 9.5E-03 9.7E-03 9.7E-03
Copper 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03
Lead 6.2E-03 6.3E-03 6.3E-03
Manganese 6.8E-02 6.8E-02 6.8E-02
Nickel 5.0E-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-03
Silver 6.6E-05 1.3E-04 1.3E-04
Strontium 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03
Tin 2.7E-04 2.7E-04 2.7E-04
Vanadium 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 4.8E-02
Zinc 7.7E-04 7.8E-04 7.8E-04
Pyrene 1.3E-08 8.8E-08 8.9E-08
Aniline 2.0E-12 1.8E-09 1.8E-09
Aromatic C17-C34 2.1E-09 1.5E-08 1.6E-08
Aromatic C9-C16 4.6E-09 1.1E-08 1.1E-08
The predicted chronic manganese exposure is associated with an RQ value of 2.2 in the Baseline,
Application and PDC for the Aboriginal toddler life stage. The RQ value for the aboriginal adult was
predicted to be 1.2 for manganese. The Project is not expected to measurably increase
manganese-related health risks for the Aboriginal group in the region.
Manganese is commonly present in the environment and is an essential element for human health.
Manganese is involved in the formation of bone and in various aspects of metabolism (IOM 2001). Dietary
sources are the primary route of human exposure to manganese, with people who consume a high
amount of plant-based foods and legumes having potentially higher intake than other individuals
(IOM 2001, ATSDR 2008, US EPA 1996).
In the current assessment, the primary exposure pathways contributing to the RQ values for the toddler
and adult are the consumption of plants (i.e., above-ground garden vegetables, root vegetables, berries
and Labrador tea) and drinking surface water. All other pathways contribute less than 5% to exposures.
Table 2.15-20 presents the relative contribution of the various exposure pathways to the toddler and adult
RQ values in the Application Case. The contribution of these pathways is the same across the Baseline,
Application and PDC for these life stages.
Page 98
TABLE 2.15-20
SUMMARY OF PATHWAY CONTRIBUTION TO

MANGANESE EXPOSURE FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP
Pathway of Exposure Toddler Adult

Soil 1.7% 0.2%
Drinking Water 7.9% 8.7%
Dust 0.0% 0.0%
Aboveground produce 53.2% 48.1%
Berries 5.0% 10.1%
Labrador tea 10.7% 14.1%
Below ground produce 16.7% 13.2%
Cattail 2.1% 2.8%
Fish 1.5% 1.3%
Moose 0.4% 0.5%
Ruffed grouse 0.1% 0.1%
Snowshoe hare 0.3% 0.4%
Dermal swim 0.2% 0.1%
Dermal hands 0.2% 0.2%
Dermal other 0.1% 0.2%
For the toddler, the consumption of plants represents about 88% of the overall manganese RQ value,
while consumption of drinking water and soil contribute 8% and 2%, respectively. The high proportion of
plant contributing to the manganese RQ value is due to the assumption that the Aboriginal group derives
a large portion of foods, if not all foods, from the LSA.
The RQ values for manganese are based on the chronic oral exposure limit of 140 µg/kg bw/day
recommended by the US EPA (1996, 2011). This chronic exposure limit is based on a no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 10 mg/day (or 0.14 mg/kg bw/day for a 70 kg adult) derived from several
population-based studies that evaluated the relationship between manganese exposure and central
nervous system effects in humans. The same NOAEL was identified by Health Canada (2009) and the
World Health Organization (WHO 2004) in their respective reviews of the toxicological effects associated
with long-term exposure to manganese. In the current assessment, the estimated daily intake of
manganese for the toddler and adult is predicted to be 4.3 and 9.8 mg/day, respectively. This intake level
is below the recognized NOAEL of 10 mg/day (Health Canada 2009, US EPA 1996, WHO 2000).
To date, the manganese exposure levels at which adverse effects are expected in humans has not been
clearly defined; although, the weight of evidence suggests that exposure below 10 mg/day is unlikely to
be associated with adverse effects (Andersen et al. 2010, IOM 2001, Santamaria and Sulsky 2010).
Furthermore, the WHO (2004) noted in its toxicological review that manganese is not considered very
toxic to humans given the existence of homeostatic mechanisms, and that the incidence of adverse
health effects at the upper range of dietary intake is negligible. Health Canada estimates the average
daily intake of manganese for toddlers (i.e., male and female aged 1 to 4 years of age) and all Canadians
to be between 2 and 5 mg/day based on Canadian food consumption data in combination with the
manganese content of the various food items (Health Canada 2011). As the estimated intake levels in this
assessment fall below the recognized NOAEL of 10 mg/day, at which adverse effects have not been
observed, the predicted manganese RQ values are not expected to be associated with adverse health
effects.
Carcinogens
The estimated carcinogenic ILCR values for the Aboriginal and Worker group are presented in
Tables 2.15-21 and 2.15-22, respectively. Results based on the updated Air Quality Assessment are
presented only for the incremental Project (Application minus Baseline) and Future (PDC minus Baseline)
scenario in the HHRA. All values represent ILCR per 100,000 people. All ICLR values were less than 1.0,
indicating that the Project and Future scenario are associated with negligible incremental cancer risks
(i.e., less than 1 in 100,000) for the Aboriginal and Worker group.
Page 99
TABLE 2.15-21

PATHWAY ILCR VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (CARCINOGENS)

Arsenic 1.5E-02 1.6E-02
Hexachloro-1,3 butadiene 2.1E-04 2.1E-04
TABLE 2.15-22

PATHWAY ILCR VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP (CARCINOGENS)

Arsenic 6.3E-03 6.9E-03
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, I
ndeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene and phenanthrene.
2.15.8 Chronic Multiple Pathway Mixtures Assessment

The chronic multiple pathway mixture results based on the updated Air Quality Assessment for the
Aboriginal and Worker group are presented in Tables 2.15-23 and 2.15-24 respectively. As no mixtures
for carcinogenic endpoints were identified for the oral pathway, all results presented in these tables are
for non-carcinogenic endpoints only. The RQ values for the hepatotoxicants, renal toxicants,
neurotoxicants and reproductive and developmental toxicants mixtures were greater than 1.0 for the
Aboriginal group. There are no apparent differences between the Baseline and Application Case RQ
values for the Aboriginal group, indicating that the Project will have a negligible impact on the mixture
risks. All mixture RQ values for the Worker group were predicted to be less than 1.0 signifying that
adverse effects from mixtures are not expected for the Worker group.
The predicted RQ values for the hepatotoxicants, renal toxicants, neurotoxicants and reproductive and
developmental toxicants mixtures for the Aboriginal group were identical to the RQ values presented in
the HHRA (Volume 5, Section 4.0, Table 4.8-23 of the Integrated Application). Therefore, a discussion of
the exceedances (i.e., RQ value > 1.0) is provided in Volume 5, Section 4.8.7 of the Integrated
Application.
Page 100
TABLE 2.15-23
CHRONIC MULTIPLE EXPOSURE PATHWAY

MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

Gastrointestinal toxicants 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.2E-01
Hepatotoxicants (Liver Effects) 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 2.1E+00
Renal toxicants (Kidney Effects) 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00
Neurotoxicants 3.8E+00 3.8E+00 3.8E+00
Hepatotoxicants 8.0E-03 4.1E-02 4.2E-02
Reproductive and developmental toxicants 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00
TABLE 2.15-24
CHRONIC MULTIPLE EXPOSURE PATHWAY

MIXTURE RQ VALUES FOR THE WORKER GROUP (NON-CARCINOGENS)

Hepatotoxicants (Liver Effects) 4.4E-01 5.0E-01 5.0E-01
Renal toxicants (Kidney Effects) 4.3E-01 4.3E-01 4.3E-01
Hepatotoxicants 3.4E-06 2.5E-05 2.5E-05
2.15.9 Summary and Conclusions

The chemical emissions from the Project based on the updated air quality assessment are not expected
to result in adverse health effects in the region. For most of the COPCs, the magnitude of the differences
in predicted health risks between the Baseline and Application Case is negligible. The key findings of the
HHRA based on the updated Air Quality Assessment are consistent with the findings of the original HHRA
(Volume 5, Section 4.0 of the Integrated Application).
2.16 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

The proposed Project changes do not impact the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) (Volume 5,
Section 5.0 of the Integrated Application). The conclusions of the SEIA remain unchanged.
2.17 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement

Updates to the Public Consultation and Aboriginal Engagement Program are provided in the responses to
ERCB SIR 1 and AESRD SIR 1.
Page 101
3.0 REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2008. Draft Toxicological Profile for Manganese.
Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Alberta Conservation Information Management System. 2011. List of Tracked and Watched Elements –
May 2011. Website:
http://tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/plants/vascularbryophytes/default.aspx. Accessed:
March 2012.
Alberta Pacific Forest Products Limited. 2010. Alberta Vegetation Index (digital file). Acquired: June 16
and June 29, 2010.
Andersen M.E., D.C. Dorman, H.J. Clewell III, M.D. Taylor, and A. Nong. 2010. Multi-dose route, multi-
species pharmacokinetic models for manganese and their use in risk assessment. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A. 73:217-234.
Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Canadian Forest
Service Northwest Region Northern Forestry Centre, Special Report 5. Vancouver, British
Columbia.
BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2012. Application for Approval of the BlackPearl Resources Inc. Blackrod
Commercial SAGD Project.
Halsey, L. A., D.H. Vitt, D. Beilman, S. Crow, S. Mehelcic and R. Wells. 2004. Alberta Wetland Inventory
Classification System Version 2.0, Alberta. 116 pp.
Health Canada. 2009. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada
Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical-Specific Factors, Version 2.0.
Contaminated Sites Division, Safe Environments Programme, Ottawa, ON.
Health Canada. 2011. Dietary Intakes of Contaminants & Other Chemicals for Different Age-Sex Groups
of Canadians. Average dietary intakes (µg/kg bw/day) of trace elements for Canadians in different
age/sex groups for Total Diet Study in 2007. Website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/total-
diet/intake-apport/index-eng.php.
Institute of Medicine. 2001. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium,
copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Institute of
Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. 22 pp.
Santamaria, A.B. and S.I. Sulsky. 2010. Risk assessment of an essential element: Manganese. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 73:128-155.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. IRIS Summary of Manganese (CASRN 7439-96-
5). Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD). Website:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0373.htm#reforal.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Estimation Programs Interface Suite™ for
Microsoft® Windows, v 4.10. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
World Health Organization. 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, Second Edition. Copenhagen,
Denmark: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe. WHO Regional Publications,
European Series, No. 91. Website: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e71922.pdf.
World Health Organization. 2004. Manganese in Drinking-Water. Background document for development
of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.
Page 102
APPENDIX A
CENTRAL PROCESSING FACILITY PHASE 1 PLOT PLAN (APRIL 2013)
Page A-1
APPENDIX B
UPDATED AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Page B-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
B1.0 UPDATED AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 1
B1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
B2.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 1
B3.1 Updated Project Design ...................................................................................................... 2
B4.1 NO2 Concentrations ............................................................................................................ 5
B5.1 SO2 Concentrations .......................................................................................................... 17
B6.1 PM2.5 Concentrations ........................................................................................................ 41
B7.1 Intermittent Project Emissions .......................................................................................... 53
B8.1 Health and Odour Related Concentrations ....................................................................... 60
B9.1 Acid Forming Substance Deposition ................................................................................. 65
B10.1 Nitrogen Substance Deposition ........................................................................................ 72
B11.1 Air Quality Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. 77
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure B-1 Locations of the Stacks and Buildings at the Project .......................................................... 3
Figure B-2 Locations of the Stacks and Buildings at the Project .......................................................... 4
Figure B-3 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ................................................................ 7
Figure B-4 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ..................................................................... 8
Figure B-5 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ................................................................. 9
Figure B-6 1-hour NO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................... 10
Figure B-7 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ............................................................. 13
Figure B-8 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) .................................................................. 14
Figure B-9 Annual NO2 Concentrations (Application Case)............................................................... 15
Figure B-10 Annual NO2 Concentrations (PDC) .................................................................................. 16
Figure B-11 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) .............................................................. 19
Figure B-12 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) .................................................................... 20
Figure B-13 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ................................................................ 21
Figure B-14 1-hour SO2 Concentrations (PDC) .................................................................................... 22
Figure B-15 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ............................................................ 25
Figure B-16 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) .................................................................. 26
Figure B-17 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (Application Case) .............................................................. 27
Figure B-18 24-hour SO2 Concentrations (PDC) .................................................................................. 28
Figure B-19 30-day SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) .............................................................. 31
Figure B-20 30-day SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case).................................................................... 32
Figure B-21 30-day SO2 Concentrations (Application Case) ................................................................ 33
Figure B-22 30-day SO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................... 34
Figure B-23 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Existing Condition) .............................................................. 37
Figure B-24 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ................................................................... 38
Figure B-25 Annual SO2 Concentrations (Application Case)................................................................ 39
Figure B-26 Annual SO2 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................... 40
Figure B-27 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Existing Condition) ............................................................ 43
Figure B-28 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Baseline Case) .................................................................. 44
Figure B-29 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Application Case) .............................................................. 45
Figure B-30 1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (PDC) .................................................................................. 46
Figure B-31 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Existing Condition) .......................................................... 49
Figure B-32 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Baseline Case) ................................................................ 50
Figure B-33 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (Application Case) ............................................................ 51
Figure B-34 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations (PDC) ................................................................................ 52
Figure B-35 Average PAI Deposition (Existing Condition) ................................................................... 68
Figure B-36 Average PAI Deposition (Baseline Case) ......................................................................... 69
Figure B-37 Average PAI Deposition (Application Case) ..................................................................... 70
Figure B-38 Average PAI Deposition (PDC) ......................................................................................... 71
Page i
Figure B-39 Average Nitrogen Deposition (Existing Condition) ............................................................ 73

Figure B-40 Average Nitrogen Deposition (Baseline Case) ................................................................. 74
Figure B-41 Average Nitrogen Deposition (Application Case) ............................................................. 75
Figure B-42 Average Nitrogen Deposition (PDC) ................................................................................. 76
LIST OF TABLES
Table B-1 Comparison of 1-Hour (9th Highest) No2 Concentrations .................................................. 6
Table B-2 Comparison of Annual No2 Concentrations ...................................................................... 12
Table B-3 Comparison of 1-Hour (9th Highest) So2 Concentrations ................................................. 18
Table B-4 Comparison of 24-Hour (2nd Highest) So2 Concentrations .............................................. 24
Table B-5 Comparison of 30-Day (1st Highest) So2 Concentrations ................................................ 30
Table B-6 Comparison of Annual So2 Concentrations ...................................................................... 36
Table B-7 Comparison of 1-Hour (9th Highest) Pm2.5 Concentrations ............................................... 42
Table B-8 Comparison of 24-Hour (2nd Highest) Pm2.5 Concentrations ........................................... 48
Table B-9 Maximum Predicted No2 Concentrations (µg/M3) for Emergency Generator
Operation and Flaring – Project Case............................................................................... 54
Table B-10 Maximum Predicted So2 Concentrations (µg/M3) for Emergency Generator
Table B-11 Maximum Predicted Pm2.5 Concentrations (µg/M3) for Emergency Generator
Table B-12 Maximum Predicted No2 Concentrations (µg/M3) for Emergency Generator
Operation and Flaring – Application Case ........................................................................ 57
Table B-13 Maximum Predicted So2 Concentrations (µg/M3) for Emergency Generator
Table B-14 Maximum Predicted Pm2.5 Concentrations (µg/M3) for Emergency Generator
Table B-15 Maximum Predicted Common Air Contaminant Concentrations for HHRA
Receptors .......................................................................................................................... 60
Table B-16 Maximum Predicted Hydrocarbon Substance Concentrations for HHRA
Receptors .......................................................................................................................... 61
Table B-17 Maximum Predicted Total Reduced Sulphur Substance Concentrations for
HHRA Receptors............................................................................................................... 63
Table B-18 Maximum Predicted Trace Metals Concentrations for HHRA Receptors ......................... 64
Table B-19 Predicted Grid Cell Average PAI Deposition .................................................................... 66
Table B-20 Spatial Extent of Predicted PAI Deposition in the RSA Greater than Indicated
Thresholds ........................................................................................................................ 67
Table B-21 Spatial Extent of Predicted Nitrogen Deposition in the RSAGreater than the
Indicated Thresholds ......................................................................................................... 72
Page ii
B1.0 UPDATED AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

B1.1 Introduction
This appendix updates the Air Quality Assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.0 of the Integrated Application)
in accordance with the Project changes described in the Project Update. More specifically, the goals of
this updated air quality assessment are:
• to summarize the design changes that have an influence on ambient air quality (see
Section B1.3);
• to summarize changes to assessment methodology (see Section B1.2); and
• to update air quality changes relative to those presented for the original the Integrated
Application (Volume 2, Section 3.0).
Similar to the Integrated Application, the CALPUFF model is used to evaluate maximum ground-level
SO2, NO2, and PM2.5 concentrations, health and odour impacts, intermittent emissions, acid forming
substance deposition and nitrogen deposition from the combined operation of all Project stacks and other
emission sources in the model domain. Updated maximum predicted NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 concentrations
are summarized in Sections B4.1, B5.1 and B6.1, respectively. Updated concentration predictions
associated with intermittent emissions are summarized in Section B7.1. Updated health and odour effects
at key receptors are presented in Section B8.1. Updated deposition rates of acid forming substances and
nitrogen are summarized in Sections B9.1 and B10.1 respectively.
The CALPUFF model was also used to update predicted VOC, PAH, metal and TRS substances for
purpose of updating the Human Health Risk Assessment (Project Update, Section 2.15) and was used to
predict updated nitrogen and potential acid input (PAI) deposition (Project Update, Section 2.11 – Terrain
and Soils).
B2.1 Methods
Methods used to estimate air quality changes due to the updated design were largely the same as those
described in Volume 2, Section 3.0 of the Integrated Application.
There are several modifications to the assessment methodology incorporated to address Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) SIRs. These include:
Meteorology
Meteorology determines the transport and dispersion of industrial emissions, and hence plays a
significant role in determining air quality downwind of emission sources. In the original Integrated
Application, the CALMET model was applied using upper-level meteorological data based on the WRF
Model and using surface meteorological data from stations located in the Model Domain. To improve the
accuracy of the meteorological data used as input to dispersion modelling, the WRF model was used as
WRF contains the latest weather forecast model developments from the US National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the WRF model was run at 4-km resolution to better resolve terrain
influences on wind flow, and the dataset covers the 5-year 2002 to 2006 time period typically used for
regulatory dispersion modelling. The WRF dataset was used instead of the AESRD developed Fifth
Generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model version 3.5 (MM5) meteorological dataset as the MM5
model contains older physics and has been phased out by NCAR and was run at 12 km resolution (3
times coarser than the WRF simulation).
Despite the benefit of using a more realistic meteorological dataset, AESRD has stated that it is their
preference that the AESRD supplied MM5 dataset be used as input to the CALMET and CALPUFF
models. To address ERCB and AESRD SIRs (Part B ERCB SIR 34, Part C AESRD SIR 13), the
meteorological data used to complete the updated dispersion modelling has been updated to use the
MM5 dataset as input to the CALMET meteorological model in place of the WRF dataset. There are no
other changes to the inputs, assumptions, methods or model versions described in the Integrated
Application.
Page B-1
Receptor Grid
The air quality assessment adopts a system of nested receptor grids of varying density or spacing that
provides an understanding of the spatial concentration and deposition patterns due to Project emissions.
The grid density is the greatest near the Project to allow the assessment to focus on the effects of the
Project emissions.
To address AESRD SIR (Part C AESRD SIR 12), the receptor grid was modified to include areas of fine
(20 m) spacing around areas of maximum predicted concentration associated with emissions from the
Project and that occur on our outside of the Project central processing facility (CPF). Predicted
concentrations within this report reflect inclusion of fine 20 m spacing around these areas of maximum
impact.
Ambient Background
Concentrations predicted using the CALPUFF model in the original Integrated Application were based
upon a large domain and comprehensive emission inventory that included all substantive emission
sources located in the Model Domain that includes the entire Lower Athabasca Region. Ambient
background concentrations were compared to model results, but not added directly to model predictions
to account for the influence of distant sources (outside the LAR) as a comparison of model predictions
with ambient concentration measurements indicated reasonable model performance.
AESRD has stated that it is their preference that model results are added directly to the model output. To
add an additional layer of conservatism and address AESRD SIR (Part C AESRD SIR 15), the
representative ambient background values have been added to values presented in the text, tables and
figures in this updated assessment.
Project Intermittent Emissions

The Integrated Application evaluated intermittent flaring and emergency generator usage on a Project
alone basis as periods of increased emissions associated with these events are infrequent in nature and
are of a short duration. Additionally, areas of maximum impact associated with these events occur close
to the Project CPF where there is minimal influence from other emission sources in the study area.
AESRD has stated that it is their preference that background emission sources be included in the
evaluation of intermittent Project emission sources. To address AESRD SIR (Part C AESRD SIR 14), all
other emission sources within the model domain have been included along with the addition of ambient
background concentrations to the updated results associated with intermittent Project emissions.
B3.1 Updated Project Design

Updated design information that can influence the ambient air predictions provided in the Integrated
Application include changes to the location of emission stack, tank and fugitive emission sources.
The location of the CPF is unchanged and the facility boundary (i.e. fence line) is also unchanged. From
an air quality assessment perspective, the project update consists of a reorganization of the stack, tank
and fugitive emission sources as well as the buildings locations within the CPF area. The Project design
changes result in an updated plot plan. Figure B-1 and Figure B-2 compare the updated and Integrated
Application plot plans as input to dispersion modelling.
Key changes to the plot plan include:
• The steam generators move from the north to the south portion of the CPF.
• Tanks in hydrocarbon service move from the south to the north.
• The Phases of the project (Phase 1, 2 and 3) are now organized east to west instead of west to east.
• Flare stacks have moved to the northeast corner of the CPF whereas they were in the southwest
corner in the original plot plan.
Page B-2
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
6163700
6163700
31-T-117B LP Flare Stack
11-T-119 HP Flare Stack

HP Flare Stack
31-T-117A
LP Flare Stack
11-T-117B HP Flare Stack
6163600
6163600
21-T-117B LP Flare Stack
21-T-132
11-T-117A
21-T-117A 11-T-132
21-T-550
11-T-550
6163500
6163500
11-T-501
21-T-150 11-T-201
21-T-201
31-T-201
6163400
6163400
11-T-150
31-T-146 31-T-150 21-T-146 11-T-146
13-T-204 12-T-204 11-T-204
31-T-140 11-T-140
21-T-140
31-T-222 21-T-222 11-T-222
31-T-316 21-T-216
11-T-216
6163300
6163300
31-T-313
11-T-401
21-T-401 21-T-313
31-T-401 11-T-313
31-T-312 21-T-312
21-T-451 11-T-312
31-T-451 11-T-451
emergency Generator emergency Generator emergency Generator

6163200
6163200
31-T-580
21-T-580 11-T-580
Glycol Heater
6163100
6163100
Glycol Heater Glycol Heater
Steam Generator Steam Generator Steam Generator

Steam Generator Steam Generator
6163000
6163000
21-T-465 11-T-465
6162900
6162900
31-T-465
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
April 2013
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
6163700
6163700
21-T-465
11-T-465
6163600
6163600
6163500
6163500
Glycol Heater Glycol Heater
Glycol Heater
11-T-520 21-T-520 31-T-520

Emergency Generator Package Emergency Generator Package
11-T-580 21-T-580 31-T-580
6163400
6163400
11-T-385 21-T-385 Emergency Generator Package
31-T-385
11-T-435 21-T-435
31-T-435
11-T-451 21-T-451
31-T-451
11-T-328 11-T-401 21-T-328 31-T-328
21-T-401
6163300
6163300
11-T-365 21-T-365 31-T-365
11-T-360 21-T-360 31-T-360 31-T-401
11-T-216 21-T-216
31-T-316
11-T-146 21-T-146 31-T-146

6163200
6163200
11-T-222 21-T-222 31-T-222
11-T-140 21-T-154 21-T-140 31-T-154 31-T-140
11-T-154
21-T-150 31-T-150 31-T-201

11-T-150
21-T-201
6163100
6163100
11-T-201
11-T-550
11-T-513
21-T-550
11-T-132
21-T-117A
6163000
6163000
11-T-117A
21-T-132
HP Flare Stack 21-T-117B
LP Flare Stack
11-T-117B
HP Flare Stack
LP Flare Stack 31-T-117A
6162900
6162900
HP Flare Stack
LP Flare Stack
31-T-117B
11-T-119
397600 397700 397800 397900 398000 398100 398200 398300 398400 398500
April 2013
There are no substantial changes to project equipment that affect the number, type and size of the
emission sources. All stack, tank and fugitive emissions the same as those presented in the Integrated
Application (Volume 2, Section 3).
The dimensions of the buildings are the same as those provided in the Integrated Application; however,
the locations of the buildings and tanks used to evaluate building downwash effects have been updated
consistent with Figure B-1.
B4.1 NO2 Concentrations

1-hour NO2 Concentrations
Existing Condition
For the existing condition 1-hour NO2 concentrations predicted using the CALPUFF model, see Table B-1
and Figure B-3. The maximum predicted 1-hour NO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along
the Project CPF fence line (112 and 120 µg/m3) as there are no substantive NOX emission sources
located in the immediate area. The maximum NO2 concentration in the LSA is 188 µg/m3. This value
occurs near the project wellpad area.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 1-hour NO2 predictions, see Table B-1 and Figure B-4. The maximum predicted 1-hour
NO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (113 and 120 µg/m3) increase slightly due
to other NOX emitting developments in the LSA. The maximum NO2 concentration in the LSA is 188
µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 300 µg/m3). The location of the maximum is unchanged from
the existing condition.
Application Case
For Application Case 1-hour NO2 predictions, see Table B-1 and Figure B-5. The maximum predicted 1-
hour NO2 concentrations increase within and along the Project CPF fence line (i.e., 145 and 142 µg/m3,
respectively) due to the Project NOX emission sources. The maximum NO2 concentration in LSA is 188
µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 300 µg/m3). The Project does not make any substantive
contributions (i.e., 0.0001% or less) to the high Baseline Case values in the RSA.
Planned Development Case

For PDC 1-hour NO2 predictions, see Table B-1, and Figure B-6. There are no substantive changes to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case.
Page B-5
TABLE B-1
COMPARISON OF 1-HOUR (9TH HIGHEST) NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
1-hour (9th highest) NO2 Concentration

Existing Condition Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Location Year (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (% Change) (µg/m3) (% Change)
Inside Project 2002 112 112 135 20 135 20
CPF Fence line 2003 108 108 138 28 138 28
2004 104 105 133 27 133 27
2005 112 113 138 23 138 23
2006 104 105 145 39 145 39
Maximum 112 113 145 29 145 29
On Project CPF 2002 117 117 135 16 135 16
Fence line 2003 118 118 139 17 139 17
2004 120 120 133 11 133 11
2005 120 120 136 13 136 13
2006 117 117 142 21 142 21
Maximum 120 120 142 18 142 18
Outside Project 2002 144 144 144 0.005 144 0.005
CPF Fence line 2003 156 156 156 0.007 156 0.007
and Inside Well
2004 158 158 158 0.005 158 0.01
Pad Area
2005 154 154 154 0.004 154 0.03
2006 172 172 172 0.008 172 0.03
Maximum 172 172 172 0.008 172 0.03
Outside Well Pad 2002 150 150 150 0.00 150 0.00002
Area and Inside 2003 188 188 188 0.01 188 0.02
LSA
2004 175 175 175 0.08 175 0.10
2005 157 157 157 0.005 157 0.005
2006 187 187 187 0.004 187 0.004
Maximum 188 188 188 0.01 188 0.018
Outside LSA and 2002 378 369 369 0.00 372 0.80
Inside RSA 2003 373 385 385 0.00 388 0.75
2004 421 379 379 0.0002 379 0.003
2005 434 388 388 0.00003 390 0.60
2006 367 393 393 0.0001 395 0.42
Maximum 434 393 393 0.0001 395 0.42
AAAQO 300 300 300 - 300 -
Notes: - The % change is with respect to the Baseline Case.
- AAAQO are not applicable within an industrial fence line.
- Traffic and heating emissions are adjusted in the PDC to account for improvement in vehicle emission controls. Percent decreases
noted in the table are a result of these emission decreases in non-industrial emissions for the PDC.
Page B-6
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
50
50
6210000
6210000
70
90
40
50
50
50
50
40
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
50
63 70
50
40
6190000
6190000
40
Sandy
Lake
50
Sandy Lake
40
40
40
40
Pelican
40
Lake 40
40
40
6180000
6180000
70
50
40
40
40
40
6170000
6170000
40
40
40 90
40
40
70
40
6160000
6160000
50
40
50
50
40
40
6150000
6150000
40
35
35
McMillan
40
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
35
70
40
50
35
50
40
40
6130000
6130000
40
40 35
50
35
35
35
35
40
Calling
Lake
50
35
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
35 Lyle
Lake
40
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
70
90
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
63
70
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
50
70
50
6170000
6170000
50
50
50
90
50
50
50
70
6160000
6160000
50
70
50
50 50
50
6150000
6150000
50
McMillan
Lake
70
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
70
50
50
6130000
6130000
50
50
Calling
Lake
50
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
70 90
70
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
63
70
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
90 50
70
50
6170000
6170000
50
50
50 50
90
50
50 70
70
50
90
6160000
6160000
50
70
50
50
6150000
6150000
50
50
McMillan
Lake
70
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
70
50
50
6130000
6130000
50
Calling
Lake 70
50
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
50
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
70
70
70
70
6210000 70
6210000
70
90
70
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
70
70
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
70
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
70
6170000
6170000
70
70
70
90
90 70
6160000
6160000
70
70
6150000
6150000
50
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
50
90
50
70
70
50 50
50
50
6130000
6130000
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
50
Wandering River
50
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Annual Average NO2 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For the existing condition annual NO2 predictions, see Table B-2 and Figure B-7. The maximum predicted
annual NO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (9.08 and 10.0
µg/m3) as there are no substantive NOX emission sources located in the immediate area. The maximum
NO2 concentration in the LSA is 15.2 µg/m3. This value is predicted to occur at the Iteration Portage 11-10
compressor station site.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case annual NO2 predictions, see Table B-2 and Figure B-8. The maximum predicted
annual NO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (9.6 and 10.5 µg/m3, respectively)
increase slightly due to other NOX emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum NO2 concentration in the
LSA is 15.6 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 45 µg/m3). This value is predicted to occur in the
project wellpad area.
Application Case
For Application Case annual NO2 predictions, see Table B-2 and Figure B-9. The maximum predicted
annual NO2 concentrations increase within and along the Project CPF fence line (i.e., 18.9 and
16.6 µg/m3, respectively) due to the Project NOX emission sources. The maximum NO2 concentration in
the LSA is 19.8 µg/m3, which represents a 37% increase compared to the Baseline Case. The maximum
value in the LSA is predicted to occur in the project wellpad area and is less than the AAAQO.

For PDC annual NO2 predictions, see Table B-2 and Figure B-10. The maximum predicted annual NO2
concentrations increase within and along the Project CPF fence line (i.e., 19.3 and 17.0 µg/m3,
respectively) due to the Project NOX emission sources. The maximum NO2 concentration in the LSA is
20.3 µg/m3, which represents a 39% increase compared to the Baseline Case. The maximum value in the
LSA is predicted to occur in the project wellpad area and is less than the AAAQO.
Page B-11
TABLE B-2
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL NO2 CONCENTRATIONS
Annual NO2 Concentration

Inside Project CPF 2002 7.74 8.20 18.9 130 19.3 135
Fence line 2003 8.73 9.18 18.0 96 18.3 100
2004 9.08 9.57 18.5 93 18.9 97
2005 8.60 9.04 17.3 91 17.6 95
2006 7.80 8.23 17.4 111 17.7 115
Maximum 9.08 9.6 18.9 97 19.3 102
On Project CPF 2002 8.45 8.93 16.5 85 16.9 90
Fence line 2003 9.20 9.66 15.7 63 16.1 67
2004 9.98 10.5 16.6 58 17.0 62
2005 9.21 9.64 14.9 54 15.2 58
2006 8.28 8.72 15.7 80 16.0 83
Maximum 10.0 10.5 16.6 58 17.0 62
Outside Project 2002 15.1 15.6 19.8 27 20.3 30
CPF Fence line 2003 14.0 14.5 18.6 28 19.0 31
and Inside Well
2004 13.9 14.4 18.3 27 18.7 30
Pad Area
2005 12.5 12.9 17.7 37 18.0 39
2006 14.5 14.9 18.7 25 18.9 27
Maximum 15.1 15.6 19.8 27 20.3 30
Outside Well Pad 2002 14.9 15.3 19.5 27 20.0 30
Area and Inside 2003 13.9 14.4 18.5 28 18.9 31
LSA
2004 14.0 14.5 18.4 27 18.8 30
2005 12.9 13.4 17.0 27 17.4 30
2006 15.2 15.5 18.8 21 19.1 23
Maximum 15.2 15.5 19.5 26 20.0 29
Outside LSA and 2002 87.9 68.2 68.2 0.005 70.0 2.7
Inside RSA 2003 89.5 65.9 65.9 0.007 68.0 3.3
2004 109 69.7 69.7 0.006 71.7 2.8
2005 121 68.7 68.7 0.004 70.2 2.2
2006 103 67.9 67.9 0.007 70.1 3.2
Maximum 121 69.7 69.7 0.006 71.7 2.8
AAAQO 45 45 45 - 45 -
Page B-12
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6
6210000
6210000
8
6
6
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
6
6
5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
6
5
Pelican
Lake
6
6180000
6180000
5
6
5
5
5 5
6170000
6170000
5
6
6160000
6160000
6
5
5
6150000
6150000
5
5
5
McMillan
Lake
5
6
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6
5
5
5
5
6130000
6130000
6
Calling 5
Lake 5
5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
5
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
8 6
6
6 6
6
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
6
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6
6180000
6180000
6
6
6
6
6
6
6170000
6170000
6
6
6
6160000
6160000
6
6
6
6150000
6150000
McMillan
Lake
6
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6
5
6
6130000
6130000
6
6
Calling
Lake 5
5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
5
Wandering River
5
5
5
6
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
8
6
6
6 Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
6
6
6
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy 6
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6
6180000
6180000
6
8
6
6 6
6
6170000
6170000
10
10 6
6
6
6160000
6160000
6
6
6
6
6
6150000
6150000
6
6
6
McMillan
Lake
6
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
8
6
5
6
6130000
6130000
6
6
Calling
5
Lake
5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
5
5
5
Wandering River
6
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
8
8
8
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
8
6 63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
6 8
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
6
6
6 8
6
6170000
6170000
6
10
6
8
6
6160000
6160000
6
6
6150000
6150000
6
6
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
8 6
6
6130000
6130000
6
Calling
Lake 6 6
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
6 Wandering River
6 6
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
B5.1 SO2 Concentrations

1-hour SO2 Concentrations
Existing Case
For existing condition 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-3 and Figure B-11. The maximum predicted 1-
hour SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (29.0 and
28.8 µg/m3) as there are no substantive SO2 emission sources located in the immediate area. The 1-hour
SO2 maximum in the LSA is 50.4 µg/m3; this value is predicted near the north-eastern boundary of the
LSA. Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher values
occur near Fort McMurray in the north-east portion of the RSA.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-3 and Figure B-12. The maximum predicted 1-
hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (26.9 and 26.9 µg/m3) decrease
slightly compared to the existing condition. This is due to the benefit of an SO2 emission reduction
program associated with one of the existing upgraders. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is
42.5 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 450 µg/m3).
Application Case
For Application Case 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-3 and Figure B-13. The maximum predicted 1-
hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (36.0 and 35.3 µg/m3) increase due
to the Project SO2 emission sources. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is 42.5 µg/m3, which is
unchanged compared to the Baseline Case.

For PDC 1-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-3 and Figure B-14. There are slight increases to the
Page B-17
TABLE B-3
COMPARISON OF 1-HOUR (9TH HIGHEST) SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
1-hour (9th highest) SO2 Concentration

Fence line 2003 29.0 23.6 31.1 32 31.6 34
2004 23.6 19.5 30.1 55 30.4 56
2005 26.8 22.6 31.5 39 31.6 40
2006 25.0 24.3 30.8 27 31.1 28
Maximum 29.0 26.9 36.0 34 37.0 38
On Project CPF 2002 28.5 26.9 35.3 31 36.9 37
Fence line 2003 28.8 23.6 27.0 14 28.1 19
2004 23.6 19.5 27.8 43 30.3 56
2005 26.6 22.9 26.5 16 27.4 20
2006 25.0 24.3 27.4 13 29.0 19
Maximum 28.8 26.9 35.3 31 36.9 37
Outside Project CPF 2002 28.8 27.9 35.3 26 36.9 32
Fence line and Inside 2003 28.4 23.8 27.0 13 28.1 18
Well Pad Area
2004 23.6 19.4 27.8 44 30.3 57
2005 26.5 27.2 27.2 0.01 29.0 6.4
2006 25.1 24.3 27.6 14 29.1 20
Maximum 28.8 27.9 35.3 26 36.9 32
Outside Well Pad 2002 40.7 38.4 38.4 0.00 41.8 8.9
Area and Inside LSA 2003 50.4 42.5 42.5 0.00 44.2 4.0
2004 32.8 33.9 34.0 0.03 37.6 11
2005 34.3 39.5 39.5 0.00 42.2 6.8
2006 36.1 35.8 35.8 0.0005 39.0 8.8
Maximum 50.4 42.5 42.5 0.00 44.2 4.0
Outside LSA and 2002 405 407 407 0.0001 412 1.0
Inside RSA 2003 535 537 537 0.001 542 1.0
2004 432 441 441 0.00 443 0.4
2005 489 492 492 0.0007 501 1.7
2006 414 408 408 0.000 413 1.1
Maximum 535 537 537 0.001 542 1.0
AAAQO 450 450 450 - 450 -
Page B-18
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
30
30
40
30
40
30
30 63
30
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
40
Sandy Lake
25
Pelican
Lake
25
6180000
6180000
25 25
25
25
30
30
6170000
6170000
25 25
30
25
30
25
30
25
30
25 25
6160000
6160000
30
6150000
6150000
30
25
30
25
25
30
20 McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
30
30
25
30
6130000
6130000
20
25
25
20
25
20
25
25
Calling
20
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
20
20
Wandering River
25
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
40
6210000 25
6210000
30
25 40
30
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
40
30
30
30
30
25
63
25
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
30
25
6180000
6180000
25
25
30
25
25
6170000
6170000
30
30
30
30
25
6160000
6160000
25
30
25
25
30
30
20
6150000
6150000
20
25
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
25
25
20
25
6130000
6130000
20
20
Calling 20
Lake 20
20
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
20
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
40
25
30
6210000
6210000
30
25 30
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
40
30
30
30
30
25
63
25
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
30
25
6180000
6180000
25
30
25
25
6170000
6170000
30
30
30
25
30
25
6160000
6160000
30
25
25
25
30
6150000
6150000
20
25
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
25
25
20
20
25
25
6130000
6130000
20
Calling 20
Lake 20
20
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
20
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
40
6210000
6210000
40
30
40
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
40
30
40
30
63
40
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
30
Sandy Lake
30
Pelican
30
Lake
30
6180000
6180000
30
30
25
25
30
30 30
30
6170000
6170000
25
30
30
30
30
25 30
30
6160000
6160000
30
25
25
25
6150000
6150000
25
30
30
25
30
McMillan
Lake
20
25
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
25
30
25
25
25
25
6130000
6130000
25
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
20
20
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
24-hour SO2 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For existing condition 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-4 and Figure B-15. The maximum predicted
24-hour SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (11.5 and 11.5
µg/m3) as there are no substantive SO2 emission sources located in the immediate area. The maximum
SO2 concentration in the LSA is 14.5 µg/m3; this value is predicted on the northern boundary of the LSA.
Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the north-east portion of the RSA,
near Fort McMurray.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-4 and Figure B-16. The maximum predicted 24-
hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (9.69 and 9.73 µg/m3) increase
slightly due to other SO2 emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum SO2 concentration in the LSA is
Application Case
For Application Case 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-4 and Figure B-17. The maximum predicted
24-hour SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (23.8 and 17.7 µg/m3) increase
compared to the Baseline Case due to the Project SO2 emission sources. The maximum SO2
concentration in the LSA is 17.7 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 125 µg/m3).

For PDC 24-hour SO2 predictions, see Table B-4 and Figure B-18. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum 24-hour SO2
concentration in the LSA is 18.3 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO.
Page B-23
TABLE B-4
COMPARISON OF 24-HOUR (2ND HIGHEST) SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
24-hour (2nd highest) SO2 Concentration

Fence line 2003 11.5 9.69 16.3 68 16.3 68
2004 9.42 8.95 14.7 64 14.7 64
2005 8.92 9.09 13.4 48 13.5 48
2006 9.76 8.57 13.5 58 13.6 58
Maximum 11.5 9.69 23.8 146 24.0 148
On Project CPF 2002 9.39 9.52 17.7 85 17.8 87
Fence line 2003 11.5 9.73 14.0 44 14.0 44
2004 9.29 8.95 12.8 43 12.8 43
2005 8.93 9.10 11.7 29 11.9 30
2006 9.73 8.59 14.1 64 14.3 67
Maximum 11.5 9.73 17.7 81 17.8 83
Fence line and 2003 11.5 10.6 13.4 26 13.4 26
Inside Well Pad
2004 9.29 8.93 12.6 41 12.6 41
Area
2005 8.93 9.37 11.3 21 11.9 27
2006 9.71 8.58 13.6 59 13.8 61
Maximum 11.5 10.6 16.9 58 17.0 60
Outside Well Pad 2002 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.00 16.9 18
Area and Inside LSA 2003 14.5 15.4 15.5 0.22 18.3 19
2004 12.3 12.9 12.9 0.00 14.6 13
2005 13.1 13.1 13.1 0.02 14.5 11
2006 10.6 10.5 11.0 4.4 11.8 12
Maximum 14.5 15.4 15.5 0.2 18.3 19
Outside LSA and 2002 131 132 132 0.00 132 -0.04
Inside RSA 2003 103 104 104 0.00001 104 -0.01
2004 93.5 94.6 94.6 0.00 94.5 -0.1
2005 136 137 137 0.00 137 -0.1
2006 116 118 118 0.002 119 0.9
Maximum 136 137 137 0.00 137 -0.1
AAAQO 125 125 125 - 125 -
- Traffic and heating emissions are adjusted in the PDC to account for improvement in vehicle emission controls. Percent decreases
noted in the table are a result of these emission decreases in non-industrial emissions for the PDC.
Page B-24
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
.5
12
6210000
6210000
.5
10
12
.5
12
.5
12
10
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
10
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
10
Sandy Lake
12.5
Pelican 10
Lake
10
10
6180000
6180000
10
10
10
10
6170000
6170000
10
6160000
6160000
12.5
10
7.5
12
.5
6150000
6150000
10 10
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
10
7.5
10
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake
7.5
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
12
.5
10
12.5
.5
12
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
10
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake 10
Pelican
Lake
10
6180000
6180000
12.5
10
10
10
10
6170000
6170000
10
10
6160000
6160000
10
6150000
6150000
10
McMillan
Lake 10 10
7.
5
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
10
6130000
6130000
Calling 7.
Lake 5
5
7.
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
7.5
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
12.5
6210000
6210000
12.5
10
.5
12
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
10
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
10
10
Pelican
Lake
10
6180000
6180000
12.5
10 10
10
10
10
6170000
6170000
10
10
6160000
6160000
10
10
6150000
6150000
10
7 .5
McMillan
Lake 10 10
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
10
6130000
6130000
7.5
7.5
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake 7.5 7.5
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
7.5 Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
12
.5
12.5
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
12.5
.5
12
63
.5
12
6190000
6190000
Sandy
12.5
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican 12.5
Lake
6180000
6180000
10
6170000
6170000
10
6160000
6160000
12.
10
12.5
5
10
10 10
.5
12
6150000
6150000
10
10 McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
10
10
10
6130000
6130000
10
Calling
Lake
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
7.
5
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
30-day SO2 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For existing condition 30-day SO2 predictions, see Table B-5 and Figure B-19. The maximum predicted
30-day SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (3.21 and 3.21
SO2 concentration in the LSA is 5.11 µg/m3. This value is predicted on the northern boundary of the LSA.
Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the north-east portion of the RSA,
near Fort McMurray.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 30-day SO2 predictions, see Table B-5 and Figure B-20. The maximum predicted 30-
day SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (3.19 and 3.19 µg/m3) increase
Application Case
For Application Case 30-day SO2 predictions, see Table B-5 and Figure B-21. The maximum predicted
30-day SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (5.67 and 5.06 µg/m3) increase
concentration in the LSA is 5.10 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 30 µg/m3).

For PDC 30-day SO2 predictions, see Table B-5 and Figure B-22. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum 24-hour SO2
Page B-29
TABLE B-5
COMPARISON OF 30-day (1st HIGHEST) SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
24-hour (2nd highest) SO2 Concentration

Fence line 2003 3.19 3.19 5.28 66 5.65 77
2004 2.80 2.97 4.76 60 4.96 67
2005 2.91 3.01 5.19 72 5.26 75
2006 2.79 2.93 5.01 71 5.07 73
Maximum 3.21 3.19 5.67 78 5.85 83
On Project CPF 2002 3.21 3.19 4.98 56 5.37 68
Fence line 2003 3.19 3.19 4.95 55 5.32 67
2004 2.79 2.96 4.70 59 4.90 65
2005 2.90 3.01 4.86 61 4.93 64
2006 2.79 2.93 5.06 73 5.12 75
Maximum 3.21 3.19 5.06 59 5.37 68
Fence line and 2003 3.19 3.28 4.81 47 5.14 57
Inside Well Pad
2004 2.79 2.98 4.66 56 4.86 63
Area
2005 2.89 3.08 4.75 54 4.82 57
2006 2.79 2.93 4.98 70 5.04 72
Maximum 3.21 3.30 4.98 51 5.32 61
Outside Well Pad 2002 4.23 4.62 4.66 1 5.52 19
Area and Inside LSA 2003 5.11 5.10 5.10 0 5.90 16
2004 3.88 4.86 4.87 0 5.74 18
2005 3.79 3.69 4.32 17 4.44 20
2006 3.32 3.59 4.47 25 4.53 26
Maximum 5.11 5.10 5.10 0.12 5.90 16
Outside LSA and 2002 36.8 36.8 36.8 0.001 38.1 3.4
Inside RSA 2003 30.7 32.0 32.0 0.004 33.0 3.3
2004 26.6 25.7 25.7 0.01 26.5 3.2
2005 51.7 53.4 53.4 0.002 54.2 1.5
2006 36.1 35.1 35.1 0.001 35.8 2.1
Maximum 51.7 53.4 53.4 0.002 54.2 1.5
AAAQO 125 125 125 - 125 -
Page B-30
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000 3.5
6210000
4
3
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
3.5
4
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
3
Pelican
Lake 4
3
6180000
6180000
3.5
3
6170000
6170000
3
3
6160000
6160000
4
3
3.
5
6150000
6150000
3
2.8
McMillan
3
Lake
6140000
6140000
3
Athabasca
3
3.5
6130000
6130000
3
2.8
Calling
Lake
3
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000 4
6210000
3.5
3 .5
3.5
4
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
3.5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
4
Lake
3
3 .5
6180000
6180000
3
3.5
3
6170000
6170000
3
3
3
6160000
6160000
3.5
6150000
6150000
3.
5
3
2. McMillan
Lake
8
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
3.5
2.
3
8
6130000
6130000
3
Calling
Lake
2.8
3
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000 4
6210000
3.
5
3.5
4
3 .5
3.5
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
3.5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican 4
Lake
6180000
6180000
3.5
3
3
6170000
6170000
3
3 3.5
6160000
6160000
3.5
3
3.
5
3.5
6150000
6150000
3.
5
3
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
2.
8
3.5
3
6130000
6130000
3
Calling
Lake
2.
3
8
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
5
6210000
6210000
4 .5
4
4 Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
5
3.5
4
63
4. 5
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
3 .5
Lake
4. 5
6180000
6180000
3.5
4
3.5
6170000
6170000
4
3.5
4
6160000
6160000
4
3.
4
5
6150000
6150000
McMillan
Lake
3.
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
4
6130000
6130000
3
Calling
Lake 3.
5
3
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Annual Average SO2 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For existing condition annual SO2 predictions, see Table B-6 and Figure B-23. The maximum predicted
annual SO2 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (1.21 and 1.21
annual SO2 concentration in the LSA is 1.93 µg/m3,this value is predicted on the north-eastern boundary
of the LSA. Higher SO2 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher
values occur near Fort McMurray.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case annual SO2 predictions, see Table B-6 and Figure B-24. The maximum predicted
annual SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (1.23 and 1.23 µg/m3) increase
2.13 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 20 µg/m3) and occurs near the north-eastern border of
LSA.
Application Case
For Application Case annual SO2 predictions, see Table B-6 and Figure B-25. The maximum predicted
annual SO2 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (2.81 and 2.54 µg/m3) increase
concentration in the LSA is 2.54 µg/m3, which is slightly higher when compared to the Baseline Case and
occurs on CPF fence line.

For PDC annual SO2 predictions, see Table B-6 and Figure B-26. There are increases to the predicted
maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum annual SO2 concentration in the
LSA is 2.72 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO.
Page B-35
TABLE B-6
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL SO2 CONCENTRATIONS
Annual SO2 Concentration

Fence line 2003 1.21 1.23 2.51 103 2.70 119
2004 1.12 1.21 2.39 98 2.57 113
2005 1.10 1.16 2.20 90 2.37 104
2006 1.04 1.10 2.37 117 2.52 130
Maximum 1.21 1.23 2.81 127 2.99 142
On Project CPF 2002 1.07 1.14 2.54 123 2.72 139
Fence line 2003 1.21 1.23 2.34 90 2.54 105
2004 1.12 1.21 2.29 89 2.47 104
2005 1.10 1.16 2.22 91 2.39 106
2006 1.04 1.09 2.22 103 2.37 116
Maximum 1.21 1.23 2.54 106 2.72 120
Outside Project 2002 1.10 1.25 2.50 100 2.68 115
CPF Fence line 2003 1.23 1.34 2.29 71 2.49 85
and Inside Well
2004 1.15 1.31 2.26 73 2.44 87
Pad Area
2005 1.12 1.25 2.19 76 2.36 89
2006 1.05 1.20 2.19 83 2.34 95
Maximum 1.23 1.34 2.50 86 2.68 100
Outside Well Pad 2002 1.75 1.95 2.27 17 2.45 26
Area and Inside 2003 1.93 2.13 2.13 0 2.58 21
LSA
2004 1.83 2.09 2.11 1 2.52 21
2005 1.58 1.77 2.04 15 2.21 25
2006 1.47 1.71 2.03 18 2.18 27
Maximum 1.93 2.13 2.27 6.7 2.58 21
Outside LSA and 2002 18.7 18.4 18.4 0.01 18.9 2.9
Inside RSA 2003 17.7 17.5 17.5 0.01 18.0 3.1
2004 18.7 18.7 18.7 0.01 19.3 2.8
2005 19.2 18.9 18.9 0.01 19.3 2.4
2006 18.2 18.3 18.3 0.01 18.8 3.1
Maximum 19.2 18.9 18.9 0.01 19.3 2.4
AAAQO 20 20 20 - 20 -
Page B-36
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
1.4 1.5
6210000
6210000
1.4
1.2
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
1 .5
1. 2
1.2
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
1.
1.4
2
Sandy Lake
1.2
1.2
Pelican
Lake 1.
4
6180000
6180000
1.
2
6170000
6170000
1.2
1.2
6160000
6160000
1.4
1
1.
2
6150000
6150000
1
1.
2
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
1
6130000
6130000
1.2
Calling
Lake
1
1
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
1
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
1.5
6210000 1.5
6210000
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.2 1.4
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
63
1.
2
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
1.4
Pelican
Lake
1.5
1.2
6180000
6180000
1 .5
1.2
6170000
6170000
1.4
1.4
1.5
6160000
6160000
1.
2
1
6150000
6150000
1 .4
1 .4
1.4
1.2
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
1
1.
2
6130000
6130000
1
Calling
Lake 1.2
1
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
1 .5
1.
4
1.4
1.5
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
1. 2
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
1.4
Lake
Sandy Lake
1 .2
1.2
Pelican
Lake
1.2
1.5
1.2
6180000
6180000
1. 4
2
1.
6170000
6170000
1.2
1.5
1.4
6160000
6160000
1.5
1
1.4
6150000
6150000
1.4
1.
2
1.4
McMillan
Lake
1
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
1.
2
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake 1.2
1
1
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
1.
5
1.
4 Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
1.
5
1.5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
1.5
Sandy Lake
1.5
1 .4
1.5
Pelican
Lake
1.4
6180000
6180000
1.5
6170000
6170000
1.5
1 .2 1.
6160000
6160000
2 1.4
1.2
1.
5
1.2
2
1.
1.
1.
5
2
6150000
6150000
1.
2
McMillan 1.4
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
1.
2
1.2
1.5 1.
1.2 5
1
6130000
6130000
1.2
Calling
Lake
1.
1.2
4
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
B6.1 PM2.5 Concentrations

1-hour PM2.5 Concentrations
Existing Case
For existing condition 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-7 and Figure B-27. The maximum predicted
1-hour PM2.5 concentrations are relatively low within and along the Project CPF fence line (17.6 and 17.6
µg/m3) as there are no substantive PM2.5 emission sources located in the immediate area. The 1-hour
PM2.5 maximum in the LSA is 22.6 µg/m3; which is less than the AAAQG (i.e., 80 µg/m3). This value is
predicted to occur in the north-eastern portion of the LSA. Higher PM2.5 concentrations are predicted
outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher values occur near oil sands mine developments.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-7 and Figure B-28. The maximum predicted 1-
hour PM2.5 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (21.9 and 21.9 µg/m3) increases
compared to the existing condition. The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is 30.9 µg/m3, which is
less than the AAAQG (i.e., 80 µg/m3) and occurs near the north-western border of the LSA.
Application Case
For Application Case 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-7 and Figure B-29. The maximum predicted
1-hour PM2.5 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (38.5 and 34.5 µg/m3) increase
due to the Project PM2.5 emission sources. The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is 35.0 µg/m3,
which occurs inside the well pad area.

For PDC 1-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-7 and Figure B-30. There are slight increases to the
Page B-41
TABLE B-7
COMPARISON OF 1-HOUR (9TH HIGHEST) PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS
1-hour (9th highest) PM2.5 Concentration

2002 15.7 18.2 38.5 112 38.5 112
2003 16.6 21.5 34.6 61 34.6 61
Inside Project 2004 17.6 21.9 33.2 51 33.2 51

CPF Fence line 2005 17.0 19.9 33.2 67 33.2 67
2006 15.0 18.0 33.5 86 33.5 87
Maximum 17.6 21.9 38.5 76 38.5 76
2002 15.8 18.3 34.5 89 34.6 89
2003 16.8 21.6 29.9 38 29.9 39
On Project CPF 2004 17.6 21.9 29.9 36 30.2 38

Fence line 2005 17.1 20.0 30.0 50 30.0 50
2006 15.0 18.0 29.8 65 29.8 65
Maximum 17.6 21.9 34.5 57 34.6 58
2002 16.4 19.7 35.0 77 35.4 79
2003 17.4 22.7 29.1 28 29.2 29
Outside Project
CPF Fence line 2004 18.0 22.9 31.1 36 31.4 37
and Inside Well 2005 17.5 21.8 29.1 34 29.1 34
Pad Area 15.5 18.5 29.0 57 29.1 57
2006
Maximum 18.0 22.9 35.0 53 35.4 55
2002 16.8 21.7 26.1 20 26.2 21
2003 22.6 30.9 30.9 0.00 36.7 19
Outside Well 2004 19.8 27.7 28.6 3.1 32.3 16
Pad Area and
2005 19.0 24.1 26.5 10 27.1 12
Inside LSA
2006 17.2 21.8 25.9 19 25.9 19
Maximum 22.6 30.9 30.9 0.00 36.7 19
2002 185 207 207 0.00 208 0.6
2003 202 224 224 0.00 226 1.0
Outside LSA and 2004 213 224 224 0.00 225 0.5
Inside RSA 2005 234 243 243 0.00 245 1.0
2006 207 237 237 0.007 243 2.5
Maximum 234 243 243 0.00 245 1.0
AAAQG 80 80 80 - 80 -
NOTES:
The % change is with respect to the Baseline Case.
AAAQG are not applicable within an industrial fence line.
Page B-42
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000 18
6210000
22
22
21
19
19
21
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
21
20
20
18
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
20
Pelican
Lake 19
19
6180000
6180000
18 18
18
6170000
6170000
18
18
18
17
17
18
6160000
6160000
17
17
6150000
6150000
17
McMillan
Lake 17
17
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
17
17
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake
17
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
30
30
25 30
6210000
6210000
25
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
25
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
25
Sandy Lake
25
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
22
6170000
6170000
22 22
22
21
21
6160000
6160000
21 21
21
21
21
6150000
6150000
20
21
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
21
20
6130000
6130000
20
20
20
20
Calling
Lake
20
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
30
25
30
6210000 30
6210000
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
25
25
25 63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
25
25
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
25
25
6170000
6170000
22
22 22
22
21
6160000
6160000
21
21
21
22
21
21
21
6150000
6150000
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
21
Athabasca
20
6130000
6130000
20
20
Calling
Lake
20
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
30
6210000
6210000
30
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
30
63
30
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
25
6170000
6170000
25
25
25
6160000
6160000
25
6150000
6150000
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
22 22
22 22
6130000
6130000
22
22
22
22
Calling
Lake
22
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
22 21
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations

Existing Condition
For existing condition 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-8 and Figure B-31. The maximum predicted
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations within and along the Project CPF fence line (11.7 and 11.8 µg/m3). The
maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is 13.6 µg/m3, which is less than the AAAQO (i.e., 30 µg/m3).
Higher PM2.5 concentrations are predicted outside the LSA and within the RSA; these higher values occur
near mine developments.
Baseline Case
For Baseline Case 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-8 and Figure B-32. The maximum predicted
slightly due to other PM2.5 emitting projects in the LSA. The maximum PM2.5 concentration in the LSA is
Application Case
For Application Case 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-8 and Figure B-33. The maximum predicted
compared to the Baseline Case due to the Project PM2.5 emission sources. The maximum PM2.5
concentration in the LSA is 21.8 µg/m3, which is 22 percent higher than the Baseline Case.

For PDC 24-hour PM2.5 predictions, see Table B-8 and Figure B-34. There are slight increases to the
predicted maximum concentrations relative to the Application Case. The maximum 24-hour PM2.5
Page B-47
TABLE B-8
COMPARISON OF 24-HOUR (2ND HIGHEST) PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS
24-hour (2nd highest) PM2.5 Concentration

Fence line 2003 11.4 13.8 20.6 50 20.6 50
2004 11.3 13.3 19.7 48 20.5 54
2005 11.6 13.8 18.3 33 18.3 33
2006 10.4 11.7 18.8 61 18.8 61
Maximum 11.7 13.8 27.2 97 27.3 98
On Project CPF 2002 11.8 13.6 21.8 60 21.9 61
Fence line 2003 11.5 13.9 18.6 34 18.6 34
2004 11.5 13.3 18.3 38 18.8 41
2005 11.7 13.9 16.7 21 16.7 21
2006 10.5 11.7 18.8 61 18.9 62
Maximum 11.8 13.9 21.8 57 21.9 58
Outside Project 2002 12.1 14.2 21.1 48 21.2 49
CPF Fence line 2003 12.0 15.7 18.0 15 18.0 15
and Inside Well
2004 12.2 14.6 18.1 24 18.7 29
Pad Area
2005 12.2 14.9 16.1 8 16.4 10
2006 11.0 12.3 18.4 50 18.5 51
Maximum 12.2 15.7 21.1 34 21.2 35
Outside Well Pad 2002 12.3 14.8 18.2 23 18.2 23
Area and Inside 2003 13.5 16.7 16.7 0.00 18.4 11
LSA
2004 13.6 17.9 17.9 0.1 20.4 14
2005 11.9 14.8 16.1 9 17.0 15
2006 11.4 13.4 16.0 19 16.2 20
Maximum 13.6 17.9 18.2 2.0 20.4 14
Outside LSA and 2002 98 110 110 0.003 111 1.2
Inside RSA 2003 120 112 112 0.00 113 0.8
2004 130 100 100 0.02 101 1.8
2005 142 106 106 0.01 108 1.8
2006 116 104 104 0.03 105 1.1
Maximum 142 112 112 0.000 113 0.8
AAAQO 30 30 30 - 30 -
Page B-48
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
12
6210000 .5
6210000
13 13
12.5
13
.5
12
12
.5
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
12
12
.5
13 12
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
12
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
.5
12
12
6170000
6170000
.5
11
6160000
6160000
12
12
6150000
6150000
.5
11
.5
11
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
12
6130000
6130000
12
Calling
5
Lake
11.
12
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
12
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
15.5
15
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
15
.5
15.
5
15
63
14.5
15
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake 14
.5
14
.5
Pelican
Lake
14
14
6180000
6180000
.5
15 15
14
6170000
6170000
.5
14
15
.5
13
6160000
6160000
14
13.
13.5
14
5
6150000
6150000
.5
13
13.5 McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6130000
6130000
Calling
13.5
Lake
.5
14
13
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
15.5
15
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
15
.5
15.
5
63 15
6190000
6190000
Sandy 15
14.5
Lake
Sandy Lake
14 14
.5 .5
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
14 14
.5
15
15
6170000
6170000
14
14
14
14.5
13.5
14
6160000
6160000
14.5
15 14
.5
13
13.5
14.5
14
6150000
6150000
14 13.5
13.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
5
13.
.5
13
6130000
6130000
Calling
13.5
Lake
.5
14
13
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
14
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
6210000
6210000
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
16
.5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
16.5
Lake 16
.5 .5
Sandy Lake 16
15
.5
Pelican
Lake
15.
6180000
6180000
5
6170000
6170000
5
15.
15.5
15.5
.5
16
6160000
6160000
.5
15
16.5
.5
15
15
.5
6150000
6150000
15.5
15.5
15
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
15
.5
15
15.5
6130000
6130000
Calling
15.5
.5
Lake
15
15
15
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
B7.1 Intermittent Project Emissions

Abnormal emissions may periodically occur because of the intermittent use of emergency generators and
intermittent flaring events. The intermittent scenarios are unchanged from the Integrated Application and
are:
Operation of Emergency Generators: Emergency power generators may run occasionally during certain
plant upsets as well as for routine maintenance. In this scenario, it is conservatively assumed that all
backup generators (one for each phase) are running simultaneously in addition to all other normal
emissions at the project.
Flaring during Inlet fuel gas control failure: Due to a failure with the inlet fuel gas control, it is expected
that the entire CPF will shut down and fuel gas is flared via the high pressure (HP) flare stack. For
purpose of assessing the effect on air quality associated with this scenario, it was assumed that flaring
would occur using the Phase 2 high pressure (HP) flare.
Flaring of inlet produced gas: Produced gas will be directed to the Phase 2 HP flare instead of being
directed to the CPF fuel system. It is likely that the other Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 sources would
continue to operate normally when produced gas is being flared. However, the CPF would be burning
natural gas instead of mixed gas (i.e., a mixture of natural gas and produced gas) when produced gas is
flared. This assessment examines the overlap the Phase 2 HP flare upset with other normal Phase 1, 2
and 3 sources.
Flaring during VRU compressor outage: This scenario assumes that one of the two vapour recovery unit
(VRUs) has failed resulting in the flaring of vapours in the Phase 2 low pressure (LP) flare. It is likely that
the other emission sources at the plant would continue to operate normally during this scenario. This
assessment examines the overlap of the Phase 2 LP flare (VRU compressor outage) with other normal
Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 sources.
The CALPUFF model was used to provide an indication of the maximum predicted NO2, SO2, and PM2.5
concentrations associated with the emergency generator operation and intermittent flaring events. The
Integrated Application evaluated intermittent flaring and emergency generator usage on a Project alone
(Project Case) basis. To address AESRD SIR (Part C AESRD SIR 14), all other emission sources within
the model domain have been included along with the addition of ambient background concentrations to
the updated results associated with intermittent Project emissions (Application Case).
The maximum predicted concentrations for the emergency generator operation and upset flaring
scenarios are shown in Tables B-9 to B-11 for the Project Case and in Tables B-12 to B-14 for the
Application Case.
Page B-53
TABLE B-9
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND FLARING – PROJECT CASE
Emergency Generator Inlet Fuel Gas Control Failure Inlet Produced Gas to Flare VRU Compressor Outage
1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour
Location Year (1st highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (9th highest) (1st highest) (9th highest)
Inside Project CPF 2002 143 130 52.6 43.6 140 114 181 155
Fence Line 2003 141 122 46.4 38.1 136 118 155 148
2004 154 117 51.8 41.9 140 112 140 119
2005 149 123 50.6 37.4 145 118 156 147
2006 185 132 49.6 34.8 170 124 170 152
Maximum 185 132 52.6 43.6 170 124 181 155
On Project CPF Fence 2002 147 119 53.3 44.3 141 114 141 114
Line 2003 139 124 44.4 37.8 134 118 134 118
2004 146 118 51.9 39.7 139 112 139 112
2005 150 122 50.6 37.9 145 116 145 116
2006 183 127 50.2 34.5 147 121 147 121
Maximum 183 127 53.3 44.3 147 121 147 121
Outside Project CPF 2002 144 116 94.3 68.6 140 111 140 111
Fence Line and Inside
Page B-54
2003 137 120 80.3 60.9 134 116 134 116

Well Pad Area
2004 138 113 86.8 63.8 132 108 132 108
2005 147 119 81.7 60.9 140 112 140 112
2006 181 124 90.8 64.5 143 118 143 118
Maximum 181 124 94.3 68.6 143 118 143 118
Outside Well Pad Area 2002 138 111 77.5 61.7 119 107 119 107
and Inside LSA 2003 125 113 78.0 53.3 118 105 118 106
2004 156 107 83.5 48.1 137 103 137 103
2005 136 109 71.3 54.5 115 104 115 104
2006 138 122 84.5 54.2 118 105 118 105
Maximum 156 122 84.5 61.7 137 107 137 107
Outside the LSA and 2002 11.3 4.79 1.05 0.61 8.69 4.27 8.73 4.26
inside RSA 2003 8.69 5.38 1.15 0.42 8.48 4.77 8.48 4.78
2004 11.9 7.95 0.83 0.38 11.3 6.69 11.3 6.69
2005 11.9 6.72 0.90 0.42 11.0 6.10 11.0 6.11
2006 13.5 7.01 0.95 0.41 10.9 5.79 11.0 5.81
Maximum 13.5 7.95 1.15 0.61 11.3 6.69 11.3 6.69
AAAQO - 300 - 300 - 300 - 300
TABLE B-10
MAXIMUM PREDICTED SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND FLARING – PROJECT CASE
Inside Project CPF 2002 63.2 33.2 0.22 0.10 35.6 29.4 1079 802
Fence Line 2003 59.9 28.5 0.20 0.09 31.3 22.9 936 884
2004 104 27.1 0.21 0.10 60.7 21.1 953 734
2005 92.1 27.8 0.23 0.11 53.0 21.9 1004 832
2006 111 27.8 0.33 0.20 72.3 20.9 1047 970
Maximum 111 33.2 0.33 0.20 72.3 29.4 1079 970
On Project CPF Fence 2002 65.6 22.9 0.31 0.12 39.9 16.1 92.6 72.7
Line 2003 68.6 23.6 0.36 0.11 38.7 16.2 68.5 44.9
2004 99.3 23.6 0.26 0.11 58.7 16.1 99.1 57.9
2005 97.1 23.6 0.29 0.09 60.7 16.0 97.3 48.2
2006 125 23.4 0.36 0.13 78.2 15.8 126 50.3
Maximum 125 23.6 0.36 0.13 78.2 16.2 126 72.7
Outside Project CPF 2002 64.4 23.2 0.39 0.20 39.5 14.3 64.6 31.7
Page B-55
2003 69.8 20.3 0.37 0.19 41.5 12.6 69.7 20.3

Well Pad Area
2004 93.2 21.5 0.56 0.21 55.6 13.0 93.1 21.6
2005 94.2 20.5 0.51 0.19 59.5 12.5 94.4 20.8
2006 110 20.7 0.63 0.18 70.6 12.8 111 22.2
Maximum 110 23.2 0.63 0.21 70.6 14.3 111 31.7
Outside Well Pad Area 2002 70.4 16.9 0.45 0.15 40.9 11.1 70.5 16.9
and Inside LSA 2003 41.0 16.1 0.44 0.14 23.9 9.47 42.8 16.1
2004 78.1 21.4 1.22 0.14 48.4 13.3 81.4 22.4
2005 42.6 16.9 0.59 0.14 24.5 9.30 43.7 16.9
2006 87.7 15.0 0.48 0.14 51.1 9.56 88.0 16.7
Maximum 87.7 21.4 1.22 0.15 51.1 13.3 88.0 22.4
Outside LSA and inside 2002 0.82 0.41 0.06 0.04 0.54 0.27 1.00 0.46
RSA 2003 0.97 0.47 0.05 0.02 0.65 0.31 1.10 0.54
2004 1.40 0.66 0.05 0.02 0.90 0.43 1.55 0.75
2005 1.07 0.61 0.05 0.02 0.71 0.39 1.21 0.68
2006 1.07 0.62 0.06 0.02 0.71 0.41 1.20 0.70
Maximum 1.40 0.66 0.06 0.04 0.90 0.43 1.55 0.75
AAAQO - 450 - 450 - 450 - 450
TABLE B-11
MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND FLARING – PROJECT CASE
Fence Line 2003 52.1 25.3 5.53 3.60 51.4 25.2 163 154
2004 94.6 24.0 7.16 3.97 92.9 23.7 166 128
2005 80.7 24.1 4.49 3.90 79.7 23.8 175 145
2006 97.3 24.1 5.75 3.64 95.6 23.7 182 169
Maximum 97.3 29.7 7.16 3.97 95.6 29.1 188 169
Line 2003 59.6 20.6 5.65 3.62 58.8 20.4 58.8 20.4
2004 90.2 20.7 7.24 4.01 88.7 20.3 88.7 20.3
2005 85.2 20.7 5.16 3.88 84.1 20.6 84.2 20.6
2006 109 20.5 5.78 3.92 108 20.2 108 20.2
Maximum 109 25.6 7.24 4.01 108 24.5 108 24.5
Page B-56
2003 60.6 18.0 10.4 7.26 59.8 17.7 59.8 17.7

Well Pad Area
2004 84.2 18.6 11.1 8.24 82.8 18.4 82.8 18.4
2005 83.1 18.0 11.1 7.56 81.8 17.8 81.8 17.8
2006 95.9 18.1 11.9 8.12 94.8 17.8 94.7 17.8
Maximum 95.9 25.6 14.1 8.58 94.8 25.0 94.7 25.0
and Inside LSA 2003 35.8 14.2 8.15 5.64 35.4 14.2 35.4 14.2
2004 71.2 18.9 11.0 6.09 70.0 18.7 70.0 18.6
2005 36.8 16.1 8.69 5.54 36.2 15.9 36.3 15.9
2006 76.2 13.6 11.8 6.24 75.4 12.9 75.4 12.9
Maximum 76.2 18.9 11.8 6.62 75.4 18.7 75.4 18.6
Outside LSA and inside 2002 1.16 0.68 0.29 0.16 0.98 0.59 0.99 0.59
RSA 2003 2.17 1.14 0.24 0.13 1.78 1.01 1.79 1.02
2004 1.91 0.95 0.24 0.12 1.91 0.85 1.92 0.86
2005 2.57 1.16 0.24 0.12 2.03 1.01 2.06 1.01
2006 1.96 1.14 0.36 0.13 1.78 0.97 1.80 0.98
Maximum 2.57 1.16 0.36 0.16 2.03 1.01 2.06 1.02
AAAQG - 80 - 80 - 80 - 80
TABLE B-12
MAXIMUM PREDICTED NO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND FLARING – APPLICATION CASE
Inside Project CPF 2002 164 150 127 113 161 135 202 176
Fence Line 2003 161 143 127 108 157 138 176 169
2004 175 138 130 107 162 133 162 140
2005 170 144 132 113 166 138 177 168
2006 205 153 122 105 190 146 190 173
Maximum 205 153 132 113 190 146 202 176
On Project CPF Fence 2002 168 140 136 117 162 135 162 135
Line 2003 160 145 134 119 155 139 155 139
2004 167 138 132 120 160 133 160 133
2005 171 143 137 120 165 136 165 136
2006 203 148 132 117 167 142 167 142
Maximum 203 148 137 120 167 142 167 142
Outside Project CPF 2002 165 137 141 129 160 132 160 132
Page B-57
2003 158 141 153 134 155 137 155 137

Well Pad Area
2004 161 140 161 139 161 139 161 139
2005 168 142 164 142 164 142 164 142
2006 201 147 169 147 169 147 169 147
Maximum 201 147 169 147 169 147 169 147
Outside Well Pad Area 2002 171 150 167 150 170 150 170 150
and Inside LSA 2003 222 148 222 148 222 148 222 148
2004 231 140 231 140 231 140 231 140
2005 256 142 256 142 256 142 256 142
2006 366 159 366 154 366 159 366 159
Maximum 366 159 366 154 366 159 366 159
Outside the LSA and 2002 448 369 448 369 448 369 448 369
inside RSA 2003 449 385 449 385 449 385 449 385
2004 421 379 421 379 421 379 421 379
2005 413 388 413 388 413 388 413 388
2006 452 393 452 393 452 393 452 393
Maximum 452 393 452 393 452 393 452 393
AAAQO - 300 - 300 - 300 - 300
TABLE B-13
MAXIMUM PREDICTED SO2 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND FLARING – APPLICATION CASE
Fence Line 2003 64.0 31.1 31.0 23.6 35.3 26.1 939 887
2004 107 30.2 43.1 19.5 63.4 25.0 956 738
2005 94.7 31.5 34.6 22.6 55.6 25.2 1007 836
2006 114 30.8 43.8 24.3 75.3 27.1 1050 972
Maximum 114 36.1 44.7 26.9 75.3 32.8 1082 972
Line 2003 72.8 27.1 30.9 23.6 42.9 25.1 72.7 47.5
2004 102 27.8 43.1 19.5 61.4 22.7 102 60.5
2005 100 26.5 34.6 22.9 63.3 24.6 100 50.8
2006 128 27.4 43.8 24.3 81.2 25.8 129 52.9
Maximum 128 35.3 44.7 26.9 81.2 32.2 129 75.3
Page B-58
2003 73.9 26.1 30.8 23.8 45.6 25.0 73.8 26.1

Well Pad Area
2004 96.0 27.8 44.7 19.4 58.3 22.6 95.8 28.5
2005 96.8 27.2 34.6 27.2 62.1 27.2 97.0 27.2
2006 113 27.6 44.7 24.2 73.6 25.6 114 28.8
Maximum 113 35.2 45.6 27.9 73.6 31.1 114 36.1
and Inside LSA 2003 86.6 42.5 86.6 42.5 86.6 42.5 86.6 42.5
2004 80.8 34.0 57.5 33.9 57.5 33.9 84.1 34.0
2005 58.4 39.5 58.4 39.5 58.4 39.5 58.4 39.5
2006 90.6 35.8 73.3 35.8 73.3 35.8 90.9 35.8
Maximum 99.3 42.5 99.3 42.5 99.3 42.5 99.3 42.5
Outside LSA and inside 2002 997 407 997 407 997 407 997 407
RSA 2003 930 537 930 537 930 537 930 537
2004 1225 441 1225 441 1225 441 1225 441
2005 1015 492 1015 492 1015 492 1015 492
2006 673 408 673 408 673 408 673 408
Maximum 1225 537 1225 537 1225 537 1225 537
AAAQO - 450 - 450 - 450 - 450
TABLE B-14
MAXIMUM PREDICTED PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS (µG/M3) FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR OPERATION AND FLARING – APPLICATION CASE
Fence Line 2003 61.8 34.7 27.0 21.7 61.1 34.6 173 164
2004 104 33.4 26.1 23.2 102.5 33.2 175 138
2005 90.3 34.0 27.3 20.3 89.3 33.2 184 154
2006 107 33.8 22.3 18.5 105 33.5 192 178
Maximum 107 39.1 27.3 23.2 105 38.5 197 178
Line 2003 69.3 30.1 27.3 21.7 68.5 29.8 68.5 29.8
2004 99.8 30.1 26.1 23.2 98.3 29.9 98.3 29.9
2005 94.8 30.2 27.5 20.3 93.7 30.0 93.8 30.0
2006 119 30.1 22.4 18.4 117 29.8 117 29.8
Maximum 119 35.1 27.5 23.2 117 34.5 117 34.5
Page B-59
2003 70.3 27.4 29.0 22.7 69.5 27.1 69.5 27.1

Well Pad Area
2004 93.7 31.3 27.8 24.1 92.3 31.1 92.4 31.1
2005 92.7 27.4 30.2 21.8 91.4 27.2 91.4 27.2
2006 106 27.6 23.5 20.2 105 27.4 105 27.4
Maximum 106 35.7 30.2 24.1 105 34.5 105 34.5
and Inside LSA 2003 46.1 30.9 46.0 31.0 46.1 30.9 46.1 30.9
2004 80.8 29.3 30.3 27.7 79.6 28.6 79.6 28.6
2005 47.3 26.8 29.7 24.1 46.6 26.5 46.6 26.5
2006 86.0 23.3 26.8 21.8 85.2 23.0 85.2 23.0
Maximum 86.0 30.9 46.0 31.0 85.2 30.9 85.2 30.9
Outside LSA and inside 2002 240 207 240 207 240 207 240 207
RSA 2003 250 224 250 224 250 224 250 224
2004 352 224 352 224 352 224 352 224
2005 277 243 277 243 277 243 277 243
2006 266 237 266 237 266 237 266 237
Maximum 352 243 352 243 352 243 352 243
AAAQG - 80 - 80 - 80 - 80
B8.1 Health and Odour Related Concentrations

To get an indication of how air quality changes could affect human health or produce odours, maximum
concentrations for over 70 different substances and substance groups were predicted at various discrete
locations to represent potentially sensitive receptor locations. A summary is provided for the substances
for which there are ambient criteria, and the maximum values for each HHRA receptor group are
compared to the respective ambient criteria.
For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the CAC substances that have associated
ambient air quality objectives, see Table B-15. The maximum predicted concentrations of all CACs are
less than the respective AAAQO and AAAQG at all HHRA receptors.
For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the hydrocarbon substances that have
associated ambient air quality objectives, see Table B-16. The maximum predicted concentrations of all
hydrocarbon substances are less than the respective AAAQO at all HHRA receptors.
For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the TRS substances that have associated
ambient air quality objectives, see Table B-17. The maximum predicted concentrations of both TRS
substances are less than the respective AAAQO at all HHRA receptors.
For a summary of the maximum predicted concentrations for the trace metal substances that have
associated ambient air quality objectives, see Table B-18. The maximum predicted concentrations of all
trace metals are less than the respective AAAQO at all HHRA receptors.
TABLE B-15
MAXIMUM PREDICTED
COMMON AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA RECEPTORS
Maximum Concentration
Receptor (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (% Change) (µg/m3) (% Change)
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 300 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 79.4 96.3 96.3 0 97.7 1.4
Worker 111 115 140 22.2 140 22.2
Project MPOI 120 120 142 18.0 142 18.0
LSA MPOI 188 188 188 0 188 0
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual (AAAQO = 45 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 8.92 9.27 9.29 0.2 10.3 10.6
Worker 12.5 14.6 15.4 5.1 15.8 8.3
Project MPOI 9.98 10.5 16.6 58.1 17.0 61.9
LSA MPOI 15.2 15.6 19.8 26.9 20.3 30.1
Sulphur Dioxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 450 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 55.5 73.5 73.5 0 78.1 6.3
Worker 56.3 62.4 62.4 0 67.3 7.8
Project MPOI 28.8 26.9 35.3 31.1 36.9 37.1
LSA MPOI 50.4 42.5 42.5 0 44.2 4.0
Sulphur Dioxide 24-hour (AAAQO = 125 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 16.9 22.8 22.8 0 25.4 11.1
Worker 18.5 18.7 18.8 0.1 22.6 20.6
Project MPOI 11.5 9.73 17.7 81.5 17.8 83.1
LSA MPOI 14.5 15.4 17.7 14.5 18.3 18.7
Sulphur Dioxide Annual (AAAQO = 20 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 2.63 3.94 3.94 0 4.82 22.5
Worker 3.03 3.87 3.87 0 4.60 18.9
Page B-60
TABLE B-15 Cont'd

Nitrogen Dioxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 300 µg/m3)
Project MPOI 1.21 1.23 2.54 106.5 2.72 121.1
LSA MPOI 1.93 2.13 2.54 19.2 2.72 27.7
Fine Particulate Matter 1-hour (AAAQG = 80 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 27.7 40.1 40.1 0 47.1 17.6
Worker 67.7 79.1 79.1 0 92.2 16.4
Project MPOI 17.6 21.9 34.5 57.5 34.6 57.5
LSA MPOI 22.6 30.9 35.0 13.3 36.7 18.8
Fine Particulate Matter 24-hour (AAAQO = 30 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 16.8 24.0 24.0 0 26.9 12.1
Worker 33.4 41.1 41.1 0.2 47.8 16.3
Project MPOI 11.8 13.9 21.8 57.1 21.9 57.6
LSA MPOI 13.6 17.9 21.8 22.0 21.9 22.4
Carbon Monoxide 1-hour (AAAQO = 15,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 672 718 718 0 785 9.3
Worker 2460 2180 2180 0 2814 29.1
Project MPOI 844 852 1219 43.0 1220 43.1
LSA MPOI 1101 1103 1287 16.7 1289 16.8
Carbon Monoxide 8-hour (AAAQO = 6,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 624 705 705 0 762 8.0
Worker 2053 1635 1635 0 2092 28.0
Project MPOI 838 847 1187 40.1 1187 40.1
LSA MPOI 1275 1275 1276 0.1 1277 0.2
Notes: - 1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest, 24-hour concentrations are the 2nd highest, 8-hour and annual concentrations are the 1st
highest.
- The % change is with respect to the Baseline Case.
- The Project MPOI refers to the highest concentration predicted to occur along the Project CPF fence line.
- LSA MPOI refers to the highest concentration predicted to occur in the LSA. This is only applicable to CACs as the full receptor grid was
not run for non-CACs.
TABLE B-16
MAXIMUM PREDICTED
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA RECEPTORS
Acetaldehyde 1-hour (AAAQO = 90 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 2.86 5.61 5.61 0 6.18 10.1
Worker 9.12 12.1 12.1 0 13.5 11.3
Project MPOI 0.21 0.60 1.74 191 1.74 191
Benzene 1-hour (AAAQO = 30 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 3.86 3.88 3.88 0 3.88 0.02
Worker 5.11 7.17 7.17 0 7.31 2.0
Project MPOI 0.27 0.38 7.56 1916 7.56 1916
Benzo(a)pyrene Annual (AAAQO = 0.0003 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.000001 0.000004 0.000004 0.4 0.000004 4.8
Page B-61
TABLE B-16 Cont'd

Acetaldehyde 1-hour (AAAQO = 90 µg/m3)
Worker 0.000002 0.000003 0.000009 182 0.000009 184
Project MPOI 0.000001 0.000001 0.00007 6542 0.00007 6542
Ethylbenzene 1-hour (AAAQO = 2,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 2.55 4.19 4.19 0 4.19 0.2
Worker 3.86 6.34 6.34 0 6.37 0.5
Project MPOI 0.21 0.35 0.38 10.1 0.38 10.7
Formaldehyde 1-hour (AAAQO = 65 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 1.76 3.25 3.25 0 3.59 10.4
Worker 6.27 7.67 7.67 0 8.89 15.8
Project MPOI 0.28 0.45 1.69 280 1.70 282
Hexane 1-hour (AAAQO = 21,000 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 43.8 44.5 44.5 0 46.8 5.0
Worker 47.1 69.3 69.3 0.0 74.6 7.7
Project MPOI 2.27 4.02 56.0 1293 56.0 1293
Hexane 24-hour (AAAQO = 90 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 19.8 22.6 22.6 0 23.1 1.9
Worker 18.4 29.7 29.7 0.1 33.6 13.3
Project MPOI 0.93 1.70 22.3 1212 22.3 1212
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 1-hour (AAAQO = 500 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0
Worker 0.21 0.34 0.34 0 0.34 0
Project MPOI 0.01 0.02 0.02 32.9 0.02 32.9
Methanol 1-hour (AAAQO = 2,600 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.24 0.24 0.24 0 0.27 13.4
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.31 33.0 0.31 33.0
Project MPOI 0.32 0.32 0.57 76.3 0.57 76.3
Styrene 1-hour (AAAQO = 215 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.03 0.03 0.03 0 0.03 0
Worker 0.24 0.24 0.24 0 0.24 0
Project MPOI 0.002 0.002 0.01 192 0.01 191
Toluene 1-hour (AAAQO = 1,880 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 8.7 14.6 14.6 0 14.7 0.6
Worker 15.6 24.0 24.0 0 24.1 0.5
Project MPOI 0.81 1.34 5.47 308 5.48 309
Toluene 24-hour (AAAQO = 400 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 3.98 4.95 4.95 0 4.98 0.6
Worker 5.74 9.36 9.36 0 9.44 0.8
Project MPOI 0.34 0.57 2.25 297 2.25 297
Xylenes 1-hour (AAAQO = 2,300 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 14.2 22.7 22.7 0 22.8 0.3
Worker 21.3 34.3 34.3 0 34.4 0.2
Project MPOI 1.19 1.94 1.98 2.1 2.00 3.1
Notes: - 1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest, 24-hour concentrations are the 2nd highest, annual concentrations are the 1st highest.
Page B-62
TABLE B-17
MAXIMUM PREDICTED
TOTAL REDUCED SULPHUR SUBSTANCE CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA RECEPTORS
Carbon Disulphide 1-hour (AAAQO = 30 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.67 1.00 1.00 0 1.08 7.3
Worker 1.08 1.51 1.51 0 1.63 7.9
Project MPOI 0.09 0.14 0.14 0 0.15 11.8
Carbon Disulphide Peak (Odour Threshold = 495 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 1.75 2.62 2.62 0 2.81 7.3
Worker 2.81 3.94 3.94 0 4.26 7.9
Project MPOI 0.23 0.35 0.35 0 0.40 11.8
Hydrogen Sulphide 1-hour (AAAQO = 14 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 4.76 4.84 4.84 0 4.84 0.01
Worker 3.77 6.02 6.02 0 6.07 0.9
Project MPOI 0.19 0.29 0.71 143 0.72 145
Hydrogen Sulphide Peak (Odour Threshold = 11.5 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 12.4 12.6 12.6 0 12.6 0.01
Worker 9.83 15.7 15.7 0 15.8 0.9
Project MPOI 0.49 0.77 1.86 143 1.88 145
Hydrogen Sulphide 24-hour (AAAQO = 4 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 2.07 2.29 2.29 0.01 2.32 1.4
Worker 1.31 2.26 2.26 0 2.31 2.0
Project MPOI 0.08 0.12 0.28 132 0.28 132
Notes: - 1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest and 24-hour concentrations are the 2nd highest.
- Odour thresholds are from Cenovus (2010).
Page B-63
TABLE B-18
MAXIMUM PREDICTED TRACE METALS CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA RECEPTORS
Arsenic 1-hour (AAAQO = 0.1 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00013 0.00015 0.00015 0.7 0.00017 14.3
Worker 0.00056 0.00058 0.00058 0 0.00086 48.1
Project MPOI 0.00055 0.000059 0.00037 534 0.00037 534
Arsenic Annual (AAAQO = 0.01 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.0000061 0.0000088 0.0000089 0.5 0.000011 27.0
Worker 0.000027 0.000030 0.000030 0 0.000039 31.2
Project MPOI 0.0000079 0.0000024 0.000026 962 0.000027 999
Chromium 1-hour (AAAQO = 1 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.0021 0.0025 0.0025 0.003 0.0026 2.6
Worker 0.0025 0.0026 0.0026 0 0.0028 10.1
Project MPOI 0.0011 0.0014 0.0014 0 0.0015 7.8
Lead 1-hour (AAAQO = 1.5 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.0013 0.0020 0.0020 0 0.0021 5.3
Worker 0.012 0.012 0.012 0 0.012 0
Project MPOI 0.00021 0.00031 0.00058 86.2 0.00059 89.4
Manganese 1-hour (AAAQO = 2 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00021 0.00022 0.00022 0 0.00029 32.0
Worker 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0 0.0024 36.0
Project MPOI 0.00023 0.000094 0.00093 890 0.00093 894
Manganese Annual (AAAQO = 0.2 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.000018 0.000018 0.000018 0.5 0.000026 41.2
Worker 0.000060 0.000064 0.000064 0.2 0.000087 35.9
Project MPOI 0.0000046 0.0000047 0.000062 1231 0.000064 1274
Nickel 1-hour (AAAQO = 6 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.0038 0.0044 0.0044 0 0.0045 1.2
Worker 0.0063 0.0063 0.0063 0.1 0.0099 57.0
Project MPOI 0.0019 0.0025 0.0048 87.4 0.0051 101
Nickel Annual (AAAQO = 0.5 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.00013 0.00018 0.00018 0 0.00022 19.1
Worker 0.00027 0.00031 0.00031 0.3 0.00044 42.3
Project MPOI 0.000045 0.000063 0.00034 433 0.00035 454
Notes: - 1-hour concentrations are the 9th highest and annual concentrations are the 1st highest.
Page B-64
B9.1 Acid Forming Substance Deposition

The CALPUFF model was used to predict PAI deposition in the RSA due to existing condition, Baseline
Case, Application Case and PDC precursor emissions. The model predictions were added to the AESRD
REgional Lagrangian Acid Deposition (RELAD) model predictions to account for background contribution
from sources located outside the model domain. The predicted annual PAI depositions are provided for
each simulation year for the twelve 1° longitude x 1° latitude grid-cells that comprise the RSA.
Existing Condition
For the existing condition PAI predictions, see Tables B-19 and B-20, and Figure B-35. Depending on the
grid cell, the average PAI deposition ranges from 0.031 to 0.134 keq H+/ha/a. On a grid cell basis, the
PAI in the RSA is less than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a
Monitoring Load for sensitive grid cells).
Baseline Case
For the Baseline Case PAI predictions, see Tables Tables B-19 and B-20, and Figure B-36. Depending
on the grid cell, the average PAI deposition ranges from 0.036 to 0.151 keq H+/ha/a. The highest value
occurs in the grid cell that is in the NW corner of the RSA. The predicted values for all grid cells are less
than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a Monitoring Load for sensitive
grid cells).
Application Case
For the Application Case PAI predictions, see Tables Tables B-19 and B-20, and Figure B-37. Depending
on the grid cell, the average PAI deposition ranges from 0.037 to 0.152 keq H+/ha/a). Compared to the
Baseline Case, the grid cell averages increase between 0.14 and 2.54 percent. The predicted values for
all grid cells are less than the most stringent deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a
Monitoring Load for sensitive grid cells).

For the PDC PAI predictions, see Tables B-19 and B-20, and Figure B-38. Depending on the grid cell, the
average PAI deposition value ranges from 0.046 to 0.191 keq H+/ha/a. Compared to the Baseline Case,
the grid cell averages increase between 9.31 and 27.3 percent. The predicted values for all grid cells
except the northeastern most portion of the RSA (56⁰ N, 112⁰ W), are less than the most stringent
deposition loading criteria (i.e., the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a Monitoring Load for sensitive grid cells).
Page B-65
TABLE B-19
PREDICTED GRID CELL AVERAGE PAI DEPOSITION
Annual PAI Deposition (keq H+/ha/a)

Application Case PDC
1° by 1° Grid Year Existing Condition Baseline Case Prediction % Change Prediction % Change
56 N 2002 0.059 0.061 0.061 0.18 0.072 16.9
114 W 2003 0.065 0.067 0.067 0.25 0.078 17.2
(NW RSA) 2004 0.081 0.083 0.083 0.19 0.098 18.5
2005 0.069 0.069 0.069 0.27 0.081 17.6
2006 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.33 0.096 19.2
Average 0.070 0.072 0.072 0.25 0.085 18.0
56 N 2002 0.058 0.063 0.063 0.30 0.078 24.3
113 W 2003 0.063 0.069 0.069 0.37 0.085 23.7
(Fort McMurray) 2004 0.082 0.088 0.089 0.29 0.108 22.4
2005 0.079 0.081 0.081 0.30 0.099 22.5
2006 0.090 0.093 0.093 0.33 0.114 22.9
Average 0.074 0.079 0.079 0.32 0.097 23.1
56 N 2002 0.093 0.106 0.107 0.15 0.135 26.7
112 W 2003 0.118 0.133 0.133 0.16 0.169 26.8
(NE RSA) 2004 0.122 0.139 0.139 0.15 0.175 25.9
2005 0.133 0.146 0.147 0.15 0.186 27.3
2006 0.134 0.151 0.152 0.14 0.191 26.3
Average 0.120 0.135 0.136 0.15 0.171 26.6
55 N 2002 0.044 0.046 0.046 0.50 0.050 9.3
114 W 2003 0.049 0.050 0.050 0.50 0.055 10.4
(SW RSA) 2004 0.055 0.058 0.058 0.63 0.065 12.4
2005 0.053 0.053 0.054 0.60 0.059 11.1
2006 0.046 0.049 0.049 0.73 0.054 10.8
Average 0.049 0.051 0.051 0.59 0.057 10.9
55 N 2002 0.039 0.042 0.043 2.43 0.049 16.5
113 W 2003 0.045 0.048 0.049 2.24 0.057 17.1
(Project Area) 2004 0.048 0.053 0.054 2.00 0.062 17.1
2005 0.052 0.055 0.056 2.09 0.064 17.3
2006 0.048 0.051 0.052 2.54 0.060 17.3
Average 0.047 0.050 0.051 2.25 0.058 17.1
55 N 2002 0.031 0.036 0.037 1.08 0.046 26.9
112 W 2003 0.039 0.047 0.047 0.89 0.059 26.6
(SE RSA) 2004 0.036 0.046 0.046 0.86 0.058 26.2
2005 0.039 0.049 0.050 0.86 0.062 25.6
2006 0.041 0.052 0.053 0.82 0.065 25.5
Average 0.037 0.046 0.047 0.89 0.058 26.1
Page B-66
TABLE B-20
SPATIAL EXTENT OF PREDICTED PAI

DEPOSITION IN THE RSA GREATER THAN INDICATED THRESHOLDS
Area (km2)
Deposition Load keq H+/ha/a Existing Condition Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Low Sensitivity
Critical 1.0 51.6 (0.12)% 40.4 (0.09)% 40.5 (0.09)% 62.6 (0.14)%
Target 0.9 67.6 (0.16)% 63.8 (0.15)% 63.9 (0.15)% 97.2 (0.22)%
Monitoring 0.7 119 (0.27)% 139 (0.32)% 139 (0.32)% 199 (0.46)%
Moderately Sensitive
Critical 0.5 204 (0.47)% 244 (0.56)% 244 (0.56)% 358 (0.82)%
Target 0.45 225 (0.52)% 274 (0.63)% 274 (0.63)% 400 (0.92)%
Monitoring 0.35 283 (0.65)% 361 (0.83)% 361 (0.83)% 510 (1.17)%
Sensitive
Critical 0.25 420 (0.97)% 544 (1.25)% 545 (1.25)% 836 (1.92)%
Target 0.22 544 (1.25)% 686 (1.58)% 687 (1.58)% 1178 (2.71)%
Monitoring 0.17 1040 (2.39)% 1242 (2.86)% 1244 (2.86)% 2109 (4.85)%
Notes: - Based on average deposition values for the five-year simulation period 2002 to 2006 and values include background.
- Area of the RSA = 43,479 km2.
- The values in brackets indicate the percent of the RSA that exceeds the deposition loadings.
Page B-67
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
1 22
0.5 0.
0.
25
0.5
17
0.17
0.
2
0.2
6300000
6300000
8
0 .0
7
0.0
0.1
6280000
6280000
0.08
0.1
8
0 .0
0.08
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.0
0.08
7
0.08
0.07 0.08
6240000
6240000
0.07
0.08
0.07
63 0.06
0.06 0.07
6220000
6220000
8
0.0
NorthLake
Wabasca 0.05
0 .0 0.06
6
0.06
Wabasca-Desmarais
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca 0.04
5
Sandy
Lake 0 .0
05
Sandy Lake 0.
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.05
0.05
4
0 .0
Conklin
0.
6160000
6160000
05
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
0 .0
5
0.04
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Moose Portage Calling Lake
Wandering River
0.05
0.05 Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
8
0.2
0 .0
0.25
6300000
6300000
2
7
0 .1
0.1
6280000
6280000
0.08
8
0.0
0.1
0.1
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
1
0.
0.08
6240000
6240000
0 .0
7
0.1
0.07 0.07
63 0.08
0.08
6220000
6220000
0 .0
NorthLake
Wabasca 7
0.06
Wabasca-Desmarais
6
0.0
0.06
6200000
6200000
0.
06
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
05
Lake 05
0.
0.
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.05
Conklin
6160000
6160000
5
0.0
0.05
0.05
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
0.05
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
0.05
0.
05
Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
0.25
7
0.
0.1
0.5
5
7
0.0
0 .2
5
0.2
0.2
0.17
0.25
6300000
6300000
2
2
7
0.08
0 .1
0.1
0.1
6280000
6280000
8
0.0 0.08
0.1
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
1
0.
6240000
6240000
0.08
0.07
0.1
0.07
0.07 63 0.08
0.08
6220000
6220000
0 .0
NorthLake
Wabasca 7
0.06
Wabasca-Desmarais
6
0.0
6200000
6200000
0.06
0.
06
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
05
Lake 5
0 .0
0.
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
0.05
0.05
Conklin
0 .0
6160000
6160000
6
0.05
0.06
0.05
McMillan
0.
0 .0
Lake
6140000
6140000
05
0.06
0.05
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
0. 0 Wandering River
0.05 5
Breynat
0.04
Ranch
Calling River
4
0.0
6100000
6100000
Avenir Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
1
0.5
0.5
0.2
6300000
6300000
25
0.
5
0. 2
0.1
0.08 2 2
0.2
0.17
0.17
6280000
6280000
0.
25
0.1
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
0.1
6240000
6240000
0.
08
0. 1
63
0.1
6220000
6220000
0.
0.08
07
0.08
NorthLake
Wabasca
Wabasca-Desmarais
7
0 .0
0.07
6200000
6200000
0.07
0.
08
SouthLake
Wabasca
0.07
0.0
07
6 Sandy
0.
Lake
6
Sandy Lake 0 .0
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
6
0.0
0.06
0.06
7
0 .0
Conklin
0.
6160000
6160000
07
0.07
0.0
0.06
0.08
5
0.06
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
0.05
7
0 .0
5
0.0
0.05
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
05
0.05
Breynat 0.
Ranch
Calling River
0.0
6
6100000
6100000
Avenir Heart
Lake 0.05
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
B10.1 Nitrogen Substance Deposition

The CALPUFF model was used to predict nitrogen deposition in the RSA due to existing condition,
Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC precursor emissions. The model predictions were added to the
RELAD model predictions to account for background contribution from sources located outside the model
domain.
Existing Condition
For the existing condition nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table B-21 and Figure B-39. The bitumen
extraction facilities result in enhanced nitrogen deposition near Fort McMurray. More distant from the
Project area, the main nitrogen deposition contribution is from emission sources located outside the
Model Domain. About 214 km2 (0.49%) of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a.
Baseline Case
For the Baseline Case nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table B-21 and Figure B-40. The highest
nitrogen deposition occurs in the northeast of the RSA, which is where the precursor NOX emissions are
greater. For most of the RSA, the predicted nitrogen deposition is in the 2 to 5 kg N/ha/a range. About
434 km2 (1.00%) of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a.
Application Case
For the Application Case nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table B-21 and Figure B-41. About 434 km2
(1.00%) of the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a; which is unchanged from the Baseline Case. This shows
that the Project is having practically no effect on the predicted nitrogen deposition values.

For the PDC nitrogen deposition predictions, see Table B-21 and Figure B-42. About 634 km2 (1.46%) of
the RSA is greater than 8 kg N/ha/a; this represents a 0.5% increase in area of the RSA above this
threshold relative to the Baseline Case.
TABLE B-21
SPATIAL EXTENT OF PREDICTED NITROGEN

DEPOSITION IN THE RSA GREATER THAN THE INDICATED THRESHOLDS
Area (km2)
Existing
Deposition Criteria (kg N/ha/a) Condition Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Critical Load for Boreal Forest – Upper Limit 10 145 (0.33)% 279 (0.64)% 280 (0.64)% 461 (1.06)%
Critical Load for Boreal Forest - Midpoint 8 214 (0.49)% 434 (1.00)% 434 (1.00)% 634 (1.46)%
Critical Load for Boreal Forest – Lower Limit 5 482 (1.11)% 1086 (2.50)% 1090 (2.51)% 1661 (3.82)%
Notes: - Based on average N deposition values for the five-year simulation period 2002 to 2006.
- Values include background.
- Area of the RSA = 43,479 km2.
- The values in brackets indicate the percent of the RSA that exceeds the deposition criteria.
Page B-72
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
5
1.8
5
6300000
6300000
2.5
1.7
3
3
2.3
8
1.
6280000
6280000
5
2
1
2.
2.5
2 .1
1.8 2.3
6260000
6260000
Willow
2.1 Lake
2.1
2
2.1
6240000
6240000
1
2 2.3 2.
2
2 2
63 2
2.1
2
6220000
6220000
2.1
2
2
1
2.
NorthLake
Wabasca
2
2
2.1
Wabasca-Desmarais
2
2.1
2
6200000
6200000
SouthLake
Wabasca
2 2. 1 2
2
2
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
2
2
Pelican
2
6180000
6180000
2
Lake
2
2 2.1
2.1
2
Conklin
2.1
6160000
6160000
2
2.
2
1
2.1
2
2.1
2.3 McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
2.1 2.1
2.1
2.
2.1
1
Calling
Lake 2.1
6120000
6120000
2.1
Wandering River
2.1
2.1 2.1
Breynat
Ranch 2.1
2.3
Calling River
2.5 2. 1
6100000
6100000
3
2.
Avenir Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
7
1.
2.1
5
3
2.3
8
6300000
6300000
1.
5
5
2.1
2
6280000
6280000
3
2.1
3
2.3
2.5
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
3
6240000
6240000
2
2.5
3
2.1
3
2 .3
2.5
2.3
63
6220000
6220000
2.3
NorthLake
Wabasca .1
2
2.3
2.3
2. 3
Wabasca-Desmarais
2.3
6200000
6200000
2.5
SouthLake
Wabasca
3
2.
3
Sandy 2.
2.1
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican 2.3
6180000
6180000
Lake
2.3
Conklin
1
2.
6160000
6160000
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.3
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
2.3
2.5
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
2.3
2.3
2.3 Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
5
2.
6100000
6100000
Avenir Heart
Lake 2.3
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
7
1.
3
2.
5
2.5
3
1.8
6300000
6300000
5
5
2
6280000
6280000
3
3
3
2.
1
2.
3
2
6260000
6260000
2.5
Willow
Lake
2.1
2.3 3
2.5 3
2
6240000
6240000
2.1 3
3
2 .5
63
3
2.3
2.
6220000
6220000
2 .3
Wabasca 2.1
NorthLake
2.3
2.3
Wabasca-Desmarais 2.5
2.5
2.3
6200000
6200000
2.3
2.5
SouthLake
Wabasca 2.3
2.1
Sandy
Lake
3
2.
Sandy Lake 2.5
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake
2.3
2.3
Conklin
1
6160000
6160000
3
2.
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.3
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
2 .5
2.3
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
2.3
2.3 Breynat
Ranch
Calling River
2.5
6100000
6100000
2.3
Avenir Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
2.5
5
3
2.5
6300000
6300000
5
2.1
2
5
5
6280000
6280000
3
2.1
2.3
6260000
6260000
Willow
Lake
5
2.
3
3
6240000
6240000
2.3
63
6220000
6220000
3
2.5
NorthLake
Wabasca 3
2. 3
Wabasca-Desmarais 2.5
6200000
6200000
3
SouthLake
Wabasca
Sandy
Lake
2.5
Sandy Lake
Pelican
6180000
6180000
Lake 5
2.
2.5
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.5
2.5
Conklin
6160000
6160000
2 .3
2.5
3
2.5
McMillan
Lake
6140000
6140000
2.3
2.3
2.
3
2.
3
Calling
Lake
6120000
6120000
Wandering River
2.3
2.5
3
Breynat
2.
2.3
2 .3
2.3
2.3
Ranch
2 .5 Calling River
6100000
6100000
Avenir Heart
Lake
320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
B11.1 Air Quality Summary and Conclusions

The CALPUFF model was used to evaluate the air quality changes associated with the updated Project
design. The results can be broadly summarized as:
• The Project concentration and deposition patterns nearly identical to those presented in the
Integrated Application.
• Ambient NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 Concentrations: The maximum concentrations due to the Project are
predicted to occur within the Project well pad area or on the Project CPF fence line. There are no
predicted exceedances of the ambient air quality criteria within the LSA for any of the three
assessment cases.
• Health and Odour Related Substance Concentrations: Ambient concentrations for over 70 substance
groups that could be emitted from the Project were predicted at numerous HHRA receptor locations.
In all cases, for the chemicals for which there are ambient air quality criteria, the predicted values
were less than the respective ambient air quality criteria. Maximum predicted concentrations were
less than odour thresholds in the LSA.
• Acid Forming Substance Deposition: Higher than background PAI deposition values tend to occur
near existing and planned oil sands developments. Specifically, PAI deposition values greater than
0.17 keq H+/ha/a occur near Fort McMurray. The Project emissions increase the area enclosed by
the 0.17 keq H+/ha/a contour by 0.005%. For the Application Case, the area greater than the 0.17
keq H+/ha/a contour represents 2.86% of the RSA.
• Nitrogen Deposition: Higher than background nitrogen deposition values tend to occur near existing
and planned oil sands developments. Specifically, nitrogen deposition values greater than 8 kg/ha/a
occur near the Fort McMurray region. The Project emissions do not result in any increase in the area
enclosed by the 8 kg N/ha/a contour. For the Application Case, the area greater than the 8 kg/ha/a
contour represents 1.11% of the RSA.
The updated Project has resulted in minor changes that influence the air quality predictions. From an air
quality perspective, the design changes are simply a re-organization of the emission source locations
within the plot plan resulting in small changes to predicted concentrations near the CPF and negligible
change beyond the CPF. The key conclusions presented in Volume 3, Section 3.8 of the Integrated
Application remain unchanged despite the changes in Project design and updates to assessment
methodology.
Page B-77
APPENDIX C
NOISE MODELING PARAMETERS
Page C-1
TABLE C-1
PROJECT NOISE SOURCE BROADBAND

SOUND POWER LEVELS (RE 10-12 WATTS, UNMITIGATED) [PHASE 1]
Equipment Overall
Sound Building Sound
Height Model/ Rating # Power Attenuation Power
Tag Description Location (m) Type (kW) Units Level (dBA) (dBA) Level (dBA)
P-101 A/B Sales Oil Booster Sales Oil Pump 2 Centrifugal 150.0 2 107.3 18.8 88.5
Pump Building
P-103 A/B Diluent Pump Diluent Pump Building 2 Centrifugal 60.0 2 106.1 18.8 87.3
P-102 A/B Off-Spec Pump Diluent Pump Building 2 Centrifugal 30.0 2 105.2 18.8 86.4
P-201 Skim Oil Pump Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 30.0 1 102.2 18.8 83.4
P-202 A/B IGF Discharge Pump Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 150.0 2 107.3 18.8 88.5
P-204 A/B HLS Feed Pump Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 215.0 2 107.8 18.8 89.0
P-205 De-Sand Water Pump Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 30.0 1 102.2 18.8 83.4
P-105 A/B Exchanger Wash Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 149.0 2 107.3 18.8 88.5
Pump
P-201 Clean Backwash Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 160.0 3 109.2 18.8 90.4
A/B/C Pump
P-302 A/B After Filter Feed Pump Water Treater Building 2 Centrifugal 225.0 2 107.9 18.8 89.1
P-401 LP BFW Booster Water Treater Building 2 Centrifugal 450.0 3 110.5 18.8 91.7
A/B/C Pump
P-402 HP BFW Pump OTSG Building 2 Centrifugal 1750.0 3 112.3 18.8 93.5
A/B/C
P-406 A/B Disposal Water Water Treater Building 2 Centrifugal 200.0 2 107.7 18.8 88.9
Injection Pump
P-404 A/B Dilution Water Pump Water Treater Building 2 Centrifugal 30.0 2 105.2 18.8 86.4
PK-401 A OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 A OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
PK-401 B OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 B OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
PK-401 C OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 C OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
PK-401 D OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 D OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
E-407A Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
E-407B Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
E-407C Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
PK-4 Evorator Compressor Water Treater Building 2 Reciprocating 2157.0 1 124.2 22.6 101.6
Glycol Heater Glycol Building 7.5 Heater 1152.0 1 97.9 0.0 97.9
EA-522-A Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-B Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-C Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-D Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-E Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-F Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-G Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-H Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-J Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-K Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-L Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-M Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-N Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-P Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-Q Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
EA-522-R Glycol Aerial Cooler Glycol Area 5 Aerial Cooler 22.4 2 102.0 0.0 102.0
P-520 Glycol Circulation Glycol Building 2 Centrifugal 350.0 3 110.2 18.8 91.4
A/B/C Pump
PK-530 VRU Compressor VRU 2 2 Reciprocating 224.0 2 117.4 22.6 94.8
PK-560 Instrument Air Instrument Air Building 2 Reciprocating 261.0 2 118.1 22.6 95.5
Compressor
Page C-2
TABLE C-2

Equipment Building Overall Sound
Height Model/ Rating # Sound Power Attenuation Power Level
Tag Description Location (m) Type (kW) Units Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Pump
P-201 Clean Backwash Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 160.0 3 109.2 18.8 90.4
A/B/C Pump
P-302 A/B After Filter Feed Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 225.0 2 107.9 18.8 89.1
Pump Building
P-401 LP BFW Booster Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 450.0 4 111.8 18.8 93.0
A/B/C Pump Building
P-402 HP BFW Pump OTSG Building 2 Centrifugal 1750.0 4 113.5 18.8 94.7
A/B/C
P-406 A/B Disposal Water Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 200.0 2 107.7 18.8 88.9
Injection Pump Building
P-404 A/B Dilution Water Pump Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 30.0 2 105.2 18.8 86.4
Building
PK-401 E OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 E OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
PK-401 F OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 F OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
E-407D Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
E-407E Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
PK-4 Evorator Compressor Evaporator 2 Reciprocating 2157.0 1 124.2 22.6 101.6
Building
P-520 Glycol Circulation Glycol Building 2 Centrifugal 350.0 3 110.2 18.8 91.4
A/B/C Pump
PK-560 Instrument Air Instrument Air 2 Reciprocating 261.0 2 118.1 22.6 95.5
Compressor Building
Page C-3
TABLE C-3


Height Rating # Sound Power Attenuation Power Level
Tag Description Location (m) Model/Type (kW) Units Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Pump
P-201 A/B/C Clean Backwash Pump Inlet Building 2 Centrifugal 160.0 3 109.2 18.8 90.4
P-302 A/B After Filter Feed Pump Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 225.0 2 107.9 18.8 89.1
Building
P-401 A/B/C LP BFW Booster Pump Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 450.0 4 111.8 18.8 93.0
Building
P-402 A/B/C HP BFW Pump OTSG Building 2 Centrifugal 1750.0 4 113.5 18.8 94.7
P-406 A/B Disposal Water Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 200.0 2 107.7 18.8 88.9
Injection Pump Building
P-404 A/B Dilution Water Pump Water Treater 2 Centrifugal 30.0 2 105.2 18.8 86.4
Building
PK-401 E OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 E OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
PK-401 F OTSG Stack OTSG Building 30 Heater 84800.0 1 100.4 0.0 100.4
PK-401 F OTSG Draft Fan OTSG Building 2 Draft Fan 298.0 1 99.9 0.0 99.9
E-407D Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
E-407E Air Make-up Unit OTSG Building 5 Draft Fan 5.6 1 94.7 0.0 94.7
PK-4 Evorator Compressor Evaporator 2 Reciprocating 2157.0 1 124.2 22.6 101.6
Building
P-520 A/B/C Glycol Circulation Glycol Building 2 Centrifugal 350.0 3 110.2 18.8 91.4
Pump
PK-560 Instrument Air Instrument Air 2 Reciprocating 261.0 2 118.1 22.6 95.5
Compressor Building
Page C-4
TABLE C-4

SOUND POWER LEVELS (RE 10-12 WATTS, UNMITIGATED) [TYPICAL WELL PAD]

Height Rating # Sound Power Attenuation Power Level
Tag Description Location (m) Model/Type (kW) Units Level (dBA) (dBA) (dBA)
Instrument Air Wellpad 2 Reciprocating 37.3 1 106.6 22.6 84.0
Comp. (Typical) (Typical)
P-4 Group Pump Wellpad 2 Centrifugal 100.0 2 106.8 18.8 88.0
(Typical)
N/A well-pair piping Wellpad 2 Piping / N/A 8 104.5 0.0 104.5
(Typical) Valves
TABLE C-5
PROJECT NOISE SOURCE OCTAVE

BAND SOUND POWER LEVELS (RE 10-12 WATTS, UNMITIGATED) [PHASE 1]
Description 31.5 Hz 63 HZ 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz

Sales Oil Booster Pump 99.5 100.5 101.5 102.5 101.5 103.5 100.5 96.5 90.5
Diluent Pump 98.3 99.3 100.3 101.3 100.3 102.3 99.3 95.3 89.3
Off-Spec Pump 97.4 98.4 99.4 100.4 99.4 101.4 98.4 94.4 88.4
Skim Oil Pump 94.4 95.4 96.4 97.4 96.4 98.4 95.4 91.4 85.4
IGF Discharge Pump 99.5 100.5 101.5 102.5 101.5 103.5 100.5 96.5 90.5
HLS Feed Pump 100.0 101.0 102.0 103.0 102.0 104.0 101.0 97.0 91.0
De-Sand Water Pump 94.4 95.4 96.4 97.4 96.4 98.4 95.4 91.4 85.4
Exchanger Wash Pump 99.5 100.5 101.5 102.5 101.5 103.5 100.5 96.5 90.5
Clean Backwash Pump 101.4 102.4 103.4 104.4 103.4 105.4 102.4 98.4 92.4
After Filter Feed Pump 100.1 101.1 102.1 103.1 102.1 104.1 101.1 97.1 91.1
LP BFW Booster Pump 102.7 103.7 104.7 105.7 104.7 106.7 103.7 99.7 93.7
HP BFW Pump 104.5 105.5 106.5 107.5 106.5 108.5 105.5 101.5 95.5
Disposal Water Injection Pump 99.9 100.9 101.9 102.9 101.9 103.9 100.9 96.9 90.9
Dilution Water Pump 97.4 98.4 99.4 100.4 99.4 101.4 98.4 94.4 88.4
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Evorator Compressor 114.3 110.3 115.3 114.3 112.3 115.3 120.3 117.3 110.3
Glycol Heater 101.2 101.2 100.2 98.2 95.2 92.2 89.2 86.2 83.2
Glycol Aerial Cooler 102.8 105.8 105.8 102.8 99.8 95.8 92.8 89.8 81.8
Page C-5
TABLE C-5 Cont'd

Glycol Circulation Pump 102.4 103.4 104.4 105.4 104.4 106.4 103.4 99.4 93.4
VRU Compressor 107.5 103.5 108.5 107.5 105.5 108.5 113.5 110.5 103.5
Instrument Air Compressor 108.2 104.2 109.2 108.2 106.2 109.2 114.2 111.2 104.2
TABLE C-6
PROJECT NOISE SOURCE OCTAVE BAND


Skim Oil Pump 94.4 95.4 96.4 97.4 96.4 98.4 95.4 91.4 85.4
HLS Feed Pump 100.0 101.0 102.0 103.0 102.0 104.0 101.0 97.0 91.0
HP BFW Pump 105.7 106.7 107.7 108.7 107.7 109.7 106.7 102.7 96.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Glycol Heater 101.2 101.2 100.2 98.2 95.2 92.2 89.2 86.2 83.2
Page C-6
TABLE C-6 Cont'd

VRU Compressor 107.5 103.5 108.5 107.5 105.5 108.5 113.5 110.5 103.5
TABLE C-7


Skim Oil Pump 94.4 95.4 96.4 97.4 96.4 98.4 95.4 91.4 85.4
HLS Feed Pump 100.0 101.0 102.0 103.0 102.0 104.0 101.0 97.0 91.0
HP BFW Pump 105.7 106.7 107.7 108.7 107.7 109.7 106.7 102.7 96.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
OTSG Stack 108.9 107.9 102.9 96.9 95.9 93.9 91.9 91.9 91.9
OTSG Draft Fan 100.7 103.7 103.7 100.7 97.7 93.7 90.7 87.7 79.7
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Air Make-up Unit 95.5 98.5 98.5 95.5 92.5 88.5 85.5 82.5 74.5
Glycol Heater 101.2 101.2 100.2 98.2 95.2 92.2 89.2 86.2 83.2
Page C-7
TABLE C-7 Cont'd

VRU Compressor 107.5 103.5 108.5 107.5 105.5 108.5 113.5 110.5 103.5
TABLE C-8

SOUND POWER LEVELS (RE 10-12 WATTS, UNMITIGATED) [TYPICAL WELL PAD]

Instrument Air Comp. (Typical) 96.7 92.7 97.7 96.7 94.7 97.7 102.7 99.7 92.7
Group Pump 99.0 100.0 101.0 102.0 101.0 103.0 100.0 96.0 90.0
well-pair piping 110.0 113.0 103.0 101.0 100.0 99.0 97.0 96.0 91.0
TABLE C-9
PROJECT BUILDING DIMENSIONS
ID Building Name Length (m) Width (m) Height (m)

BU-103 Diluent Pump Building 18.0 7.0 6.0
BU-104 Sales Oil Booster Pump Building 9.0 7.0 6.0
BU-503 Vapour Recovery Unit Building Package#2 22.0 7.0 6.0
BU-506 Methanol Package Building 8.0 5.0 5.0
BU-508 Brackish Water Pump Building 11.0 7.0 5.0
BU-510 LP Flare KO Building Package 17.0 7.0 6.0
BU-525 Potable Water Package Building 20.0 7.0 4.0
BU-535 Nitrogen Package Building 10.0 6.0 4.0
BU-601 Security Building (Main CPF Entrance) 15.0 7.0 2.5
BU-611 Maintenance / Warehouse Building 48.0 44.0 11.0
BU-612 Control Room / Administration Building 59.0 30.0 7.0
BU-703 Building - MCC#2 25.0 7.0 6.0
BU-102 Inlet Treating Building 95.0 33.0 11.0
BU-105 Inlet Treating Laboratory / Office Building 9.0 7.0 5.0
BU-301 Water Treating Building 98.0 39.0 11.0
BU-302 Water Treating Lean-to Building 17.0 6.0 5.0
BU-303 Water Treating Laboratory Building 8.0 6.0 4.0
BU-401 OTSG Building (Phase 1) 61.0 36.0 11.0
BU-401 OTSG Building (Phase 2, 3) 89.0 36.0 11.0
BU-402 OTSG Laboratory Building 7.0 5.0 4.0
BU-502 Glycol Pump Building 24.0 7.0 6.0
BU-511 Sanitary Treating Package Building 15.0 7.0 3.0
BU-551 Vapour Recovery Unit Building Package#1 22.0 7.0 6.0
BU-565 Instrument Air Building 11.0 6.0 5.5
BU-701 Emergency Diesel Generator Package Building 11.0 7.0 5.0
BU-702 Main CPF MCC Building - MCC#1 26.0 14.0 6.0
Page C-8
TABLE C-10
PROJECT BUILDING SOUND ATTENUATION
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

Hz HZ Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz
Building Attenuation (dB) 3 6 9 12 15 20 25 30 30
TABLE C-11
PROJECT TANK DIMENSIONS
ID Tank Name Radius (m) Height (m)

T-101A Dilbit Tank (Phase 1) 9.4 17.1
T-101B Dilbit Tank (Phase 1) 9.4 17.1
T-101C Dilbit Tank (Phase 1) 9.4 17.1
T-103 Diluent Tank (Phase 1, 2) 8.9 17.1
T-501 Methanol Tank (Phase 1) 1.8 6.1
T-550 Brackish Water Tank (Phase 1) 4.3 9.8
T-551 Utility Water Tank (Phase 1) 1.3 4.9
T-552 Domestic Water Tank (Phase 1) 1.5 6.1
T-104 Slop Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 3.5 7.3
T-105 Exchanger Wash Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 4.6 12.2
T-106 Reverse Demulsifier Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 2.3 5.8
T-107 Demulsifier Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 2.3 3.4
T-201 Skim Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 16.1 9.8
T-202 De-Oiled Water Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 10.9 7.3
T-203 Desand Slurry Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 2.7 7.3
T-204 ORF Backwash Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 5.2 7.3
T-312 Regen Waste Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 3.4 14.3
T-313 Brine Saturator Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 2.4 7.3
T-400 Evaporator Feed Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 3.7 12.0
T-401 BFW Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 10.5 17.1
T-403 Disposal Water Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 3.0 9.8
T-404 Start-up Blowdown Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 6.7 7.3
T-520 Glycol Make-up Tank (Phase 1, 2, 3) 1.8 6.1
Tank (Phase 2) 12.0 17.1
Tank (Phase 2) 12.0 17.1
Tank (Phase 2) 12.0 17.1
Tank (Phase 2) 12.0 17.1
TABLE C-12
GENERAL NOISE MODELING PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Modeling Software CADNA/A (Version 4.3.143)
Standard Followed ISO 9613-2
Ground Sound Absorption Coefficient 0.5
Wind Speed 1 - 5 m/s (3.6 - 18 km/hr)
Wind Direction Downwind from all sources to all receptors
Temperature 10 °C
Humidity 70%
Topography Used Digital Terrain Model Contours Provided by Client
Page C-9
APPENDIX D
APPLICATION CASE NOISE SOURCE ORDER RANKING

31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
Noise Source Location dBA Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 1 20.7 31.6 34.4 26.6 22.8 19.6 14.3 -0.1 -48.3
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 1 20.7 31.6 34.5 26.6 22.8 19.6 14.4 0 -48.2
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 1 20.7 31.6 34.5 26.6 22.9 19.6 14.4 0 -48
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 1 20.7 31.7 34.5 26.6 22.9 19.6 14.4 0.1 -47.9
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 1 20.5 31.5 34.4 26.5 22.7 19.5 14.2 -0.4 -49
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 1 20.4 31.5 34.3 26.4 22.6 19.3 14 -0.6 -49.7
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.9 31.1 33.9 26 22.1 18.8 13.3 -1.9 -53.1
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.9 31.1 33.9 26 22.2 18.8 13.3 -1.8 -53
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.8 31 33.8 25.9 22.1 18.7 13.2 -2.1 -53.7
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.8 31 33.8 25.9 22.1 18.7 13.2 -2.1 -53.6
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.8 31 33.8 25.9 22.1 18.7 13.2 -2 -53.4
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.8 31.1 33.9 25.9 22.1 18.7 13.3 -2 -53.3
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.7 30.9 33.7 25.8 22 18.6 13.1 -2.4 -54.4
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.7 30.9 33.8 25.8 22 18.6 13.1 -2.3 -54.3
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.7 31 33.8 25.8 22 18.6 13.1 -2.3 -54.1
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 2 19.7 31 33.8 25.8 22 18.6 13.1 -2.2 -54
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 19.1 30.5 33.3 25.4 21.5 18 12.3 -3.7 -58.1
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 19.1 30.6 33.4 25.4 21.5 18 12.3 -3.7 -58
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 19 30.5 33.3 25.3 21.4 17.9 12.2 -4 -58.7
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 19 30.5 33.3 25.3 21.4 17.9 12.2 -3.9 -58.6
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 19 30.5 33.3 25.3 21.4 18 12.3 -3.8 -58.2
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 18.9 30.4 33.2 25.2 21.3 17.8 12 -4.2 -59.2
Glycol Aerial Cooler CPF Phase 3 18.9 30.4 33.2 25.3 21.3 17.8 12.1 -4.1 -59
Evorator Compressor CPF Phase 1 17.9 39.7 32.5 25.8 19.1 15.2 12.7 0.5 -56
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 2 17.3 29.4 32.2 23.6 17.9 16.1 11.8 -2.9 -52.6
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 2 17.3 29.5 32.3 23.6 18 16.1 11.9 -2.8 -52.2
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 2 17 29.3 32.1 23.4 17.7 15.8 11.5 -3.5 -54.1
Page D-1
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000

OTSG Stack CPF Phase 1 16.5 32.1 30.9 25 16.9 15.2 10.1 -3.5 -48.3
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 1 16.5 32.2 31 25 17 15.3 10.2 -3.4 -47.9
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 1 16.4 32.1 30.9 24.9 16.9 15.2 10 -3.7 -48.7
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 3 16.4 28.8 31.6 22.9 17.2 15.2 10.6 -5 -58.1
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 1 16.3 31.9 30.8 24.9 16.8 15.1 9.9 -3.8 -49.1
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 2 15.9 31.7 30.5 24.5 16.4 14.6 9.3 -5 -52.1
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 3 15.2 31.2 30 24 15.8 13.9 8.3 -6.7 -56.6
Glycol Heater CPF Phase 1 15.1 20.5 21.9 21.8 18.3 14.3 7.8 -7.2 -56.7
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 3 15.1 31.1 29.9 24 15.8 13.9 8.2 -6.8 -57
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 3 15 31 29.8 23.9 15.6 13.7 8 -7.2 -58
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 3 15 31 29.8 23.9 15.7 13.8 8.1 -7.1 -57.7
OTSG Stack CPF Phase 3 14.9 31 29.8 23.8 15.6 13.7 8 -7.3 -58.4
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 1 13.7 19.2 22 21.5 17.3 12.5 5.2 -9.4 -57
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 1 13.6 19.2 22 21.4 17.2 12.5 5.1 -9.5 -57.3
Evorator Compressor CPF Phase 2 13.2 28.6 21.4 22.8 17.4 10.4 4.6 -8.7 -67.8
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 2 13.1 18.8 21.6 21 16.7 11.9 4.4 -10.8 -60.6
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 2 13.1 24.1 26.9 19 15.3 12 6.7 -8 -57.2
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 2 13 18.7 21.5 20.9 16.7 11.9 4.3 -10.9 -61
HP BFW Pump CPF Phase 2 12.9 31.4 29.2 18.5 13.9 11 7.7 -12 -67.9
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 2 12.9 24 26.8 18.9 15.1 11.8 6.4 -8.4 -58.4
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 3 12.9 18.3 21.2 20.6 16.4 11.8 4.8 -9.4 -60
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 2 12.8 23.9 26.7 18.8 15 11.7 6.3 -8.6 -58.7
Evorator Compressor CPF Phase 3 12.5 28.1 20.9 22.2 16.8 9.7 3.7 -10.3 -72.3
OTSG Draft Fan CPF Phase 3 12.3 18.2 21 20.4 16 11.1 3.4 -12.6 -65.4
HP BFW Pump CPF Phase 3 12.1 30.9 28.7 18 13.2 10.3 6.7 -13.8 -72.6
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 3 12.1 23.5 26.3 18.3 14.4 11 5.4 -10.2 -63.1
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 3 12.1 23.5 26.3 18.3 14.5 11.1 5.5 -10.1 -62.8
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 3 12 23.4 26.2 18.3 14.4 11 5.4 -10.3 -63.5
VRU Compressor CPF Phase 1 10.2 32.3 25.1 18.3 11.6 7.5 4.8 -8.2 -68.1
Glycol Circulation Pump CPF Phase 1 9.6 28.1 25.9 15.2 10.6 7.7 4.4 -15.3 -70.9
LP BFW Booster Pump CPF Phase 1 9.4 28 25.8 15.1 10.5 7.5 4.1 -16.2 -73.9
Glycol Heater CPF Phase 2 9.2 18.8 18.5 16.8 13.2 7.9 0.2 -17.7 -73.2
Glycol Heater CPF Phase 3 9.2 18.3 18.1 16.4 13 8 1.1 -15.5 -70.9
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 1 8.6 14.1 16.9 16.4 12.1 7.5 0.2 -14.2 -61.2
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 1 8.5 14 16.9 16.3 12.1 7.4 0.1 -14.4 -61.5
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 1 8.4 14 16.8 16.2 12 7.3 0 -14.5 -61.9
Instrument Air Compressor CPF Phase 1 8.2 23.3 16.1 17.5 12.2 5.4 -0.2 -12.4 -67
HP BFW Pump CPF Phase 1 8.1 20.1 17.9 15.3 12.1 6.4 0.1 -19.3 -72.4
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 2 7.9 13.6 16.4 15.8 11.5 6.8 -0.7 -15.8 -65.2
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 2 7.8 13.5 16.4 15.8 11.5 6.7 -0.8 -15.9 -65.6
Instrument Air Compressor CPF Phase 2 7.5 22.8 15.6 17 11.6 4.7 -1.1 -14.1 -71.4
Clean Backwash Pump CPF Phase 1 7.4 26.3 24.1 13.3 8.6 5.6 1.9 -18.9 -79
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 3 7.2 13.1 15.9 15.3 10.9 6 -1.7 -17.5 -69.7
After Filter Feed Pump CPF Phase 1 7.1 25.6 23.5 12.8 8.1 5.3 1.9 -17.9 -74.1
Air Make-up Unit CPF Phase 3 7.1 13 15.8 15.2 10.9 6 -1.7 -17.6 -70.1
Instrument Air Compressor CPF Phase 3 6.8 22.3 15.1 16.4 11 3.9 -2.1 -15.8 -76.2
Page D-2
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000

Disposal Water Injection Pump CPF Phase 1 6.6 25.3 23.1 12.4 7.7 4.8 1.4 -18.8 -76.1
well-pair piping Pad Phase 3A 6.3 22.1 24.8 13.6 9.1 4.6 -3.3 -29.2 -100
well-pair piping Pad Phase 3A 6.1 22 24.6 13.5 8.9 4.3 -3.7 -29.9 -100
Exchanger Wash Pump CPF Phase 1 5.8 24.6 22.4 11.7 7 3.9 0.4 -20.2 -79.4
LP BFW Booster Pump CPF Phase 2 5.7 18.2 16 13.4 10 4 -2.8 -24.2 -84.5
VRU Compressor CPF Phase 2 5.7 21.3 14 15.4 9.9 2.8 -3.3 -17.3 -79.6
IGF Discharge Pump CPF Phase 1 5.5 24.4 22.2 11.4 6.7 3.6 0 -21 -81.3
LP BFW Booster Pump CPF Phase 3 5.1 17.7 15.5 12.9 9.4 3.3 -3.8 -25.8 -89
VRU Compressor CPF Phase 3 5.1 20.8 13.6 14.9 9.4 2.2 -4.1 -18.8 -83.7
well-pair piping CPF Phase 1 5 21.3 23.9 12.6 7.9 3 -5.6 -33.9 -100
Glycol Circulation Pump CPF Phase 2 4.6 16.9 14.8 12.1 8.8 2.9 -3.8 -24.7 -83.2
well-pair piping Pad Phase 3A 4.4 20.9 23.5 12.2 7.3 2.3 -6.6 -35.9 -100
Glycol Circulation Pump CPF Phase 3 3.9 16.4 14.2 11.6 8.1 2.1 -4.8 -26.5 -88
well-pair piping Pad Phase 3A 3.8 20.6 23.2 11.8 6.8 1.6 -7.6 -38 -100
Clean Backwash Pump CPF Phase 2 2.6 15.2 13 10.4 6.9 0.8 -6.2 -28.1 -100
After Filter Feed Pump CPF Phase 2 2.2 14.6 12.4 9.7 6.4 0.5 -6.3 -27.2 -86
HLS Feed Pump CPF Phase 1 2.1 14.5 12.3 9.7 6.3 0.4 -6.3 -27.3 -86.2
Clean Backwash Pump CPF Phase 3 2 14.8 12.6 9.9 6.3 0.2 -7 -29.6 -100
Disposal Water Injection Pump CPF Phase 2 1.7 14.2 12 9.4 6 0 -6.9 -28.3 -88.6
HLS Feed Pump CPF Phase 2 1.5 14.1 11.8 9.2 5.8 -0.2 -7.2 -28.8 -100
After Filter Feed Pump CPF Phase 3 1.5 14.1 11.9 9.2 5.8 -0.3 -7.2 -29 -100
Disposal Water Injection Pump CPF Phase 3 1 13.7 11.5 8.8 5.3 -0.8 -7.9 -30.1 -100
Exchanger Wash Pump CPF Phase 2 0.9 13.5 11.3 8.7 5.2 -0.8 -7.7 -29.4 -100
HLS Feed Pump CPF Phase 3 0.9 13.6 11.4 8.7 5.2 -0.9 -8 -30.4 -100
Sales Oil Booster Pump CPF Phase 1 0.7 13.3 11.1 8.4 5 -1.1 -8.1 -30.2 -100
IGF Discharge Pump CPF Phase 2 0.7 13.3 11.1 8.5 5 -1.1 -8.1 -30.1 -100
De-Sand Water Pump CPF Phase 1 0.5 19.3 17.1 6.4 1.7 -1.4 -5 -25.9 -85.9
Skim Oil Pump CPF Phase 1 0.4 19.3 17.1 6.4 1.7 -1.4 -5 -25.9 -86
Exchanger Wash Pump CPF Phase 3 0.3 13.1 10.9 8.2 4.7 -1.5 -8.6 -31 -100
IGF Discharge Pump CPF Phase 3 0.1 12.9 10.7 8 4.4 -1.7 -8.9 -31.6 -100
Page D-3
APPENDIX E
SEISMIC BOREHOLE DATA
PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY
Page E-1
1.0 Project Update
3.0 References
Project
Update
1.0 General
2.0 Geology
4.0 Facilities
ERCB SIR 1 5.0

6.0
Environment
References
Responses
1.0 General
2.0 Air
3.0 Water
4.0 Terrestrial
5.0 Health
6.0 Approvals
ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project ERCB SIR 1 Responses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 19
3.0 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................ 28
4.0 FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................... 60
5.0 ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................. 62
5.1 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................... 62
5.2 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 72
5.3 Air ...................................................................................................................................... 74
6.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 89
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Aboriginal Record of Engagement Log ............................................................................A-1
Appendix B Letter Provided to Oil Sands Leaseholders .....................................................................B-1
Appendix C Letter Provided to Petroleum and Natural Gas Leaseholders ........................................ C-1
Appendix D Annual Performance Presentation Energy Resources Conseration Board .................... D-1
Appendix E ERCB Application No. 1741982 .......................................................................................E-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Oil Sand Leases .................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 1-2 Petroleum and Natural Gas Leases .................................................................................... 7
Figure 3-1 ERCB Project Area ........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3-2 Phase 1 Drainage Patterns (with Net Pay) ....................................................................... 14
Figure 6-1 Pilot Project Area .............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8-1 Schematic Structural Cross-Section: Drainage Area DP1 ................................................ 20
Figure 13-1 Development Area Well Layout ........................................................................................ 31
Figure 13-2 Future Well Layout ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 17-1 Blackrod Type Curve 16 Section ARA (700 m) ................................................................ 37
Figure 17-2 Blackrod Type Curve 16 Section ARA (950 m) ................................................................ 38
Figure 18-1 Existing Drilled and Cased OSE Wells ............................................................................. 40
Figure 18-2 Observation Wells ............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 20-1 Mini Fracture Testing in ARA ............................................................................................ 44
Figure 20-2 Joli Fou Isopach ................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 20-3 Cross Section A-A: Grand Rapids South-North Structural Cross-Section........................ 46
Figure 20-4 Cross Section B-B: Grand Rapids West-East Structural Cross-Section .......................... 47
Figure 20-5 1AA/01-36-76-18W4M Lithology Strip Log ....................................................................... 48
Figure 20-6 1AA/04-01-77-18W4M Lithology Strip Log ....................................................................... 49
Figure 24-1 Wells Checked for Thermal Integrity ................................................................................. 56
Figure 24-2 Thermally Incompatible Wells in ARA ............................................................................... 59
Figure 25-1 Pilot Wells ......................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 26-1 Joli Fou Isopach ................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 31-1 Quaternary/Tertiary West-East Structural Cross Section ................................................. 66
Figure 31-2 Quaternary/Tertiary North-South Structural Cross Section .............................................. 67
Figure 31-3 103/13-25-76-18 W4M Lithology Strip Log ....................................................................... 68
Figure 31-4 102/14-25-76-18 W4M Lithology Strip Log ....................................................................... 69
Page i
Figure 31-5 1F1/15-25-76-18 W4M Lithology Strip Log ....................................................................... 70

Figure 34-1 Comparison of Wind Roses and Wind Speed Classes Based on Data
Extracted from the Raw WRF and MM5 Datasets for the Project Site at 10 m
Elevation (2002 to 2006) ................................................................................................... 77
Figure 34-2 Comparison of Wind Roses and Wind Speed Classes based on Data
Extracted from the WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET Datasets for the
Project site at 10 m elevation (2002 to 2006) ................................................................... 78
Project site at 30 m elevation (2002 to 2006) ................................................................... 79
Project Site at 60 m Elevation (2002 to 2006) .................................................................. 80
Project Site at 120 m Elevation (2002 to 2006) ................................................................ 81
Project site at 240 m elevation (2002 to 2006) ................................................................. 82
Figure 34-7 WRF-CALMET Predicted Mixing Heights for Different Seasons and Times of
Day for the Project Area (2002 to 2006) ........................................................................... 85
Figure 34-8 MM5-CALMET Predicted Mixing Heights for Different Seasons and Times of
Day for the Project Area (2002 to 2006) ........................................................................... 86
Figure 34-9 WRF-CALMET Predicted Frequency of PG Stability Class for the Project
Area (2002 to 2006) .......................................................................................................... 87
Figure 34-10 MM5-CALMET Predicted Frequency of PG Stability Class for the Project
Area (2002 to 2006) .......................................................................................................... 88
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Summary of Oil Sands Leaseholder Consultation .............................................................. 3
Table 1-2 Summary of Petroleum and Natural Gas Leaseholder Consultation .................................. 5
Table 1-3 List of Public and Industry Stakeholders That Have Received Notification of
Integrated Application ......................................................................................................... 8
Table 5-1 Mineral Owners With Infrastructure Above ....................................................................... 16
Table 7-1 OBIP and DBIP ................................................................................................................. 19
Table 24-1 Wells Within 300 m of ARA ............................................................................................... 52
Table 24-2 Existing Thermally Incompatible Wells Within ARA .......................................................... 57
Table 25-1 Existing Pilot Wells ............................................................................................................ 60
Table 25-2 Pilot Surface Facilities ....................................................................................................... 62
Table 34-1 Comparison of Monthly and Annual Mean Surface Temperatures at the
Project Site Extracted From WRF, MM5, WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET
Datasets (2002-2006) ....................................................................................................... 83
Table 34-2 Comparison of Annual Total Precipitation at the Project Site Extracted From
WRF, MM5, WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET Datasets (2002-2006) .......................... 83
Page ii
1.0 GENERAL
1. Provide an update on the status of stakeholder (public and industry) notification and
consultation respecting the subject application including:
a. a discussion on any concerns or objections respecting the subject application

(including any statements of concern sent to ESRD) and the efforts to resolve them,
Response:
BlackPearl notification and consultation has been conducted in accordance with ERCB Directive 023, as
well as in consideration of Directive 056. An overview of the public consultation and Aboriginal
Engagement Program up to May 24, 2012 is provided in Section 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, of Volume 1 in
the Integrated Application submitted in May 2012. Since the filing of the Integrated Application on May 24,
2012, BlackPearl has continued to engage interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities.
BlackPearl is committed to on-going engagement with stakeholders and addressing any concerns with a
resolution that will accommodate all parties involved.
Objections and Statements of Concern

There are currently no objections filed with the ERCB regarding this Project. Rae and Company,
representing the Chard Métis Local No. 214 and Chard Métis Dene Inc. (Chard Métis), and Laricina
Energy Ltd. (Laricina) provided Statements of Concern (SOCs) to the ERCB and AESRD on
December 17, 2012 and January 18, 2013, respectively.
BlackPearl will continue to engage with stakeholders who have raised concerns or comments with the
intent of coming to a resolution that will accommodate all parties.
Laricina
BlackPearl has met on several occasions with Laricina to discuss the location of the Central Processing
Facility and well pads. BlackPearl has provided Laricina with the updated Project Area (April 2013), to
which Laricina has indicated it no longer has a concern with Project infrastructure above their mineral
holdings. BlackPearl will continue to work directly with Laricina with the intent of coming to a resolution
(i.e., SOC is withdrawn) that will accommodate all parties.
Chard Métis
BlackPearl has been in discussion with the Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) Region 1 regarding
consultation of the Métis community in Chard and was advised that the MNA Region 1 is the official
representative for the community and that the Métis Local 214 is no longer a local within the Métis. A
letter from BlackPearl was sent to the legal firm (Rae and Company) who provided the Statement of
Concern on behalf of the Chard Métis Local 214 and the Chard Métis Dene Inc. indicating that BlackPearl
has been in contact with the President of the MNA Region 1 and is in the process of providing
consultation to the Métis community in Chard. BlackPearl will continue to consult with the MNA Region 1
and the Métis community to address any concerns regarding the Project.
A detailed record of consultation activities with Aboriginal communities from May 25, 2012 to April 5, 2013
is provided in Appendix A.
Page 1
Public Stakeholders
BlackPearl is committed to working with identified stakeholders who have previously raised issues or
concerns. A summary of the on-going issues and concerns is provided below. On-going consultation with
stakeholders will include providing them with a Project update, which will include the revised Project Area.
Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.

BlackPearl will continue to work with Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. on an Integrated Land
Management Plan for the area.
Chinook Energy Inc.

BlackPearl has consulted further with Chinook Energy Inc. (Chinook) and Chinook has no concerns or
issues with the proposed Project.
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd.

BlackPearl will continue to work with Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. on an Integrated Land
Management Plan for the area.
Keepers of Athabasca
BlackPearl contacted the Keepers of Athabasca in June 2012 to follow up on any concerns. BlackPearl
provided the Integrated Application and highlighted areas of interest for the stakeholder group. In July
2012, the Keepers of Athabasca confirmed receiving the information and would follow up with BlackPearl
if they had any questions. BlackPearl has not received any additional communications from the Keepers
of Athabasca.
Rickard Excavation Ltd.

BlackPearl will continue to work with Rickard Excavation Ltd. if any concerns or overlap are identified with
Rickard Excavation Ltd.’s Conservation and Business Plan (CRB 090049) located in SW 6-77-17 W4M.
MEG Energy Ltd.

BlackPearl conducted additional consultation with MEG Energy Ltd. (MEG) to discuss any conflicts
regarding an overlap with MEG’s Crown oil sand leases located in 6, 7, 8, 16 and 21-77-17 W4M. On
February 6, 2013, BlackPearl sent a notification letter and followed up with a meeting on February 19,
2013 to discuss the letter and potential conflicts. BlackPearl’s revised Project Area does not include
activity on MEG’s land. At this meeting, MEG confirmed there were no issues with the proposed Project.
North Country Outfitting Ltd.

BlackPearl provided a letter on May 30, 2012 providing additional information regarding the concerns and
no response was received. BlackPearl will continue to consult with the stakeholder related to reducing
impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.
North River Outfitting Ltd.

BlackPearl has contacted the Alberta Professional Outfitters Society regarding the concerns raised by
North River Outfitting Ltd. regarding compensation for loss. The Alberta Professional Outfitters Society
indicated that there was no formal body within Alberta that handles that issue unlike the trapper
association. BlackPearl will continue to consult with North River Outfitting Ltd.
Registered Fur Management Area Holder #1711

BlackPearl will continue to work with Registered Fur Management Area Holder #1711 and continue
consultation with the trapper regarding the concerns received prior to the Integrated Application being
filed in May 24, 2012. No new concerns have been identified since the regulatory filing.
Page 2
Registered Fur Management Area Holders (Trapping Area #2248)

A letter was sent to the trapper in May 2012 (after the regulatory filing) to provide additional information
regarding the concerns. BlackPearl plans to conduct a noise assessment once Phase 1 is operational to
determine the mitigation that may be required. BlackPearl will continue to consult and work with the
stakeholder to relocate their trapper’s cabin.
1. b. confirmation that notification of the application has been given to the oil sands
leaseholders in the off-setting quarter sections of the application area,
Response:
BlackPearl has provided notification of the Integrated Application to the oil sands leaseholders in the off-
setting quarter-section of the Integrated Application area (Figure 1-1). A summary of consultation with oil
sands leaseholders is provided in Table 1-1. A copy of the letters provided is included in Appendix B.
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF OIL SANDS LEASEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Stakeholder Method of Date of

Group/Agency Name Location and Crown Oil Sands Leaseholder Number Engagement Engagement Activity
Canadian Coastal 06-77-17 W4M (No. 7498090039) Letter February 6, 2013
Resources Ltd. 07-77-17 W4M (No. 7498090046)
08-77-17 W4M (No. 7498090046)
09-77-17 W4M (No. 7498090045)
16-77-17 W4M (No. 7498090048)
21-77-17 W4M No. 7498090048)
Cenovus Energy Inc. 28-77-17 W4M (No. 7408100326) Letter April 17, 2012
29-77-17 W4M (No. 7408100326)
Chinook Energy Inc. 13-76-18 W4M (No. 7410060344) Letter April 17, 2012
Laricina 19-76-17 W4M (No. 7407060157) Letter April 17, 2012
20-76-17 W4M (No. 7407060157)
29-76-17 W4M (No. 7407060157)
30-76-17 W4M (No. 7407060157)
31-76-17 W4M (No. 7407060157)
Integrity Land Inc. 17-76-17 W4M (No. 7410090600) Letter March 7, 2013
Standard Land Company Inc. 14-76-18 W4M (No. 7408090177) Letter April 17, 2012
15-76-18 W4M (No. 7408090177)
Page 3
¯
7 8
RGE.
9
18 W4M
10 11 12 7 8
RGE.
9
17 W4M
10 11 12
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
TWP. 78
BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Cenovus Cenovus Cenovus Cenovus
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Cenovus Cenovus Cenovus Cenovus
30 29 28 Atha27b a sc a R ive26r 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
Athab
A thab as a Ri
as cca ve rr
Rive
Canadian Canadian
BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Coastal Coastal
19 20 21 23 24 21 22 23 24
22
19 20
TWP. 77
Canadian Canadian
BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Coastal Coastal
18 17 16 15 18 17 16 15 14 13
14 13
Canadian Canadian Canadian Canadian

BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Coastal Coastal Coastal Coastal
7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12
12
Canadian Canadian Canadian

BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Coastal Coastal Coastal
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Open Crown Open Crown BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Laricina Laricina

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
Open Crown BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Laricina Laricina

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
Standard BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl BlackPearl Laricina Laricina

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24
TWP. 76
Standard Standard Standard Standard Chinook Scott Integrity BlackPearl Resources Inc.
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
Britt Resources Ltd.
Canadian Coastal Resources Ltd.

Maverick Cenovus Energy Inc.
Open Crown Land Chinook Chinook Britt Scott Integrity
7 Consultant
9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
2012 Ltd.
8
Chinook Energy Inc.
Maverick Land Consultant 2012 Ltd.
Integrity Land Inc.
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Laricina Energy Ltd.
Open Crown
TWP. 75 Scott Land and Lease Ltd.
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 Standard Land
35 Company Inc. 36
FIGURE 1-1
Application Resource Area (ARA)
t6790_Figure_1_1_Oil_Sands_Leases_20130319.mxd
OIL SANDS LEASES
Waterbody ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES -

Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c; Oil Sands Leaseholders: Alberta Environment 2012.
km
0 1 2
April 2013
1. c. confirmation that notification of the application has been given to the P&NG
leaseholders and the freehold mineral owners of any unleased lands in the area of the
application and off-setting sections as required by ERCB Interim Directive (ID) 99-1:
Gas/Bitumen Production in Oil Sands Areas – Application, Notification, and Drilling
Requirements, and
Response:
In accordance with ERCB ID 99-1: Gas/Bitumen Production in Oil Sands Areas – Application, Notification,
and Drilling Requirements, BlackPearl provided the following P&NG leaseholders and any freehold
mineral owners of any unleased land in the Project Area and off-setting sections notification of the
Integrated Application (Figure 1-2). There were no freehold mineral owners located in the Project Area or
off-setting sections. A consultation summary for the P&NG leaseholders is included in Table 1-2. A copy
of the letters provided is included in Appendix C.
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS LEASEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Stakeholder Group/ Location and Crown Petroleum and Method of

Agency Name Natural Gas Leaseholder Number Engagement Date of Engagement Activity
Chinook Energy Inc. 17-76-17 W4M (No. 1703) Letter April 17, 2012
19-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
20-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
29-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
30-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
30-76-17 W4M (No. 0596110192)
31-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
31-76-17 W4M (No. 0595100241)
13-76-18 W4M (No. 0595090548)
13-76-18 W4M (No. 7410060344)
14-76-18 W4M (No. 0589020184)
15-76-18 W4M (No. 0588110546)
22-76-18 W4M (No. 0599030494)
23-76-18 W4M (No. 0507090637
23-76-18 W4M (No. 0588060603)
24-76-18 W4M (No. 0596060476)
25-76-18 W4M (No. 0595100242)
26-76-18 W4M (No. 0589020185)
27-76-18 W4M (No. 0588110545)
28-76-18 W4M (No. 0595090228)
34-76-18 W4M (No. 5494100159)
35-76-18 W4M (No. 5494100159)
36-76-18 W4M (No. 0595020357)
06-77-17 W4M (No. 0595090560)
09-77-17 W4M (No. 0595090561)
16-77-17 W4M (No. 5497040098)
28-77-17 W4M (No. 1691B)
29-77-17 W4M (No, 1692)
01-77-18 W4M (No. 0595090562)
02-77-18 W4M (No. 5494100159)
03-77-18 W4M (No. 5494100159)
11-77-18 W4M (No. 5494100159)
12-77-18 W4M (No. 0597040506)
Chair Resources Inc. 16-77-17 W4M (No. 5497040098) Letter March 7, 2013
28-77-17 W4M (No. 1691B)
29-77-17 W4M (No. 1692)
Page 5
TABLE 1-2 Cont'd

Stakeholder Group/ Location and Crown Petroleum and Method of
Agency Name Natural Gas Leaseholder Number Engagement Date of Engagement Activity
Perpetual Energy Inc. 17-76-17 W4M (No. 1703) Letter April 17, 2012
19-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
20-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
29-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
30-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
30-76-17 W4M (No. 0596110192)
31-76-17 W4M (No. 1703)
24-76-18 W4M (No. 0596060476)
Page 6
¯
7 8
RGE.
9
18 W4M
10 11 12 7 8
RGE.
9
17 W4M
10 11 12
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
TWP. 78
Chinook/ Chinook/ Chinook/
Open Crown Chair Chair Chair
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
Chinook/ Chinook/
Open Crown Chinook Chair Chair Open Crown
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
Athabas ca River
Open Crown Chinook Open Crown Open Crown Open Crown Open Crown Open Crown
19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24
19 20
TWP. 77
Chinook/
Chinook Chinook Open Crown Open Crown Open Crown Open Crown Chair Chinook
18 17 16 15 18 17 16 15 14 13
14 13
Chinook/
Perpetual/ Chinook/
Husky TAQA North Chinook Chinook Chinook Open Crown Open Crown Chair Chair
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
Open Crown Chinook Chinook Chinook Chinook Chinook CNRL CNRL

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Chinook/
Open Crown Open Crown Chinook Chinook Chinook Perpetual Open Crown
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
Chinook/ Chinook/
Open Crown Chinook Chinook Chinook Chinook Perpetual Perpetual
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
Chinook/ Chinook/ Chinook/

Perpetual Perpetual Perpetual
Open Crown Chinook Chinook Chinook 21 22 23 24
19 24 19 20
20 21 22 23
TWP. 76
Chinook/ Chinook/
Chinook Open Crown Chinook Chinook Chinook Perpetual Perpetual Canadian Natural Resources Limited
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
Chair Resources Inc.
Chinook Energy Inc.

Chinook/
Chinook/ Perpetual/
Chinook Energy Inc./
Open Crown Open Crown Chinook Chinook Scott Perpetual CNRL
7 9 10 11 12 7 9 10 11 12
8 8 Chinook Energy Inc./
Perpetual Energy Inc.
Chinook Energy Inc./

Perpetual Energy Inc./
Canadian Natural Resources Limited
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 Chinook Energy
2 Inc./ 1
Perpetual Energy Inc./
TAQA North Ltd.
Husky Energy Inc.

TWP. 75 Open Crown
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
Scott Land and Lease Ltd.
t6790_Figure_1_2_Petroleum_Natural_Gas_Leases_20131903.mxd
FIGURE 1-2
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS LEASES
Waterbody ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES -

UTM Zone 12N:
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011c; Petroleum and Natural Gas Leaseholders: Alberta Energy 2012.
SCALE: 1: 100,000
km
0 1 2
April 2013
1. d. a complete listing of all stakeholders (public and industry) that have received
notification of the subject application.
Response:
Public and Industry stakeholders, including those identified during the consultation process, who received
notification of the Project are outlined in Table 1-3. Stakeholders were provided with an introductory letter
and Project Fact Sheet. For more information on the Project Mail-Out refer to Volume 1, Section 2.2.5.3
of the Integrated Application. As stakeholders were identified throughout the Project they were supplied
the Project information. BlackPearl is committed to continue on-going communication with stakeholders
as the Project proceeds.
TABLE 1-3
LIST OF PUBLIC AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

THAT HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF INTEGRATED APPLICATION
Method of Method of Second

Engagement for Initial Project Engagement Project
Stakeholder Group/Agency Name (Initial Project Mail-out) Mail-out Date (Second Project Mail-out) Mail-Out
Provincial Agencies
AESRD (formerly Alberta Environment and Water and Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development))
Alberta Transportation Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
ERCB Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Municipal Agencies
Athabasca County Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Lac La Biche County Letter December 1, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Municipal District of Lesser Slave River No. 124 Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Municipal District of Opportunity No. 17 Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Industry
Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Canadian Coastal Resources Ltd. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Canadian Natural Resources Limited Letter January 3, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Cenovus Energy Inc. Letter March 1, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Chair Resources Inc. n/a n/a Letter March 7, 2013
Chinook Energy Inc. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Integrity Land Inc. n/a n/a Letter March 7, 2013
Kallisto Energy Corporation Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Laricina Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
MEG Energy Corporation Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Perpetual Energy Inc. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Rickard Excavation Ltd. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
St. Jean Lumber Ltd. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Standard Land Company Inc. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Sunshine Oil Sands Ltd. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Talisman Energy Inc. Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Environmental Non-government Organizations
Alberta Environment Network Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Athabasca Watershed Council Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Crooked Creek Conservancy Society of Athabasca Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Ducks Unlimited Canada Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Keepers of the Athabasca Email January 4, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Recreational Users
Alberta Professional Outfitters Society Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Alberta Snowmobile Association Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Page 8
TABLE 1-3 Cont'd

Method of Method of Second
Engagement for Initial Project Engagement Project
Stakeholder Group/Agency Name (Initial Project Mail-out) Mail-out Date (Second Project Mail-out) Mail-Out
Athabasca River Runners Snowmobile Club Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Avenir Guiding and Outfitting Letter February 16,2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Egge Wilderness Guiding and Outfitting Letter February 21, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Grand Slam Hunting Adventures Ltd. Email February 10, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Groat Creek Outfitters Email February 10, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
Martin Kirschner Letter February 21, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
McMurray Sno-drifters Association n/a n/a Letter April 17, 2012
Misty Rivers Outfitters Email February 15, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
North Country Outfitting Ltd. Email February 10, 2012 Letter April 17, 2012
North River Outfitting Ltd. Letter February 14, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Northern Points Outfitting/Guiding Ltd. Email February 16, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Pine Creek Outfitters Inc. Email February 10, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Reel Angling Adventures Email March 27, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Ryk Visscher’s Hunting Email February 16, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Sherwood Outfitters Inc. Email February 21, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Wayne Zaft Hunting Adventures Ltd. Email February 21, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Registered Fur Management Area Holders
Trapping Area No. 1315 Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Trapping Area No. 2386 n/a n/a Letter April 17,2012
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment Stakeholders
Alberta Culture Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Alberta Child and Family Services, Region 7 (North Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Central Alberta)
Alberta Emergency Management Agency Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Alberta Energy Corridor Letter January 3, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Alberta Health Services (North Zone) Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Aspen View Regional School Division No. 19 Email February 22, 2012 Letter
Aspen Regional Health Authority Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Athabasca Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Detachment
Boyle RCMP Detachment n/a n/a Letter April 17,2012
Lac La Biche RCMP Detachment Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Lac La Biche and District Chamber of Commerce Letter January 4, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Northern Lights School Division No. 69 Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Northland School Division No. 61 Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Lac La Biche Alberta Service Centre (Human Services) Letter February 9, 2012 Letter April 17,2012
Portage College, Lac La Biche Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17,2012
Town of Athabasca (Tourism) Letter December 2, 2011 Letter April 17, 2012
Page 9
2. The ERCB expects applicants to be familiar with all ERCB requirements respecting their
proposed in situ oil sands scheme. Provide a summary of the following information for any
waivers or variances being requested as part of the subject application:
a. the waiver or variance requested,
Response:
BlackPearl has prepared and plans to submit an Integrated Application to the ERCB for the waivers and
variances listed below.
• Blowout Preventer (BOP) waivers to utilize a Class 1 BOP stack.
• A variance to the BOP sequence for a reduced length Flare line of 25 m may be requested.
• Service rig spacing requirement waiver.
• Well logging sequence surface hole waivers.
• Well Logging sequence intermediate and horizontal section waivers.
2. b. the ERCB regulation or directive that stipulates the requirement requested to be

waived or varied, and
Response:
The applicable regulations or directives that stipulate the requirements that BlackPearl expects to be
waived or varied, in the order of the list in ERCB SIR 2a, are as follows:
• ERCB Directive 008: Surface Casing Depth Requirements (Dec 2010).
• ERCB Directive 036: Drilling Blowout Prevention and Requirements and Procedures (Feb 2005).
• ERCB Directive 037: Service Rig Inspection Manual.
• ERCB Directive 043: Well Logging Requirements and Section 11.140 (1), Oil and Gas Conservation
Regulations and ERCB IL 93-4 – Policy for Logging of Horizontal Wells.
2. c. the reason(s) for the requested waiver or variance including any supporting material.
Response:
The reason for the waivers and variances in the order of the list in ERCB SIR 2a, are as follows:
• The wells will be shallower than 650 m TVD and the waivers will be requested when the criteria of
ERCB Directive 008 Checklist 3 are met. Drilling with a Class 1 BOP system will yield a more efficient
drilling operations, thus improving the overall safety of the drilling crews and supporting personnel.
• A reduction in a flare line lengths will allow for the well pads to be sized to minimize the Project
footprint.
• Reductions in service rig spacing requirements may allow the pads areas to be reduced which will
minimize the Project Area.
Page 10
• The drainage area associated with each well pad will have at least one OSE well used for reservoir
interpretation and analysis. These wells meet the Directive 043 requirement for gamma ray and
neutron logging through the casing. The high data density provided by these evaluation wells
eliminates the need to run logs on the production and injection wells on the SAGD well pads. In
addition, the directional drilling tools measure the gamma response of the strata while drilling through
the surface, intermediate and horizontal sections of the well.
3. An ERCB-defined project area should represent the boundaries within which bitumen recovery
may occur over the life of the project and a development area represents the boundaries which
the specific placement of wells and their associated drainage patterns for the recovery of
bitumen is approved. Note that the project area should only include lands where the proponent
has the rights to produce bitumen.
a. Provide an updated map outlining the proposed project area, down to a quarter section
level, along with a discussion justifying the proposed project area.
Response:
The Project map provided in Figure 3-1 represents the resource area which BlackPearl is applying to the
ERCB to develop for the Blackrod Project. This resource is represented by the Application Resource Area
(ARA). The ARA contains an estimated 1.1 billion barrels of bitumen in place, over 16 Sections. From the
May 2012 Integrated Application, the ARA has been modified to now exclude the north half of Sections 19
and 20-77-17 W4M.The OOIP numbers are not affected by this change because they were calculated
based on the net pay from Figure 3.2-6 in Volume 1, Section 3.2 of the Integrated Application, which
excludes the north half of section 19 and 20-77-17 W4M.
The ARA contains the resources required for the Blackrod Project to reach 80,000 bbl/d over three
Phases. For further details regarding ARA justification, refer to Volume 1, Section 3.0 and 4.7 of the
Integrated Application. The ARA resources and development plans are outlined in these sections.
BlackPearl understands that the ARA represents the subsurface resource area of the application and no
resource development can occur outside of this area without an ARA amendment.
Page 11
¯
!

!

Athab a s c a Ri ver

!

!

4=
, ( '$ '' +

!
; ) 9; 8
-(*,
, 636. >
7730*
( :065, 96; 8
*,
8,(

65:6; 8

4 05:, 8
<( 3

3( *
2, (8
3
03
!( 5+
63+05. 9 ?4
4
:6?
4

"
: '8
%( :, 8
) 6+>

4
61, *

, ' '' '8
#" &65, !

8
( 05( . ,
8,(

!; ) 9; 8
-(*,, 636. >
3( *
2, (8
3, 96; 8
*, 9

5*

24
>+8 6. 8
( 7/>3:(
!
:+

78
03

: '0. ; 8


33
6*
( :0659
778
6=04 ( :,
3. b. Provide an updated map outlining the proposed development area, down to a quarter
section level, along with a discussion justifying the proposed development area.
Response:
Refer to Figure 3-2 for the net bitumen pay over the eight drainage patterns within the proposed
development area for the Blackrod Project. The LGR1 is a clean and homogenous sand, because of this,
the main driver of the proposed development area is the bitumen thickness and proximity to the CPF.
BlackPearl is requesting approval for this development area because it includes the initial well pads
needed to fill the Phase 1 CPF and sustainment wells.
Future development areas within the ARA will be applied for with application amendments. The results
from the initial project drainage patterns will be used to shape future drainage patterns, in terms of well
length, spacing and vertical placement.
The Integrated Application refers to the initial resource development area (IRDA) (Volume 1,
Figure 3.2-6). The IRDA is the resource area in which sufficient drilling and 3D seismic work has been
completed to delineate the resource. The IRDA encompasses 5 sections. The proposed development
area and the associated drainage patterns are within this IRDA. The IRDA has also been included in
Figure 3-2.
Page 13
¯

$

$

Athab a s c a Riv er

$
"

$
"

3.8.& 1*7496( * !
9'796+&( *
*414, <
#

*: *1452 * 38 6*&
438 496
2 .38
*6: &
1
5) +
551.( & 8.43*7496( *

6*&

= 2 !

"
" !

$"
"
%

1&( 0* &61

.1 2 84
=
2

!
!!
!
&

!&3) 41) .3, 7

2
%

!# !

56.38
6& .3& , *&88* 63

6*& !

!
"
%
(8448
!

*
64/
#"$43*

6&
.3&
,*
6*&

!9'796+ &( *
*414, <

1&( 0*&61*
7496( *
7
3(

%
02
<) 64, 6&5-<
18&
! 8
)
56.1

., 96*


11
4( &
8.437
5564; .2 &
8*
%


8
4. On September 1, 2012, the Government of Alberta adopted the Lower Athabasca Regional
Plan (LARP). As indicated in Bulletin 2012-22 – Application Procedures and Requirements for
Approval of Activities Located In or Near the Boundaries of the Lower Athabasca Region Plan,
applicants seeking approval of proposed activities that would be located within the Lower
Athabasca Region must consider and assess its compatibility with the LARP.
a. Identify whether the proposed project activities would be located in either a designated
provincial recreational area or conservation area within the Lower Athabasca Region.
Response:
The proposed Project is not located within any designated provincial recreational areas or conservation
areas within the Lower Athabasca Region (Governement of Alberta 2012). The closest designated
provincial recreational areas are the Waskahigan Forest and House River Forest Provincial Recreation
Areas, located approximately 22.9 km northeast and 27.8 km east of the Project Area, respectively
(AltaLIS 2012). Access to these recreation areas will not be restricted by the Project.
4. b. Discuss whether the proposed project activities are consistent with the land-use
planning detailed in the LARP.
Response:
The Project is consistent with several of the strategic directions and regional outcomes identified in the
LARP including, but not limited to: improving integration of industrial activities; encouraging timely and
progressive reclamation; managing air, water and biodiversity and minimizing land disturbance; and
inclusion of Aboriginal Peoples in land-use planning.
BlackPearl has committed to developing an Integrated Land Management Plan (ILMP) in collaboration
with Alberta Pacific (AlPac) and Millar Western in order to coordinate timber salvage in areas where
clearing is required for the Project. A Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Plan for the Project has been
developed in accordance with existing regulations and industry standards and will be regularly updated to
reflect new advancements in reclamation strategies and techniques. BlackPearl will participate in
reclamation reporting and certification as required by AESRD. BlackPearl has used provincially identified
limits and triggers in the assessment of Project impacts on air quality and surface water quality in
accordance with the Air Quality Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca Region and Surface
Water Quality Management Framework for the Lower Athabasca River. The Project will be operated in
accordance with the terms and conditions for groundwater as specified in the EPEA Approval to be
issued by AESRD for the Project. In addition, assessments for other bio-physical and social disciplines
have been carried out using the best available information, industry standards and thresholds, where
available. BlackPearl is committed to on-going engagement with interested Aboriginal communities
through all stages of the Project.
5. Volume 1, Figure 1.2-1 Project Boundaries and Phases, Page 1-3.
The central processing facility (CPF), pads, and several steam distribution/emulsion gathering
lines are planned to be located outside of BlackPearl’s lease area.
a. Provide confirmation that BlackPearl has clearly notified the offsetting lease holder(s)
and surface rights owner(s) that it intends to locate the CPF, pads, and several steam
distribution/emulsion gathering lines outside of BlackPearl’s lease area.
Page 15
Response:
As part of the project notification requirements, BlackPearl has notified all lease holders and surface
rights owners regarding the Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project. Also refer to the consultation update in
ERCB SIR 1. Specifically, Table 5-1 lists all of the Oil Sands and P&NG lease holders which have
Blackrod project infrastructure situated directly above their mineral holdings. There is also acreage held
under brokers. BlackPearl has notified all brokers holding oil sands and P&NG leases above and adjacent
to the Project.
TABLE 5-1
MINERAL OWNERS WITH INFRASTRUCTURE ABOVE
Has Expressed a Concern Regarding

Infrastructure Located Infrastructure Located Above Oil the Integrated Application Project
Mineral Owners Above P&NG Lease Sands Lease Footprint
Laricina Energy Ltd. N/A Yes Yes
Chinook Energy Ltd. Yes N/A No concern
MEG Energy Ltd. (Held under Canadian N/A Yes No concern
Coastal Resources Ltd.)
Perpetual Energy Yes N/A No concern
5. b. Provide a discussion on the potential impacts and risks associated with the proposed
placement of this infrastructure in these locations and the implications on the
associated land uses and other development in the area. This discussion should
include why the planned locations are considered optimal based on surface and
subsurface factors.
Response:
The resource development at the time of the Integrated Application submission had the majority of the
development wells being drilled with an east to west orientation. The orientation was a function of
continuing with a plan developed based on the original pilot well pair, which is drilled east to west. As a
result of this east to west orientation, well pads were required to be placed outside of BlackPearl lease
holdings. BlackPearl placed well pads outside of its lease holding with the understanding that mineral
ownership does not imply surface ownership, but understands mineral owners have the right to access
their mineral leases. The location of BlackPearl facilities outside of BlackPearl lease holdings will not
impact resource access since offsetting mineral owners can still access their resource with the horizontal
wells.
As part of BlackPearl’s Project Update, the Project Footprint has been optimized to reduce the number of
pads required. Refer to Figure 1.1-1 of the Project Update for the updated Project Footprint. The
infrastructure remaining outside of the BlackPearl lease holdings are well pad 1A, the CPF and multi-use
corridors. The infrastructure located off of BlackPearl leases is in the optimum position based on surface
and subsurface factors.
The positioning of the CPF is the result of an exhaustive process to establish the optimum position based
on a review of factors such as topography, drainage, permanent sample plots (PSP) and existing surface
holdings. There are no other upland sites in the LSA that are suitable and have the needed surface area
required for the CPF. Geotechnical investigations have verified that the CPF has sufficient cut and fill
material to allow the CPF to be constructed without the need for a CPF borrow pit, further justifying the
location selection. Additional details of the selection process are provided in Volume 1, Section 10.1 (CPF
Location Alternative) of the Integrated Application.
The multi-use corridors that are positioned off BlackPearl lease holdings will not impact resource access
and are required as a result of the position of surface facilities for the Project.
Page 16
6. Volume 1, Section 4.1 Introduction, Page 4-1.
BlackPearl states “The reservoir development plan will have a phased approach starting with
the Lower Grand Rapids SAGD pilot project, which commenced operations in June 2011.”
a. Provide a discussion on the plans for the pilot wells and facilities and any timelines for
incorporating the pilot wells and facilities into the proposed commercial project.
Response:
Pilot wells and facility infrastructure will be integrated into the Commercial Project where possible. Exact
dates cannot be specified at this time, however, the pilot steaming operations will be shut down prior to
commissioning of the CPF in Q4 2015, since the Pilot well pairs and certain Pilot equipment will be
integrated into the Commercial Project. Refer to ERCB SIR 25 for further details regarding the planned
integration of the Pilot wells and infrastructure into the Commercial Project.
6. b. Provide a map indicating the project area associated with the pilot overlaid with the
project area and the development area boundaries.
Response:
Refer to Figure 6-1. Note, this shows the approved Pilot Project area as per ERCB Approval No. 11522D
(Dec 11, 2012).
Page 17
¯
!

!


!

!

Initial Resource

Development Area (IRDA)
t6790_Figure_6_1_ERCB_Pilot_Project_Area_20130318
BlackPearl Oil
Sand Holdings

ERCB Approved Pilot Project Area
Development Area (DA)

"
Waterbody


Project Footprint: Altus Geomatics 2013;
km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
2.0 GEOLOGY
7. Provide a table of estimated original bitumen in place (OBIP) and developable bitumen in place
(DBIP) on a per drainage pattern basis, including average net bitumen pay, average porosity,
average bitumen saturation, expected recovery factor, drainage pattern area, target production
well length, and number of wells per pattern.
Response:
A table of OBIP and DBIP is presented in Table 7-1. The OBIP is the oil volume within the LGR 1
reservoir above LGR 2. The producers within the Lower Grand Rapids Formation will be placed 2 m to
5 m above the LGR 2 and at an interpreted oil saturation of approximately 50%. The DBIP was calculated
with a target 3 m standoff between the producer and the top of LGR 2. Refer to Figure 3-2 for a map of
net pay throughout the development area.
TABLE 7-1
OBIP AND DBIP
Average Planned Potential

Drainage Drainage Pay Bitumen Average Well Wells per Drainage Recovery
Pattern Pattern Thickness Saturation Porosity Length Drainage Pattern Well OBIP DBIP Factor of
Area Area (m2) (m) (%) (%) (m) Pattern Spacing (m) (106m3) (106m3) DBIP (%)
DP 1 746 25 63 35 950 8 80 4.1 3.3 55
DP 2 1015 25 63 34 925 10 100 5.4 4.5 55
DP 3 1013 24 62 33 1150 10 80 5.0 3.6 60
DP 4 830 23 61 34 950 8 100 3.9 2.6 55
DP 5 851 23 63 34 950 10 80 4.1 3.3 60
DP 6 945 23 62 35 950 10 80 4.7 3.7 60
DP 7 830 25 56 35 950 8 100 4.0 2.5 55
DP 8 851 25 60 33 950 10 80 4.1 3.0 60
Average 24 61 34 Total 36 27
8. Provide a representative schematic cross section for each proposed SAGD drainage pattern
that includes the zone of interest, fluid interfaces, facies relationships, and the proposed
placement of the horizontal sections to demonstrate that the well locations and pattern design
have been optimized to conserve bitumen.
Response:
Representative cross sections for each proposed SAGD drainage area are presented in Figures 8-1 to
Figure 8-8.
Page 19
April 2013
A’ PAD # DP1 (G.L. 641.45m)

A FIGURE 8-1
SCHEMATIC STRUCTURAL
CROSS-SECTION
JOLI FOU
DRAINAGE AREA DP1

JOLI FOU CAPROCK
ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES -
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS
BLACKPEARL RESOURCES
INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
ELEVATION (mSS)
COMMERCIAL SAGD
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS PROJECT
MAX FLOODING SURFACE (MFS)

L.GR CAPROCK TOP SAGD RESERVOIR
L.GR1
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
L.GR2
1050m
DRAINAGE AREA LENGTH
UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors

associated with the data used to general this product or in the
product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the
data may be present
April 2013
A PAD # DP2 (G.L. 614.57m) A’ FIGURE 8-2
JOLI FOU SCHEMATIC STRUCTURAL

CROSS-SECTION
JOLI FOU CAPROCK DRAINAGE AREA DP2
ELEVATION (mSS)
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES -
INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT

L.GR1
L.GR CAPROCK
TOP SAGD RESERVOIR
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
L.GR2
BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
1025m

data may be present
April 2013
A PAD # DP3 (G.L. 604.17m) A’ FIGURE 8-3
JOLI FOU SCHEMATIC STRUCTURAL

CROSS-SECTION
JOLI FOU CAPROCK
DRAINAGE AREA DP3
ELEVATION (mSS)
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS
INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT

L.GR1
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS INJECTOR

PRODUCER
BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
L.GR2
1250m

data may be present
April 2013
A PAD # DP4 (G.L. 601.03m)

A’ FIGURE 8-4
JOLI FOU
CROSS-SECTION
JOLI FOU CAPROCK
DRAINAGE AREA DP4
ELEVATION (mSS)
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS
INC.
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS PROPOSED BLACKROD
COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT

L.GR1
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
L.GR2
1050m

data may be present
April 2013
A PAD # DP5 (G.L. 603.05m)

A’ FIGURE 8-5
JOLI FOU
CROSS-SECTION
JOLI FOU CAPROCK
DRAINAGE AREA DP5
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS
ELEVATION (mSS)
INC.
COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT
L.GR1
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
L.GR2
BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
1050m

data may be present
April 2013
A PAD # DP6 (G.L. 610.0m)

A’
FIGURE 8-6
JOLI FOU
CROSS-SECTION
JOLI FOU CAPROCK
DRAINAGE AREA DP6
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS

ELEVATION (mSS)
INC.
COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT

L.GR1
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
L.GR2
BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
1050m

data may be present
April 2013
A PAD # DP7 (G.L. 604.50m)

A’ FIGURE 8-7
JOLI FOU
JOLI FOU CAPROCK CROSS-SECTION
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS DRAINAGE AREA DP7
ELEVATION (mSS)
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT
L.GR1 L.GR CAPROCK
TOP SAGD RESERVOIR
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
L.GR2 BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
1050m

data may be present
April 2013
A JOLI FOU
PAD # DP8 (G.L. 604.50m)
A’ FIGURE 8-8
JOLI FOU CAPROCK CROSS-SECTION
UPPER GRAND RAPIDS DRAINAGE AREA DP8
ELEVATION (mSS)
INC.
COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT
L.GR1 L.GR CAPROCK
TOP SAGD RESERVOIR
LOWER GRAND RAPIDS

INJECTOR
PRODUCER
L.GR2 BASE SAGD RESERVOIR
1050m

data may be present
9. An ERCB project area represents the boundaries within which bitumen recovery may occur
over the life of the project, and must be supported by evidence of developable reserves. The
proposed project area shown in Figure 3.2-6 (Lower Grand Rapids Net Bitumen) includes lands
in Township 77, Range 17W4M where BlackPearl has not interpreted any bitumen pay. Figure
3.2-6 shows BlackPearl has interpreted no developable bitumen reserves in the north half of
Sections 19 and 20-077-17W4M and Section 20 has no delineation well to support the
presence of developable bitumen. Provide a discussion justifying the proposed project area,
particularly the inclusion of the north half of Section 1920-077-17W4M and the whole of Section
20-077-17W4M in the project area. Provide an updated map for the proposed project area as
considered necessary. The requested discussion should describe BlackPearl’s surface and
subsurface development plans outside the proposed development area in order for the ERCB
to consider and assess the total effects of the proposed project.
Response:
The Application Resource Area has been defined by the delineation of the resource based on
geophysical well logs, core sampling, and seismic data. BlackPearl has revised the Application Resource
Area (ARA) to exclude the north half of Sections 19-77-17 W4M and 20-77-17 W4M. The updated Project
Area is presented in Figure 3-2. The well in 7-19-77-17 W4 (submitted to the ERCB) delineates the
southern extent of the east to west trending Lower Grand Rapids shale channel. Seismic and core data
support the interpretation of the bitumen south resource trend of the shale channel.
As described in the Geology Section of the Integrated Application (Volume 1, Section 3.0) and Reservoir
Depletion Plan (Volume 1, Section 4.7) the wells and well pads outside the proposed development area
contain additional developable resource for the Project to reach 80,000 bbls/d of bitumen production. Also
refer to Figure 13-2, which shows the well layout and pads associated with the Project outside of the
development area.
3.0 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

10. Volume 1, Section 3.3.3 Transition Zone and Section 3.3.4 Bottom water Zone, Page 3-30.
BlackPearl states “The isopach of the lean zone (Figure 3.3-3) reaches a maximum thickness
of approximately 6.5m.” and “This transition zone ranges from 0.3 to 5.8 meter in thickness.
The isopach of the transition zone which is in contact with the Net Pay Zone is shown in Figure
3.3-4.” Provide a discussion on how the transition zone and bottom water will impact the
performance in terms of production rate, cumulative steam to oil ratio, and recovery of SAGD
well pairs.
Response:
Volume 1, Section 4.6.3 of the Integrated Application states that if the SAGD production well is in contact
or entirely placed in the bottom water, the ultimate recovery of the well will be lower than a well which has
an offset to bottom water based on the well’s economic SOR cutoff. The lower recovery is a result of
earlier water influx and the subsequent unsustainable SOR is due to steam losses.
With proper well standoff of 2 m to 5 m above the LGR 2 and operational procedures, bottom water influx
can be controlled. This will result in each well pair staying within the economic SOR range for a longer
period of time and resulting in a higher cumulative production on a per well pair basis.
Page 28
11. Volume 1, Section 4.4 Lower Grand Rapids SAGD Pilot, Page 4-3
BlackPearl states “In June 2011, BlackPearl started the circulation phase… the current rates
are in excess of 400 bopd which is the projects threshold for commercial development.”
Provide an update on the performance of the pilot, and a discussion of any learnings that will
be incorporated into the operating strategy for the proposed commercial project.
Response:
BlackPearl provided the Pilot operational update in November 2012 during annual ERCB In Situ
Performance Presentations. Refer to Appendix D for a copy of the November 2012 presentation.
To date, the initial Pilot well pair has provided valuable information regarding well length, liner design and
steam injectivity. At the end of Q1 2013, the second Pilot well pair will begin the warm-up circulation
phase. This second Pilot well pair is longer, placed lower in the reservoir to maximize oil recovery and has
an optimized liner design. The learning from this second Pilot well pair will also be used to finalize the
design for the Phase 1 SAGD well pairs.
As described in Volume 1, Section 4.4 of the Integrated Application, the results from the Pilot well pair will
be used to plan for the following during commercial development:
• start-up procedures;
• steam injection rates;
• production rates (oil, water, gas, sand);
• steam chamber development;
• sub-cool management;
• operating methods in a bitumen zone with underlying water; and
• facilities operation optimization.
12. Volume 1, Section 4.5 Reservoir Simulation, Page 4-9.
BlackPearl states “The simulation data provided in table 4.5-1 models the existing pilot well pair
only.” Table 4.5-1 indicates the initial pressure in the net pay and the bottom water is 1680 kPa
and 1930 kPa, respectively. Provide the current reservoir and bottom water pressures within
the proposed project area along with supporting information on how the pressures were
determined.
Response:
In March 2013, the operating pressure, as measured from the heel and toe bubble tubes in the Pilot
Producer Well, was 1,650 kPa. In March 2013 the L.GR 3 (bottom water) pressure, as measured from the
14-25 Heel Observation Well, was 1,915 kPa, which is unchanged since the commencement of Pilot
operations.
Page 29
13. Volume 1, Section 4.6 Well Spacing, Well length and Vertical Placement, Page 4-15.
BlackPearl states “Well spacing for the project may vary between 80 and 100m depending on
variations in reservoir quality in the ARA.” and “In our project, we anticipate to have well pairs
that range in length from 700m to 1200m as required to allow for optimization of net pay
coverage.” and “Figure 4.7-1 below illustrates the well pad layout for the project, including well
orientation for the wells in Phase 1.” Figure 4.7-1 does not include well trajectories and is not
labeled with pad names.
a. Provide a map similar to Figure 4.7-1 illustrating the subsurface drainage areas,
surface well pads, and well pair layout for patterns within the proposed development
area which BlackPearl is requesting approval to construct, drill, and operate as part of
the subject application. In addition, provide the subsurface drainage areas, surface well
pads, and well pair layout for patterns currently planned for future phases.
Response:
Refer to Figure 13-1 for the map of the proposed development area containing the eight drainage
patterns that BlackPearl is requesting approval to construct, drill and operate.
Refer to Figure 13-2 for a conceptual layout of future wells and well pads outside the development area.
As illustrated in Figure 13-2 the well pads are currently aligned with the updated Project Footprint
(Figure 1.1-1 in the Project Update). Based on the performance of the 950 m second Pilot well pair, the
Phase 1 wells and new geologic information, future well design and drainage patterns will be optimized
for maximum recovery. This will likely result in changes outside the development area from the
conceptual future layout shown in Figure 13-2, as well as the specific pads associated with each phase.
BlackPearl will file amendment applications for all future development areas and associated drainage
patterns outside of the development area shown in Figure 3-2.
Page 30
¯
"

"


"

"

t6790_Figure_13_1_Development_Area_Well_Layout_20130318
Project Footprint Construction Camp Site Development Area Well and Pad

Permanent Operations Drainage Pattern Area
Phase 1 Phase 3B
!

"

#
Camp Site Development Area (DA)
Sump Site
Phase 2 Proposed Blackrod Road Application Resource Area (ARA)

$
BlackPearl Oil

Phase 3A Sand Holdings Existing Blackrod Road Waterbody

UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 65,000
Wells and Pads: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011; km
Drainage Area: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013. 0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
¯

!

!

Athab a sc a Riv er

!

!

Project Footprint Sump Site Permanent Operations Development Area Well and Pad

Phase 1 BlackPearl Oil Camp Site
t6790_Figure_13_2_Future_Well_Layout_20130318
Sand Holdings Drainage Pattern Area

!

"
Phase 2 Proposed Blackrod Road
Waterbody Development Area (DA)

#
Phase 3A Existing Blackrod Road
Construction

Phase 3B Camp Site Future Well and Pad Application Resource Area (ARA)

UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 65,000
Wells and Pads: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011; km
Drainage Area: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013. 0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
13. b. Describe the criteria used to determine the drainage pattern design (i.e., vertical
placement of horizontal wells, interwell spacing, horizontal well length, pattern buffers
and project boundary setbacks). Provide the technical information and analysis used to
support these criteria.
Response:
Within the proposed development area (Figure 3-2) the L. GR 1 reservoir consists of a clean and
homogenous sand, therefore, the main driver of the drainage pattern design is bitumen thickness, surface
access and proximity to the CPF. The proposed development area contains eight drainage patterns. The
eight drainage pattern areas are based on the well length of the second Pilot well pair, which has a
horizontal length of 950 m. Subject to the performance of the second Pilot well pair, BlackPearl expects a
need to drill 4 to 5 drainage patterns to reach the design capacity of 20,000 bbls bitumen per day for
Phase 1. The remaining drainage patterns are designed to maintain production capacity of the facility at
20,000 bbl/d. Based on the production performance of the existing wells, drainage patterns will be added
to the Phase 1 scheme. Undrilled drainage patterns will be incorporated into Phase 2 of the Project and
will support the expanded capacity of the CPF.
As stated in Volume 1, Section 4.6 of the May 2012 Integrated Application, because of continued Pilot
operations, the final development plan for SAGD well spacing, length and vertical placement remains
ongoing in the ARA. The results from the Pilot well pairs will be used largely to justify the vertical
placement, interwell spacing, horizontal well length and pattern buffers of the Project wells. The SAGD
wells will be placed to maximize recovery without jeopardizing production performance and ultimate
recoveries.
Economics and surface, drilling and reservoir constraints will determine the well layout in the drainage
patterns (Table 7-1, ERCB SIR 7). BlackPearl’s objective with the drainage pattern design is to minimize
the bypass of the bitumen resource.
The initial drainage pattern design criteria are as follows:
• Vertical Placement
Volume 1, Section 4.6.3 of the Integrated Application provides an overview of BlackPearl’s vertical
placement plan. Drainage pattern vertical placement will be custom to each well within the drainage
pattern as a function of reservoir characteristics in that area. BlackPearl will use a standoff of 2 m to
5 m above the LGR 2 on the production well.
• Inter-Well Spacing
Volume 1, Section 4.6.1 provides an overview of BlackPearl’s inter-well spacing plan. Reservoir
modeling has provided guidance to the radial heating distance of each well pair. For the initial
drainage patterns, BlackPearl will have pads at 80 m well spacing and pads at 100 m well spacing.
Reservoir monitoring will then determine radial heat influence and the rate of radial heating. The
results will determine if infill SAGD wells are needed, if just a production well can be placed within the
pattern or if no infilling is required.
• Horizontal Well Length
Volume 1, Section 4.6.2 provides an overview of BlackPearl’s well length plan. Well length variation
will be largely driven by surface, drilling and operational constraints. For the initial eight drainage
patterns, the well length is based on the 950 m length of the second Pilot well pair and surface
constraints.
Page 33
• Pattern Buffers
Drainage pattern buffers are based on inter-well spacing and the placement of surface pads and
drilling constraints. The buffer between drainage patterns will be set to ensure optimal inter-well
spacing.
• Project Boundary Setbacks
As described in Volume 1, Section 4.7, the SAGD well pair setback will be an industry standard of 50
m from Project boundaries or 50 m from the center of a road allowance to any non-BlackPearl
offsetting mineral holder. This proposed development area boundary will allow BlackPearl to
maximize resource recovery and to minimize the stranding of resources to the offsetting of non
BlackPearl held oil sands leases.
14. Based on the above drainage pattern design criteria, provide the below parameters. Include the
expected variation for each parameter and the basis for this variation.
a. vertical placement of horizontal wells or the perforation interval of vertical wells,
Response:
The vertical placement of SAGD producer wells will vary based on reservoir characteristics and fluid
contacts. BlackPearl intends to have a 2 m to 5 m standoff above the LGR 2.
14. b. interwell spacing,
Response:
Variations in inter-well spacing are subject to the results of Phase 1 well performance, resource
monitoring and economics. Well spacing will be adjusted as needed to ensure no resource is bypassed.
14. c. horizontal well length,
Response:
In the Integrated Application BlackPearl proposed a well pad layout and resulting surface disturbance
based on a 700 m horizontal well length. As development plans progress BlackPearl is looking to balance
horizontal heating efficiency and surface disturbance (i.e., the longer the wells the less well pads that are
required). Considering surface and drilling constraints alone, variations in drainage pattern length are
expected to range from 800 m to 1,200 m.
14. d. buffers between drainage patterns, and
Response:
The buffer between drainage patterns will be set to ensure optimal inter-well spacing.
Page 34
14. e. setbacks from project boundaries.
Response:
A variation from 50 m should not occur.
15. Provide a discussion on remedial actions that may be undertaken during the drilling of the
horizontal portion of a well if non-reservoir rock is encountered that could have a detrimental
impact on productivity including the criteria for implementing such remedial action.
Response:
Volume 1, Section 5.0 (Page 5-1, bullet point 3) of the Integrated Application states that due to the
homogeneity of the Lower Grand Rapids reservoir, it is unexpected that non-reservoir rock will be
encountered while drilling the producer wells. However, if non-reservoir rock is encountered, the BHA will
be steered upwards until the hole is above non-reservoir facies. If a portion of non-reservoir rock greater
than 100 m is encountered, BlackPearl will evaluate sidetracking the well trajectory.
16. Provide a discussion on any plans to use downhole mechanical systems or blank pipe instead
of slotted liner in a portion of the horizontal interval to control the injection of steam into specific
portions of the reservoir including the criteria for doing this and the potential effect on resource
recovery.
Response:
BlackPearl is evaluating a steam distribution system by installing steam ports on the long string of the
injector well of the second Pilot well pair. BlackPearl believes that steam distribution will improve the
steam chamber growth consistency, resulting in more uniform heat distribution across the horizontal well.
Results from the Pilot well will be used to finalize the well design of the Phase 1 commercial well pairs. At
this time there are no plans to use black pipe as a method of steam distribution.
17. Volume 1, Section 4.7.1 Production Forecast and Recovery,Page 4-18.
BlackPearl states “The production and SOR forecasts provided are based on 560 well pairs on
69 well pads, at a 100m well pair spacing and an average horizontal length of 700m, a
development scenario which is similar to the successful CNRL B10 analog. Based on this
scenario it is estimated that the project recovery factor will be 49%. Refer to Figure 4.7-2 for the
Project Production Forecast and Figure 4.7-3 for the Project SOR.”
a. Provide a discussion on how the production forecast, steam to oil ratio, and recovery of
49 per cent were determined.
Response:
The type wells used for the Project were prepared by the third party reserve company that developed the
Blackrod type curves, using CNRL B10 as an analog and with adjustments for BlackPearl’s reservoir
thickness, reservoir type and well length.
Two type wells are being provided, one for a 700 m well and one for a 950 m well. The type curves
represent the average SAGD well pair production rate within the ARA. Reservoir thickness and
characteristics will result in certain areas of the ARA with wells that perform better than other areas. The
700 m type well was used in Volume 1, Section 4.7 of the May 2012 Integrated Application to determine
the production forecast, SOR and recovery percentages.
Page 35
The production forecast and cumulative recovery based on the 700 m type well curve results in recovery
factors in the range of 49% to 52% of the OBIP as stated in Table 4.3-1 in the Volume 1, Section 4.3 of
the Integrated Application. The recovery factors are based on the Project reaching its economic limit
based on SOR cutoffs. Recovery factors of 49% to 52% are consistent with SAGD values in industry.
17. b. Provide the injection and production forecast for the type well(s), if it was based on
simulation results for the pilot, or for the CNRL B10, if based on the analog.
Response:
Refer to Figure 17-1 for the 700 m type well and Figure 17-2 for the 950 m type well. As described in
ERCB SIR 17a the production forecasts were based on CNRL B10.
Page 36
April 2013
FIGURE 17-1
BLACKROD TYPE CURVE
16 SECTION ARA (700m)
2000 1200
PROPOSED BLACKROD
COMMERCIAL SAGD
1800 PROJECT
1000
1600
1400
800
1200
Mbbls
bbls
1000 600
800
400
600
400
200
200
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
Oil Steam Cumulative Oil
Although there is no reason to believe that

or in the product itself, users of these
data are advised that errors in the
data may be present
April 2013
FIGURE 17-2
BLACKROD TYPE CURVE
16 SECTION ARA (950m)

PROPOSED BLACKROD
2800 1400
COMMERCIAL SAGD
PROJECT
2600
2400 1200
2200
2000 1000
Mbbls
1800
bbls
1600 800
1400
1200 600
1000
800 400
600
400 200
200
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
Oil Steam Cumulative Oil

data may be present
18. Volume 1, Section 4.10 Reservoir Monitoring, Page 4-25.
BlackPearl states “BlackPearl plans to use various methods of monitoring well performance to
continuously optimize the recovery process.” and “For the initial SAGD well pads in phase one;
two to three observation wells will be drilled on each pad. Where surface constraints prevent
placement of an observation well, tilt meters or satellite monitoring system to measure surface
movement may be considered.”
a. Discuss the strategy to be used in the placement of observation wells. Include the
planned distance to adjacent SAGD well pairs and distance to the toe or heel of SAGD
wells.
Response:
To reduce surface impact, BlackPearl plans to convert existing drilled and cased OSE wells into
observation wells to satisfy monitoring requirements for the development area drainage patterns
(Figure 18-1). At this time, it is not known where additional observation wells may be located. However,
BlackPearl will add as required to ensure there is sufficient monitoring on a drainage pattern basis.
Currently there are ten OSE wells that can be converted to observation wells within the development
area. Based on the existing well locations, the target distance will be 10 m to 50 m from a SAGD well pair
and 10 m to 50 m from the toe or heel of a SAGD well pair.
18. b. Provide representative schematic showing the planned completion design of the
proposed observation wells and include type of devices, the zones or intervals of
interest, fluid interfaces, and other relevant data as considered necessary.
Response:
See Figure 18-2 for a schematic of the planned completion design of the observation wells. The
observation wells will be setup to monitor temperature above, below and within the net pay, as well as the
LGR 3 (bottom water) pressure and temperature.
18. c. Discuss if BlackPearl will have any other monitoring plans or programs for the
proposed commercial project (for example, fluid saturation logging or 4D seismic).
Provide the currently known details such as location and monitoring frequency.
Response:
Observation wells, downhole temperature and pressure measurement on SAGD production wells and a
InSAR surface level monitoring system on one of the drainage patterns will be the primary monitoring
methods for the Project. BlackPearl would only consider a 4D seismic program if the value can be
demonstrated. In circumstances where poor SAGD performance may warrant a 4D seismic survey to
understand operational or reservoir issues, a 4D seismic program may be conducted on a pad-by-pad
basis. At this time, a 4D seismic survey is not anticipated.
Page 39
¯
!

!


(
!

(
(
(

( (
(

( (

(
( (
( ((

(
(

( (
( (
!

t6790_Figure_18_1_Existing_Drilled_and_Cased_OSE_Wells_20130318_USE
Pilot Observation Well Waterbody

(
( Potential Observation Well BlackPearl Oil Sand Holdings
"

!

Existing Well Drainage Pattern Area

#

Development Area Well and Pad Application Resource Area (ARA)

SCALE: 1: 65,000
UTM Zone 12N
km
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Wells and Pads: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
April 2013
Surface Hole: 349 mm FIGURE 18-2

Surface Casing: Set @ depth as per Direction 008
Size: 244.5 mm, 48.1 kg/m, H40, ST&C OBSERVATION WELLS

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Production Hole: 222 mm COMMERCIAL SADG
Production Casing: ~450.0 mKB
PROJECT
Size: 177.8 mm, 34.3 kg/m, L80, c/w QB2 connections
Production Tubing: Landing @ ~350.0 mKB

Size: 73.0mm, 9.67 kg/m, J55
Temp. Gauges
Hydraulic Packer:
Size: 177.8mm x 73.0mm c/w instrument feed-through connections
L.GR3 Perf Interval
P/T Gauge

TD: ~450.0 mKB or in the product itself, users of these
data may be present
19. Volume 1, Section 4.8 SAGD Operations and Artificial Lift, Page 4-24.
BlackPearl indicates that the SAGD operations include Warm-up (circulation phase), SAGD
Mode, Blowdown Operations and states “Operationally, a pressure balance between the net
pay and bottom water is required to prevent losing steam to the bottom water zone or prevent
water from mobilizing up into the production wells.”
a. Provide the planned bottomhole injection pressures, steam injection rates, and duration
for each proposed operating stage and the basis for these values.
Response:
During initial start-up operations, a maximum bottom hole circulating pressure of 4,000 kPa for 24 to
48 hours will be required to evacuate the residual completion fluids from the wellbore.
Circulation Phase will last for a period of 3 to 6 months during which time the expected bottomhole
injection pressures and steam injection rates will range from 2,500-3,000 kPa and 100-160 m3/day
respectively for both the producer and injector wells.
Following Circulation Phase, SAGD Mode will last for a period of 8 to 10 years during which time the
expected bottomhole injection pressures and steam injection rates will range from 2,100-3,500 kPa and
140-360 m3/day. Please note that these operating ranges will be refined as we continue to advance our
Pilot operations.
Following SAGD Mode, blowdown operations will commence and last for 2 to 4 years, or until oil
production rates become uneconomic. The same bottomhole injection pressures and rates from SAGD
Mode will be sustained during blowdown; however, a non-condensable gas will be co-injected with steam
for improved economics and efficiency. Please note that BlackPearl expects to apply for blowdown at a
later date.
The approved MOP for the Pilot operations is 3,900 kPa (refer to ERCB SIR 20a for further details on
justification of Project bottom hole MOP). Although the anticipated injection pressures have been
provided herein, it may be necessary to exceed the stated operating pressures at certain times. However,
other than the initial start-up operations described above, BlackPearl will at no point exceed the bottom
hole MOP of 3,900 kPa. Alarms and automatic shutdown systems will be put in place to ensure bottom
hole pressures are not exceeded.
19. b. Provide a discussion on how BlackPearl will balance the pressure between the steam
chamber and bottom water and the planned pressure differential.
Response:
LGR 3 (bottom water) pressure will be monitored via the network of observation wells. Injector well steam
chamber pressures will be monitored at the wellhead, taking into account hydrostatic pressure and
controlled by surface steam injection adjustments at surface. Producer well flowing pressures will be
monitored by way of the downhole bubble tube instrumentation and controlled by downhole pump
adjustments. Collectively, BlackPearl Operations will utilize this suite of pressure data to establish an
operational balance within the system and will maintain a differential pressure which renders optimal oil
production rates whilst preventing water influx from the LGR 3 below.
Page 42
20. The ERCB expects that thermal operations will be conducted in a manner that will not
compromise caprock seal integrity.
a. Specify the requested maximum operating pressure (MOP) for the proposed
commercial project and discuss how it was determined and why it is considered
appropriate. Include the maximum and planned operating pressure during both start-up
and SAGD operations.
Response:
As per ERCB Application No. 1741982 (Appendix E), the Pilot is currently approved for a maximum steam
chamber operating pressure (MOP) of 19.4 kPa/m (3,900 kPa). BlackPearl requests that the same MOP
of 19.4 kPa/m apply to the Commercial Project. Justification for this MOP is explained in Application No.
1741982 included herein as Appendix E.
Refer to Figure 20-1 for location of mini fracture testing completed in the ARA.
20. b. Demonstrate the thickness and areal extent of the Joli Fou caprock in the project area
by comparing logs and cores over the caprock interval. Provide an annotated isopach
map of the Joli Fou in the project area.
Response:
An annotated isopach of the Joli Fou caprock over the Project Area is provided in Volume 1, Section 3.0,
Figure 3.1-11 of the Integrated Application and included here as Figure 20-2. The thickness and areal
extent of the Joli Fou is demonstrated in the geophysical well log cross-section presented in Volume 1,
Section 3.0, Figure 3.2-4 and Volume 1, Section 3.0, Figure 3.2-5 of the Integrated Application and
included here as Figures 20-3 and 20-4. Also refer to Appendix E.
20. c. Demonstrate the competency of the caprock by providing the following analysis of
cores across the caprock interval:
i. composition (i.e., percentage of silt, shale and mud), and

ii. evidence of fractures, faults and karsting.
Response:
i. The Joli Fou composition was analysed in drill cuttings and core as a medium to dark grey
colored, well indurated, slightly fissile shale with a 90% shale and mudstone content and with thin
beds containing higher silt content.
ii. Core from the Joli Fou has been recovered from the 1AA/04-01-077-18W4M and 1AA/1-36-076-
18W4M wells. There is no evidence of fractures, faults or karsting in well logs, core, or seismic
within the Joli Fou interval. The 1AA/1-36-076-18W4M lithological description is presented in
Figure 20-5. The 1AA/04-01-077-18W4M was kept as a full diameter core and the lithological
description is presented in Figure 20-6.
Page 43
¯
!

!


!

_
^
$#"

$%
_
^

!

t6790_Figure_20_1_Mini_Fracture_Testing_in_ARA_20130320_USE

_
^ Mini Fracture Well Development Area (DA)

Existing Well Application Resource Area (ARA)

&
BlackPearl Oil Sand Holdings Waterbody

Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011;
km
Wells: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
TWP.77
TWP.76
FIGURE 20-2
JOLI FOU ISOPACH

(ARA) CI : 2m

PROPOSED BLACKROD
SCALE 1:50 000 April 2013

Viking
A’
Viking
Joli Fou
Joli Fou
U.GR
U.GR
Capping Shale (MFS) Capping Shale (MFS)
L.GR 1 L.GR 1
RSE
RSE L.GR 2
L.GR 2
L.GR 3 (MFS)
FIGURE 20-3
L.GR 3
L.GR 3 (MFS)
CROSS SECTION A-A’
L.GR 3
GRAND RAPIDS
SOUTH-NORTH STRUCTURAL CROSS-SECTION

PROPOSED BLACKROD
April 2013
B B’
Viking
Viking
Joli Fou Joli Fou
B
U GR
U.GR U GR
U.GR
B’
Capping Shale (MFS)

Capping Shale (MFS)
L.GR 1
L.GR 1
FIGURE 20-4
RSE
Transition Zone
CROSS SECTION B-B’
Base Water
GRAND RAPIDS
RSE WEST-EAST STRUCTURAL CROSS-SECTION
L.GR 3 (MFS) L.GR 2 Shale L.GR 2
Filled Tidal
L.GR 3 Channel L.GR 3 (MFS)
L.GR 3 ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES -
PROPOSED BLACKROD
April 2013
FIGURE 20-5
1A/01-36-76-18W4M
Lithology Strip Log
ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES –

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to general this product or in the April 2013
product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present
FIGURE 20-6
1AA/04-01-77-18W4
Lithology Strip Log

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to general this product or in the April 2013
product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present
21. Discuss how operations will be monitored to ensure that the MOP is not exceeded. Include the
field operating protocols to deal with an exceedance of the MOP should it occur.
Response:
All injection wells will be equipped with instrumentation and control systems at surface for continuous
monitoring and regulation of steam injection pressures and rates; the control systems will be set and
programmed in order that the bottomhole steam chamber pressures will never exceed the MOP.
In the unlikely event that the bottomhole steam chamber pressure exceeds the MOP, BlackPearl
Operations will immediately carry out the corrective measures to lower the steam injection pressure and
rates such that the bottomhole steam chamber falls back to a pressure below the MOP. Concurrently,
BlackPearl will notify the ERCB and review all available data to determine if any detrimental impacts, such
as steam breakthrough, resulted from the MOP exceedance.
22. Discuss how operations will be monitored to ensure that the integrity of the caprock has not
been compromised. Include the criteria to characterize an event that could compromise
caprock integrity and the field operating protocols for responding to such an event.
Response:
The drainage pattern observations wells as described in ERCB SIR 18 will monitor temperatures within
and above the bitumen zone. BlackPearl would follow the operating protocols as stated in ERCB SIR 21
above if an event occurs where the caprock is compromised.
23. Volume 1, Section 4.10.3 Ground Heave, Page 4-26.
BlackPearl states “Based the projects injection pressures, the potential environmental effects
are expected to be indiscernible as the actual changes will be indiscernible as they occur.
Consequently, the effect of the Project on topography due to ground heave or subsidence is
not carried forward in the assessment.”
Clarify the rationale why the actual surface heave will be indiscernible along with supporting
information.
Response:
Due to the presence of bottom water at the Blackrod Project, the reservoir pressures will be maintained
very close to balanced based on virgin reservoir pressures. The result of this balanced scenario is that
surface heave is less likely to occur at the Blackrod Project. If heave does occur it will be indiscernible by
sight since it will be at a rate of millimeters to centimeters per year. A metering system such as satellite or
a tiltmeter measurement will be needed to monitor heave.
BlackPearl does recognize that surface heave could still occur, but maintains the environmental effects
will be indiscernible as surface heave is not expected to be uniform and would occur gradually over a 10
year period during the life of a SAGD well pair. Surface heave will be limited to the immediate area above
a SAGD well and any displacement of the surface would taper off as the distance from the well increases.
If surface heave does occur it will be indiscernible at distances of 100 m to 200 m laterally from the
subsurface of SAGD well pairs. Ground level elevation changes as a result of surface heave are not likely
to change the direction of surface flow in the LSA.
As part of Phase 1 reservoir monitoring, BlackPearl will install interferometric synthetic aperture radar
(INSAR) along one of the SAGD drainage patterns, similar to many other thermal projects in the region.
Page 50
This technique measures ground displacement by satellite at reflector locations. The reflectors will be
strategically placed throughout the drainage pattern to monitor the growth of the stream chamber. The
data obtained will also provide early indication of any surface heave that may be caused by steam
injection.
24. Volume 1, Section 4.12 Existing Wells in ARA, Page 4-26.
BlackPearl states it “will evaluate all existing wells within the ARA. Should any wells be found
within a 300 meter radius of a SAGD well pair which requires a higher degree of thermal
integrity, the well will be recompleted before offsetting in-situ operations commence.” The
ERCB requires information on the wellbores that could be impacted by the proposed thermal
operations to ensure fluid containment within the reservoir.
a. Provide an update to Tables 2.3.3 by providing one table for all wells within and
offsetting the proposed project area that may be impacted by the proposed thermal
operations that includes the following information: unique well identifiers, spud date,
current well licensee, current status, completion details (production casing size and
grade, surface and production casing depth, production casing connection type,
cement type behind production casing, cement top, cement returns to surface, depth of
any cement plugs, and the type of cement used for any cement plugs), identification of
the presence of surface casing vent flows and gas migration, determination of thermal
compatibility (yes/no), and Directive 020: Well Abandonment compliance.
Response:
Refer to Table 24-1 for a list of wells checked for thermal compatibility. Also refer to Figure 24-1 for a map
of the wells checked for thermal integrity. All wells in the ARA and within 300 m of the ARA have been
identified and included in Table 24-1.
Page 51
TABLE 24-1
WELLS WITHIN 300 M OF ARA
Production
Production Production Surface Casing Cement Surface Thermal ERCB Directive 20:
Current Well Spud Current Production Production Casing Density Casing Depth Casing Connection Cement Returns to PBTD Cement Casing Compatibility Well Abandonment
UVI Operator License Date Status Casing Size Casing Grade (kg/m) (m) Depth (m) Type Cement Type Top (mKB) Surface (m3) (mKB) Plug Type Vent Flow (Yes/No) Compliance
1AA/14-22-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 407067 1/16/2009 Drld & ABD N/A N/A N/A N/A 106.6 N/A 7.8 Tonnes Proteus Core Surf Unspecified 353 No Yes Yes
Rsrcs Inc 0.5% CFR-2 + 1% CaCl2
1AA/04-23-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 407073 1/26/2009 Drilled & 114.3 J-55 14.14 367.5 101 ST&C 10.0 Tonnes Proteus Core Surf 3 368 No Yes Yes
Rsrcs Inc Cased 0.25% CFR-2+0.35%CFI-
3+1%CaCl2
100/14-24-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 407623 1/27/2009 Monitoring 114.3 J-55 14.14 382 111.2 ST&C 7.8 Tonnes Proteus Core Surf 1 382 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc Well 0.25% CFR-2+0.35%CFI-
3+1%CaCl2
1F1/14-24-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 417481 2/11/2010 WTR Source 177.8 L80 34.23 331.9 113.5 QB2 6.56 Tonnes Proteus Pro Surf Unspecified 331 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc 0.25% CFR-2+1%
CaCl2+0.35% CfL3
100/02-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 429413 3/16/2011 WTR Disposal 244.5 L80 34.23 460 103 QB2 24.0 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 4 460 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc 1%CaCl2+0.35%CFR-
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1AA/06-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 441740 2/26/2012 Drilled & 139.7 J-55 23.07 430 125 LT&C 15.49 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 2.5 516 No Yes Yes
Rsrcs Inc Cased 2%MCA-1 +0.35%MCFR-2
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
100/10-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 210670 1/15/1998 Susp GAS 114.3 J-55 17.26 337 92 Undefined (likely 12 Tonnes ThixoTherm Surf 0.5 337 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc ST&C) 2%CaCl2 + 0.35% CFL2
1AA/12-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 407624 1/22/2009 Drld & ABD N/A N/A N/A N/A 106.6 N/A 8.41 Tonnes Proteus Core Surf 1 367 No Yes Yes
103/13-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 416778 2/1/2010 Monitoring 177.8 L80 34.23 407.6 113.5 QB2 8.14 Tonnes Proteus Pro Surf Unspecified 407 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc Well .25% of CFR-2, 1% CaCI2,
.35% CfL3
100/14-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 422259 10/14/201 Monitoring 177.8 L80 34.23 402 102 QB2 11.58 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 4 403 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc 0 Well 0.50%CaCl2+0.35%CFR-
2+0.35%FL-
1+0.1%DFP+1%MFW
102/14-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 416784 1/26/2010 Monitoring 177.8 L80 34.23 371.5 114.6 QB2 7.4 Tonnes Proteus Pro Surf 3 371 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc Well .25% of CFR-2, 1% CaCI2,
.35% CfL3
100/15-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 424998 10/24/201 Drilled & 177.8 L80 34.23 348 108 QB2 15.19Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 4 348 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc 0 Cased 1%CaCl2+0.35%CFR-
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1F1/15-25-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 417145 1/18/2010 WTR Source 177.8 L80 34.23 452 112.1 QB2 12.43 Tonnes Proteus Pro Surf 5 438 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc 1% CaCl2,.25% CFR-2,
35% CFL-3
1AA/05-26-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 429300 3/3/2011 Drilled & 177.8 J-55 29.76 411 105 ST&C 10.52 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 3 411 No Yes Yes
Rsrcs Inc Cased 1%CaCl2+0.35%CFR-
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1AA/07-26-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 441738 2/18/2012 Drilled & 177.8 J-55 23.07 430 110 LT&C 13.76 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 1 428 No Yes Yes
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1AB/15-26-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 441801 2/21/2012 Drilled & 139.7 J-55 23.07 428 125 LT&C 10.06 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 2.5 428 No Yes Yes
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
Page 52
TABLE 24-1 Cont'd

Production
1AA/02-35-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 441797 2/28/2012 Drilled & 139.7 J-55 23.07 430 125 LT&C 14.21 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 2.5 429 No Yes Yes
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
1AA/12-35-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 407064 1/9/2009 Drld & ABD N/A N/A N/A N/A 111.2 N/A 10.3 Tonnes Proteus Core Surf 0.2 346 No Yes Yes
1AA/16-35-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 429302 3/12/2011 Drilled & 177.8 J-55 29.76 410 100.5 ST&C 13.22 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 3 411 No Yes Yes
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1AA/02-36-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 443820 2/12/2012 Monitoring 177.8 L80 34.23 435 112 QB2 10.5 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 2.5 435 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc Well 1.0%MCA-1 +0.35%MCFL-1
+0.35%MCFR-2
+0.10%MCDF-1
100/03-36-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 422263 10/18/201 Monitoring 177.8 L80 34.23 404.5 111 QB2 21.26 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 5 405 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc 0 Well 1%CaCl2+0.35%CFR-
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1AA/07-36-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 443822 2/15/2012 Monitoring 177.8 L80 34.23 430 110 QB2 12.5 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 2 430 No Yes Not Abandoned
Rsrcs Inc Well 1.0%MCA-1 +0.35%MCFL-1
+0.35%MCFR-2
+0.10%MCDF-1
1AA/14-36-076-18W4/00 Blackpearl 429361 3/16/2011 Drilled & 177.8 J-55 29.76 398 106.5 ST&C 11.73 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 2 392 No Yes Yes
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
1AB/07-19-077-17W4/00 Blackpearl 441773 3/10/2012 Drilled & 139.7 J-55 23.07 386 125 LT&C 11.86 Tonnes Mag Thermal Surf 2 385 No Yes Yes
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
1AB/06-01-077-18W4/00 Blackpearl 429415 2/7/2011 Drilled & 177.8 J-55 29.76 404 104 ST&C 11.09 Tonnes Thermal 40 Surf 3 403 No Yes Yes
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
2+0.35%FL-1+0.1%DFP
+0.35%MCFL-1
+0.1%MCDF-P
100/10-01-077-18W4/00 Cavalier 48763 2/4/1974 Drld & ABD N/A N/A N/A 186 180.5 Undefined (likely 1220 st + 4% Gel Cement Surf 0 surface No No Abandoned prior to
Enrg Lmtd ST&C) Dir 20
100/12-19-076-17W4/03 Chinook 193968 12/30/199 Susp GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 380 189 ST&C 9.3 Tonnes Expan +0.25% Surf 1.5 379 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc 6 CFL3 +0.2%CaCl3
Page 53
TABLE 24-1 Cont'd

Production
100/08-22-076-18W4/00 Chinook 132327 2/29/1988 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 436 84 Undefined (likely 3 tonnes 1-1-4 + 0.25% Surf 1 436 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc ST&C) FRC-1, tail-in w/ 3.5 tonnes
thermaster G-35 + 0.5%
FRC-1 + 0.20% CPC-1
102/08-22-076-18W4/00 Chinook 231349 1/24/2000 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.1 429.4 182 ST&C 11 tonnes of Thermal40 + Surf 3 438 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc 0.25% CFL2 + 2% CaCl2
100/04-23-076-18W4/00 Chinook 138266 1/20/1989 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.1 450 101 Undefined (likely 1 tonnes of 1-1-4 plus 0.5% Surf 5 450 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc ST&C) C flour followed with 5
tonnes 0-1-0 plus 40%
silicone
100/15-24-076-18W4/00 Chinook 210633 12/29/199 Susp GAS 114.3 J-55 14.1 461 188 ST&C 7.5 Tonnes Thermal40 Surf 1 297 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc 7 +0.25% CFL3 + 1% CaCl2
100/03-26-076-18W4/00 Chinook 209066 1/25/1998 Flowing GAS 139.7 J-55 20.83 423 94 ST&C 11 tonnes Thixotherm + 2% Surf 1.5 423 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc CaCl2
102/03-26-076-18W4/00 Chinook 231123 1/27/2000 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.1 440 156 ST&C 12Tonnes Thermal40exp + Surf 3 435 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc 0.25%CFL3+2%CaCl2
100/01-27-076-18W4/00 Chinook 138264 1/25/1989 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.1 425 101 Undefined (likely 3 tonnes 1-1-4 + 0.5% C Unknown No returns 425 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc ST&C) folw + 5 tonnes 0-1-0 plus
40% silica flour, 0.1% CBL2
0.75% Halad 322
100/06-34-076-18W4/00 Chinook 229728 1/21/2000 Flowing GAS 114.3 H-40 14.1 410 184.6 ST&C 11 tonnes of Thermal40 + Surf 2 410 No Yes Not Abandoned
100/07-35-076-18W4/00 Chinook 182803 2/12/1996 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 431 134 Undefined (likely 8.1 Tonnes Thermal40exp + Surf 0.5 431 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc ST&C) 0.25%CFL3+2%CaCl2
100/11-18-077-17W4/00 Chinook 220155 2/2/1999 Susp GAS 114.3 J-55 17.2 391 186.3 LT&C 9 Tonnes Thermal Exp + Surf 2.5 387 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc 0.25% CFL3 and 1%CaCla
100/02-01-077-18W4/02 Chinook 182686 2/15/1996 Susp GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 429.2 133.1 Undefined (likely 8.3 Tonnes Thermal40exp + Surf 1.5 277 Plug No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc ST&C) 0.25%CFL3+2%CaCl2 cement
type not
specifed in
well report.
Plug
cement
was placed
within
3 days of
drilling,
very
probable
thermal
cement
was used.
100/13-02-077-18W4/00 Chinook 245979 1/22/2001 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 529 179 LT&C 12 Tonnes Thermal40 Exp Surf 2.5 529 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc
100/09-10-077-18W4/00 Chinook 229502 1/14/2000 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 417 151 ST&C 12 tonnes of Thermal40 + Surf 4 417 No Yes Not Abandoned
100/08-11-077-18W4/00 Chinook 245884 1/4/2001 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 488.5 187 LT&C 12 Tonnes Thermal40 1% Surf 2.7 489 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc CaCl2
100/10-12-077-18W4/00 Chinook 229503 1/11/2000 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 407 180.5 ST&C 9 tonnes of Thermal40 + Surf 3.5 407 No Yes Not Abandoned
100/09-15-077-18W4/00 Chinook 247153 1/26/2001 Flowing GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 486 179 Undefined (likely 11.0 Tonnes Thermal40 1% Surf 2 486 No Yes Not Abandoned
Enrg Inc ST&C) CaCl2
100/07-24-076-18W4/00 Imperial Oil 12866 1/6/1957 Drld & ABD 177.8 J-55 no information 304.8 248.1 Undefined (likely 125 SAX Neat Cement Unknown No returns 281 125 SAX No No Abandoned prior to
Lmtd ST&C) Neat Dir 20
Cement
100/05-07-077-17W4/00 Meg Enrg 392268 2/21/2008 Drilled & 177.8 K-55 34.23 442.8 177.5 LT&C 15 Tonnes of Thermal40 Surf 3 155 No Yes Yes
Corp Cased
100/15-13-076-18W4/00 Talisman 210636 1/1/1998 Drld & ABD H-40 187 Undefined (likely 8tonnes Thermal40 + 0.5% surface 2 90 No Yes Yes
Enrg Inc ST&C) CFR + 5 Tonnes Thermal40
+ 2% CaCl2
Page 54
TABLE 24-1 Cont'd

Production
100/14-14-076-18W4/00 Talisman 208806 1/30/1998 ABD GAS 139.7 J-55 20.9 428 90 Undefined (likely 12 Tonnes Thermal40 2% Surf 1.5 428 Class G No Yes Yes
Enrg Inc ST&C) CaCl2 + 3% CFL3
100/15-36-076-18W4/02 Talisman 211954 1/12/1998 Drld & ABD 114.3 J-55 12.26 324 94 Undefined (likely 11 Tonnes Thixotherm + 2% Surf 1 324 Class G No Yes Yes
Enrg Inc ST&C) CaCl1 + 0..35% CFL2
100/06-17-077-17W4/00 Talisman 229940 1/17/2000 Drld & ABD 114.3 J-55 14.14 418 180 ST&C 11 tonnes of Thermal40 + Surf 2 214 Thermal No Yes Yes
Enrg Inc 0.25% CFL2 + 2% CaCl2 Cement
Used
100/09-13-077-18W4/00 Talisman 210450 1/5/1998 Drld & ABD 114.3 J-55 14.14 414.5 183 ST&C 9.5 tonnes of Thermal40 + Surf 2 191 Thermal No Yes Yes
Enrg Inc 0.25% CFL2 + 2% CaCl2 Cement
Used
100/06-14-077-18W4/02 Talisman 245914 1/8/2001 ABD GAS 114.3 J-55 14.14 472 180 LT&C 7 Tonnes Thermal40 2% Surf 4 472 No Yes Yes
Enrg Inc Zone CaCl2
Page 55
¯
"

"


(

"

(
( ( (
(
( (

( ( ( (
(
(

( (

( (
(

(
( ( (
(

(
(
( ( ( (
( ((
( ( (
(
(
((
(
(
(

( (
( ( (

"
( (
(
((

(
( (
( (
(
( (

t6790_Figure_24_1_Wells_Checked_for_Thermal_Integrity_20130320

!

( Well Checked for Thermal Integrity Drainage Pattern Area
"

#

$

!

Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Wells: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013;
km
Drainage Area: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
24. b. Provide the criteria used to assess the thermal compatibility of the existing wells that
may be impacted by the proposed thermal operations. Note that well abandonment as
per Directive 020: Well Abandonment may not address the risk of fluid flow behind
production casing due to thermal operations.
Response:
BlackPearl determined a risk based assessment for all wells within the Project Area. The assessment was
used to categorize the evaluated wells as thermally compatible or a potential risk to the Project. The
criteria used to assess the thermal compatibility of wells are as follows:
Wells that are considered thermally incompatible are:
• records for the wells that do not specify complete casing and cementing data and BlackPearl cannot
determine thermal compatibility; and
• use of non-thermal cement for primary cement and subsequent abandonment.
Wells that are considered thermally compatible are:
• wells that have been thermally cased, cemented and subsequently thermally abandoned as per
ERCB Directive 20;
• wells that are cased with non-thermal casing but cemented with thermal cement and subsequently
thermally abandoned as per ERCB Directive 20; and
• oil sands evaluation or core holes that have been open hole thermally abandoned as per ERCB
Directive 20.
24. c. For each well not considered to be thermally compatible with the proposed thermal
operations, discuss why each well is not considered to be compatible and specify the
criteria failed.
Response:
As per Table 24-2, two wells have been determined to be thermally incompatible.
TABLE 24-2
EXISTING THERMALLY INCOMPATIBLE WELLS WITHIN ARA
Well UWI Current Operator Well License Well Spud Date Well Status Reason for thermal incompatibility
100/10-01-077-18 W4M Cavalier Energy Ltd. 48763 Feb 4, 1974 D&A Well is cemented to surface with
non-thermal cement.
100/7-24-76-18 W4M Imperial Oil 12866 Jan 6, 1957 D&A Non-thermal cement used, well is open hole
through the L. GR 1 bitumen interval.
Page 57
24. d. Provide a map showing the location of all wells not considered to be compatible with
the proposed thermal operations. This map should include the proposed project and
development area boundaries and the proposed subsurface drainage areas and should
be annotated with the distance between thermally incompatible wells and the nearest
subsurface drainage area.
Response:
Refer to Figure 24-2 for location of thermally incompatible wells. The 100/07-24-76-18W4M well, is
1,900 m from Drainage Pattern 1, which is sufficient distance to not be a risk to the Phase 1 development.
The 10-01-77-18W4M well is within Drainage Pattern 7 and 470 m north of Drainage Pattern 3.
24. e. For each well not considered thermally compatible within the proposed development
area, provide the planned mitigation measures (e.g., buffer distances, remediation, and
monitoring) that will be performed at each well to ensure fluid containment.
Response:
Drainage patterns 1,2,3 and 4 will be the initial developments for Phase 1. Drainage Pattern 7 is not
expected to be developed until 3-4 years after the start-up of Phase 1. To address the wells identified in
Table 24-2, BlackPearl will work with the ERCB to obtain an approved mitigation plan prior to the
development of Drainage Pattern 7.
Page 58

"

"

¯


"

( $

"
$

t6790_Figure_24_2_Thermal_Incompatible_Wells_in_ARA_20130320

!

( Thermal Incompatible Well Drainage Pattern Area

#

"


%

!

Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Wells: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013;
km
Drainage Area: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013.
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
4.0 FACILITIES
25. Provide a discussion on how BlackPearl will tie-in the various components of the Blackrod Pilot
to the commercial development.
Response:
Table 25-1 describes how the existing wells will be integrated in to the commercial development.
TABLE 25-1
EXISTING PILOT WELLS
Figure 25-1
Reference Pilot Well Pilot Use Commercial Use
6 1F1/15-25-76-18W4 Grosmont C/D water source well Grosmont C/D water source well
9 100/2-25-76-18W4 Grosmont A/B water disposal well Grosmont A/B water disposal well
7 100/15-25-76-18W4 Viking groundwater monitoring well (pressure and sampling) Viking groundwater monitoring well
2 100/3-36-76-18W4 Lower Grand Rapids 3 monitoring well. (pressure, Will continue to be used as a monitoring well in the
temperature and sampling) commercial project.
4 100/14-25-76-18W4 Lower Grand Rapids 3 monitoring well. (pressure, Will continue to be used as a monitoring well in the
temperature and sampling) commercial project
3 102/14-25-76-18W4 First pilot heel monitoring well - Lower Grand Rapids 1 (RTD Will continue to be used as a monitoring well in the
temperature) and 3 (pressure and temperature). commercial project
1 103/13-25-76-18W4 First pilot toe monitoring well - Lower Grand Rapids 1 (RTD Will continue to be used as a monitoring well in the
temperature) commercial project
11 1F1/14-24-76-18W4 Lower Grand Rapids 3 water source well Will be used if required for initial tank CPF plant fills
and possibly for hydro testing water if required. The
property water permits will be applied for as a result
of the water use from this well.
10 100/14-24-76-18W4 Lower Grand Rapids 3 observation well (pressure and Will be used as an observation wells in the
temperature) commercial project
5 1AA/2-36-76-18W4 Second pilot heel monitoring well - Lower Grand Rapids 1 Will continue to be used as a monitoring well in the
(RTD temperature) and 3 (pressure and temperature). commercial project
8 1AA/7-36-76-18W4 Second pilot toe monitoring well - Lower Grand Rapids 1 Will continue to be used as a monitoring well in the
(RTD temperature) and 3 (pressure and temperature). commercial project
102/13-25-76-18W4 First pilot – production well. Equipped with thermocouples Will be tied into the commercial development
and bubble tube
100/13-25-76-18W4 First pilot – injection well Will be tied into the commercial development
100/10-36-76-18W4 Second pilot – production well. Equipped with thermocouples Will be tied into the commercial development
and bubble tube
102/10-36-76-18W4 Second pilot – injection wells Will be tied into the commercial development
Refer to Figure 25-1 for location of pilot wells.
Page 60
¯
Athab a sc a R iver

!

!
River

!

1 L.GR 1 Monitoring Well

2 L.GR 3 Monitoring & Sampling Well

3 L.GR 1 & 3 Monitoring Well
4 L.GR 3 Monitoring & Sampling Well


6 Grosmont 'C/D' Water Source Well
7 Viking Monitoring & Sampling Well
9 Grosmont 'A/B' Water Disposal Well
10 L.GR 3 Monitoring Well

11 L.GR 3 Water Source Well
8

!
(
2 5 6
!
( ( !
!
( !
( ( !!
(
1 !
(
3 7
4

!

!
( 9
!
(

11

10
Project Footprint Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site Existing Well

Phase 1 Sump Site Permanent Operations

!

( Monitoring Well
Camp Site
!
Phase 2 Pilot Project Expansion
t6790_Figure_25_1_Pilot_Wells_20130319
Proposed Blackrod Road ( Water Disposal Well

"
Phase 3A Log Deck !

Phase 3B Waterbody Existing Blackrod Road ( Water Source Well
!

UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 50,000
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011; Wells: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013; Meters
Imagery: 2011 SPOT5 ©2013 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com. 0 500 1,000
April 2013
TABLE 25-2
PILOT SURFACE FACILITIES
Pilot Facilities Commercial Use

50 MM BTU OTSG Will not be used
Reverse Osmosis Will continue to be used
SAC System Will not be used
SAGD Test separator Will not be used
8 storage tanks Will continue to be used
Pilot pad expansion Will be pad 1B in the commercial development
BlackPearl intends to leave certain facilities in place at the Pilot and move certain facilities equipment to
the CPF site if it can be integrated into the Commercial Project. For example, the water treatment facilities
at the Pilot site can be used in the Commercial Project to supply water for drilling, the initial plant fill and
potentially for hydro testing supply water. Once the commercial operation is active, steam generation will
no longer take place at the Pilot site.
5.0 ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Hydrogeology
26. Volume 1, Figure 3.1-11.
Provide an isopach map of the Joli Fou Formation over the entire Hydrogeological RSA with
posted values.
Response:
An isopach map of the Joli Fou Formation over the Hydrogeological RSA is provided in Figure 26-1.
Page 62
R1W5 R26 R25 R24 R23 R22 R21 R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14 R13 R12W4
12.8 15.7
0 17.4 23.4 25.5
5.
9.0
10m
12.8
16.0
12.6
27.0
24.1 RSA 28.0 26.6 April 2013
9.3 15m 20m 25m 24.1
13.3 16.6 25m 24.1
T80 10.1 10m T80
9.0 7.3 9.9 24.6
15m 15.6
14.3 25m 24.5 26.8
13.2 14.0 8.0 16.5 17.9
13.0 12.9 12.9 15m 25m 25.3
16.4
13.6 12.2 22.9
16.3 24.2 24.6
15m 12.5 25.8 23.8 25m 23.1
15.6 16.9 24.0
20m 16.5
25m
14.1 26.0 24.1
12.9 8.2 16.7 11.5 13.3 27.9
15m 26.4
14.4
10m
12.5 11.0 13.1 15.5
15.1 14.4
22.8 25.3
23.5
25m
24.2 27.8
21.2
26.8 24.6
29.3
FIGURE 26-1
15m 25m
T79 15m 25.1 25m
15.8 15.0 27.8 T79
24.8 27.2
23.1 24.1
13.9
15m
12.8
17.4 13.0
11.4 13.1 15.6
15m 20m
25.2 24.7
25.3 25.2 25.0
Joli Fou Isopach
15m 13.2 23.9 28.3
16.5 11.4 15.2 25m
25.2 17.8 25.6
11.8 15.5 25m 27.7
14.4 22.4 22.5
25m 25m ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES -
14.9 19.5 22.4 27.4 27.3
15m
15.9 20m 22.2 20m
27.8
25.9 BLACKPEARL
T78 10.8 27.2 22.5 28.3
15.3 15.4
24.9 27.5 24.5 T78 RESOURCES INC.
15m
12.6
20m 22.8
27.9 27.8
22.6 27.1
27.8 PROPOSED BLACKROD
15m 15m 24.1 25m
11.5 14.7 12.2 13.4 22.5 20.2 25m
25m 25m 24.9 COMMERCIAL SAGD
28.4
23.7
22.6
14.9 15.8
15m
12.7 16.7 18.9
22.1 25.0 23.6 24.1 25.3
25.6
29.2 29.1 PROJECT
15.1 30.0 30
30.0
17.7 13.0 .0
20m 17.3 22.3 30.0
15m 32.3
0
21.4
20m 16.2
30.
11.6 15m 23.2
30.0
T77 15.9 13.2
17.0 T77
25.0
20m 20m
20.8 26.1 30
30m 27.8
.0
30
.0
30
20.4 20.3 25m 25m
.0
21.5 21.2 19.3 24.1 24.8 30.2 29.9
15m 20m
17.8 14.2 20.1 22.2 27.7
16.9 20.6 16.5 20m 18.9 18.1 24.8 21.0
19.8 24.7
15.7 26.2
16.8 28.9 27.7
12.5 15m 15.4
15m 18.5 25.6 26.7
16.2 15.8 22.9 28.5 28.4 27.4
16.1 22.0
15m 16.6 25.0
15m 15.0 10.5 25.4 25.6
T76 21.4 24.7 T76
26.8
17.4 16.3 25m
16.1 15m 18.1 24.9
15m 15m 24.0 25.5
25m 27.1
20m 13.6 12.4 14.3 14.1 15m 16.4
25.5 28.5 25m 26.8
11.0 20m 21.5 23.3
17.5 24.0 20m
21.0 20.1 17.3 14.5 20.0 26.9
11.8 17.7 22.0
23.3 27.8
15.3 20m
20.0 17.7
16.9 14.3 14.3
15m 20.8
LSA 25.7 28.7 27.6
26.4 25.7
18.7 15.3 26.0
T75 18.2 20m 15m 26.8
19.3 T75
18.9 20.6 20m 15m 14.7 22.6 26.9
17.8 12.8 20.8
19.0 24.3
16.1 14.0
17.8 21.8 19.8
25m 26.8
13.6 25.5
16.6 16.9 20.5 26.9 24.3
21.2 20m 23.5
15.1
27.3
15.5 12.9 20m 23.3
19.3 15.8 14.7 26.9
19.9 15.3 24.9
18.8
17.7 19.6
15m 25.4
T74 15m 24.8
20.3 25m T74
15.4 25.9
15.1 20m 25m 30
30m
15.6 15.3
14.1 20m 25m
25m .0
19.2 14.2 15.6 27.1
14.6 20.0 24.0 25.9 25.4 30.5
13.6 23.3
18.8 21.2 21.0 24.6
17.4 15.1 17.1 19.5
20.1
14.6 15m 28.4
19.8 25m
18.9 22.3 27.0
18.1 17.0 13.7 15.1 29.5 25.7
13.2 14.5 18.0
18.3 20m 20m 23.5
19.1 13.6 24.9 24.3 28.1
T73
16.8 16.7 15m 20.7 20.5 20m 26.5 T73
18.4 14.3 15m 20.9
21.0 20m
16.2 16.1
17.5 16.8 16.5 24.0
16.4 12.5 27.6 25m
15.0 17.4
17.5 15.9 16.1 18.7 18.6 20.3 21.1 27.2
16.3 16.2 21.6 25m 25.0 30.2
15m 16.6
16.1 16.0 25.3
15.3 19.3 23.9 27.8
19.8 18.9
15.2 13.5 20.5
18.2 17.5 17.8 26.9 24.5
26.6
20m 20m
18.4 20.6
T72 15m 20.1 18.9 21.5 25m
18.1 T72
20m 20m
26.4
18.2 20.6 21.3
15.1 26.3
16.3 15m 24.3 24.0 22.0
16.7 15.4 18.0 25m
17.6 28.2
15.7
24.2
15m 17.5 14.5 16.3 26.2
17.4 21.8 25.5
15m 13.9 15.8 27.2 28.3 28.7
19.7 27.3
16.3 15m
15.5 15.4 17.2 21.9 20.0 25m
T71 16.7
14.3
15m
20m 25m
T71
15.4 20.3 25m 25.3 28.6
16.4 20.6 24.5
15.8 15m
16.4 13.7 17.8 24.2
15m 13.6 18.2 20m 21.3 21.0
15.8 15.1 14.2 26.9
17.1 14.2 19.8 22.3
15m 15.9 19.4 20m 26.4 30.3
19.6
T70 20m 30m
20m 25m T70
30.0
R27 R26 R25 R24 R23 R22 R21 R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14 R13 R12W4
Blackrod
Joli Fou Isopach
meters UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing
By : RAM Date : 2013/03/01
Scale = 1:200000 Project : Blackrod Regional
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any

errors associated with the data used to general this product
or in the product itself,
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may
be present
27. Volume 1, 5.1 Operational Uses of Surface Water, Page 349.
BlackPearl states “Blackpearl is currently evaluating the potential of using the Grosmont D
water as an alternative to using surface water for drilling purposes for this project.” The Base of
Groundwater Protection (BGWP) within the proposed project area is the base of the Grand
Rapids with a 15 m buffer into the Clearwater formation. Provide a discussion on how the
Grosmont D water will be appropriately treated to be used in drilling muds when drilling above
the base of groundwater protection.
Response:
As per Volume 1, Section 7.0, Table 7.7-1 of the Integrated Application, the Grosmont D has a natural
TDS of 10,000 to 13,000 mg/l. BlackPearl understands that in order to use this water source for drilling
purposes it will have to be treated to sufficient quality as per ERCB bulletin 2007-10. The water also
needs to be non-saline to be compatible with the drilling mud system. As part of the CPF water treatment
process, BlackPearl will treat the Grosmont water with a reverse osmosis system. The treated water will
meet the criteria set for BWGP and drilling mud compatibility and will be of sufficient quality as to be used
in a similar manor as a fresh water source for drilling purposes..
Refer to the Water Source and Use Flow Chart (Figure 1.3-1 in the Project Update) for further details
regarding Project water use.
28. Volume 1, Section 5.2 Water Disposal Wells, Page 241.
BlackPearl states “Surface casing will be set into the competent shale below the glacial till to a
sufficient depth to protect the localized ground water sources as per ERCB Directive 008.” The
BGWP within the project area is the base of the Grand Rapids with a 15m buffer into the
Clearwater formation. The new Draft Directive 051: Injection and Disposal Wells- Well
Classifications, Completions, Logging, and Testing Requirements requires that all Class I wells
have surface casing to the BGWP.
Response:
Black Pearl will adhere to the ERCB Directive 51 requirements for disposal wells. BlackPearl will
complete all future disposal wells similar to our existing Pilot disposal well 100/02-25-76-18W4M, which is
compliant with ERCB Directive 51.
29. Confirm that BlackPearl is aware of the new proposed surface casing requirements for Class I
disposal wells as per the Draft Directive 051: Wellbore Injection Requirements.
Response:
Yes, BlackPearl is aware of the new proposed surface casing requirements.
30. Volume 1, Figure 3.1-2 and Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-3.
The Grand Rapids Formation has been has been subdivided into the Upper Grand Rapids and
the Lower Grand Rapids 1, 2, and 3 in the geology portion of the application and into the Grand
Rapids A, B, and C in the hydrogeology portion of the application. Submit a unified
stratigraphic column that shows the geological subdivision of the Grand Rapids and the
associated aquifer/aquitard units.
Page 64
Response:
Refer to the unified stratigraphic column in Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-4 of the Integrated
Application.
31. Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.4.3, Page 1A-55.
BlackPearl states “The nature and thicknesses of the Quaternary deposits at the Blackrod
lease were evaluated using wireline logs...the deposits consist of clay till...No sand deposits are
present within the clay.” Provide the following:
a. Wireline cross sections across the Hydrogeology LSA showing the geology of the
Quaternary/Tertiary sub-divided into at least sand and till units. At minimum, a
north/south and an east/west cross section should be submitted. Ensure the well bores
incorporated in the crosssection are chosen within the deepest known incision points
within the Amesbury channel.
Response:
West-east and north-south cross sections of the Quaternary/Tertiary are shown on Figures 31-1 and
31-2. All wells with cased hole wireline logs through quaternary/tertiary deposits were identified within the
Hydrogeology LSA. The wells selected for the cross sections where the closest to the deepest points of
the Amesbury Channel. For the eight wireline logs used to prepare the cross sections, there are no sand
deposits present in the clay till within quaternary/tertiary unit.
31. b. All geophysical log cutoffs and criteria used to differentiate between till and sand units
within the Quaternary/Tertiary and the reasoning for applying the cutoffs. Include a
discussion of appropriate cutoffs for the sections of the Quaternary/Tertiary logged
behind surface casing.
Response:
For wells drilled by BlackPearl within the Project Area, the criteria defined for the geophysical log cutoffs
in Volume 3, Section 1A.2.2, Page 1A-6, was used to differentiate between till and sand units in the
Quaternary/Tertiary deposits. Typically, the Quaternary/Tertiary deposits are behind surface casing andall
wells drilled by BlackPearl have cased-hole gamma-ray and neutron logs that can be evaluated using the
referenced criteria. In older industry wells, the cased-hole gamma-ray and neutron logs are not available,
or the response in cased-hole logs is variable, and it is unreliable to differentiate lithology.
31. c. Any lithological data used to confirm the presence of clay till within the
Quaternary/Tertiary including literature review and/or drill cuttings, etc.
Response:
BlackPearl sampled drill cuttings across the Quaternary/Tertiary in wells 103/13-25-076-18W4M,

102/14-25-76-18W4M, and 1F1/15-25-76-18W4M. Sand was limited to the top 30 m of the wells.
Lithological descriptions are provided in Figures 31-3, 31-4, and 31-5. There was no publically available
literature found that referred to the clay till in this area.
Page 65
FIGURE 31-1
Quaternary/Tertiary
LSA = Hydrogeological Local Study Area West-East Structural Cross Section

BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC. PROPOSED
BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to general this product or in the product itself,
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present April 2013
FIGURE 31-2
Quaternary/Tertiary
LSA = Hydrogeological Local Study Area North-SouthStructural Cross Section

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to general this product or in the product itself,
users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present April 2013
Curve Track 1
ROP (min/m)
Gamma (API)
Grain
Porosity
Lithology Geological Descriptions
Porosity Type
Size
Oil Shows
Depth
Rounding
Sorting
very coarse
very fine
medium
coarse
24%
18%
12%
6%
fine
0
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150 PEARL PORTAGE 13-25-76-18W4
Bit # 1a Surveyed Ground Level: 602.4m
5
Size: 349mm Cut (-0) / Fill (+): 0.0m
Make: Extreme Kelly Bushing: 604.20m
Type: Extreme Grould Level: 602.40m
Serial: LHT1170 K.B. - G.L.: 1.80m
In: 0m
10
0.0-20.0m: Muskeg- Large calc fos concs, abnt mollucan foss,
shells, broken shell cls, tr wood frags.
SS (20%): Clear & trnsl, vit-pearly, sm & fros, vf-c gr qtz, sb rd-sb
ang, v ply srt, uncons, fr (12%) por, n/s.
15
20
20.0-25.0m: Glacial Till- Unconsolidated clays, slt, sd & gvl, v ply
srt, ang-w rd.
25
30
35
25.0-50.0m: MUDSTONE: Medium gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, ply ind.
40
45
50
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
55
50.0-65.0m: SH (100%): Dark gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky, mod-w ind,
mmica, calc, tr carb mat, occ pyr nod & xls, occ lrg, calc, fosus
concs
concs, tr
tr mollusk
mollusk shells
shells, tr
tr inoceramus
inoceramus prisms
prisms, tr
tr ll cc gr
gr SS
SS strg
strg.
60
65
70

mmica, calc, tr carb mat, tr pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr SS strg.
75
80
85

mmica, calc, tr carb mat, tr pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr SS strg, tr iron ox
concs, tr mollusk shells.
90
95
100
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
95.0-110.0m: SLTST (100%): Clear & trnsl, vit, sm, slty-vfg qtz & dk
minerals, sb rd-sb ang, w srt, w cons, v tt por.
105
110
Bit # 1 110.0-115.0m: SH (100%): Dark gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky, mod-w ind,
Size: 222mm mmica, v calc, wh calc spots, tr pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr SS strg, tr lrg
Make: Extreme calc fosus concs.
Type: 713M
Serial: XT3261
115
In: 115.00m 115.0-130.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky,
mod ind, calc, tr pyr.
120
1225
130
130.0-140.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky,

mod ind, calc, abnt Inoc prisms, tr pyr, tr u c gr, fosus, qtz strg, tr
sltst strg.
135
140
140.0-155.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb blky, mod

ind, calc, tr pyr nod, tr Inoc prisms, tr sltst strg.
145
150
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
155
155.0-168.0m: SH (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb fis, mod-w ind,

abnt-slowly decrng Inoc prisms, tr pyr, tr sltst strg.
Base Fish Scales: 168.0m MD, 436.20m SSL

160
165
170
168.0-190.0m: SH (100%): Medium-dk gy, rthy, sb fis tosub blky,

mmica, w ind, tr pyr.
175
180
185
190
195
190.0-205.0m: MUDSTONE (50%): Light gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, v p ind,

sl calc, tr slt.
SH (50%): Medium gy, hd, blky, slty ip, tr pyr.
200
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
Viking Sand: 205.0m MD, 399.20m SSL

205
10
FIGURE 31-3
Curve Track 1
103/13-25-76-18 W4M LITHOLOGY STRIP LOG
ROP (min/m) Gamma (API)
ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data
used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.
April 2013
Curve Track 1
ROP (min/m)
Gamma (API)
Grain
Porosity
Porosity Type
Size
Oil Shows
Depth
Rounding
Sorting
very coarse
very fine
medium
coarse
24%
18%
12%
6%
fine
0
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150 PEARL PORTAGE 14-25-76-18W4
Surveyed Ground Level: 605.72m
5
Cut (-0) / Fill (+): 0.0m
Bit # 1 Kelly Bushing: 607.52m
Size: 222mm Grould Level: 605.72m
Make: Extreme K.B. - G.L.: 1.80m
Type: 713M
Serial: XT3261
10
In: 115.00m
15
0.0-30.0m: Glacial Till- Unconsolidated clays, slt, sd & gvl, v ply srt,
ang-w rd.
20
25
Glacial Till to Mudstone Transition
30
30.0-35.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, v ply
ind, tr slt.
35
40
45
35.0-60.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, ply
ind, sl calc, tr slt, tr pyr nod & xls, tr Inoc prisms, tr kaol, tr carb mat,
tr mica.
50
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
55
MUD
Type: Gel
Den: 1170kg/m3
Vis: 51s/l
FL: N/A
pH: N/A
60
Mudstone to Shale Transition

65

mmica, v calc banding, tr pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr SS strg.
70
75

mmica, sl calc, tr carb mat, tr Inoc prisms, tr pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr,
fosus SS strg.
80
85
90
95
85.0-115.0m: INTERBEDDED SH & MUDSTONE:

SH: Dark gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky, mod-w ind, mmica, tr carb mat, tr
100
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150 pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr SS strg.
MUDSTONE: Medium gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, ply ind.
105
110
Drill Out Surface Casing @

115.00m
Jan. 27/2010 @ 18:00 hrs
115
Surface Casing set @ 115.0m MD

120
115.0-125.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky,

mod ind, v calc, tr pyr.
1225
130
125.0-145.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky,

mod ind, calc, abnt Inoc prisms, tr pyr, tr kaol, tr u c gr, fosus, qtz
strg, tr sltst strg.
135
140
145

ind, v calc, tr pyr nod, tr Inoc prisms, tr sltst strg.
150
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
155

ind, calc, abnt-slowly decrng Inoc prisms, tr pyr, tr sltst strg.
160
165

170
170.0-180.0m: SH (100%): Medium-dk gy, rthy, sb blky, mmica, w ind,

175
tr pyr.
180

sl calc, tr slt.
185

190

sl calc, tr slt, com pyr nod & xls, tr Inoceramous prisms. SH (40%):
Medium gy, hd, blky, slty ip, tr ss strg, tr pyr.
195
200
0 ROP (min/m) 5 200.0-205.0m: SH (60%): Medium gy, hd, blky, slty ip. MUDSTONE
0 Gamma (API) 150
(40%): Light gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, v p ind, sl calc, tr slt, tr
Inoceramous prisms.
205

10
FIGURE 31-4
Curve Track 1
102/14-25-76-18 W4M LITHOLOGY STRIP LOG
April 2013
Curve Track 1
ROP (min/m)
Gamma (API)
Grain
Porosity
Porosity Type
Size
Oil Shows
Depth
Rounding
Sorting
very coarse
very fine
medium
coarse
24%
18%
12%
6%
fine
0
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150 BlackPearl Resources Inc.
PEARL PORTAGE 15-25-76-18W4
Surveyed Ground Level: 613.20m
5
Cut (-0) / Fill (+): 0.34m
Kelly Bushing: 615.34m
Grould Level: 613.54m
K.B. - G.L.: 1.80
10
Bit # 1
Size: 222mm
Make: Extreme
Type: 713M
Serial: XT3261
15
In: 115.00m
20
10.0-35.0m: Glacial Till- Unconsolidated clays, slt, sd & gvl, v ply
srt, ang-w rd.
25
30
Glacial Till to Mudstone transition
35
40
45
35.0-60.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, v ply
50
0 ROP (min/m) 5 ind, tr slt.
0 Gamma (API) 150
55
60
65
60.0-75.0m: MUDSTONE (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, ply

ind, sl calc, tr slt, tr pyr nod & xls, tr Inoc prisms, tr kaol, tr carb mat.
70
75
Mudstone to Shale transition

80
85

mmica, calc, tr pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr SS strg.
90
95
100
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
105

mmica, sl calc, abnt pyr nod & xls, tr l c gr, fosus SS strg.
110
Surface Casing set @ 115.0m MD

115
Drill Out Surface

Casing @ 115.00m
Jan. 20/2010 @ 115.0-120.0m: SH (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky, w ind, v
15:00 hrs calc, tr pyr.
120
120.0-125.0m: SH (100%): Medium-dk gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky, mod

ind, tr pyr, tr u c gr qtz strg.
1225
125.0-135.0m: SH (100%): Medium gy, rthy, sb fis-sb blky, w ind,

calc, tr pyr, tr kaol, tr u c gr qtz strg.
130
135
135.0-150.0m: SH (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb blky, w ind, v calc, tr

140
pyr nod, tr Inoc prisms, tr sltst strg.

145
150
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150
155
160
150.0-177.0m: SH (100%): Light-med gy, rthy, sb blky, w ind, calc,

165
abnt Inoc prisms, tr pyr, tr sltst strg.

170
175
177.0-180.0m: SH (100%): Medium-dk gy, rthy, sb blky, w ind.

180

185
sl calc, tr slt.
190
195

sl calc, tr slt, com pyr nod & xls, tr Inoceramous prisms. SH (40%):
Medium gy, hd, blky, slty ip, tr pyr.
200
0 ROP (min/m) 5
0 Gamma (API) 150

sl calc, tr slt, tr Inoceramous prisms. SS (20%): Clear & trnsl,
205
vit-pearly, sm & fros, med-c gr qtz, sb rd, ply srt, uncons, fr (12%)
por, n/s. SH (20%): Medium gy, hd, blky, slty ip.
210

215
212.0-220.0m: SS (85%): Clear & trnsl, vit-pearly, sm & fros, med-c gr

qtz, sb rd, ply srt, uncons, fr (12%) por, n/s. SH (10%): Medium gy,
hd, blky, slty ip.
MUDSTONE (5%): Light gy, rthy, sb blky-blky, v p ind, sl calc, tr slt, tr
Inoceramous prisms.
220
225
220.0-235.0m: SS (100%): Clear & trnsl, vit-pearly, sm & fros, u vf-rr c

gr qtz, sb rd, mod srt, uncons, fr (12%) por, tr dk minerals, n/s.
30
FIGURE 31-5
Curve Track 1
1F1-15-25-76-18 W4M LITHOLOGY STRIP LOG
April 2013
31. d. The following logs were used by BlackPearl in reviewing the lithology of the
Quaternary/Tertiary but do not appear to be submitted to the ERCB. Confirm the
following logs have been submitted to the ERCB:
i. 02-35-76-18W4
ii. 04-01-77-18W4
iii. 05-12-77-18W4
iv. 06-25-76-18W4
v. 07-36-76-18W4
vi. 15-26-76-18W4
Response:
The above logs have been submitted to the ERCB.
31. e. According to ERCB records there are no wells in LSD 07-19-77-18W4. Confirm that
BlackPearl was referring to the 10-19-77-17W4 and submit the geophysical logs for
this well to the ERCB.
Response:
BlackPearl was referring to well 07-19-077-17 W4M for which the geophysical logs have been submitted
to the ERCB.
32. Volume 3, Appendix 1A.4.3, pg 104.
Black Pearl states “There are five major buried valleys in the RSA: The Wabasca; Leismer,
Wiau, Amesbury and Fawcett valleys.”
a. List all bedrock formations cut by the valleys.
Response:
A study of the five major buried valleys within the RSA (the Wabasca, Leismer, Wiau, Amesbury and
Fawcett valleys) determined that these valleys have eroded into, but not through, the LaBiche shales.
This is shown in Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figures 1A-5 and 1A-6 of the Integrated Application.
32. b. Explain how groundwater within the Quaternary/Tertiary buried valleys could be
impacted by BlackPearl’s operations including hydrocarbon recovery from the Lower
Grand Rapids.
Response:
The groundwater within the Quaternary/Tertiary buried valleys is isolated from BlackPearl’s operations in
the Lower Grand Rapids by an aquitard comprising the MFS Caprock, the Upper Grand Rapids ‘A’
shales, the Joli Fou shales and the Lower Viking shales. The thickness of this aquitard within the Project
Area ranges from 35 m to 45 m (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-38). The total thickness of the
geologic deposits between the floor of the buried Amesbury Valley and the bitumen reservoir west of the
Project Area is approximately 100 m (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-5).
Page 71
5.2 Noise
33. Provide a completed Directive 038 Appendix 4: Noise Impact Assessment Form. Comment on
operating conditions (including operating with window/doors open or closed and duration of
operation) for the proposed equipment incorporated in the subject Noise Impact Assessment
model.
Response:
Licensee: BlackPearl Resources Inc.

Facility name: Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Type: Steam Assisted Gravity Drain
Legal location: Townships 76 and 77, Ranges 17 and 18, W4M
Contact: Mike Carteri Telephone: (403) 536-4695
1. Permissible Sound Level (PSL) Determination (Directive 038, Section 2.1)

(Note that the PSL for a pre-1988 facility undergoing modifications may be the sound pressure level
(SPL) that currently exists at the residence if no complaint exists and the current SPL exceeds the
calculated PSL from Section 2.1.)
Complete the following for the nearest or most impacted dwelling(s):
Daytime Class A Class B

Distance from Direction from adjustment adjustment adjustment Nighttime PSL Daytime
facility facility BSL (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) PSL(dBA)
1,500 m All Directions 40 10 0 0 40 50
2. Sound Source Identification

For the new and existing equipment, identify major sources of noise from the facility, their associated
sound power level (PWL) or sound pressure level (SPL), the distance (far or free field) at which it was
calculated or measured, and whether the sound data are from vendors, field measurement, theoretical
estimates, etc.
Predicted OR Measured
PWL (dBA) PWL (dBA) Distance calculated or
New Equipment SPL (dBA) SPL (dBA) Data source measured (m)
Listed in
Appendix C of the Measurements /
Project Update Calculations
3. Operating Conditions
When using manufacturer’s data for expected performance, it may be necessary to modify the data to
account for actual operating conditions (for example, indicate conditions such as operating with
window/doors open or closed). Describe any considerations and assumptions used in conducting
engineering estimates:
Equipment assumed to be operating at all times at maximum capacity. Doors and windows closed.
Page 72
4. Modelling Parameters
If modelling was conducted, identify the parameters used (see Section 3.5.1):
Ground absorption 0.5, Temperature 100C, Relative Humitidy 70%, all receptors downwind, Following
ISO 9613
5. Predicted Sound Level/Compliance Determination

Identify the predicted overall (cumulative) sound level at the nearest of most impacted dwelling. Typically,
only the nighttime sound level is necessary, as levels do not often change from daytime to nighttime.
However, if there are differences between day and night operations, both levels must be calculated.
Predicted sound level to the nearest or most impacted dwelling from new facility (including any existing
facilities):
Application Case, Trappers Cabin:

Modeled LeqNight = 42.7 dBA, ASL = 35.0 dBA, Overall LeqNight = 43.4 dBA, PSL-Night: 40 dBA
Is the predicted sound level less than the permissible sound level? NO
Application Case, 1,500 m:

Modeled LeqNight = 37.0 dBA, ASL = 35.0 dBA, Overall LeqNight = 39.1 dBA, PSL-Night: 40 dBA
Is the predicted sound level less than the permissible sound level? YES If YES, go to number 7
6. Compliance Determination/Attenuation Measures

(a) If 5 is NO, identify the noise attenuation measures the licensee is committing to:
Licensee is committing to continued consultation with Trapper Cabin owner and relocation of Cabin to a
location outside of the 1,500 m noise assessment area. Specific location unknown, but the predicted
sound levels beyond 1,500 m are all under the PSL when combined with the ASL.
Predicted sound level to the nearest or most impacted residence from the facility (with noise attenuation
measures):
Is the predicted sound level less than the permissible sound level? Yes 9 No
If YES, go to number 7.
(b) If 6 (a) is NO or the licensee is not committing to any noise attenuation measures, the facility is not in
compliance. If further attenuation measures are not practical, provide the reasons why the measures
proposed to reduce the impacts are not practical.
Note: If 6 (a) is NO, the Noise Impact Assessment must be included with the application filed as
non-routine.
7. Explain what measures have been taken to address construction noise.

Advising nearby residents of significant noise sources and the Project construction schedule
Mufflers on all internal combustion engines
Taking advantage of acoustical screening where available
8. Analyst’s Name: Steven Bilawchuk, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Company: ACI Acoustical Consultants Inc.
Title: Director
Telephone: (780) 414-6373 Date: March, 2013
Page 73
5.3 Air
34. Volume 2, Section 3.5.2, Page 3-37.
BlackPearl states, “The CALMET model was applied using upper-level meteorological data
based on the WRF Model and using surface meteorological data from stations located in the
Model Domain”.
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guidelines does not allow for the use of other meteorological
datasets and lists the following three as the prognostic data that should be used: 1-year on-
site, 5-year adjacent surface data and the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development (AESRD) MM5 dataset. The guideline further stipulates that if deviation from the
default model options is required, justification to AESRD should be provided.
a. Provide details on the approval by AESRD to use the WRF Model.
Response:
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline states that one of three options for selecting meteorological data
(site specific data, 5-years of data from a nearby airport or the 5-year MM5 dataset supplied by AESRD)
should be selected. The Guideline does not say it is a requirement and does not say that no other
meteorological datasets are allowed.
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline also states that “The default US EPA model options should be
used for CALMET modelling applications. If deviation from the default model options is required, provide
justification to AENV.” The default US EPA model options refer to specific CALMET model options that
are unrelated to use of either the MM5 or WRF datasets.
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline does not reference the need to obtain approval from AESRD in
selection of models, methodology or datasets. Approval was not requested from AESRD.
34. b. Discuss why the WRF model should be accepted for this assessment. Provide
justification and supporting documentation to demonstrate that the selected approach
is appropriate.
Response:
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline was developed “to ensure consistency in the use of dispersion
models in regulatory applications” and “to ensure that the best available tools are being used to predict air
quality”. The Guideline document concludes by stating that it “provides detailed guidance on suitable
methods and approaches that should be used to assess air quality”. While we view the Guideline as an
important part of defining the technical approach and degree of rigor for air quality modelling in Alberta,
we also see it as providing a description of the minimum technical requirements and minimum associated
level-of-effort.
The dispersion modelling that was adopted for the Blackrod Project regulatory application falls into the
Refined Assessment category. The Guideline indicates that “five years of extracted MM5 data are to be
used for refined modelling”. The Project assessment used five years of extracted WRF data for the air
quality assessment. Stantec developed a high-resolution WRF 4 km dataset with the goal of meeting the
spirit and intent of the Guideline and improving the accuracy and spatial resolution of the data. The same
5 year period (2002 to 2006) was intentionally selected to allow comparison between the datasets.
The key technical justification for adopting this more refined approach to obtain meso-scale
meteorological data was to improve the ability of the model to account for the influence of the Athabasca
River Valley on wind flow. Specifically, concern has been raised that the coarse 12 km spacing of the
AESRD supplied MM5 data does not fully account for the influence of the Athabasca River Valley and
Page 74
that CALMET, as a diagnostic/empirical model, has limited ability to alter the wind field to account for
terrain influences.
Specifically, Stantec considered the following:
• The AESRD MM5 data are on a 12 km grid basis. As the Athabasca River valley width is less than 12
km and most of the major emission sources in the Lower Athabasca Region are contained within this
valley, higher resolution grid spacing will better resolve valley influences. Using a 4 km grid allows
WRF to “see” the valley and adjust the wind field accordingly. The 4 km spacing is consistent with a
US EPA recommendation regarding the application of meso-scale data for air quality assessment
purposes.
• The MM5 model was phased out in August 2008 and replaced with WRF. WRF is a “next generation”
meso-scale numerical weather prediction (NWP) system and includes the latest weather forecast
model developments from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
• Many studies have demonstrated that 4 km resolution NWP model data are better than 12 km
resolution model data. Recently, the US National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)
started running the WRF model with a 4 km resolution. Users now can download a real time WRF
4 km dataset from the NCEP ftp server. There is a trend to use higher resolution (e.g., 4 km) NWP
model data.
• This is not the first regulatory application (Integrated Application) to use high resolution meso-scale
data for CALMET. Stantec used one year of 4 km MM5 data for the Maxim Power HR Milner Power
Plant Integrated Application. These data were used instead of the 12 km AESRD MM5 data to better
resolve complex terrain influences near the plant. This Integrated Application was ultimately deemed
complete and the project received EPEA approval.
• There are inconsistencies with the AESRD MM5 12 km dataset. Different moisture, convection,
boundary layer and soil physics options were used by AESRD for the 2002 model run relative to the
2003 to 2006 model runs. Additionally, it is noted that four dimensional data assimilation (FDDA) was
not used for the 2002 dataset but was used for the 2003 to 2006 data. BlackPearl did not want to use
a dataset with known inconsistencies for the Integrated Application.
Our approach represents a methodological improvement to the Guideline approach, is consistent with the
spirit of the Guideline, and demonstrates a continuous improvement to oil sands air quality assessments.
34. c. Demonstrate that the WRF dataset does not differ significantly from the AESRD MM5
dataset.
Response:
To compare the WRF and the AESRD MM5 approaches, the following datasets were prepared and
examined:
• WRF Data: Raw data generated by WRF model at 4 km grid resolution;
• MM5 Data: Raw data at 12 km grid resolution provided by AESRD;
• WRF-CALMET: 4 km resolution CALMET output created by using WRF 4 km input

(used for the Frontier Assessment); and
• MM5-CALMET: 4 km resolution CALMET output created by using MM5 12 km input.
The predicted surface and elevated winds, surface temperatures, precipitation, mixing heights and PG
stability class data were extracted for the Project site and compared. The Project site is defined as the
Page 75
location of the Project CPF and the WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET data were compared at the
Project site. The WRF and MM5 data were compared for the closest grid point to the Project site.
Wind Comparison
Figure 34-1 compares the wind roses and wind speed classes based on data extracted from the raw
WRF and MM5 datasets for the Project site at 10 m elevation for the period of 2002 to 2006. The WRF
and MM5 winds near the Project site are similar with dominant winds mainly from the west, northwest and
south, and least frequent winds from the east. In general, WRF is predicting that slightly higher wind
speed occurs more frequently than that predicted using MM5.
Figure 34-2 compares the wind roses and wind speed classes based on data extracted from the WRF-
CALMET and MM5-CALMET datasets for the Project site at 10 m elevation for the period of 2002 to
2006. The WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET winds for the Project site are similar with dominant winds
mainly from the west, northwest and south. The low frequency of easterly winds is present in both
simulations. There is a slight bias for the WRF-CALMET to predict more frequent higher wind speeds than
MM5-CALMET.
Figures 34-3, 34-4, 34-5, and 34-6 compare the wind roses and wind speed classes extracted from WRF-
CALMET and MM5-CALMET datasets for the Project site at various elevations (30 m, 60 m, 120 m and
240 m) above the ground for the period of 2002 to 2006. The results indicate a tendency for more
northwesterly and westerly winds, and an increase in wind speed with increasing height above the
ground. Both WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET wind predictions at these elevations are similar for the
Project site.
Page 76
WRF (10m Elevation) MM5 (10m Elevation)
NORTH
NORTH
April 2013
15%
15%
12% FIGURE 34-1
12%
9%
9%
6%
COMPARISON OF WIND ROSES
6%
& WIND SPEED CLASSES
3%
3% BASED ON DATA EXTRACTED
WEST EAST
WEST EAST
FROM RAW WRF & MM5
DATASETS FOR THE
WIND SPEED WIND SPEED PROJECT SITE AT 10m
(m/s) (m/s)
ELEVATION (2002 TO 2006)
>= 10.0 >= 10.0
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0 ERCB SIR 1 RESPONSES
6.0 - 8.0 6.0 - 8.0
SOUTH
4.0 - 6.0 SOUTH 4.0 - 6.0 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0 PROPOSED BLACKROD
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0 COMMERCIAL SADG
Calms: 0.00% Calms: 0.13% PROJECT
Wind Class Frequency Distribution Wind Class Frequency Distribution

60
45
55
41.1 50.7
40 50
45
35
40
30 29.3
35
% 25 % 30
25.0
20 25
20.9
20
15 13.7
12.5
15
10

10
5
3.0 5 3.1
0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0
0 0 Although there is no reason to believe that
Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 there are any errors associated with
Wind Class (m/s) Wind Class (m/s) the data used to generate this product
data may be present
WRF - CALMET (10m Elevation) MM5 - CALMET (10m Elevation)
NORTH NORTH April 2013
15% 15%
FIGURE 34-2
12% 12%
9% 9%
6% 6% BASED ON DATA EXTRACTED
3% 3% FROM THE WRF-CALMET
WEST EAST WEST EAST AND MM5-CALMET
WIND SPEED WIND SPEED DATASETS FOR THE
(m/s) (m/s)
PROJECT SITE AT 10m
>= 10.0 >= 10.0 ELEVATION (2002 TO 2006)
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
SOUTH SOUTH
Calms: 0.75% Calms: 0.00% COMMERCIAL SADG
PROJECT
50
55
44.2 49.5
45 50
40 45
40
35
35
30
% % 30 27.5
25 23.8
25
20 19.0
19.7
20
15
15
9.7
10
10
5 5

2.0 3.0
0.8 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0
0 0
Calms 0.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0
Wind Class (m/s) Wind Class (m/s)

data may be present
WRF - Calmet (30m Elevation) MM5 - Calmet (30m Elevation)
April 2013
NORTH NORTH
FIGURE 34-3
15% 15%
12% 12%
3% 3% AND MM5-CALMET
WEST EAST WIND SPEED WEST EAST WIND SPEED DATASETS FOR THE
(m/s) (m/s)
PROJECT SITE AT 30m
>= 10.0 >= 10.0 ELEVATION (2002 TO 2006)
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
SOUTH 0.1 - 2.0 SOUTH 0.1 - 2.0 PROPOSED BLACKROD
PROJECT
45 45
39.8 39.8
40 40
35 35
33.0 33.0
30 30
25 25
% %
20 20
15 15
12.8 12.8
11.6 11.6
10 10
5 5
2.4 UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing
2.4
0.4 0.0 0.4
0.0
0 0
Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0
Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0
data may be present
WRF - Calmet (60m Elevation) MM5 - Calmet (60m Elevation)
April 2013
NORTH NORTH
FIGURE 34-4
15% 15%
12% 12%
BASED ON DATA EXTRACTED
9% 9%
FROM THE WRF-CALMET
6% 6%
AND MM5-CALMET
3% WIND SPEED 3% WIND SPEED DATASETS FOR THE
WEST EAST (m/s) WEST EAST (m/s)
PROJECT SITE AT 60m
>= 10.0 >= 10.0 ELEVATION (2002 TO 2006)
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
SOUTH Calms: 0.00% SOUTH Calms: 0.00% COMMERCIAL SADG
PROJECT
40 40
35.6 35.6
35 35
30 30
26.9 26.9
25 25
% 21.3 % 21.3
20 20
15 15
10 10
7.3 7.3
6.7 6.7
5 5
2.2 2.2 UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing

0.0 0.0
0 0
Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0
Wind Class (m/s) Wind Class (m/s) Although there is no reason to believe that
data may be present
April 2013
NORTH NORTH
FIGURE 34-5
15% 15%
12% 12% COMPARISON OF WIND ROSES

9% 9% & WIND SPEED CLASSES
6% 6%
BASED ON DATA EXTRACTED
FROM THE WRF-CALMET
3% 3%
WEST EAST WEST EAST
AND MM5-CALMET
WIND SPEED WIND SPEED DATASETS FOR THE
(m/s) (m/s)
PROJECT SITE AT 120m
>= 10.0 >= 10.0 ELEVATION (2002 TO 2006)
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
0.1 - 2.0 0.1 - 2.0
SOUTH SOUTH
PROPOSED BLACKROD
PROJECT

30 30
24.8 24.8
25 25
22.3 22.3
21.3 21.3
20 20
% 15 14.2 % 15 14.2
12.6 12.6
10 10
4.7 4.7
5 5

0.0 0.0
0 0
Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 Although there is no reason to believe that
Wind Class (m/s) Wind Class (m/s) there are any errors associated with
data may be present
April 2013
NORTH NORTH
FIGURE 34-6
15% 15%
12% 12% & WIND SPEED CLASSES
3% 3% AND MM5-CALMET
WEST EAST
WIND SPEED WEST EAST
WIND SPEED DATASETS FOR THE
(m/s) (m/s)
PROJECT SITE AT 240m
>= 10.0 >= 10.0 ELEVATION (2002 TO 2006)
8.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 10.0
4.0 - 6.0 4.0 - 6.0
SOUTH SOUTH
PROJECT
35 35
31.5 31.5
30 30
25 25
20 20
% 18.6 % 18.6
16.8 17.0 16.8 17.0
15 15
11.9 11.9
10 10
5 4.2 5 4.2

0.0 0.0
0 0
Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0 Calms 0.1 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 6.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.0 >= 10.0

data may be present
Surface Temperature Comparison

Table 34-1 compares the predicted monthly and annual mean surface temperatures at the Project site
extracted from WRF, MM5, WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET datasets for the period of 2002 to 2006.
The WRF predictions are slightly warmer than the MM5 predictions for the Project site but are still within a
reasonable range. The WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET surface temperature predictions are identical
and surface temperature measurements from 15 surface meteorological stations and upper level
temperatures from WRF or MM5 models were used to calculate the CALMET 3D temperature field.
TABLE 34-1
COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AND ANNUAL MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURES AT THE PROJECT

SITE EXTRACTED FROM WRF, MM5, WRF-CALMET AND MM5-CALMET DATASETS (2002-2006)
Predicted Mean Air Temperatures (°C)

Month WRF MM5 WRF-CALMET MM5-CALMET
January -13.8 -15.7 -16.8 -16.8
February -9.8 -11.1 -11.9 -11.9
March -7.0 -8.1 -7.4 -7.4
April 2.4 2.3 3.9 3.9
May 7.9 9.2 9.4 9.4
June 13.9 15.7 16.0 16.0
July 16.2 18.1 18.1 18.1
August 14.4 15.2 15.4 15.4
September 9.3 8.8 10.0 10.0
October 2.3 0.9 2.4 2.4
November -5.4 -7.7 -7.3 -7.3
December -9.0 -10.8 -11.2 -11.2
Annual 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.8
Precipitation Comparison
Table 34-2 compares the annual total precipitation predicted at the Project site based on the WRF, MM5,
WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET predictions for the period of 2002 to 2006. On average, the WRF and
WRF-CALMET predictions are 15% higher than the MM5 and MM5-CALMET predictions for the Project
site but are still within a reasonable range. Both simulations indicate that 2002 is the driest year and 2006
is the wettest year.
TABLE 34-2
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT THE PROJECT SITE

EXTRACTED FROM WRF, MM5, WRF-CALMET AND MM5-CALMET DATASETS (2002-2006)
Predicted Total Precipitation (mm)

Year WRF MM5 WRF-CALMET MM5-CALMET
2002 568 341 584 323
2003 655 693 647 683
2004 935 770 891 757
2005 822 751 804 743
2006 971 881 989 873
Average 790 687 783 676
Page 83
Mixing Height Comparison

Figures 34-7 and 34-8 show the predicted seasonal mixing heights at the Project site on a diurnal basis
from the WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET datasets for the period of 2002 to 2006, respectively.
The WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET mixing height predictions show the same general trends: the
minimum values for each season are predicted to occur during the night; the mechanical mixing process
during the night dominates with higher wind speeds resulting in deeper mixed layers; and a convective
mixing process dominates during the day, leading to maximum mixed layers during the afternoon.
Differences between the datasets indicate that WRF-CALMET is predicting lower mixing heights during
the night and higher mixing heights during the afternoon convective periods than those predicted using
MM5-CALMET. Both model simulations set the minimum mixing height to 50 m.
Atmospheric Stability Class Comparison

Figures 34-9 and 34-10 show the frequency distributions of predicted seasonal PG stability classes at the
Project site on a diurnal basis from the WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET datasets for the period of 2002
to 2006, respectively.
The WRF-CALMET and MM5-CALMET stability class predictions show the same general trends: unstable
conditions are more frequent during the summer and during daytime periods and stable conditions are
more frequent during night-time periods. The WRF-CALMET approach tends to predict more frequent
stable conditions during night-time periods.
34. d. If AESRD has not granted approval to use the WRF Model, remodel all scenarios using
MM5 meteorological data.
Response:
As stated in ERCB SIR 34a, the Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline does not reference the need to
obtain approval from AESRD in selection of models, methodology or datasets. Approval was not
requested from AESRD.
The Air Quality Assessment has been updated to evaluate Project design changes on ambient air quality.
Updated dispersion modelling has been completed for all scenarios. Consistent with AESRD’s stated
preference, the AESRD supplied MM5 meteorological dataset was used as input for the updated
dispersion modelling.
Page 84
April 2013
FIGURE 34-7
WRF-CALMET PREDICTED
MIXING HEIGHTS FOR
DIFFERENT SEASONS AND
TIMES OF DAY FOR THE
PROJECT AREA
(2002 TO 2006)
INC. PROPOSED
BLACKROD COMMERCIAL
SAGD PROJECT
Notes: Winter: November, December, January, February and March.

Spring: April and May.
Summer: June, July and August.
Fall: September and October. UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing
Although there is no reason to believe

that there are any errors associated
with the data used to generate this
product or in the product itself, users of
these data are advised that errors in
the data may be present
April 2013
FIGURE 34-8
MM5-CALMET PREDICTED
MIXING HEIGHTS FOR
DIFFERENT SEASONS AND
TIMES OF DAY FOR THE
PROJECT AREA
(2002 TO 2006)
INC. BLACKROD
COMMERICIAL SAGD
PROJECT

Fall: September and October. UTM Zone 12N: Sourcing

product or in the product itself, users of
these data are advised that errors in
the data may be present
April 2013
Winter Spring
100% 100% FIGURE 34-9
90% 90%
80% 80%
WRF-CALMET PREDICTED
FREQUENCY OF PG
70% 70%
PG F
STABILITY CLASS FOR THE
60% PG F 60%
PG E PROJECT AREA
PG E
50%
PG D
50% PG D (2002 TO 2006)
PG C
40% PG C 40%
PG B
30%
PG B
30% PG A
20% 20%
10% 10%
INC. BLACKROD
0% 0% COMMERICIAL SAGD
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
PROJECT
Summer Fall
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
70% 70%
PG F
60% 60% PG F
PG E
PG E
50% PG D 50%
PG D
PG C
40% 40% PG C
PG B
PG B
30% PG A 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Fall: September and October.

product or in the product itself, users
of these data are advised that errors
in the data may be present
April 2013
FIGURE 34-10
MM5-CALMET
PREDICTED FREQUENCY
OF PG STABILITY CLASS
FOR THE PROJECT AREA
(2002 TO 2006)
INC. PROPOSED
BLACKROD COMMERCIAL
SAGD PROJECT

Fall: September and October.

product or in the product itself, users
of these data are advised that errors
in the data may be present
6.0 REFERENCES
AltaLIS. 2012. Alberta Provincial Recreation Areas (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available:
http://www.altalis.com/prod_base_bound.html. Acquired: November 2012. Last Update Check:
November 12, 2012.
Government of Alberta. 2012. Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012-2022. Government of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB. Ii + 94 pp.
Page 89
APPENDIX A
ABORIGINAL RECORD OF ENGAGEMENT LOG
Stakeholder
Group/Agency Method of Date of Commitments / Follow-Up
Name Contact Name Engagement Engagement Activity Reason for Engagement Issues / Concerns Actions / Comments
Beaver Lake Cree Robert Gillis Email August 3, 2012 Email indicating Beaver Lake Cree Nation was changing None
Nation their working relationship with an industry company.
Beaver Lake Cree Robert Gillis Letter August 6, 2012 BlackPearl sent a letter with the electronic copy of the None
Nation Integrated Application.
Beaver Lake Cree Robert Gillis Phone Call September 5, 2012 Attempted to contact to discuss the integrated application None
Nation
Beaver Lake Cree Robert Gillis Email November 1, 2012 Email introducing a logo competition to design a logo for the None
Nation project.
Chard Métis Local L. Douglas Rae Letter December 17, 2012 Rae and Company sent a Statement of Concern on behalf of Chard Métis were concerned BlackPearl is in contact with the
No. 214 and Chard the Chard Métis Local 214 and the Chard Métis Dene Inc. about negative impacts related Metis Nation of Alberta Region 1
Métis Dene Inc. identified several concerns regarding the Integrated to wildlife habitat, riparian to determine a path forward.
(Chard Métis) Application. habitat and aquatic environment
of Chard Métis traditional
territory and to their Aboriginal
rights relating to water and to
hunt and fish, development and
Page A-1
production of bitumen threaten

to block current access for
animals and Chard Métis
hunters and subsequently,
animals may become less
prevalent in the area as a result
of blocked access, the potential
cumulative effects of
BlackPearl’s application when
considered with other similar
pending and future applications
and inadequacy of consultation.
Chard Métis Local L. Douglas Rae Letter March 25, 2013 A letter from BlackPearl was sent to the legal firm (Rae and None. BlackPearl will continue to consult
No. 214 and Chard Company) who provided the Statement of Concern on behalf with the Metis Nation of Alberta
Métis Dene Inc. of the Chard Métis Local 214 and the Chard Métis Dene Inc. Region 1 and the Métis
(Chard Métis) indicating that BlackPearl has been in contact with the community to address any
President of the Metis Nation of Alberta Region 1who concerns regarding the Project.
advised that the Metis Nation of Alberta Region 1is the
official representative for the community and that Métis Local
214 was no longer a local within the Métis.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email August 1, 2012 Email to coordinate a meeting to discuss the Project, interest None.
Dene First Nation in conducting a TLU study and any concerns they may have.
BlackPearl noted they had sent an electronic copy of the
Integrated Application to their office to review.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email August 9, 2012 Email regarding dates available to attend the meeting. None.
Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email August 10, 2012 Email correspondence regarding meeting logistics. None.
Dene First Nation
Stakeholder
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email August 15, 2012 Email correspondence regarding meeting logistics for the None.
Dene First Nation August 17, 2012 meeting.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Meeting August 17, 2012 Meeting to discuss the Project. BlackPearl provided an None.
Dene First Nation update on the Project, interest in conducting a TLU study
and the environmental field studies completed to date.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation indicated they had a
consultation process and they use a third-party consultant
who is familiar with the region for their studies. BlackPearl
would provide C. Heavyshield with a preliminary list of items
that BlackPearl would like to see within the consultation
agreement. Indicated to C. Heavyshield that he should have
some information to him by the end of the following week.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email September 5, 2012 Email regarding the TLU study and whether it would be a None.
Dene First Nation desktop or field study.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Phone Call September 14, 2012 Contact attempt. None.
Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email November 1, 2012 Email introducing a logo competition to design a logo for the None.
Dene First Nation project.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email December 25, 2012 Email with holiday greetings and to set-up a meeting in the None.
Dene First Nation new year.
Page A-2
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email February 5, 2013 Email regarding availability for an alternate meeting dates. None.
Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email February 7, 2013 Email providing alternate meeting dates. None.
Dene First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Email February 8, 2013 BlackPearl provided information with Project background, None.
Dene First Nation updates and future plans for their upcoming Annual General
Meeting. BlackPearl inquired if additional information would
be required.
Chipewyan Prairie Chris Heavyshield Phone Call February 21, 2013 Email regarding the Annual General Meeting and the None.
Dene First Nation upcoming meeting date.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email August 1, 2012 BlackPearl emailed to set-up a meeting to discuss the None.
Nation Project and engagement of the community.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Letter August 6, 2012 BlackPearl sent a letter with the electronic copy of the None.
Nation Integrated Application.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email August 24, 2012 BlackPearl emailed to set-up a meeting. Indicated they None.
Nation would be willing to meet in a location convenient for Fort
McMurray First Nation.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Phone September 10, 2012 Contact attempt. Was unable to leave a message. None.
Nation
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Letter September 20, 2012 BlackPearl sent an electronic copy of the Integrated None.
Nation Application. Package was picked up and signed for on
October 5, 2012.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email May 28, 2012 Email providing information of upcoming Treaty Days events None.
Nation and upcoming events.
Stakeholder
Heart Lake First John Fleming Phone Call June 1, 2012 BlackPearl received an email requesting a meeting and None.
Nation Project update. Request to discuss ongoing and economic
opportunities.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email June 11, 2012 Email to coordinate the meeting. BlackPearl provided an None.
Nation update on the Integrated Application and provided a copy to
review.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email June 12, 2012 Communication to coordinate a meeting. Meeting was None.
Nation confirmed for June 21, 2012.
Heart Lake First John Fleming, Cameron Meeting June 21, 2012 Meeting to review the Integrated Application, status of the None.
Nation Knutson, Betty Kennedy TLU study and economic opportunities.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email July 5, 2012 Email to coordinate meeting to review the results of the TLU None.
Nation study.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email July 05, 2012 Heart Lake First Nation indicated they had a preliminary draft None.
Nation of TLU study results and provided an update on community
member status.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email July 27, 2012 Provided information on the upcoming Heart Lake Pow Wow None.
Nation information and requested sponsorship for the event.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 1, 2012 Email inquiring about setting up a meeting for None.
Nation August 10, 2012. BlackPearl responded that the date chosen
would not work but would be available at any other date.
Page A-3
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 13, 2012 BlackPearl emailed to arrange an alternate meeting date to None.
Nation receive the preliminary TLU study report.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 15, 2012 J. Fleming emailed and indicated he would be in Calgary on None.
Nation August 22, 2012.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 16, 2012 Several emails to arrange logistics for the upcoming None.
Nation meeting. A date was confirmed for August 22, 2012.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 22, 2012 Cancellation email from J. Fleming for the scheduled None.
Nation meeting.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 23, 2012 Several emails to arrange an alternate meeting date. None.
Nation
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 24, 2012 BlackPearl inquired about the report status and to set-up a None.
Nation meeting.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Email August 28, 2012 J. Fleming responded and provided an update on the TLU None.
Nation study report with an alternate deadline. He also inquired
about a site visit and would like to meet in September.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Phone September 18, 2012 BlackPearl left a voicemail inquiring about the progress of None.
Nation Email September 18, 2012 the TLU report. J. Fleming returned the voicemail and
apologized for the delay in the report and a status update.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Phone September 24, 2012 BlackPearl left a voicemail inquiring about the progress of None.
Nation Email September 24, 2012 the TLU report. J. Fleming emailed and indicated they are
still working on it.
Heart Lake First John Fleming, Cameron Email November 1, 2012 Email introducing a logo competition to design a logo for the None.
Nation Knutson project.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Contact February 13, 2013 Contact attempt. Voicemail left regarding the status of the None.
Nation Attempt TLU study report.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Phone Call February 21, 2013 BlackPearl left a voicemail for J. Fleming and requested a None.
Nation call back.
Stakeholder
Heart Lake First John Fleming Phone Call February 25, 2013 BlackPearl left a voicemail for J. Fleming and requested a None.
Nation call back. BlackPearl indicated someone would be in the
area on Thursday and available to meet. They would provide
a Project update.
Heart Lake First Cameron Knutson Phone Call February 27, 2013 BlackPearl left a voicemail requesting a meeting to discuss None.
Nation the Project.
Heart Lake First John Fleming, Cameron Phone Call February 27, 2013 BlackPearl left a voicemail indicating a meeting on None.
Nation Knutson February 28, 2012 and requested a call back.
Heart Lake First John Fleming Phone Call March 1, 2013 J. Fleming apologized for the long delay in the TLU study None.
Nation report and will provide it next week.
Métis Nation of Diane Scoville Meeting June 22, 2012 Introduction meeting to introduce the Project and discuss None.
Alberta Region 1 interest in conducting a TLU study. Discussed the potential
opportunities for group members.
Métis Nation of Diane Scoville Meeting June 22, 2012 Meeting to discuss the Project and updates. BlackPearl None.
Alberta Region 1 provided Project information.
Métis Nation of Diane Scoville Phone Call September 17, 2012 Conversation with D. Scoville regarding an earlier meeting None.
Alberta Region 1 and discussed internal group status.
Metis Nation of William Landstrom Phone Call March,6, 2013 Discussion on the receipt of SOC from legal firm The Metis Local 214 is still Arrange for meeting and
Alberta Region 1 representing Chard Metis Local 214 and Chipewyan Chard obtaining agreements despite conference call with Willima
Metis. Chard Metis Local 214 is not a registered Local and the fact that they do not exist in Landstrom to develop process /
Page A-4
had been striken from the registry. Confirmed that William Alberta Registry and as a actual steps for consultation with the
Landstrom is the representative for the Metis community in Local. Since there is no Metis community.
Chard in the absence of a legal Metis Local. BlackPearl Local for the Chard region
asked if the MNA region 1 has consulted the Metis consultation will have to go
community in Chard since they are their representative. through MNA region 1 to
BlackPearl indicated that they would like to engage the metis provide information to the metis
community in Chard to provide adequate consultation and community.
answer any concerns that they may have.
Metis Nation of William Landstrom Letter March 25, 2013 A letter from BlackPearl was sent to the legal firm (Rae and None. BlackPearl will continue to consult
Alberta Region 1 Company) who provided the Statement of Concern on behalf with the Métis Nation of Alberta
of the Chard Métis Local 214 and the Chard Métis Dene Inc. Region 1 and the Métis
and Metis Nation of Alberta Region 1 was provided a copy of community to address any
the letter. The letter indicated that BlackPearl has been in concerns regarding the Project.
contact with the President of the MNA Region 1 who advised
that the MNA Region 1 is the official representative for the
community and that Métis Local 214 was no longer a local
within the Métis.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 7, 2012 Email correspondence with Melina Scoville to co-ordinate the None.
Lakeland introductory meeting.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 8, 2012 Email confirming a meeting on June 22, 2012. None.
Lakeland
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 11, 2012 Email regarding the logistics of the upcoming meeting. None.
Lakeland
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Phone and June 12, 2012 Email regarding the logistics of the upcoming meeting and a None.
Lakeland Email list of attendees.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 14, 2012 M. Scoville provided a resume of a community member None.
Lakeland looking for employment.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 17, 2012 M. Scoville provided an update list of attendees for the None.
Lakeland meeting.
Stakeholder
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 19, 2012 BlackPearl provided logistic information for the upcoming None.
Lakeland meeting.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Meeting June 22, 2012 Meeting to introduce the Project and discuss potential None.
Lakeland opportunities. BlackPearl indicated they would be interested
in participating in a TLU study for the Project.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email June 24, 2012 M. Scoville thanked BlackPearl for the meeting and None.
Lakeland discussed the TLU Study.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email July 10, 2012 M. Scoville contacted BlackPearl and requested a meeting None.
Lakeland for later in July with suggested dates.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email July 17, 2012 M. Scoville followed up on the last email as she had received None.
Lakeland an out of office response. She requested a meeting.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email July 31, 2012 M. Scoville requested a meeting. BlackPearl responded that None.
Lakeland August 10, 2012 would work for a meeting.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email August 14, 2012 Several email confirming a meeting time for August. None.
Lakeland
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Meeting August 17, 2012 Meeting to discuss the TLU study for the Project. M. Scoville None.
Lakeland extended an invitation for BlackPearl to attend their Annual
General Meeting.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email August 28, 2012 M. Scoville requested map layers to assist in the TLU study. None.
Lakeland BlackPearl responded and provided the required mapping
Page A-5
layers.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email August 30, 2012 Email between BlackPearl and a consultant for Métis Local None.
Lakeland #1909 Lakeland regarding the mapping layer.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email September 6, 2012 Email confirmation to confirm receipt of the data files. None.
Lakeland
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email November 25, 2012 M. Scoville sent an email to provide an update on the TLU None.
Lakeland study.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email February 13, 2013 BlackPearl requested a status update on the TLU study. None.
Lakeland
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email February 13, 2013 Métis Local #1909 Lakeland received a draft TLU study None.
Lakeland report last week and was in the process of reviewing it. M.
Scoville said she would send it to BlackPearl on
February 22, 2013.
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher Meeting May 24, 2012 Introduction meeting to review the Project and discuss Preservation of historical Continue to engage Métis Local #
Owl River Jack Quintel interest in conducting a TLU study. Métis Local # 1949 Owl resources in the area. 1949 Owl River to determine
River identified concerns towards the preservation of nature of Project-specific
historical resources in the area as the Métis have been living concerns.
in that area for a long time. They recognize that development
is there and they would like to be involved with the project.
They have joined with another company to provide a unique
service and they hope that it would be of some interest to
BlackPearl. BlackPearl would like to have a TLU study
performed with the Métis Local # 1949 Owl River and would
participate in their joint study of the region which includes
other participating companies.
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher Email May 28, 2012 Email to initiate the TLU study. None.
Owl River
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher Email May 29, 2012 Email with information on an upcoming golf tournament and None.
Owl River sponsorship.
Stakeholder
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher Email August 22, 2012 Email indicating a list of attendees. None.
Owl River
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher Email September 5, 2012 Email inquiring on the progress of the TLU study. BlackPearl None.
Owl River discussed the schedule and asked if they required any
additional information.
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher Email October 31, 2012 Email sent requesting a donation for a Christmas event. None.
Owl River
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher, Jack email November 1, 2012 Email introducing a logo competition to design a logo for the
Owl River Quintel project.
Métis Local # 1949 Rick Boucher, Jack Email November 26, 2012 Email inquiring on the TLU study and a future meeting. None.
Owl River Quintel
Métis Local # 1949 Jack Quintal Email December 3, 2012 Email indicated the TLU study was progressing and were None.
Owl River provided an updated address for future correspondence.
Métis Local # 1949 Jack Quintal Email February 13, 2013 Email inquiring on the TLU study and the progress. Request Capacity to complete the TLU None
Owl River for additional help in completing the study. study.
Métis Local # 1949 Jack Quintal Phone Call February 22, 2013 A voicemail was left indicating stakeholder had hired an None.
Owl River individual to assist in the TLU study.
Métis Local # 1949 Jack Quintal Phone Call March 1, 2013 Provided an update on the TLU study progress and None.
Owl River requested a meeting to introduce the new hire to BlackPearl
and discuss any Project updates. BlackPearl indicated they
Page A-6
would provide a list of available dates to meet in April.

Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Letter May 27, 2012 D. Shott provided a letter thanking BlackPearl for holding the None.
Athabasca Landing meeting and would like to conduct a Traditional Land Use
(TLU) study with TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA).
Recommend a future meeting with Athabasca County,
BlackPearl and themselves.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call August 23, 2012 Discussion regarding the TLU study and moving forward. None.
Athabasca Landing
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Meeting August 28, 2012 TERA representatives reviewed the Project description Potential increase in traffic due Concerns were addressed by
Athabasca Landing Community Members during the map review phase of the Métis Local #2010 to Project activities. mitigation measures described in
Athabasca Landing map review. Community members Cumulative impact of the EIA to be implemented for the
identified target areas for the TLU helicopter overflight, development over Project’s 30 Project and were reviewed with
scheduled for August 29, 2012. year life span. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca
Landing during their TLU study.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Overflight August 29, 2012 TERA representatives accompanied Métis Local #2010 None.
Athabasca Landing Athabasca Landing on an overflight from Athabasca Airport
to BlackPearl SAGD site. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca
Landing did not identify any areas of traditional use
potentially affected by the Project requiring mitigation.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call September 12, 2012 D. Shott would like to meet with BlackPearl on None.
Athabasca Landing September 17, 2012 to discuss the draft TLU study report
and additional documents.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott, Dale Meeting September 17, 2012 Meeting to discuss the draft TLU study report and additional None.
Athabasca Landing Beauchamp, Brenda documents. There were no issues identified. Executives for
Henson, Mabel Howse Athabasca Landing Metis Local 2010 provided a letter of
non-objection and agreement with the Blackrod Project.
Signed by executive membership
Stakeholder
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone and September 18, 2012 Conversation regarding a previous conversation with None.
Athabasca Landing Email M. Scoville that was not on behalf of the group. D. Shott
clarified the conversation and will follow up at a later date.
Métis Local #2010 Kenton Klein Email September 18, 2012 Email from K. Klein with an attached letter stating there was None.
Athabasca Landing a change in leadership. Will send another email to initiate re-
opening correspondence.
Métis Local #2010 Kenton Klein Email October 19, 2012 Email from K. Klein and L. Klein with an attached letter None.
Athabasca Landing stating a new president has been selected and K. Klein will
be in contact soon.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email October 22, 2012 Email summarizing the September 17, 2012 meeting events. None.
Athabasca Landing
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email November 1, 2012 Email introducing a logo competition to design a logo for the None.
Athabasca Landing Project.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email November 2, 2012 Email providing clarification on the logo competition and None.
Athabasca Landing guideline on submission requirements.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call November 27, 2012 Inquired about the date for when reports were to be None.
Athabasca Landing expected.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Letter May 27, 2012 D. Shott provided a letter thanking BlackPearl for holding the None.
Athabasca Landing meeting and would like to conduct a Traditional Land Use
(TLU) study with TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA).
Page A-7
Recommend a future meeting with Athabasca County,

BlackPearl and themselves.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call August 23, 2012 Discussion regarding the TLU study and moving forward. None.
Athabasca Landing
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Meeting August 28, 2012 TERA representatives reviewed the Project description Potential increase in traffic due Concerns were addressed by
Athabasca Landing Community Members during the map review phase of the Métis Local #2010 to Project activities. mitigation measures described in
Athabasca Landing map review. Community members Cumulative impact of the EIA to be implemented for the
identified target areas for the TLU helicopter overflight, development over Project’s 30 Project and were reviewed with
scheduled for August 29, 2012. year life span. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca
Landing during their TLU study.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Overflight August 29, 2012 TERA representatives accompanied Métis Local #2010 None.
Athabasca Landing Athabasca Landing on an overflight from Athabasca Airport
to BlackPearl SAGD site. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca
Landing did not identify any areas of traditional use
potentially affected by the Project requiring mitigation.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call September 12, 2012 D. Shott would like to meet with BlackPearl on None.
Athabasca Landing September 17, 2012 to discuss the draft TLU study report
and additional documents.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott, Dale Meeting September 17, 2012 Meeting to discuss the draft TLU study report and additional None.
Athabasca Landing Beauchamp, Brenda documents. There were no issues identified. Executives for
Henson, Mabel Howse Athabasca Landing Metis Local 2010 provided a letter of
non-objection and agreement with the Blackrod Project.
Signed by executive membership
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone and September 18, 2012 Conversation regarding a previous conversation with None.
Athabasca Landing Email M. Scoville that was not on behalf of the group. D. Shott
clarified the conversation and will follow up at a later date.
Métis Local #2010 Kenton Klein Email September 18, 2012 Email from K. Klein with an attached letter stating there was None.
Athabasca Landing a change in leadership. Will send another email to initiate re-
opening correspondence.
Stakeholder
Métis Local #2010 Kenton Klein Email October 19, 2012 Email from K. Klein and L. Klein with an attached letter None.
Athabasca Landing stating a new president has been selected and K. Klein will
be in contact soon.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email October 22, 2012 Email summarizing the September 17, 2012 meeting events. None.
Athabasca Landing
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email November 1, 2012 Email introducing a logo competition to design a logo for the None.
Athabasca Landing Project.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email November 2, 2012 Email providing clarification on the logo competition and None.
Athabasca Landing guideline on submission requirements.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call November 27, 2012 Inquired about the date for when reports were to be None.
Athabasca Landing expected.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call December 12, 2012 Email update on the leadership status and logo competition None.
Athabasca Landing progress.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone and December 19, 2012 TLU study report review submitted to Métis Local #2010 None.
Athabasca Landing Email Athabasca Landing for their review.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call December 21, 2012 Discussions regarding the draft TLU study report. A meeting None.
Athabasca Landing was arranged for January 4, 2013.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call December 31, 2012 A voicemail was left for confirmation of the upcoming None.
Athabasca Landing meeting.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone and January 2, 2013 Several phone calls and emails regarding the upcoming None.
Page A-8
Athabasca Landing Email meeting and logistic coordination.

Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone Call January 2, 2013 Confirmation of the meeting location and date. None.
Athabasca Landing
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Phone January 2, 2013 Acceptance of the TLU study report prepared by TERA on None. Information has been incorporated
Athabasca Landing behalf of the community. into the EIA Update.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott Email January 3, 2013 Email regarding logistics in travel arrangements and meeting None.
Athabasca Landing preparation.
Métis Local #2010 Darryl Shott, Dale Meeting January 4, 2013 Meeting to review the findings of the final TLU report and None
Athabasca Landing Beauchamp, Brenda provide and discuss relationship building with the Métis
Henson, Mabel Howse, community and the community of Athabasca . BlackPearl
Don Charlton, Brenda provided a summary of the Project and what has occurred to
Edwards, Evelyn date.
Charlton
APPENDIX B
LETTER PROVIDED TO OIL SANDS LEASEHOLDERS
Page B-1
700, 444 – 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 0X8
Telephone: 403-215-8313
Fax: 403-262-5123
February 6, 2013
Canadian Coastal Resources Ltd

Attn: Tina Bakarich
Suite 900, 202 - 6 Ave. S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 2R9
Dear Ms. Bakarich,
RE: Proposed BlackPearl Resources Inc. Blackrod Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
Commercial Project Update
BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) submitted an Integrated Application to the Alberta Energy
Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development (AESRD) for their proposed Blackrod in-situ steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)
bitumen recovery project (the Project) in May 2012. The Project is located on Crown land in Lac La Biche
County, Alberta. Currently, we are responding to Round 1 of the supplementary information requests
(SIRs).
As a follow-up to the update package that was sent to industry holders in the surrounding Project area on
April 17, 2012, additional consultation with Coastal Canadian Resources Ltd. (Canadian Coastal) is
requested given that BlackPearl’s second and third phase (2018 & 2021) development are shown to
overlap with Canadian Coastal’s oil sand lease located in 6,7,8, 16 and 21-77-17 W4M (Figure 1). Please
verify whether there will be any conflicts with the location of BlackPearl’s proposed Project footprint in
relation to Canadian Coastal’s oil sand lease. BlackPearl is open to discussing any concerns with
Canadian Coastal and will accommodate if required.
Your input is important to determine the best solution for this Project. For additional information on the
Project, please refer to the Project website (http://www.blackpearlresources.ca/s/Blackrod-SAGD.asp).
If you have any questions, comments or concerns with the proposed Project, please contact me via the
information provided below. BlackPearl kindly requests feedback by February 22, 2013 and will treat no
response as a non-objection.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike Carteri, P.Eng.

Project Manager
Sr. Exploitation Engineer
W: 403-536-4695
C: 403-880-3258
Mike.carteri@pxx.ca
Enclosure: Figure 1 (Project Boundaries and Phases)

700, 444 – 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 0X8
Telephone: 403-215-8313
Fax: 403-262-5123
March 7, 2013
Integrity Land Inc.

9940 – 99th Ave
Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta T8L 4G8
Dear Integrity Land Inc.,
Re: Proposed Blackrod Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Commercial Project
In regards to the letter you received last week dated February 28, 2013, please find enclosed BlackPearl
Resources Inc.’s (BlackPearl’s) Blackrod SAGD Commercial Project (the Project) revised Project
Footprint map dated March 2013, showing the locations of the well pads, multi-use corridors and Central
Processing Facility for the Project.
BlackPearl submitted an Integrated Application to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board
(ERCB) and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for their proposed Blackrod
in-situ steam-assisted gravity drainage bitumen recovery project in May 2012. For full Project information,
including a copy of the regulatory application, please refer to the Project website
(http://www.blackpearlresources.ca/s/Blackrod-SAGD.asp).
information provided below. As per ERCB ID 99-01, BlackPearl kindly requests feedback within
15 working days of receipt of this letter. No response is treated as a non-objection to the Project.
Sincerely,

Project Manager
W: (403) 536-4695
Mike.carteri@pxx.ca
Enclosure: Project Footprint map (Revised March 2013)

APPENDIX C
LETTER PROVIDED TO PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS LEASEHOLDERS
Page C-1
700, 444 – 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 0X8
Telephone: 403-215-8313
Fax: 403-262-5123
March 7, 2013

Box 292 1 First Canadian Place
100 King St. W. Suite 7080
Toronto, Ontario M5X 1C9
Dear Chair Resources Inc.,
Re: Proposed Blackrod Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Commercial Project
In regards to the letter dated February 28, 2013, you received this week, please find enclosed BlackPearl
Resources Inc.’s (BlackPearl’s) Blackrod SAGD Commercial Project (the Project) revised Project
Footprint map dated March 2013, showing the locations of the well pads, multi-use corridors and Central
Processing Facility for the Project.
BlackPearl submitted an Integrated Application to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board
(ERCB) and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for their proposed Blackrod
in-situ steam-assisted gravity drainage bitumen recovery project in May 2012. For full Project information,
including a copy of the regulatory application, please refer to the Project website
(http://www.blackpearlresources.ca/s/Blackrod-SAGD.asp).
information provided below. As per ERCB ID 99-01, BlackPearl kindly requests feedback within
15 working days of receipt of this letter. No response is treated as a non-objection to the Project.
Sincerely,

Project Manager
W: (403) 536-4695
Mike.carteri@pxx.ca
Enclosure: Project Footprint map (Revised March 2013)

APPENDIX D
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PRESENTATION

ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERATION BOARD
Page D-1
Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project
Athabasca Oil Sands Area
Scheme Approval No. 11522C
Annual Performance Presentation

Energy Resources Conservation Board
November 22nd, 2012
1
Introductions
• VP Operations Chris Hogue
• VP Geology Ed Sobel
• Project Engineer Heath Williamson
• Project Geologist Ryan Morrison
• Exploitation Engineer Mike Carteri
2
Subsurface Agenda
1. Background
2. Geology / Geoscience
3. Drilling & Completions
4. Artificial Lift
5. Well Instrumentation
6. Scheme Performance
3
Blackrod Subsurface
1. Background
4
Project Overview
BLACKROD SAGD PILOT PAIR

100/13-25-076-18W4 INJECTOR
102/13-25-076-18W4 PRODUCER
Approved Development Area as per

ERCB Scheme Approval No. 11522C
CORED WELLS
2012 OSE CORED WELLS
BLACKPEARL OIL SANDS

LEASE HOLDINGS
5
Project Summary
• ERCB Scheme Approval No. 11522C

• One (1) SAGD Pilot Well Pair
• Portage area on Oil Sands Lease 7407060158
• Pilot site located in 02-36-076-18W4
• Target formation is the Lower Grand Rapids Unit 1 (L.GR1)
• Traditional SAGD recovery process
• BlackPearl is the 100% W.I. Owner
6
Blackrod Pilot Site
7
Traditional SAGD Process
8
Project Milestones
• Oct, 2010 Receive ERCB Scheme Approval No. 11522
• Dec, 2010 Drill Pilot Well Pair
• Jan, 2011 Commence Pilot Facility Construction
• Apr, 2011 Complete Pilot Well Pair
• May, 2011 Commission Pilot Facility
• Jun, 2011 Commence Circulation Phase
• Sep, 2011 Convert to SAGD Production Phase
• Apr, 2012 Achieve Commercial Production Rate of 400 bbl/d
• May, 2012 Submit Blackrod Commercial SAGD Application No. 1728831
• Sep, 2012 Produce 100,000 Cumulative Barrels
9
Blackrod Subsurface
2. Geology / Geoscience
10
Original Bitumen in Place
• OBIP = A * h1 * So1 * Ø1 * Bo
= (100 m * 800 m) * 26 m * 0.60 * 0.36 * 1.0
= 449,280 m3
Where:
OBIP = Original Bitumen In Place
A= Drainage Area
h1 = Average Thickness
So1 = Average Oil Saturation
Ø1 = Average Porosity
Bo = Expansion Factor
11
Net Pay Map
• Existing lease and access selected

for Pilot Well Pair surface location
• Pilot Well Pair bottom hole location

selected utilizing available well
control data at time of drilling
LOG CUTOFFS Total L.GR1 SAGD Net Oil Pay

• Gamma Ray < 75 API
• Resistivity > 20 Ohm.m
• Porosity > 33%
12
Structure Map
L.GR1 TOP L.GR1 BASE
13
Type Log
LOG CUTOFFS
• Porosity > 33%
14
Core
304.0m
CAPPING SHALE
L.GR1
L.GR2
L.GR3
307.7m
100/15-25-076-18W4/00 307.7m
L.GR1* Core Characteristics:

313.1m
• Oil saturation: 0.60
• Bitumen weight: 11%
• Net pay thickness: 26 m
• Porosity: 36%
• Vertical permeability: 3024 mD
• Horizontal permeability: 3450 mD
• Kv/Kh: 0.88
• API Gravity: 9.8 (at 15.6 ᵒC)
* Based on 9 cores within Pilot Project Area

Cross Section Through Pilot Well Pair
• Pilot Well Pair placed for optimal Pilot performance
• Future Well Pairs to be placed for maximum

ultimate recovery
INJECTOR
PRODUCER
16
Seismic
W E
3D X-Line along Pilot Well Pair 3D Seismic Area Coverage
17
Primary Cap Rock
• MFS (Maximum Flooding Shale)
• Directly overlays Lower Grand Rapids formation
• Regionally extensive
• 3 m average thickness
• Mini Frac Analysis:
‒ Performed on the 13-25-076-18W4 OSE Core Hole
‒ Initial Breakdown Pressure = 8500 kPa
‒ Closure Pressure Gradient = 13.7 kPa/m
18
MFS Cap Rock Isopach Map
19
MFS Cap Rock Base Structure Map
20
MFS Cap Rock Base Depth Map
21
Secondary Cap Rock
• Joli Fou formation
• 45 m above Lower Grand Rapids formation
• Regionally extensive
• 20 m average thickness
• Mini Frac Analysis:
‒ Performed on the 01-36-076-18W4 OSE Core Hole
‒ Initial Breakdown Pressure = 12,750 kPa
‒ Closure Pressure Gradient Range = 17.1 kPa/m* to 19.4 kPa/m
* Lower-bound Joli Fou Closure Pressure Gradient of 17.1 kPa/m reported to ERCB as per Application No. 1701450
22
Joli Fou Cap Rock Isopach Map
23
Joli Fou Cap Rock Base Structure Map
24
Joli Fou Cap Rock Base Depth Map
25
Blackrod Subsurface
3. Drilling and Completions
26
Blackrod Pilot Well Network
27
Blackrod SAGD Injector
28
Blackrod SAGD Producer – Circ. Phase
29
Blackrod SAGD Producer – Prod. Phase
30
Downhole Modifications
• Blackrod Well Pair worked-over in May, 2012 during scheduled facility
turnaround. Downhole modifications described as follows:
— Injector well: Remove cross-over tubing

through the liner hanger
Install steam injection sub-collar

midway on the Long String
— Producer Well: Install new ESP with higher production

capacity
31
Blackrod Subsurface
4. Artificial Lift
32
Electrical Submersible Pump
• Fluid production via high temperature Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP)
• ESP advantages:
‒ Operate and lift fluids at controlled downhole pressures
‒ Maintain continuous fluid production
• Variable Flow Drive (VFD) utilized to control pump speed and production
rates
• No issues with previous or current ESP
33
Blackrod Subsurface
5. Well Instrumentation
34
Instrumentation Overview
35
Observations Wells
• Toe Observation Well:
‒ 103/13-25-076-18W4
‒ 8.5 m North of SAGD Pilot Well Pair
‒ RTD gauges to monitor temperature above, below, and within L.GR1
‒ Evidence of steam chamber front detected in Mar, 2012
• Heel Observation Well:

‒ 102/14-25-076-18W4
‒ 17.7 m South of SAGD Pilot Well Pair
‒ RTD gauges to monitor temperature above, below, and within L.GR1
‒ P/T gauge to monitor pressure & temperature within L.GR3 aquifer
‒ Evidence of steam chamber front detected in Aug, 2012
36
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
• 100/03-36-076-18W4 GWM:
‒ Directionally drilled from 14-25 lease
‒ PCP to sample/analyze non-saline L.GR3 H2O as per AENV requirements
• 100/14-25-076-18W4 GWM:
‒ Directionally drilled from 14-25 lease
‒ PCP to sample/analyze non-saline L.GR3 H2O as per AENV requirements
• 100/15-25-076-18W4 GWM:
‒ PCP to sample/analyze non-saline Viking H2O as per AENV requirements
‒ P/T gauge to monitor pressure & temperature within Viking aquifer
37
Blackrod Subsurface
6. Scheme Performance
38
Well Pair Performance as of Nov. 1, 2012
• Just over one year of SAGD Production Phase
• Observation Wells indicate steam chamber is still in early stages of

development
• Current performance is favourable and in line with internal simulated

SAGD models
• Oil production currently averaging 325 bbl/d (52 m3/d) and continuing to
ramp-up
• Ongoing piloting of operating parameters required to gain a further

understanding of how to most efficiently optimize crude bitumen
recovery from the L.GR1 reservoir
39
Oil Production as of Nov. 1, 2012
• Cumulative Production = 17,150 m3
• Recovery = 3.82% of OBIP
• CSOR including Circ. Phase = 4.3
• CSOR during Prod. Phase only = 3.7
• ISOR = 3.9
• Average Rate during Prod. Phase = 40.5 m3/day
• Max Rate during Prod. Phase = 70.3 m3/day
40
Steam Injection as of Nov. 1, 2012
• Average Steam Chamber Pressure = 2665 kPa
• Average Steam Temperature = 240 ᵒC
• Wellhead Steam Quality = 95 – 100%
• Recent geomechanical analysis confirms that the previously reported

closure pressure gradient of 17.1 kPa/m is low for the Joli Fou formation.
Accordingly, Application No. 1741982 was submitted to the ERCB in Oct,
2012 requesting an increase in Maximum Steam Chamber Pressure
• Operational flexibility required to optimize SAGD Pilot efficiencies and

crude oil production
41
Performance Plot
42
Surface Operations Agenda
1. Facilities
2. Measurement & Reporting
3. Water Source
4. Disposal
5. Environmental
6. Compliance Statement
43
Blackrod Surface Operations
1. Facilities
44
Facility Overview
45
Facility Plot Plan
46
Facility Performance
• No issues with bitumen treatment, water treatment, or steam generation
• Pilot Facility downtime associated with scheduled shut-downs & Well Pair
work-overs
• Generated steam, produced bitumen, produced water, and produced gas

volumes reported to Petrinex
• Purchased gas volumes reported to Petrinex
• Flared gas volumes reported to AENV and Petrinex
• SO2 & Nox emissions and ambient air quality data submitted to AENV both
monthly and annually as per terms of EPEA Approval 00264736-00-00
• GHG emissions reporting not required for Blackrod Pilot Facility as per
terms of EPEA Approval 00264736-00-00
47
Pilot Facility Modifications
• No fundamental facility modifications since last presentation
• One (1) minor facility modification whereby the produced gas stream has
been diverted away from the power generators due to temperature
limitations:
— Produced gas stream now flows directly to the tanks for blanketing and
subsequently flows to flare
— ERCB In-situ Oilsands Surveillance Group notified of this modification

in Jun, 2012
— Process & Measurement Diagram included herein illustrates the

modified produced gas stream
48
2. Measurement & Reporting
49
Blackrod MARP
• BlackPearl remains compliant with ERCB Directive 017 as well as Directive
042 as per the terms of our approved MARP (Measurement, Accounting,
and Reporting Plan)
• Annual MARP update to be submitted on Feb. 28, 2013
50
Process & Flow Diagram
51
Process & Flow Diagram (cont.)
52
3. Water Source
53
Blackrod Water Source(s)
• 1F1/14-24-076-18W4 LGR.3 WSW (current):
‒ Non-saline (~3700 TDS)
‒ AENV Water Act Licence No. 00308617-00-01
‒ Approved for 350 m3/day
‒ Production volumes reported to AENV and Petrinex
‒ 100/14-24-076-18W4 monitoring well 20 m North of 1F1/14-24 WSW
‒ No issues with soft water treatment process
• 1F1/15-25-076-18W4 Grosmont Member D WSW (future):
‒ Additional raw water volumes required as steam injection and oil production rates reach
peak capacity and 2nd SAGD Well Pair comes online
‒ Saline (~12,800 TDS)
‒ Supplemental softening equipment to be incorporated and commissioned in Q4, 2012
• BlackPearl endeavours to move away from the 1F1/14-24 non-saline water source
54
4. Disposal
55
Blackrod Disposal
• Produced Water:
‒ 100/02-25-076-18W4 Class 1b Disposal Well
‒ ERCB Scheme Approval No. 11703A
‒ Disposal into Grosmont Members B, A
‒ Maximum wellhead injection pressure of 6300 kPa
‒ This well continues to operate on vacuum with no pressure at the

wellhead
‒ Disposal volumes reported to Petrinex
• Waste:
‒ Waste fluids (i.e. sewage, sludge, etc.) trucked out to third party
disposal facilities
56
02-25 Monthly Disposal Rates
57
5. Environmental Issues
58
Blackrod Environmental
• No environmental issues to date
• BlackPearl remains compliant with the terms of AENV Approval No.

264736-00-00:
‒ CPP (Caribou Protection Plan)
‒ Air Monitoring
‒ Groundwater Monitoring
‒ Soil Monitoring
‒ Etc.
59
6. Compliance
60
Blackrod Compliance Item(s)
• BlackPearl received a High Risk Enforcement letter in Apr 4, 2012
regarding the use of saline water at the Blackrod Pilot Facility without
notification or approval:
‒ In Feb, 2012, BlackPearl failed to notify the ERCB that the saline 1F1/15-
25 Grosmont Source Well would be put on pump to test the Well’s
production deliverability and to collect samples in order to finalize the
design of the membrane technology required to treat saline water to
boiler feed quality
‒ BlackPearl provided a written response and received an ERCB

resolution/closure letter on Apr 24, 2012
61
Blackrod Compliance
• To the best of BlackPearl’s knowledge, the Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project is
currently in full compliance with all conditions and regulatory
requirements related to ERCB Scheme Approval No. 11522C
62
Blackrod Future Plans
1. Pilot Phase 2 Expansion
63
Pilot Phase 2 Expansion
• ERCB Approval No. 11522C for Pilot Phase 2 Expansion issued in Apr, 2012
• AENV Approval No. 264736-00-01 for Pilot Phase 2 Expansion issued in

Aug, 2012
• Phase 2 Expansion includes the addition of a 2nd SAGD Pilot Well Pair
• Development timeline as follows:
— Drill-Complete-Equip Q1, 2013
— Circulation Phase Q2, 2013
— SAGD Production Phase Q3, 2013
• Application No. 1744237 requesting longer horizontal section for 2nd

SAGD Well Pair currently under ERCB review
64
2nd Well Pair Net Pay
LOG CUTOFFS
• Porosity > 33%
2nd Well Pair

00/10-36-76-18 INJ1
02/10-36-76-18 PRD1
1st Well Pair

00/13-25-76-18 INJ1
02/13-25-76-18 PRD1
Total L.GR1 SAGD Net Oil Pay
65
Pilot Phase 2 Expansion Layout
66
Blackrod Future Plans
2. SAGD Commercial Development
67
SAGD Commercial Project
• Commercial SAGD Application No. 1728831 submitted in May, 2012
currently under ERCB review
• 80,000 bbl/d (12,720 m3/d) to be developed in phases, with the first

phase planned for 20,000 bbl/d; two additional phases of 30,000 bbl/d
each to follow
68
Applications Currently Under ERCB Review
• Application No. 1741982 submitted in Oct, 2012 to increase Maximum

Steam Chamber Pressure
• Application No. 1744237 submitted in Nov, 2012 to lengthen 2nd Pilot

Well Pair / extend Approved Development Area
• Commercial SAGD Application No. 1728831 submitted in May, 2012
69
Appendices
1. Pressure & Temperature Data

• SAGD Producer Well
• SAGD Injector Well
• Heel & Toe Observation Wells
70
APPENDIX E
ERCB APPLICATION NO. 1741982
Page E-1
October 15, 2012
Energy Resources Conservation Board

Suite 1000, 250 – 5 Street SW
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2P 0R4
ATTN: Andrew MacPherson CC: Steve Thomas; Nicole Jones

Surveillance Section Leader Resource Applications Group
Oil Sands Branch Oil Sands Branch
ERCB ERCB
RE: Crude Bitumen Recovery Scheme No. 11522C

Category 1 Amendment Application
Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project
Request for Increase in Maximum Operating Steam Chamber Pressure
Under ERCB Directive 078 – Regulatory Application Process for Modifications to Commercial In
Situ Oil Sands Projects, BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) hereby makes Category 1
Amendment Application to Crude Bitumen Recovery Scheme No. 11522C for an increase to the
maximum operating steam chamber pressure (MOP).
As of October 8, 2012, the downhole steam chamber pressure of the operating Blackrod Pilot
Well Pair is summarized as follows:
• Lifetime Average = 2,665 kPa

• Maximum instantaneous = 3,115 kPa
• Current as of Oct 8, 2012 = 3,015 kPa
Following ERCB Approval of Application No. 1701450, the MOP for the Blackrod Pilot Project is
currently set at 3,400 kPa calculated as follows:
• MOP 1 = CPG 1 * D * SF
= 17.03 kPa/m * 250.0 mKB * 0.80
= 3,400 kPa
Where:
MOP 1 = Current Maximum Operating Steam Chamber Pressure

CPG 1 = Previously Reported Cap Rock Closure Pressure Gradient
D = Base of Cap Rock
SF = Safety Factor
As described in Application No. 1701450, the ultimate cap rock for the Blackrod Project is the
Joli Fou shale which is a dark gray, noncalcareous marine shale with a small proportion of
interbedded fine to medium-grained sandstone. The Joli Fou is laterally wide-ranging, extending
for hundreds of kilometers across Alberta. The regional extent and consistent petrophysical
characteristics of the Joli Fou formation are presented in the regional cross-section provided
herein as Attachment #1.
The Joli Fou closure pressure gradient (CPG 1 ) was determined by way of an open hole mini frac
test carried out on our 01-36-076-18W4 location in February, 2011, using Schlumberger’s
Modular Formation Dynamics Testing (MDT) tool. Through Schlumberger’s analysis of the mini
frac data, it was determined that the Joli Fou cap rock exhibited a minimum stress gradient
range of 17.03 kPa/m – 19.37 kPa/m.
As submitted in Application No. 1701450, BlackPearl reported the lower minimum stress
gradient of 17.03 kPa/m to the ERCB as the Joli Fou closure pressure gradient. During our
Annual Performance Presentation on November 29, 2011, representatives from the ERCB
commented that our Joli Fou closure pressure gradient of 17.03 kPa/m seemed low in
comparison to the Joli Fou data received from other thermal in-situ oil sands operators.
Specifically, Cenovus, who at their Pelican Lake Grand Rapids SAGD Pilot Project also refer to the
Joli Fou formation as their cap rock, reported a closure pressure gradient of 21.26 kPa/m.
Accordingly, in September 2012, BlackPearl sanctioned Schlumberger to conduct a

comprehensive review of the existing MDT mini-frac data as well as all other available
geomechanical data specific to the Joli Fou rock to determine if the reported closure pressure is,
in fact, depreciated at 17.03 kPa/m.
In summary of Schlumberger’s geomechanical analysis of the Blackrod Joli Fou cap rock included
herein as Attachment #2, previously unreleased Sonic Scanner data from the 01-36-076-18W4
location was processed to evaluate shear anisotropy and three dimensional mechanical
properties. This data was subsequently used to construct a Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) for
correlation to the existing MDT mini-frac data. Schlumberger’s work revealed that the upper
bound of the originally reported closure pressure gradient range, 19.37 kPa/m, is more reliable
and probable.
In light of Schlumberger’s updated geomechanical analysis, BlackPearl hereby requests

increasing the maximum steam chamber operating pressure (MOP) to 3900 kPa, which has
been calculated as follows:
• MOP 2 = CPG 2 * D * SF
= 19.4 kPa/m * 250.0 mKB * 0.80
= 3,900 kPa
Where:
MOP 2 = Maximum Operating Steam Chamber Pressure

CPG 2 = True Joli Fou Closure Pressure Gradient
D = Base of Joli Fou Cap Rock
SF = Safety Factor
Although we do not anticipate building the steam chamber to 3900 kPa for extended periods,
BlackPearl wishes to have the operational flexibility to trial higher steam injection rates as we
continue to gain an understanding of how to most efficiently optimize crude bitumen recovery
from the Lower Grand Rapids reservoir.
As per ERCB Directive 078 – Regulatory Application Process for Modifications to Commercial In
Situ Oil Sands Projects, BlackPearl interprets the Amendment Application provided herein as a
Category 1 Project Amendment for the following reasons:
• Resource conservation will not be adversely or materially affected. This is a Pilot

Project, and we are only now defining the operational parameters required to ensure
resource conservation and optimized recovery from the Lower Grand Rapids reservoir.
• The proposed increase in maximum steam chamber pressure does not require
supplemental steam generation, process, and handling equipment; therefore, the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts as described in BlackPearl’s Pilot
Applications and corresponding SIRs will not change.
• Stakeholder rights will not be adversely affected as a result of an increase in steam
chamber pressure.
• There will be no modification to the recovery process (SAGD technology will remain as
the recovery mechanism for bitumen production).
I trust you will find the foregoing information sufficient for ERCB processing. Your time in
reviewing this Application is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions or concerns,
please contact the undersigned at any time.
Heath Williamson, P. Eng.

Blackrod Pilot Asset Manager
700, 444 - 7th Ave SW
Calgary T2P 0X8
Office: (403) 215-6225
Cell: (403) 860-3482
Emergency (24 Hours): 1-866-640-3269
ATTACHMENT #1:
Joli Fou Regional Cross Section
Figure 1 – Joli Fou Regional Cross-section
ATTACHMENT #2:
Schlumberger Joli Fou Geomechanical Analysis
BRI_PORTAGE_1-36-76-18W4 Joli Fou
MDT Micro-Frac Closure Pressure Re-
Evaluation with Geomechanical Study
Prepared for
Prepared by
Schlumberger Canada Limited
Data and Consulting Services
October, 2012
DISCLAIMER
Disclaimer
ANY INTERPRETATION, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, DATA, RESULTS, ESTIMATES, OR

RECOMMENDATION FURNISHED WITH THE SERVICES OR OTHERWISE
COMMUNICATED BY SCHLUMBERGER TO CUSTOMER AT ANY TIME IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES ARE OPINIONS BASED ON INFERENCES FROM
MEASUREMENTS, EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND/OR ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH
INFERENCES, EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND/OR ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT
INFALLIBLE, AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH PROFESSIONALS IN THE INDUSTRY
MAY DIFFER. ACCORDINGLY, SCHLUMBERGER CANNOT AND DOES NOT WARRANT
THE ACCURACY, CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY SUCH
INTERPRETATION, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, DATA, RESULTS, ESTIMATES OR
RECOMMENDATION. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS ACCEPTING THE
SERVICES "AS IS", THAT SCHLUMBERGER MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR
WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION IN RESPECT
THERETO. SPECIFICALLY, CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SCHLUMBERGER
DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY INTERPRETATION, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, DATA,
RESULTS, ESTIMATES, OR RECOMMENDATION IS FIT FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COMPLIANCE WITH ANY
GOVERNMENT REQUEST OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENT. CUSTOMER FURTHER
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SUCH SERVICES ARE DELIVERED WITH THE EXPLICIT
UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN BASED ON THE
SERVICES RECEIVED SHALL BE AT ITS OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY AND NO
CLAIM SHALL BE MADE AGAINST SCHLUMBERGER AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF.
Page i
CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1-1

2. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................2-1
3. SonicScanner Processing .................................................................................................3-1
4. Mechanical Earth Modeling ...............................................................................................4-1
5. MDT Stress Test Re-Evaluation........................................................................................5-1
6. Report Preparation............................................................................................................6-1
Page ii
CONTENTS
List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Homogenous and Isotropic zone around 320 mkb. ............................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2. Homogenous and Isotropic zone just above 240 mkb. ......................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3. Inhomogeneous Anisotropic zone at 278m mkb.................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-4. Inhomogeneous Anisotropic zone at 309 mkb....................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-5. Intrinsic Anisotropic – fractured zone at 248-254 mkb. .......................................... 3-4
Figure 4-1. MEM workflow....................................................................................................... 4-1
Figure 4-2. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 1............................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-9. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 8............................................................. 4-10
Figure 4-10. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 9........................................................... 4-11
Figure 4-11. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 10......................................................... 4-12
Figure 5-1. Reconciliation plot of each fall off cycle................................................................. 5-2
Page iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Executive Summary
BlackPearl Resources Inc. is developing heavy oil in the Grand Rapids formation using steam
injection stimulation. Understanding of the in-situ stresses in the caprock is critical for
determining the operating pressures of steam injection. In February, 2011 a Schlumberger
Modular Dynamics Tester (MDT) tool was run in the BPI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18W4 well with the
objective of directly measuring the minimum in-situ stress (Micro-Frac test) or closure pressure
of the Joli Fou formation.
One successful measurement was performed at 254.5 mkb and the MDT measured pressures
indicate a minimum stress gradient range of 17.03 to 19.37 kPa/m. This is the minimum
pressure gradient required to propagate a hydraulic fracture. The vertical stress gradient,
derived by integrating bulk density, is ~21.17 kPa/m at the same depth.
BlackPearl reported the lower horizontal stress gradient of 17.03 kPa/m to the ERCB as the Joli
Fou closure pressure gradient for their Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project. Based on feedback from
the ERCB, and an evaluation of the other SAGD operations using the Joli Fou formation as the
caprock, BlackPearl suspected that the 17.03 kPa/m closure pressure gradient was too low for
the Joli Fou formation. As such, in September 2012, BlackPearl requested Schlumberger to
conduct a comprehensive review of the existing MDT data as well as other available geo-
mechanical data to further evaluate the Joli Fou rock and pinpoint its closure pressure gradient.
A Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) was constructed for the same well based on processed
SonicScanner* and other available data. Different scenarios of minimum and maximum
horizontal stress magnitudes were applied in the wellbore stability simulations and the simulated
wellbore failures were compared with the caliper logs. It was found that with the possible stress
contrast between the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses, the most probable range of
the minimum horizontal stress is 4.93 MPa to 5.4 MPa, the range of the minimum horizontal
stress gradient is 19.37 kPa/m to 21.22 kPa/m.
The MDT stress test was re-evaluated based on the stress analysis using MEM. It was
concluded that higher confidence should be put on the upper bound of the reported closure
pressure (4929 kPa). The corresponding closure pressure or minimum in-situ stress gradient is
between 19.37 kPa and 19.42 kPa/m.
Combining the findings from stress analysis based on the MEM, wellbore stability modeling and
the MDT stress measurement re-evaluation, it was concluded that the minimum horizontal
stress gradient of the Joli Fou formation should be 19.37 kPa/m or slightly greater.
*Mark of Schlumberger Page 1-1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2. Conclusions
Different horizontal stress scenarios were simulated based on mechanical earth modeling and
wellbore stability simulations using SonicScanner* data. It was concluded that with the possible
stress contrast between the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses, the most probable
range of the minimum horizontal stress is 4.93 MPa to 5.4 MPa, the equivalent range of the
minimum horizontal stress gradient is 19.37 kPa/m to 21.22 kPa/m. The re-evaluation of the
MDT stress testing data based on the stress analysis revealed that the upper bound of the
originally reported closure pressure gradient range (17.05 kPa/m to 19.37 kPa/m) is more
reliable, and the most probable closure pressure gradient ranges from 19.37 kPa/m to
19.42 kPa/m.
Combining the findings from stress analysis based on the MEM and wellbore stability modeling
and the MDT stress measurement re-evaluation, it was concluded that the minimum horizontal
stress gradient of the Joli Fou formation should be 19.37 kPa/m or slightly greater.

SONIC SCANNER PROCESSING
3. SonicScanner Processing
A SonicScanner* log was recorded on February 17, 2011 as part of the
BRI Portage 1-36-76-18W4 well data acquisition. A follow up study was performed to process
the SonicScanner data for shear anisotropy and three dimensional mechanical properties. The
SonicScanner analysis covers the 175 to 330 mkb interval.
The anisotropy analysis includes evaluating different characteristics of the sonic waveforms,
including compressional, fast and slow shear and stoneley waveforms:
Based on resultant processed data, a clean homogenous isotropic zone was identified at
320 mkb. Anisotropy analysis at this interval shows a small difference in the minimum and
maximum energy levels and also the fast and slow slownesses are overlying as shown in the
Dispersion Plot in Figure 3-1. This interval seems similar to the zone above 240 mkb
(Figure 3-2), where the energy levels are equal and any variations in the stress are caused by
the tool position in the borehole.
At 278 and 309 mkb as shown in Figures 3-3 and Figure 3-4, the fast shear wave is arriving
prior to the slow shear wave at low frequencies. As the frequency increases, the crossover of
the shear waves occurs, which is indicating stress-induced stress anisotropy in the N37°E
direction.
From 248 to 254 mkb, it appears there are pre-existing fractures near the borehole. In this
zone, the fast and slow shear waves are diminished as the shear waveform cannot travel
through the fractures (see Figure 3-5).
The three dimensional mechanical properties were also evaluated. This analysis determines
the mechanical properties of the rocks, to deliver vertical and horizontal Poisson’s Ratio and
Young’s Modulus (Figure 3-6). This information is used for the MEM construction.

Figure 3-1. Homogenous and Isotropic zone around 320 mkb.
Figure 3-2. Homogenous and Isotropic zone just above 240 mkb.
Page 3-2
Figure 3-3. Inhomogeneous Anisotropic zone at 278m mkb.
Figure 3-4. Inhomogeneous Anisotropic zone at 309 mkb.
Page 3-3
Figure 3-5. Intrinsic Anisotropic – fractured zone at 248-254 mkb.
Figure 3-6. Processed SonicScanner 3-D Rock Mechanical Properties and stress profile.
Page 3-4
MECHANICAL EARTH MODELING
4. Mechanical Earth Modeling

The MEM is a description of rock elastic and strength properties, in-situ stresses and pore
pressure as a function of depth, referenced to a stratigraphic column. Once a MEM is
constructed, it can be used for any geomechanical analysis. A typical workflow for MEM
construction is shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1. MEM workflow.
A MEM was constructed following the above workflow for Well BRI_PORTAGE_1-36-76-18.
The overburden stress was by integrating the bulk density log. Extrapolation of the density log
was used in the shallower formations where density log is not available. Pore pressure was
assumed to be normal pressure. Formation elastic and strength properties were determined
using sonic, bulk density and other logs. The direction of the maximum horizontal stress was
estimated to be N35°E based on the fast shear azimuth from SonicScanner shear anisotropy
analysis. The magnitudes of the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses were estimated
using the poro-elastic horizontal strain model (Eq.1 and Eq. 2).
Eh X v
V h V p V v V p Eh 2 H h Ehvh2 H H (1)
Ev 1 X h 1 vh 1 vh
Eh X v
V H V p V v V p Eh 2 H H Ehvh2 H h (2)
Ev 1 X h 1 vh 1 vh
In the above equations, V h is minimum horizontal stress, V H is maximum horizontal stress, V p

is pore pressure, Eh is Young’s modulus in the horizontal direction, Ev is Young’s modulus in
the vertical direction, X v is Poisson’s ratio in the vertical direction, X h is Poisson’s ratio in the
Page 4-1
horizontal direction, H h is tectonic strain in the minimum horizontal stress direction and H H is
tectonic strain in the maximum horizontal stress direction.
By changing the values of the tectonic strains in the above equations, different scenarios of
horizontal stresses were estimated for wellbore stability simulations. Because of the low
anisotropy between the fast shear slowness and slow shear slowness as observed from the
SonicScanner shear anisotropy analysis, large differences between the two horizontal stresses
are not expected.
Figures 4-2 to 4-11 display the wellbore stability simulations results with different horizontal
stress magnitude scenarios. No tectonic stresses were applied in stress scenario 1. In scenarios
2 to 5, the stress contrast between the two horizontal stresses is approximately the same. In
scenarios of 6 to 10, the stress contrast between the two horizontal stresses is approximately
the same but less than that in scenarios of 2 to 5. In all these figures, the first track is MD, the
second track shows the GR and the third track is TVD. The fourth track shows the magnitudes
of the pore pressure (PPRS), the minimum horizontal stress (Sigh), the maximum horizontal
stress (SigH) and the vertical stress (SigV). The fifth track displays the Poisson’s ratio (PR_sta),
friction angle (FANG), unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and tensile strength (TSTR). The
sixth tracks displays volume of clay. The seventh track shows the mud weight window and the
applied mud weight (MWTI) and approximate equivalent circulating density (ECD) which is
assumed to be the same as mud weight. The right boundary of the gray shaded area represents
the magnitude of the pore pressure gradient and the right boundary of the yellow shaded area
(red curve) is the minimum mud weight required for preventing borehole damage. The left
boundary of the light blue shaded area is the minimum horizontal stress gradient or the mud
loss mud weight and the left boundary of the dark blue shaded area is the formation breakdown
pressure gradient. The eighth track shows the simulated borehole damage. The ninth track
displays wellbore calipers (HD1 and HD2) and bit size (BS). The comparison between the
simulated borehole damage and the borehole calipers indicates whether the MEM is
representative of the formations or not.
Page 4-2
Figure 4-2. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 1, no tectonic stresses were applied, the
calculated minimum horizontal stress is typically a lower bound. At the depth of 254.5 m MD, the
minimum horizontal stress is 4.79 MPa and the stress gradient is 18.82 kPa/m. Comparison
between the simulated wellbore damage and calipers shows that, the wellbore damage
simulated underestimates the wellbore enlargement observed by caliper. This indicates that the
calculated horizontal stresses are too low.
Page 4-3
Figure 4-3. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 2, tectonic strains of 0 and 0.3 were applied
in the direction of the minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress respectively. At
the depth of 254.5 m MD, the minimum horizontal stress is 4.93 MPa and the stress gradient is
19.37 kPa/m. Comparison between the simulated wellbore damage and calipers shows that, the
wellbore damage simulated agrees with the wellbore enlargement observed by caliper
reasonably well. This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses are in the possible range.
Page 4-4
Figure 4-4. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 3, tectonic strains of 0.1 and 0.4 were applied
wellbore damage simulated agrees with the wellbore enlargement observed by caliper
reasonably well. This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses are in the possible range.
Page 4-5
wellbore damage simulated slightly over predicts the wellbore enlargement observed by caliper.
This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses could be slightly higher than what they
should be.
Page 4-6
wellbore damage simulated over predicts the wellbore enlargement observed by caliper. This
indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses could be higher than what they should be.
Page 4-7
Figure 4-7. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 6, tectonic strains of 0 and 0.15 were applied
wellbore damage simulated under predicts the wellbore enlargement observed by caliper. This
indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses could be lower than what they should be.
Page 4-8
Figure 4-8. Horizontal stress magnitudes scenario 7, tectonic strains of 0.1 and 0.25 were
applied in the direction of the minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress
respectively. At the depth of 254.5 m MD, the minimum horizontal stress is 5.04 MPa and the
stress gradient is 19.8 kPa/m. Comparison between the simulated wellbore damage and
calipers shows that the wellbore damage simulated slightly under predicts the wellbore
enlargement observed by caliper. This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses could be
slightly lower than what they should be.
Page 4-9
calipers shows that, the wellbore damage simulated agrees with the wellbore enlargement
observed by caliper reasonably well. This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses are in
the possible range.
Page 4-10
calipers shows that, the wellbore damage simulated agrees with the wellbore enlargement
observed by caliper reasonably well. This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses are in
the possible range.
Page 4-11
stress gradient is 21.92 kPa/m. Comparison between the simulated wellbore damage and of
calipers shows that the wellbore damage simulated over predicts the wellbore enlargement
observed by calipers. This indicates that the calculated horizontal stresses are too high.
Summarizing these different stress magnitude scenarios, it can be seen that the possible range
of the minimum horizontal stress magnitude at the depth of the 254.5 m MD is 4.93 MPa to 5.4
MPa and the equivalent stress gradient range is 19.37 kPa/m to 21.22 kPa/m.
Different contrast between the two horizontal stresses will result in a different range for the
minimum horizontal stress magnitude. However, based on the low shear slowness anisotropy,
we believe that the simulated horizontal stress contrasts are representative.
Page 4-12
MDT STRESS TEST RE-EVALUATION
5. MDT Stress Test Re-Evaluation
Based on the new information obtained from the new stress analysis and review of the MDT
micro-frac it is observed that the stress from the MEM is higher than originally reported and
correspond to the upper bound of the reported range (4929 kPa) that was identified in the initial
report.
The additional SonicScanner measurement and stress analysis provides the evidence needed
to place confidence in the higher reported MDT closure pressure of 4929 kPa. Based on the
MDT and stress analysis performed in this study, the recommended closure pressure is within
the range of 4929 to 4942 kPa with a gradient of 19.37 to 19.42 kPa/m. The table below
summarizes the closure pressures at each fall off cycle. Figure 5-1 shows the reconciliation plot.
Page 5-1
MDT STRESS TEST RE-EVALUATION
Figure 5-1. Reconciliation plot of each fall off cycle
Page 5-2
REPORT PREPARATION
6. Report Preparation
The Schlumberger Canada Limited technical staff members responsible for the preparation of
this report entitled “BRI_PORTAGE_1-36-76-18W4 Joli Fou MDT Micro-Frac Closure Pressure
Re-Evaluation with Geomechanical Study” were:
___________________________
Peter Lywood
Senior Log Analyst
___________________________
David Brooke
Petrophysicist
___________________________
Li Qiuguo
Senior Geomechanics Engineer
___________________________
Nader Khosravi
Geomechanics and Petrophysics Team Lead
Page 6-1
Company BLACKPEARL RESOURCES
INC.
Well Name BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18
Field Name PORTAGE
Field Location 1-36-76-18W4
Unique Well 1AA/01-36-076-18W4/00

Identification
Engineer's Name BRIAN KING
Date 17-FEB-2011
Report Date 7-Mar-2011
Report By Peter Lywood / Vinay Mishra
Revised Report Date 10-Oct-2012
Revised Report (Oct 2012) Innovations in Formation

Testing
Mini Frac Analysis
PD Plot 7
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 2 of 40 Ver 7.0.134 10/10/2012
Table of Content:
0- Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 2
1- Job Set Up .................................................................................................................................................. 2
2- Tool string................................................................................................................................................... 3
3- Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 4
4- Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................. 4
5- Terminology ............................................................................................................................................... 6
6- In-Situ Stress Summary Table ................................................................................................................. 8
7- Mini Fracture at 254.5 m MD, File 057. .................................................................................................... 9
DISCLAIMER
ANY INTERPRETATION, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, DATA, RESULTS, ESTIMATES, OR RECOMMENDATION FURNISHED WITH THE
SERVICES OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATED BY SCHLUMBERGER TO CUSTOMER AT ANY TIME IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SERVICES ARE OPINIONS BASED ON INFERENCES FROM MEASUREMENTS, EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND/OR ASSUMPTIONS,
WHICH INFERENCES, EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND/OR ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE, AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
PROFESSIONALS IN THE INDUSTRY MAY DIFFER. ACCORDINGLY, SCHLUMBERGER CANNOT AND DOES NOT WARRANT THE
ACCURACY, CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY SUCH INTERPRETATION, RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, DATA, RESULTS,
ESTIMATES OR RECOMMENDATION. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS ACCEPTING THE SERVICES "AS IS", THAT
SCHLUMBERGER MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION IN RESPECT
THERETO, AND THAT SUCH SERVICES ARE DELIVERED WITH THE EXPLICIT UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT THAT ANY ACTION
TAKEN BASED ON THE SERVICES RECEIVED SHALL BE AT ITS OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY AND NO CLAIM SHALL BE MADE
AGAINST SCHLUMBERGER AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF. THESE INTERPRETATIONS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO GENERAL TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS SET OUT IN OUR CURRENT PRICE SCHEDULE.
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 1 of 38 10/10/2012

0- Executive Summary
In Feb, 2011 a Schlumberger Modular Dynamics Tester (MDT) tool was run in the BPI PORTAGE 1-
36-76-18 well with the objective of directly measuring the in-situ minimum horizontal stress (Mini
Frac test) or “closure pressure” of the Joli Fou formation and confirm the orientation of this stress.
The minimum horizontal stress is the force that must be overcome to create a vertical fracture.
One successful measurement was performed at 254.5 mkb and the MDT measured pressures
indicate a minimum horizontal stress gradient range of 17.03 to 19.37 kPa/m. This is the minimum
pressure gradient required to create a vertical fracture, under similar reservoir condition (e.g.
temperature).
The minimum vertical stress gradient, derived from the measured bulk density, is ~21.17 kPa/m,
which is the minimum stress gradient required to create a horizontal fracture.
The objective to measure the minimum horizontal stress or closure pressure of the formation and
to confirm that a vertical fracture orientation was propagated during the “Mini Frac” test was
achieved.
BlackPearl reported the lower horizontal stress gradient of 17.03 kPa/m to the ERCB as the Joli
Fou Closure Pressure Gradient for their Blackrod SAGD Pilot Project. Based on feedback from the
ERCB, and an evaluation of the other SAGD operations using the Joli Fou formation as cap rock,
BlackPearl suspected that the 17.03 kPa/m closure pressure gradient was too low for the Joli Fou
formation. As such in Sept, 2012, BlackPearl requested Schlumberger to conduct a
comprehensive review of the existing MDT data as well as other available geo-mechanical data to
further evaluate the Joli Fou rock and pinpoint its closure pressure gradient.
This report has been reviewed with the client and the results and content agreed upon.
1- Job Set Up
A Modular Dynamics Tester (MDT) tool was run in 222 mm open hole.
The following tool modules were used to perform the in-situ stress test measurements.
Packer module (MRPA):

A single packer module was used to perform a “sleeve fracture” in the formation.
A dual packer module was used to perform leak off test and in-situ stress tests.
Pump out Module:
The PO module was used to pump the fracturing fluid between the dual packers to create the
hydraulic mini fractures in the formation. PO module is also used to inflate or deflate the packer
elements.
Sample Chamber Modules:
Two 1 gallon chambers used as exit ports, two 2.75 gallon and one 6 gallon chambers were used
to store the fracture fluid (hydraulic oil). If Flow back is required, it is achieved by pump reversal to
force a fracture closed.
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 2 of 38 10/10/2012

2- Tool string
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 3 of 38 10/10/2012

3- Methodology
The MDT (Modular Dynamics Tester) is a “Formation Testing Tool” that has the capability of
directly measuring the in-situ stresses of a formation, of which the most important is the minimum
stress. The MDT with Dual Packer Module has the ability to seal a section of formation between
two inflatable packers, inject fluid between these packers until a fracture (hydraulic fracture) is
created and propagated in the formation. During all phases of this process, the tool is measuring
the pressure during and after the injection period. In theory this fracture grows normal to the
direction of the minimum stress. If the minimum stress (in unaltered rock) is in the vertical
direction (overburden) the fracture will propagate horizontally. If the minimum stress is in the
horizontal direction the fracture will propagate vertically.
In the case of cap rock integrity analysis the objective is to determine the minimum pressure
(minimum horizontal stress) required to create a vertical fracture in the sealing cap rock of a
producing formation. To ensure that the MDT is measuring the minimum horizontal stress or
“Closure Pressure”, a vertical fracture must first be initiated. To create this initial vertical fracture
a ”Sleeve Frac” is typically performed. This involves (1) setting a single inflatable packer over the
desired section of formation and (2) increasing the inflation pressure until a formation alteration is
achieved. In theory, the “Sleeve Frac” will create a small fracture aligned with the axis of the
borehole. The MDT tool is then moved in the borehole so the dual packer portion of the tool
straddles the newly created fracture. After straddling the “Sleeve Frac” interval, the dual packers
are inflated, sealing the section of formation between them from the borehole. Fluid is injected
between the packers and into the newly created axial fracture. This causes the fracture to open
and propagate. After a desired injection time (usually 5 to 15 minutes), the injection is stopped
allowing the fracture to close. The pressure during the fracture closure process is analyzed and a
“Closure Pressure” or minimum horizontal stress is determined.
4- Interpretation
The pressure during the fracture closure process is analyzed and a “Closure Pressure” can be
determined using several published methods including the Square Root of Time Plot or “G”
Function plot. The injection and fall off process is repeated several times until the Closure
Pressure has repeated from one cycle to the next. Once “Closure Pressure” repeatability is
achieved along with meaningful result it can be said that an estimate of the far field minimum
stress has been measured by the MDT.
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 4 of 38 10/10/2012

Hydraulic fracturing break down pressure and subsequent propagation pressure (2 cycles)
Closure Pressure Analysis using Sqrt Delta Time Plot
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 5 of 38 10/10/2012

5- Terminology
Sleeve Fracture
In order to pre-fracture the formation a “Sleeve Fracture” is performed in the zone of interest by
inflating the single packer. This is performed by pumping fluid into the packer to initiate a defect in
the formation (formation alteration). The intention of this Sleeve Fracture is to assist in the
creation of a vertical fracture during the hydraulic fracture cycle. The hydrostatic mud column
pressure plus the internal packer alteration pressure is reported as the Sleeve Frac pressure.
Hydraulic Fracture
In order to perform a mini-frac test, a portion of the wellbore, the interval, was isolated by inflating
the straddle packer arrangement. The interval was then pressurized by pumping fluid until a
tensile fracture begins. In open hole, the fracture initiates and propagates normal to the minimum
stress. In practice, however, such a breakdown was not always observed. After the initial
breakdown, the injection was continued until the pressure stabilizes. The injection was then
stopped and the pressure allowed to decay to a pressure level that ensures that the fracture
closes. The value of the stress acting normal to the fracture surface was determined by
monitoring the initiation, propagation, closure, and reopening of the induced fracture. In general
the fracture grows perpendicularly to the direction of the minimum stress.
Leak-Off Test (LOT)

The objective of the LOT is to evaluate the rate at which the injected fluid leaks-off into the
formation. The LOT can indicate if the formation permeability is low enough and the tool pump rate
high enough to build the pressure required for fracturing of the formation. A linear pressure
increase while pumping the fluid between the packers suggests there is only a small amount of
leak-off into the formation or low formation permeability.
Reopening Tests
Reopening tests are performed to reopen the induced fractures several times. The pressure rise is
linear until the fracture reopens. The reopening pressure is normally an upper bound of minimum
horizontal stress.
Closure Tests (Fall Off Test)

After the initial breakdown, the injection is continued until the pressure stabilizes. The injection is
then stopped and the pressure is allowed to decay to a pressure level that ensures that the
fracture closes. The pressure at which this happens is the Fracture Closure Pressure.
Once confirmation (repeated closure pressures beyond the influence of wellbore effects) that the
stress test is indeed measuring the formation closure pressure, several documented methods can
be used to identify closure pressure, of these methods, the square root of time plot has been
chosen for this interpretation. Depending on the fracture closure behavior the square root of time
plot may have a sharp or gradual inflexion. Accordingly some uncertainty may be associated with
the identification of closure pressure. The possible closure pressure range along with the
pressure deemed to best represent closure for a test is presented in the In-Situ Stress Summary
table. In this case, the decision on the number of Closure Tests performed per depth was made in
real time by the client at the wellsite.
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 6 of 38 10/10/2012

Flow-back / Pressure Rebound
Fracture closure was not always possible in very low permeable formations or in impermeable
shales by stopping injection. The fracture may need to be closed by the help of drawing out fluid
from the interval. This can be done by pumping out from the interval or by the help of creating
drawdown with a sample chamber.
After fluid injection was stopped, fluid was quickly withdrawn from the fracture so that it closes in
the vicinity of the well while the rest of the fracture was still pressurized open. Fluid withdrawal
was then stopped so that the fracture produces back to the wellbore, resulting in a pressure
rebound. A rebound to a pressure level much higher than the mud pressure was a good indicator
that a hydraulic fracture had indeed been created and was therefore very useful for quality
control of the test.
Reconciliation Plot
No single parameter (closure pressure, ISIP, etc.) determined on a single hydraulic fracturing
cycle is a good enough estimate for the closure stress. Once each event has been analyzed
separately comes the task of interpreting the entire stress test record to determine the best
possible estimate of closure stress. All estimates are plotted for every event along the time axis in
a reconciliation plot. The reconciliation plot allows checking indirectly but efficiently that the
fracture has grown out of the influence of the wellbore. The far field stress has been measured
when the closure pressure stops varying from one cycle to the next.
Formation Interval’s
Name Top (mTVD)
Viking 105.5
Joli Fou 220.0
Upper Grande Rapids 262.5
Capping Shale 301.0
Lower Grande Rapids Unit #1 306
Lower Grande Rapids Unit #2 331.5
Lower Grande Rapids Unit #3 334.5
Lower Grande Rapids Unit #3 Base 350.5
Clearwater 366.0
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 7 of 38 10/10/2012

6- In-Situ Stress Summary Table
Closure Sonic Sonic

Breakdown / Re- Fracture Initial Closure Closure Pressure Closure Scanner Scanner Overburden
Sleeve Frac Opening Growth Shut-in Pressure Pressure Gradient Pressure Closure Stress Stress
Test/File Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Minimum Minimum Max Maximum Pressure Gradient Gradient
Number (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa/m) (kPa/m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa/m) (kPa/m)
In-Situ Stress Test at 254.5 m MD (Page X)

lot #1, 057
lot #2, 057
lot #3, 057
Fall Off # 1, 057 12665 9591 9541.8
Fall Off # 2, 057 9808 10065 10054
Fall Off # 3, 057 10058 10414 10309 9227.0 36.26 37.78 9615
Fall Off # 4, 057 8770 9985 9930 7954.0 31.25 36.07 9180
Fall Off # 5, 057 6621 7039 6494 5343 20.99 22.82 5808
Fall Off # 6, 057 5260 5554 5515 4429 17.40 19.72 5020
Fall Off # 7, 057 4782 5128 3486
Fall Off # 8, 057 5839 5925 5661 4335 17.03 19.37 4929 4942 19.42 21.17
Best Estimate Closure 4335 17.03 19.37 4929
No valid closure pressure obtained

Low confidence result.
Best estimate closure pressure.
New Findings (Oct, 2012)
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 8 of 38 10/10/2012

7- Mini Fracture at 254.5 m MD, File 057.
No Sleeve Frac was performed at this depth.
Three LOT’s were performed, LOT test 1, 2 and 3, performed prior to the initial breakdown indicate
the formation is taking fluid at a consistent low rate (low permeability) and therefore hydraulic
fracturing of the formation should be achievable.
After the LOT tests, J-13 hydraulic oil fracturing fluid carried in a sample chamber was pumped
between the packers to initiate the formation breakdown. Initial formation break down pressure
was observed to be 12665 kPa with a gradient of 49.76 kPa/m. Borehole mud was used as injection
fluid during cycles 3 and 5.
Comments
- A total of eight cycles were performed at this depth.
- No closure observed in cycles 1 to 4.
- Stress regime change observed between cycle 4 and 5.
- Closure observed in cycles 5, 6 and 8.
- Lost seal during cycle 7.
- Final MDT best estimate closure pressure gradient is 19.37 kPa/m.
- A repeat of the closure pressure during Fall Off 6 and 8 at ~4929 kPa indicates an estimate
of the far field stress has been measured.
- The density derived overburden gradient is 21.17 kPa/m.
Conclusions (Mar, 2011)

A formation breakdown in Fall Off cycle 1 followed by relatively high pressures during fall off
cycles 1 to 4 may indicate a fracture propagating in the region of hoop stress. A change to a lower
stress regime is then observed between cycle 4 and 5. A second change in stress regime is then
observed between cycle 5 and 6 to a fracture that is propagating perpendicular to the horizontal
stress (vertical fracture). The vertical fracture closure is repeated in cycle 6 and 8 with a gradient
of 17.0 to 17.4 kPa/m providing confidence that the far field minimum horizontal stress has been
successfully measured.
Conclusion Revision (Oct, 2012)

The revised conclusions are based on the analysis of additional information obtained after the
initial MDT report was released in March of 2011. The source of the additional information is
based on the Mechanical Earth Modeling (MEM) of the Sonic Scanner data which was acquired
in February of 2011. This subsequent review of the MDT micro-frac data is based on present
knowledge and experience, combining the additional Sonic Scanner processing and MEM
performed in October of 2012.
Based on the new information obtained from the Sonic Scanner processing, MEM and review of
the MDT micro-frac it is observed that the rock properties are higher than originally reported and
correspond to the higher range (4929 kpa) that was identified in the initial report.
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 9 of 38 10/10/2012

In conclusion, the additional Sonic Scanner measurement provides the evidence needed to place
confidence in the higher reported MDT closure pressure of 4929 kPa. Based on the MDT and
Sonic Scanner measurements the recommended closure pressure is within the range of 4929 to
4942 kpa with a gradient of 19.37 to 19.42 kPa/m.
Reconciliation Plot
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 10 of 38 10/10/2012

History plot
Company BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC. Field PORTAGE
Well BPI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 Test Name / # FILE 053, 257.5 M
14000
10000
[kPa]
6000
2000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Pressure [kPa], Liquid rate [l/min] vs Time [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 11 of 38 10/10/2012

Log-Log plot LOT 1
Well BPI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 Test Name / # FILE 057 254.4 M
1000
p-p@dt=0 and derivative [kPa]
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 12 of 38 10/10/2012

Log-Log plot LOT 2
1000
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 13 of 38 10/10/2012

Log-Log plot LOT 3
1000
100
10
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 14 of 38 10/10/2012

History plot FALL OFF 1
12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 15 of 38 10/10/2012

Log-Log plot FALL OFF 1
10000
No indication of closure
1000
100
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 16 of 38 10/10/2012

Square root plot FALL OFF 1
9500
9000 No closure observed

p [kPa]
8500
8000
-30 -28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18

MR Sup[sqrt(dt)] [sec**0.5]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 17 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 18 of 38 10/10/2012

10000
1000
100
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 19 of 38 10/10/2012

9900
9400
No closure observed
p [kPa]
8900
8400
-28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 20 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 21 of 38 10/10/2012

10000
1000
49.9 sec dt
28.98 sec dt
100
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 22 of 38 10/10/2012

Line #1 (BRI_PORTAGE_1-36-76-18_MDT_057LTP_V2 FALL OFF 3)

9406 kPa, 36.96 kPa/m

28.98 sec dt
MAX
9500 9227 kPa, 36.26 kPa/m

49.9 sec dt
MIN
p [kPa]
8500
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 23 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 24 of 38 10/10/2012

10000
1000
422.6 sec dt
100
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 25 of 38 10/10/2012


9800
MAX
8800
p [kPa]
7954 KPA, 31.3 KPA/M

422.6 sec dt
MIN
7800
-34 -30 -26 -22 -18

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 26 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 27 of 38 10/10/2012

1000
100
24.9 sec dt
39 sec dt
10
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 28 of 38 10/10/2012


6300
Closure Pressure Picked at 5808 kPa,

22.82 kPa/m
p [kPa]
5900
MAX
5378 kPa, 21.13 kPa/m

5464 kPa, 21.47 kPa/m 39 sec dt
24.96 sec dt
5500 5343 kPa
MIN
-32 -30 -28 -26 -24 -22 -20 -18

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 29 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 30 of 38 10/10/2012

1000
100
9.98 sec dt 49.98 sec dt
66.0 sec dt
10
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 31 of 38 10/10/2012


5500
5300
Closure Picked at 5020 kPa, 19.72 kPa/m

9.98 sec dt
5100
MAX
p [kPa]
4900
4473 kPa, 17.58 kPa/m

49.98 dec dt
4700
4429 kPa, 17.4 kPa/m

66.0 sec dt
4500
MIN
-34 -32 -30 -28 -26 -24

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 32 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 33 of 38 10/10/2012

1000
100
4.99 sec dt
10
1 10 100 1000 10000

dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 34 of 38 10/10/2012

3500 Line #8 (BRI_PORTAGE_1-36-76-18_MDT_057LTP_V2 FALL OFF 7)
3320 kPa, 13.05 kPa/m

4.99 sec dt
3300
Lost seal,
no valid pressure obtained
p [kPa]
3100
2900
-36 -34 -32 -30 -28 -26 -24

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 35 of 38 10/10/2012

12000
8000
[kPa]
4000
-0.5
[l/min]
-1
-1.5
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 36 of 38 10/10/2012

10000
1000
30.0 sec dt
12.97 sec dt 52 sec dt
100
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
dt [sec]
BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 37 of 38 10/10/2012


5400
Closure Picked at 4929 kPa, 19.37 kPa/m

12.97 sec dt
5000
p [kPa]
MAX
4575 kPa, 17.98 kPa/m
30.0 sec dt
4335 kPa, 17.03 kPa/m

4600 75.0 dec dt
MIN
-32 -31 -30 -29 -28 -27 -26 -25 -24

BRI PORTAGE 1-36-76-18 38 of 38 10/10/2012

1.0 Project Update
3.0 References
Project
Update
1.0 General
2.0 Geology
4.0 Facilities
ERCB SIR 1 5.0

6.0
Environment
References
Responses
1.0 General
2.0 Air
3.0 Water
4.0 Terrestrial
5.0 Health
6.0 Approvals
AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project AESRD SIR 1 Responses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Public Engagement and Aboriginal Consultation................................................................ 1
1.2 Emergency Response Plan ................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Waste Management ............................................................................................................ 8
1.4 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 12
2.0 AIR ................................................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Emissions Management .................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Dispersion Modelling ......................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Air Quality Assessment ..................................................................................................... 23
3.0 WATER .......................................................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Water Management........................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................... 30
3.3 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 76
3.4 Surface Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 81
3.5 Aquatics ............................................................................................................................ 93
4.0 TERRESTRIAL ............................................................................................................................ 123
4.1 Land Use and Land Management................................................................................... 123
4.2 Conservation and Reclamation ....................................................................................... 137
4.3 Terrain and Soils ............................................................................................................. 194
4.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 283
4.5 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 290
5.0 HEALTH ....................................................................................................................................... 340
6.0 APPROVALS ............................................................................................................................... 368
6.1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ........................................................... 368
6.1.1 General .............................................................................................................. 368
6.1.2 Air ....................................................................................................................... 370
6.1.3 Conservation and Reclamation .......................................................................... 371
6.2 Water Act ........................................................................................................................ 393
7.0 ERRATA ....................................................................................................................................... 394
8.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 405
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Updated LCCS Worksheets ..................................................................................................... A‐1
Page i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 7-1 Blackrod Commerical SAGD Project Post-FEED Water Block Flow Diagram
SAGD Base Case ......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 20-1 Surface Water Withdrawal Locations ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 23-1 Water Level and Temperature in MW LGR 3-36 ..................................................................... 35
Figure 23-2 Water Level and Temperature in MW LGR 14-25 ................................................................... 36
Figure 23-3 Water Level in MW VIK 15-25 .................................................................................................... 37
Figure 42-1 Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Network ............................................................................... 63
Figure 42-2 Groundwater Contour Map – May 2012 .................................................................................... 66
Figure 42-3 Groundwater Contour Map – November 2012...................................................................67
Figure 53-1 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations for Monitoring Program .................................... 84
Figure 62-1 Watercourses with Defined Channel and 100 m Buffer .......................................................... 95
Figure 64-1 Vehicle Crossing – Typical Ramp and Culvert......................................................................... 99
Figure 64-2 Vehicle Crossing – Typical Bridge ........................................................................................... 100
Figure 64-3 Aerial Pipeline Crossing ............................................................................................................ 101
Figure 83-1 Existing Disturbances in the Project Area .............................................................................. 124
Figure 97-1 Aggregate and Borrow Mater Sources and Stockpile Locations ......................................... 138
Figure 100-1 Baseline Land Capability Classification in the LSA ............................................................... 144
Figure 100-2 Post Closure Land Capability Classification in the LSA ....................................................... 145
Figure 101-1 Conceptual Borrow Pit Construction and Reclamation: Upland Self-Draining
Borrow Pit .................................................................................................................................... 147
Figure 101-2 Conceptual Borrow Pit Construction and Reclamation: Internally Draining
Borrow Pit Upland Environment ............................................................................................... 148
Figure 101-3 Conceptual Borrow Pit Construction and Reclamation: Upland and Wetland
Soils Borrow Pit .......................................................................................................................... 149
Figure 101-4 Conceptual Access Road Construction and Reclamation: Wetland
Environment and Shallow Peat (<40 cm) ............................................................................... 150
Figure 101-5 Conceptual Access Road Construction and Reclamation: Upland
Environment ................................................................................................................................ 151
Figure 101-6 Conceptual Acces Road Construction and Reclamation: Deep Peat
Environment ................................................................................................................................ 152
Figure 101-7 Conceptual CPF Construction and Reclamation ................................................................... 153
Figure 112-1 Conceptual Well Pad Construction and Reclamation: Floating Pad Design –
Deep Peat .................................................................................................................................... 188
Figure 119-1 Project Area and Soils Local Study Area ................................................................................ 199
Figure 120-1 LIDAR Imagery ........................................................................................................................... 201
Figure 123-1 Critical Load Exceedance and Potential Acid Input in the LSA and RSA for
the Baseline Case ...................................................................................................................... 205
Figure 123-2 Potential Acid Input and Soil Map Units in the LSA and RSA for the Baseline
Case Index Map ......................................................................................................................... 206
the Application Case .................................................................................................................. 225
Figure 123-4 Potential Acid Input and Soil Map Units in the LSA and RSA for the
Application Index Map ............................................................................................................... 226
Figure 123-5 Highest Potential Acid Input Levels and Soil Map Units in the LSA and RSA
for the Application Case ............................................................................................................ 245
the Planned Development Case .............................................................................................. 246
Figure 123-7 Potential Acid Input and Soil Map Units in the LSA and RSA for the Planned
Development Case Index Map ................................................................................................. 247
Figure 123-8 Highest Potential Acid Input Levels and Soil Map Units in the LSA and RSA
for the Planned Development Case ......................................................................................... 266
Page ii
Figure 128-1 Surficial Geology of the Soils LSA and RSA .......................................................................... 270

Figure 136-1 AVI Available within Wildlife RSA and Vegetation RSA ....................................................... 289
Figure 156-1 Conceptual Schematic of Over Pipe Wildlife Crossing ......................................................... 315
Figure 161-1 Change in Western Toad Habitat Availability from Baseline to Application
Case in the LSA .......................................................................................................................... 321
Figure 162-1 Western Toad Breeding Pool Locations ................................................................................. 324
Figure 164-1 Change in Moose Habitat Availability from Baseline to Application Case in
the LSA HSI Moose Model ........................................................................................................ 330
Figure 164-2 Change in Moose Habitat Availability from Baseline to Application Case to
PDC in the LSA HSI Moose Model .......................................................................................... 331
Figure 166-1 Results for the old-forest bird habitat suitability model validation showing
mean probabilities and 95% confidence limits ....................................................................... 336
Figure 166-2 Results for the beaver habitat suitability model validation showing mean
probabilities and 95% confidence limits .................................................................................. 337
Figure 166-3 Results for the moose habitat suitability model validation based on the RSA
HSI model, showing mean probabilities and 95% confidence limits ................................... 338
Figure 174-1 Predicted Annual PM2.5 Concentrations for the Application Case ..................................... 346
Figure 193-1 Soil Inspection Sites, Soil Map Units and Project Footprint Within the LSA ...................... 374
Figure 201-1 Topsoil Replacement Thickness .............................................................................................. 392
Figure 219-1 HHRA Recptors in the LSA ....................................................................................................... 401
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11-1 Maximum Predicted Total Reduced Sulphur Substance Concentrations for
HHRA Receptors .......................................................................................................................... 15
Table 16-1 Calmet Model Option Group 5: Wind Field Options and Parameters ................................... 20
Table 16-2 Calmet Model Option Group 6: Mixing Height, Temperature and Precipitation
Parameters .................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 16-3 Calpuff Model Options Groups 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... 21
Table 16-4 Calpuff Model Options Groups 3 and 4 ..................................................................................... 21
Table 16-5 Calpuff Model Option Groups 6 and 7 ....................................................................................... 22
Table 16-6 Calpuff Model Option Groups 8, 9, 10, and 11 ........................................................................ 22
Table 16-7 Calpuff Model Option Group 12 ................................................................................................. 22
Table 41-1 Major Ions and General Chemical Parameters ........................................................................ 57
Table 41-2 Total Metals and Trace Elements .............................................................................................. 58
Table 41-3 Organic Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 60
Table 42-1 Water Level and Field Paramater Data ..................................................................................... 64
Table 42-2 Major Ions and General Chemical Parameters ........................................................................ 68
Table 42-3 Total Metals and Trace Elements .............................................................................................. 70
Table 42-4 Organic Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 71
Table 42-5 Nitrogen and Phosphate Parameters ........................................................................................ 73
Table 56-1 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations for the Monitoring Program.............................. 87
Table 56-2 Surface Water Quality Parameters to be Analyzed During the Monitoring
Program ......................................................................................................................................... 87
Table 56-3 Summary of the Potential Disturbaces on Surface Water ...................................................... 88
Table 56-4 Summary of the Monitoring Program Objectives ..................................................................... 89
Table 57-1 Surface Water Quality Guidelines for the Monitoring Program ............................................. 90
Table 81-1 Summary of Fish Habitat Potential Ratings for Sites Within the Aquatic
Ecology LSA ................................................................................................................................ 119
Table 87-1 Construction Camp Population ................................................................................................. 127
Table 87-2 Operation Camp Population ..................................................................................................... 127
Table 92-1 Baseline Exploration-Related Disturbance Conducted for the Project ............................... 131
Page iii
Table 98-1 Conservation and Reclamation Plan Uncertainties ............................................................... 139

Table 99-1 Facility Construction and Reclamation Schedule .................................................................. 141
Table 103-1 Mineral Soil and Organic Peat Topsoil Salvage Guidelines for Project
Developments Within the LSA .................................................................................................. 156
Table 103-2 Topsoil Balance for the Project ................................................................................................ 157
Table 105-1 Estimates of Borrow Pit Overburden Material ........................................................................ 167
Table 106-1 Subsoil Salvage Guidelines for the Project Deveolpments Within the LSA ...................... 169
Table 106-2 Subsoil Balance for the Project ................................................................................................ 170
Table 109-1 Project Facilities in Upland and Lowland with Corresponding Proposed
Reclamation Type ...................................................................................................................... 181
Table 114-1 Land Capability Classification Ratings in the Soils LSA ....................................................... 192
Table 114-2 Land Capability Classification in the Soils LSA ..................................................................... 193
Table 122-1 Required Soil Inspection Densities for a Pre-Disturbance Assessment ............................ 204
Table 129-1 Revised Key to Abbreviations Used in Tables 4A1-2 to 4A1-35 ......................................... 271
Table 131-1 Inspection Site and Profile Information ................................................................................... 273
Table 159-1 Comparison of Baseline HSI Moose Model Outputs for the LSA and RSA
Within the Area of the Central Processing Facility ................................................................ 318
Table 162-1 Location of Confirmed Western Toad Breeding Pools ......................................................... 322
Table 164-1 Suitability Ratings by ELC for the LSA Winter Moose Model .............................................. 328
Table 164-2 Moose Habitat Suitability Within the 1 km LSA Based on the LSA Habitat
Suitability Index Model ............................................................................................................... 329
Table 166-1 Method Used to Assess Model Fit ........................................................................................... 333
Table 171-1 Comparison of Maximum Predicted Air Concentrations to Exposure Limits ..................... 343
Table 174-1 Chronic Multiple Pathway Exposure RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ..................................................................................................................... 347
Table 174-2 Chronic Multiple Pathway Exposure ILCR Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................................. 348
Table 174-3 Chronic Multiple Pathway Exposure RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Mixtures) ..................................................................................................................................... 348
Table 175-1 Maximum Acute Inhalation Air Concentrations for the MPOI [ug/m3] ................................. 348
Table 175-2 Maximum Acute Inhalation Air Concentrations for the Aboriginal Group
[ug/m3] .......................................................................................................................................... 349
Table 175-3 Maximum Acute Inhalation Air Concentrations for the Worker Group [ug/m3] .................. 350
Table 175-4 Maximum Chronic Inhalation Air Concentrations for the Aboriginal Group
(Non-Carcinogens) [ug/m3] ....................................................................................................... 351
Table 175-5 Maximum Chronic Inhalation Air Concentrations for the Worker Group (Non-
Carcinogens) [ug/m3] ................................................................................................................. 352
Table 175-6 Chronic Inhalation Air Concentrations for the Aboriginal Group (Carcinogens)
[ug/m3] .......................................................................................................................................... 352
Table 175-7 Chronic Inhalation Air Concentrations for the Worker Group (Carcinogens)
[ug/m3] .......................................................................................................................................... 353
Table 176-1 Physical Parameters for Lake D2-1 ......................................................................................... 355
Table 176-2 Runoff Load Parameters ........................................................................................................... 355
Table 176-3 Parameters for Soil Erosion ...................................................................................................... 355
Table 176-4 Surface Water Loss Constant Assumed for COPC [Years] ................................................. 355
Table 176-5 Predicted Surface Water Concentrations Based on Contribution of
Atmospheric Deposition, Runoff and Soil Erosion for Each Assessment Case
[mg/L] ........................................................................................................................................... 356
Table 176-6 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway RQ Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Non-Carcinogens) ..................................................................................................................... 357
Table 176-7 Chronic Multiple Exposure Pathway ILCR Values for the Aboriginal Group
(Carcinogens) ............................................................................................................................. 358
Page iv
Table 177-1 Maximum Chronic MPOI, Aboriginal, Worker and RSA Receptor Inhalation
ILCR Values for Formaldehyde and Naphthalene ................................................................. 361
Table 177-2 Summary of Carcinogenic Exposure Limits for Formaldehyde and
Naphthalene ................................................................................................................................ 361
Table 178-1 Relative Potency of Individual Pahs Compared with Benzo(A)Pyrene .............................. 362
Table 179-1 Summary of Route-Specific Trvs for COPCs Assessed in the Multiple
Pathway Assessment ................................................................................................................ 363
Table 179-2 Predicted Route-Specific and Total RQ Values for the Aromatic C9-C16 Group
for the Resident and Worker Group ......................................................................................... 364
Table 179-3 Predicted Route-Specific and Total RQ Values for Aluminum for the Resident
and Worker Group ...................................................................................................................... 364
Table 179-4 Predicted Route-Specific and Total RQ Values for Lead for the Resident and
Worker Group ............................................................................................................................. 364
Table 179-5 Predicted Route-Specific and Total RQ Values for Manganese for the
Resident and Worker Group ..................................................................................................... 365
Table 182-1 Example of Ilcr Calculation for Hexachloro-1,3 Butadiene ................................................... 367
Table 191-1 Existing BlackPearl Lease Sites and Reclamation Status ................................................... 372
Table 219-1 Summary of Discrete Locations Assessed in the HHRA ...................................................... 399
Table 223-1 Summary of Risk Quotient Values for the Worker Receptor (Unitless).............................. 403
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 114-1 Photograph taken at inspection site LW17 classified as a HLY soil. .................................. 190
Plate 114-2 Photograph taken at inspection site SM269 classified as a HLY soil. ................................ 191
Plate 114-3 Photograph taken at inspection site LW27 classified as a HLY soil. .................................. 192
Plate 162-1 Evidence of western toad breeding was observed during field surveys in
small pool in a ditch alongside a forestry road. ...................................................................... 323
Page v
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Public Engagement and Aboriginal Consultation
1. Volume 1, Section 2.3.3, Table 2.3-2, Page 2-26
Volume 1, Section 2.3.4, Page 2-27
Black Pearl states that Fort McMurray First Nation and BlackPearl continue to draft a TLU
study work plan that outlines the activities to be undertaken.
BlackPearl states that A TLU Study is currently being prepared by Heart Lake First Nation.
BlackPearl states that Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and BlackPearl continue to draft a
TLU study work plan that outlines the activities to be conducted.
BlackPearl states that BlackPearl and Métis Local #1909 Lakeland will draft a TLU study plan
that will outline the activities to be conducted in 2012.
BlackPearl states that BlackPearl and Métis Local #1949 Owl River will draft a TLU study plan
that will outline the activities to be conducted in 2012.
BlackPearl states that BlackPearl and Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing will draft a TLU
study plan that will outline the activities to be conducted in 2012.
a. Have these TLU studies been completed? If not, when does BlackPearl anticipate that
the TLU studies will be completed?
Response:
Based on the process described in the Integrated Application for the Project and since the filing of the
Integrated Application on May 24, 2012, BlackPearl has continued its engagement program with the
following Aboriginal communities:
• Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation;
• Fort McMurray First Nation;
• Heart Lake First Nation;
• Métis Local #1909 Lakeland;
• Métis Local #1949 Owl River;
• Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing; and
• Beaver Lake Cree Nation.
BlackPearl has been in discussions with Aboriginal communities regarding Traditional Land Use (TLU)
work for this Project since 2010. The summary below provides the status of BlackPearl’s Aboriginal
engagement program with each community that expressed an interest in conducting a TLU study for the
Project. Although progress is being made, completion of TLU studies in some cases has been delayed
due to a community’s work-load capacity. As a result, TLU studies are ongoing.
Beaver Lake Cree Nation

BlackPearl entered into discussions with Beaver Lake First Nation in 2009 regarding the Project.
BlackPearl has shared Project information and invited Beaver Lake First Nation to participate in the
development of a TLU study work plan. BlackPearl has been unable to actively engage Beaver Lake First
Page 1
Nation at this time but remains committed to maintaining a positive working relationship with Beaver Lake
First Nation and to their participation in Project activities.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation

BlackPearl entered into discussions with Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation in August 2010 regarding
the Project. Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation and BlackPearl are currently in the process of planning
scope of work and timing of activities for a Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)/Traditional Use Study
(TUS).
Fort McMurray First Nation

BlackPearl entered into discussions with Fort McMurray First Nation in August 2010 regarding the Project.
Fort McMurray First Nation and BlackPearl continue to draft a TLU study work plan that outlines the
activities to be conducted. Fort McMurray First Nation participated in the biophysical field programs,
collecting TEK to inform the Project Integrated Application.
Heart Lake First Nation

BlackPearl entered into discussions with Heart Lake First Nation in August 2010 regarding the Project.
Heart Lake First Nation and BlackPearl agreed on a TLU study work plan that outlined the activities to be
conducted. Heart Lake First Nation has completed their TEK/TUS report. This report will be provided to
BlackPearl during the next scheduled meeting.
Métis Local #1909 Lakeland

BlackPearl entered into discussions with Métis Local #1909 Lakeland in April 2012 regarding the Project.
BlackPearl and Métis Local #1909 Lakeland have drafted a TLU study plan and have recently completed
their Métis TEK (MTEK)/TLU study for the Project. The results of this report are currently under review
with BlackPearl.
Métis Local #1949 Owl River

BlackPearl entered into discussions with Métis Local #1949 Owl River in March 2012 regarding the
Project. BlackPearl and Métis Local #1949 Owl River have drafted a TLU study plan and they are in the
process of conducting a MTEK/TLU study to be completed in April 2013.
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing

Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing completed a TERA-facilitated TLU study for the Project in
August 2012. A map review, community and Elder interviews and an overflight were conducted and did
not identify any areas of traditional use potentially affected by the Project requiring mitigation. The issues
identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing through their TLU study for the Project are described
in Section 5.14 of the Project Update. Results of the TLU study was reviewed with Métis Local #2010
Athabasca Landing on December 19, 2012. The final community TLU study was accepted by Métis Local
#2010 Athabasca Landing on January 2, 2013. BlackPearl received a letter of non-objection to the Project
from Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing on September 17, 2012 Detailed results are provided in
Section 5.14 of the Project Update.
1. b. When does BlackPearl expect to receive the TLU information from the First Nations, if
BlackPearl has not already?
Response:
Please refer to the response to AESRD SIR 1a.
Page 2
1. c. How does BlackPearl intend on incorporating the TLU study information once
completed?
Response:
BlackPearl is committed to continue on-going communication with Aboriginal communities as the Project
proceeds through the regulatory approval process, Project construction and operations, including
decommissioning and reclamation. BlackPearl will accommodate TLU study findings into the Project
Footprint as information is made available.
The issues identified by Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing through their TLU study for the Project are
described in Section 5.14 of the Project Update. Concerns were addressed by mitigation measures
described in the Integrated Application. TERA has reviewed the findings of the Métis Local #2010
Athabasca Landing TLU study in the context of the Integrated Application and has determined that the
significance conclusions with regard to traditional land and resource use, cultural sites and activities
remain unchanged by the results of the TLU study.
Additional TLU study information gathered during ongoing engagement with the interested Aboriginal
communities listed in response to AESRD SIR 1a will also be reviewed in the context of the Integrated
Application and, where warranted, this information will be incorporated into Project planning.
site identified.
2. Volume 5, Section 2, Page 2-17
EPEA Application, Section Q4.4, Table Q.4-2, Page 172
The Integrated Application currently reports that no traditional use sites of an historic resource
nature are located within the LSA nor detected during the HRIA field survey and that no
negative implications to such sites are expected. As only Heart Lake First Nation has
commenced their TLU study (see EPEA Application, Section Q4.4, Table Q.4-2, Page 172),
there is a likelihood that new traditional use sites of an historic resource nature may come to
light through the Heart Lake TLU or any of the potential TLU studies yet to be initiated.
a. What is the mechanism for obtaining TLU information/current status of TLU studies not
initiated by the time the Integrated Application was submitted?
Response:
The status of BlackPearl’s Aboriginal engagement program with each community that expressed an
interest in conducting a TLU study for the Project is provided in response to AESRD SIR 1a. At this time,
Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing has completed their TLU study for the Project. The TERA-
facilitated TLU study with Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing did not identify any areas of traditional
use potentially affected by the Project requiring mitigation. Detailed results are provided in Section 5.14 of
the Project Update.
Additional TLU study information gathered during ongoing engagement with the interested Aboriginal
communities listed in response to AESRD SIR 1a will be reviewed in the context of the Integrated
Application and, where warranted, this information will be incorporated into Project planning.
Page 3
site identified.
2. b. How will new information on traditional use sites of an historic resource nature in the
project area be communicated?
Response:
If traditional use sites of a historic resource nature in the Project Area are identified, BlackPearl will first
seek permission to disclose site details from the identifying Aboriginal community to Alberta Culture.
Following community approval, this information will be communicated in writing to the Aboriginal Heritage
Section, Historic Resources Management Branch of Alberta Culture.
If the Aboriginal community is unwilling to disclose site details, BlackPearl will report only that a potential
traditional use site of an historic resource nature was identified in the Project Area and that site details will
not be provided to Alberta Culture at the request of the identifying Aboriginal community.
2. c. Do any newly identified TLU sites identified occur within the LSA or Project Area? If
yes, how will this information be communicated to Alberta Culture?
Response:
To date, no TLU sites of an historic resources nature have been identified within the Local Study Area
(LSA) or Project Area. Please refer to the responses to AESRD SIR 2a and 2b.
1.2 Emergency Response Plan

3. Volume 1, Section 9.1.2.2, Page 9-5
BlackPearl identifies a product release into a watercourse, and uncontrolled hydrocarbon

releases where immediate control/shut-in cannot be achieved as Level 3, or High Impact,
emergencies.
a. What mitigation does BlackPearl have planned to prevent these emergencies?
Response:
BlackPearl will be utilizing the following mitigation measures to prevent the occurrence of high impact
emergencies:
• Construction of secondary containment on padsites and facilities.
• Design of operational procedures to ensure operation of the facilities and wellbores is within safety
limits.
• Utilization of Alarms at the facilities and on pipelines.
• Active monitoring of the main pipelines by BlackPearl operations.
• Installation of Emergency Shutdown System’s (ESD’s) at the Central Processing Facility (CPF) and
on the pipelines at wellpad entrances.
Page 4
3. b. Under what conditions or scenarios would BlackPearl be unable to immediately control

or shut in an uncontrolled hydrocarbon release? Please describe.
Response:
The pipeline and CPF facilities all will be designed to have control measures in place, such as emergency
shutoff valve’s (ESV), procedural shut downs, pressure alarms, etc.
BlackPearl believes that only one scenario would prevent the field operations from being able to
immediately able to control or shut in an uncontrolled hydrocarbon release:
• Wellhead failure on a producer site which would require, due to the pressures of the wellbore,
between 2-3 days to depressurize the wellbore before control measures can be implemented.
Design features of the wellpad and the utilization of spill response equipment would mitigate and control
the release of hydrocarbon off site through the construction of earthen berms around the perimeter of the
operational area of the facilities until the wellbore has been depressurized and shut in.
3. c. Are additional or novel mitigation measures or engineered solutions being considered

or implemented by BlackPearl to prevent or manage high-pressure releases where
constituents are aerosolized and spread over a large geographic area?
i. If yes, please describe the planned mechanism or mitigation.

ii. If no, what work is being undertaken by BlackPearl to develop such mitigation?
Response:
BlackPearl does not propose to utilize any novel mitigation measures or engineering solutions and plans
to utilize sound operations procedures. BlackPearl has an active Preventative Maintenance Program in
place which will be adopted for the Project which utilizes ultrasonic leak detection as one of the inspection
methods utilized.
4. Volume 3, Page 4-17, Section 4.7.1
BlackPearl describes spill prevention and control. Mechanisms and plans to handle a
catastrophic event are not presented.
a. Identify whether BlackPearl is a member of the local industry-led spill co-op.
Response:
BlackPearl is a member of the Western Canadian Spill Services (WCSS) spill co-op “Y” and participates
annually at spill response training exercises for the region.
Page 5
4. b. Clearly describe BlackPearl’s contingency and management plans in place to address

such an event.
Response:
BlackPearl utilizes a Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Management system to achieve HSE
objectives. Key components of BlackPearl’s HSE Management system that mitigate incidents include:
• Safe Operating Procedures;
• Hazard Assessments and Management; and
• Inspections, Audits and Corrective Actions.
Emergency Response Resources

Resources for responding to incidents will include:
• On-site emergency response team;
• On-site emergency facilities and equipment, including:
− Medical support
− Medical support services for emergencies
• Spill containment, recovery and clean-up material; and
• Off-site emergency support services (mutual aid, oil-spill co-op, local emergency
services).
An inventory of spill containment, recovery and cleanup material and equipment will be maintained
throughout the lifespan of the project. BlackPearl will strategically place cleanup supply stations
containing appropriate cleanup materials, such as absorbents, to support quick response to spills. All
personnel working on the BlackPearl Commercial Project shall be trained to use the supplies contained at
the stations effectively. BlackPearl’s operations fall within WCSS Area Y, and as a member of WCSS,
BlackPearl has access to the Area co-op OSCAR trailers, workboats, skimmer units and skid units.
Emergency Response Team

BlackPearl will designate personnel to on-site emergency response team for construction and operations.
Each member of these teams will be trained in, as a minimum:
• Spill control and cleanup
• Rescue
• First aid and CPR
• First intervention firefighting skills
Additionally roles and responsibilities will be defined to ensure that the correct personnel will be involved
in the response. Each individual will be trained to ensure competencies in determination of:
• Hazard Identification
• Incident Classification (alert or Level 1,2,or 3 emergency)
• Appropriate control and containment measures
• Monitoring and remediation requirements
Page 6
• Reporting and documentation requirements
Potential Emergency Scenarios

In the event of an incident which impacts the health and safety of the environment and the public,
BlackPearl is preparing a project specific ERP that provides structure and guidance for several scenarios,
such as:
• Medical Emergencies
• Fire or Explosion
• Forest Fire
• Environmental Spill or Emissions
• Loss of Containment
In the event of a catastrophic event, such as a casing failure or a pipeline break, BlackPearl will
implement the procedures outlined in the Emergency Response plan.
Environmental Spills or Emissions

All facilities will be designed, constructed and operated to prevent the potential for releasing substances
into the environment. BlackPearl maintains a spill reporting program that requires spills and releases be
reported internally, regardless of regulatory spill reporting limits. All spills and releases that exceed
regulatory limits will be reported to the appropriate regulatory agency.
Loss of Containment
Asset Integrity Management Plan
BlackPearl adheres to an Integrity Management Plan and will develop a project specific Asset Integrity
Management plan for the Blackrod Commercial Project based on the corporate Integrity Management
Plan. The Integrity Management Plan will be used during operations and continuously updated as project
development progresses. The Integrity Management Plan encompasses both surface and subsurface
equipment and facilities and includes:
• Facilities Inspection Procedures and requirements
• Maintenance Integrity Plan
• Corrosion Controls
Gas Containment
Risk reduction measures, equipment and procedural measures will be incorporated to reduce the risks
associated with a gas release as low as reasonably possible (ALARP). BlackPearl is in the process of
developing project specific detailed response plans, based on existing response plans for existing
BlackPearl operations, for gas releases associated with pipeline or equipment leaks/ruptures. The
response plans will include the following systems and procedures:
• Emergency Response Procedures;
• Fire and Gas detection Systems
• Process shutdown Systems;
• Pipeline isolation valves; and
• Emergency depressurization systems
Page 7
1.3 Waste Management

5. Volume 1, Section 7.4, Page 7-2
BlackPearl states that The source water from the SAGD pilot project is from the L.GR 3
formation, which is situated below the Lower Grand Rapids bitumen formation (L.GR 1). The
water from the L.GR 3 is classified as non-saline water. This water source is only being used
for pilot purposes and will not be used in the commercial project.
a. Indicate the use of the current source well(s) completed in L.GR 3 after commencing
the commercial project, since it will not be used anymore as a source well.
Response:
Once commercial operations begin, pilot seaming operations will be shut down. As needed, BlackPearl
will apply to the Alberta Environment for a Temporary Diversion Licence (TDL) for any use of non-potable
water from the Lower Grand Rapids 3 (LGR3). It is anticipated that water from the LG3 can potentially be
used for the following:
• Phase 1 - Initial plant fill for each phase of CPF commissioning;
• Phase 1 - Hydro-testing fluid source; and
• Phase 1 - Drilling.
Since the future water uses of the LGR3 are for Phase 1 and are one-time events, a Water Act
application is not required.
Refer to Water Source and Use Flow chart (Figure 1.3-1) in the Project Update section for further details
Page 8
6. Volume 1, Section 7.9, Table 7.9-1, Page 7-7
Volume 1, Section 6.3.2.6, Page 6-15
Volume 3, Section 1.1, Page 1-1
BlackPearl indicates in Table 7.9-1 that 170,000 m3/year is needed for domestic water
consumption, based on the water consumption of 90L/day per person. Note that this is
equivalent of a water consumption of 5,175 people in one year.
The water will be hauled from the closest available municipal source, identified as Wandering
River (Volume 3, Section 1.1, Page 1-1).
In Volume 1, Section 6.3.2.6, Page 6-15, BlackPearl states that Domestic wastewater will be
vacuumed from the wastewater septic tanks and hauled to the Wandering River sewage
treatment lagoons.
a. Provide data showing that Wandering River, a Hamlet with a population of one (or a
few) hundred(s) will be capable of sustainably supplying the requested amount of
domestic water to feed the equivalent of 5,175 people.
Response:
An error was made when populating Table 7.9-1 regarding domestic water consumption of 170,000m3/yr.
With an average water consumption of 90L/day per person, the people at the Project site will consume
170,000m3 over a 30 year period, versus the stated 170,000m3/year.
On an average annual basis the Blackrod Project will consume 5,700 m3/yr of water. To consume 5,700
m3/yr at 90L/day per person results in an average of 166 people on site per day for 30 years.
With the correct information provided, it is clear that Wandering River can supply the required water
volumes for the Project. Wandering River will not be the only water supply. The community of Athabasca
can supply water as well.
6. b. Provide data showing that that the sewage lagoons of the Wandering River Hamlet will
be capable to safely and sustainably handle the amounts of wastewater trucked from
the project on a regular basis.
Response:
With an average of 166 people on site per day, the sewage lagoons are capable of handling these
volumes. As part of our camp design, BlackPearl is considering a self-contained sewage treatment
system which will recycle waste water where possible to reduce the volumes needed to be trucked to the
sewage lagoons in Wandering River.
regarding project water use.
Page 9
6. c. If data does not show that the Wandering River Hamlet facilities are capable of
handling the water supply and/or the wastewater treatment requirements, indicate
other facilities and their capabilities for the supply of domestic water and the treatment
of wastewater for the project.
Response:
In the event that Wandering River is not capable of handling water supply and/or waste water would, the
Project would also utilize the town of Athabasca facilities.
6. d. Provide the reasons why BlackPearl did not consider the option of drilling water wells
on site for its domestic needs, given the need for a large amount (170,000 m3/year or
70 gpm) as well as the daily stress that trucking such a large amount of water may
cause on the roads and the traffic.
Response:
There are no known sand aquifers in the shallow Quaternary deposits. The muskeg contains water
however this is not a viable water source. With muskeg water, the yield to a well would likely be very low
and the water quality is very poor and would require treatment. To reduce daily trucking, BlackPearl is
evaluating the economics of treating the Grosmont saline water source to bring it to potable water quality
for use in showers, sinks and toilets. This will greatly reduce the trucking and volumes needed from
Wandering River.
7. Volume 1, Appendix 7A, Table 7A-2, Page 7A-3
The steam injection and produced water quantities presented in the water balance for a PWSR
of 1.1 (Table 7A-2) are similar to those indicated for a PWSR of 0.95.
a. Provide a water block flow diagram accounting for water quantities presented in
Table 7A-2 for the peak production case of 80,000 bbl/d for a PWSR of 1.1.
Response:
Refer to Figure 7-1: 80,000 bbl/d 1.1 PWSR Detailed CPF BlockFlow Diagram.
Page 10
Vent to VRU
7.2 t/d Water Loss in Vent
Water in Slop Oil 0.0 t/d
4.5 t/d
BFW Feed
Slop Tank OTSG
Lime, Magnesium Oxide and Soda 52551 t/d
Water Loss in Gas In/out 0.0 Slurries Ash In/out 0.0
Water in IGF Froth

10.4 t/d 1344 t/d In/out 0.0
2808 t/d
VRU Water
2
VRU
Water in Wet Slop Oil
BFW for Slurries

175 t/d
Wet HP Steam
AF Backwash Water SAC Backwash Water
LP steam to HLS
In/out 0.0
52551 t/d
63 t/d
1344 t/d
Vent to ATM
2592 t/d 422 t/d
30.1 t/d
707 t/d
Vent to VRU
Vent to VRU
Slop Water
2860 t/d
Vent to VRU
22.6 t/d
2.8 t/d
Water loss in FG
78.7 t/d
3 t/d Softened Water After Filter Softened Water BFW HP Steam HP Steam
HLS Package BFW Tank
Water in Dilbit 59030 t/d Package 56016 t/d Primary 56016 t/d Separators 47290 t/d
74 t/d In/out 0.0 In/out 0.0 SAC In/out 0.0 In/out 0.0 To Pads
AF Rinse and Backwash In/out
Skim Tank
MP Steam Condensate
Produced Water from Pads Produced Water 2592 t/d
HP Steam Blowdown
Oil Treating Unit
51989 t/d 52253 t/d In/out 2.5 WAC Rinse and Backwash Polisher
5262 t/d
SAC
923 t/d
422 t/d
56190 t/d
In/out 0.0
nd quench Water
SAC Regen to HLS In/out 0.0
826 t/d BFW for SAC Regen

Concentrated Chemical Solutions Regen 826 t/d
IGF Package
40 t/d
Desand Water 50% Caustic 0.0 t/d Caustic Tank 0 t/d In/out MP Steam
Separators
Desan
24
100 t/d In/out 0.0 In/out 0.0 LP Utility Steam

ORF Backwash
9.6 t/d
53258 t/d
BFW for Chemical Solutions In/out 0.0
MP Steam letdown
BFW for pump seal flush 0 t/d To Utility Stations
3927 t/d
MP Steam Blowdown
De-Oiled Water
979 t/d
413 t/d
Brackish Water from Wells Brackish Water 2218 t/d
Recovered Water
Tank
Water in HLS Blowdown to pond

428 t/d Oil Removal Concentrated
51086 t/d
1274 t/d
In/out 0.0 Filter Package 32% Acid Acid Tank
In/out 0.0 In/out
52279 t/d
To RO System
188 t/d
1408 t/d
Vent to VRU LP Steam

Make Up Water 74 t/d Separators
Domestic Water
0 t/d Pond Loss In/out 0.0

106 t/d
77 t/d
LP Blowdown
3623 t/d
RO System Utlity Water
De-Oiled Water
67 t/d Pumps Seal Flush Process Pond Neutralization
Tank
In/out 0.0 0 t/d Tank
In/out 0.0 In/out 72 t/d In/out Di lW
Disposal t
Water
Disposal Tank
RO Rejection Note 4 4742 t/d
15 t/d In/out 0.0
To Disposal Wells
NOTES Excess Water to Disposal

1 ALL FIGURES ARE IN STREAM DAY RATES BASED ON PLANT AVAILABILITY OF 94%. 1119 t/d
Rev. Date Description By Chk App Client

Figure 7-1
A 3/14/2012 Issued for Review
B 3/1/2013 Issued for Design Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Post-FEED
Water Block Flow Diagram
SAGD Base Case
BITUMEN = 80,000 BPCD
AESRD SIR 1 Responses - BlackPearl Resources Inc. Proposed
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project
1.4 Transportation
8. EPEA Application, Section A.1, Page 1
The existing road, as it is presently constructed, will not likely meet the company’s expectations
for an operational scale SAGD development and the associated heavy construction traffic
required.
a. Describe the plan for the eventual upgrading of the existing access road. Include the
timing of the upgrade as well as the intended route changes and road standard
(LOC 819).
Response:
Currently, LOC 819 is being used for low traffic volumes associated with the Steam Assisted Gravity
Drainage (SAGD) Pilot and BlackPearl is aware that the additional work and maintenance are needed to
support an operational SAGD development. To support an operational SAGD development, route
changes are not required, however, BlackPearl will undertake the following on the existing access road
(LOC 819):
• add pull-outs to accommodate passing and/or resting vehicles in suitable locations;
• add appropriate substrate material to reduce rutting;
• conduct maintenance on a regular basis to maintain access integrity. Any drainage,

erosion or instability problems will be promptly addressed;
• existing culverts will be re-assessed and replaced as required. Culvert inlets and outlets
will be rock armoured, as required, to minimize scouring and erosion;
• speed limits will be posted and speeding will not be tolerated. The speed limit on the
main access road will be posted as 70 km/hr.
8. b. If no upgrade is anticipated, explain how heavy loads will access the site during non-
frozen conditions without severe rutting and high erosion potential and general public
use (safety) while using the access.
Response:
See response above. Upgrades to the road are anticipated.
Page 12
2.0 AIR
2.1 Emissions Management
BlackPearl states In terms of model predictions, the ninth highest 1-hour average prediction is
compared to the AAAQO. Similarly, the second highest 24-hour average is compared to the 24-
hour AAAQO.
a. Provide the rationale for the selection of the ninth highest hourly prediction and the
second highest 24-hour prediction for comparison to AAAQO.
Response:
As detailed in Volume 2, Appendix 3D, Section 3D.3.15 of the Integrated Application, Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) recommends discarding the eight highest
1-hour predictions at each receptor location during any given year, as these values “are considered
outliers and should not be used as the basis for selecting stack height” in the Alberta Environment Air
Quality Model Guideline (AENV 2009a). This means that the 1-hour Alberta Ambient Air Quality
Objectives (AAAQO) values should be compared to the 9th highest prediction, not to the highest (100th)
prediction. For a one-year period, the 9th highest value corresponds to the 99.9th percentile predicted
concentration.
As detailed in Volume 2, Appendix 3D, Section 3D.3.15 of the Integrated Application, AESRD indicates
that the second-highest 24-hour average prediction should be compared to the corresponding 24-hour
AAAQO in the Guideline document “Using Ambient Air Quality Objectives in Industrial Plume Dispersion
Modelling and Individual Industrial Site Monitoring” (AENV 2009b).
BlackPearl states that Particulate matter in the atmosphere can produce a regional haze.
BlackPearl states that The primary emissions associated with the combustion of hydrocarbon
fuels are nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H20).
BlackPearl states that The Project and other developments’ precursor NOx, SO2 and PM
emissions contribute to the formation of regional haze.
a. Indicate if fog formation resulting from water vapour emissions was considered in the
visibility assessment. If not, explain the potential for fog formation from the Project.
Response:
Fog formation from water vapour emissions was not considered as part of the Project visibility
assessment. Although other assessments for similar SAGD projects have considered visible plumes from
water vapour, stakeholder response to these assessments has indicated that the primary concern is
visibility reduction associated with the formation of regional haze. Regardless, the potential for fog
formation is described as follows:
The exhaust gas of steam generators is characterised by higher temperature and higher water vapour
content than surrounding ambient air. The exhaust gas emitted by the steam generators moves vertically
due to its initial velocity and to the thermal buoyancy, and horizontally due to the ambient wind speed.
Page 13
During its motion, the plume dilutes due to the entrainment of ambient air caused by wind speed and
atmospheric turbulence. Under certain meteorological conditions plumes with high moisture levels can be
visible due to the fact that the entrained ambient air decreases the plume temperature causing the
condensation of water vapour, making the plume visible. If the visible plume touches the ground, it
generates plume induced ground-level fog formation.
Assessments for similar projects indicate that the height of visible plumes varies with the stability of the
atmosphere. Based on output from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SCREEN3 model,
steam generator plume heights may range from 75 to 125 m during stable conditions (Stabilities E and F)
(Osum 2009). These conditions most often occur at night and early morning. During neutral conditions
(Stability D), the plume heights may vary from 360 m (for low wind speeds), to 110 m (for higher wind
speeds) (Osum 2009). These plumes would only be visible during low temperature conditions.
Other assessments have made use of the CALPUFF dispersion model in PLUME model to predict
frequency of heights and lengths of visible plume from SAGD steam generators. Rudolph et al (2011)
evaluated visible plume formation from a SAGD facility near Fort McMurray and the results indicate that
most frequent occurrence of visible plumes are during very cold, stable air, light wind conditions. Visible
plumes were predicted to occur more frequently at night during witch effects on visibility are minimized.
Visible plumes were predicted to occur more frequently winter and least frequently during summer. Most
frequent height of visible plumes were in the 50 to 100 m above ground-level range. Most frequent length
of visible plume were in the 50 to 200 m range. Visible plumes were not predicted to reach ground-level
and were not found to contribute to ground-level fog or ice-fog formation.
As the steam generators associated with the Project are similar to those in the above examples and
meteorology is similar, predicted frequency of visible plume and potential for ground-level fog are
expected to representative of Project effects.
10. b. Verify that the statement regarding N2 is correct. If not, provide corrected text.
Response:
The statement is correct. Air is required for combustion. Air contains approximately 79% nitrogen. As
nitrogen is inert, the nitrogen passes through the combustion source and is emitted along with carbon
dioxide and water up the stack. The simplified process is:
Fuel (hydrocarbons) + Air (oxygen and nitrogen) = Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + Water (H2O) + Nitrogen
11. Volume 2, Section 3.6.4.3, Table 3.6-13, Page 3-82
Carbon disulphide and hydrogen sulphide are the only TRS substances included in this table.
a. Explain why odours from other TRS compounds associated with the project
(i.e., mercaptans and thiophenes, see Volume 2, Appendix 3A, Section 3A.1.6,
Table 3A-1, Page 3A-9) were not considered in Table 3.6-13.
Response:
Model predictions of Total Reduced Sulphur (TRS) substances presented in the report were limited to
those compounds for which Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives existed. Peak mercaptan and
thiophene concentrations are presented below. As an odour event can be associated with a shorter time
period, an adjustment factor of 2.6 was used to increase the 1-hour values to represent a shorter term
“odour peak”. The geometric mean odour threshold for mercaptan compounds ranges from 0.4 µg/m3 for
amyl mercaptan to 26 µg/m3 for butyl mercaptan (Cenovus 2010). As Project mercaptan emissions
represent the sum of all individual mercaptan compounds, for illustrative purposes, model results are
compared to the mid-range of the odour threshold values (13 µg/m3) for mercaptan compounds. The
Page 14
geometric mean odour threshold for thiophene is 486 µg/m3. Peak mercaptan and thiophene
concentrations are less than the odour thresholds.
TABLE 11-1
MAXIMUM PREDICTED TOTAL REDUCED SULPHUR SUBSTANCE

CONCENTRATIONS FOR HHRA RECEPTORS
Mercaptans 1-hour
Aboriginal 0.007 0.008 0.008 0 0.009 8.7
Worker 0.006 0.011 0.50 4307 0.50 4307
Project MPOI 0.0003 0.001 0.88 128183 0.88 128183
Mercaptans Peak (Average Group Odour Threshold = 13 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 0.017 0.021 0.021 0 0.023 8.7
Worker 0.016 0.030 1.31 4307 1.31 4307
Project MPOI 0.001 0.002 2.30 128183 2.30 128183
Thiophenes 1-hour
Aboriginal 2.73 4.20 4.20 0 4.36 3.7
Worker 3.64 6.07 6.07 0 6.25 3.0
Project MPOI 0.22 0.35 0.36 2.3 0.38 7.7
Thiophenes Peak (Odour Threshold = 486 µg/m3)
Aboriginal 7.12 11.0 11.0 0 11.4 3.7
Worker 9.50 15.8 15.8 0 16.3 3.0
Project MPOI 0.58 0.91 0.93 2.3 0.98 7.7
Notes: 1 The % change is with respect to the Baseline Case.
2 The Project MPOI refers to the highest concentration predicted to occur along the Project CPF fence line.
3 Odour thresholds are from Cenovus (2010).
2.2 Dispersion Modelling

Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline, Section 3.5, Page 15
BlackPearl states that The receptors are located in the LSA and the RSA with a grid spacing
that ranges from 20 m along the Project CPF fence line, to 2,000 m within the LSA, and
5,000 m for other more distant locations within the RSA. The grid density is the greatest near
the Project to allow the assessment to focus on the effects of the Project emissions. The
selected spacing is viewed as sufficient to provide an indication of the magnitude and spatial
concentrations due to Project emissions.
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline states that To ensure the maximum concentrations are
obtained, the model should be run with the following set of receptors: 20 m receptor spacing in
the general area of maximum impact and the property boundary.
a. Verify that locator runs were performed for all dispersion modelling cases using 20-m
grid spacing in the areas of predicted maximum concentrations as predicted by the
coarser grids used in the modelling.
Response:
The Air Quality Assessment adopts a system of nested receptor grids of varying density or spacing that
provides an understanding of the spatial concentration and deposition patterns due to Project emissions.
The grid density is the greatest near the Project to allow the assessment to focus on the effects of the
Project emissions.
Page 15
As noted in the Air Quality Assessment Update Report (Appendix B of the Project Update), fine (20 m)
spacing receptor grid are applied around areas of maximum predicted concentration associated with
emissions from the Project and that occur on our outside of the CPF.
12. b. If 20-m receptor grids were not performed for the locator runs, update the modelling
and applicable tables for the Baseline, Project and Application Cases.
Response:
See response to AESRD SIR 12a.
13. Volume 2, Section 3.5.2, Page 3-31
Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline, Section 3.2, Page 10-11
BlackPearl states that The CALMET model was applied using upper-level meteorological data
based on the WRF Model and using surface meteorological data from stations located in the
Model Domain.
The Alberta Air Quality Guideline states that one of the following data sets, listed by
preference, should be used in a refined assessment:
• A minimum of one year of site-specific data.

• The most recent 5 years of meteorological data, readily available from a nearby
airport station, that has similar site surface characteristics must be utilized.
• AESRD developed Fifth Generation NCAR/Penn State Mesoscale Model version
3.5 (MM5) meteorological data for all of Alberta, for 2002-2006.
a. As per AESRD’s policy, remodel all scenarios using the MM5 2002 to 2006 data for
upper air and surface meteorology, noting that additional surface data from local
monitoring stations may be used to supplement the MM5 data.
Response:
Refer to ERCB SIR 34a through d for a description of the rationale and justification for the assessment
methodology and a comparison of the WRF and MM5 based meteorological data.
The Air Quality Assessment has been updated (Appendix B of the Project Update) to evaluate Project
design changes on ambient air quality. Updated dispersion modelling has been completed for all
scenarios. Consistent with AESRD’s stated preference, the AESRD supplied meteorological dataset was
used as input for the updated dispersion modelling.
13. b. Provide details on which surface stations, if any, were selected for the surface
meteorology data used in the updated modelling, providing justification as to why these
particular stations were deemed to be representative of the site.
Response:
A detailed description of all surface station meteorological data used as input to the CALMET model is
presented in Volume 3, Appendix 3C of the Integrated Application. An updated meteorological dataset
Page 16
was prepared for purpose of updated dispersion modelling based upon the AESRD supplied MM5
dataset; however, all other inputs to the CALMET model are identical to those presented in Appendix 3C.
There are no meteorological stations located near the Project site. As the surface stations are located in
excess of 100 km from the Project, the CALMET model relies primarily upon input data from the MM5
model and “representativeness” of surface stations relative to the Project site is not important.
Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline, Section 3.1, Page 9-10
BlackPearl states that Intermittent flaring and emergency power generator events are
evaluated in Appendix 3E where the Project-only scenario is evaluated.
The Alberta Air Quality Guideline states that for areas with multiple facilities, the emissions of
all of the other sources in the airshed should be included.
a. Verify that other emission sources in the airshed were included in the model runs for
the Blackrod emergency events, and if not, update the modelling to include all other
emission sources in the airshed that typically would be operating on a continuous
basis.
Response:
The Air Quality Assessment evaluated intermittent flaring and emergency generator usage on a Project
alone basis as periods of increased emissions associated with these events are infrequent in nature and
are of a short duration. Additionally, areas of maximum impact associated with these events occur close
to the Project CPF where there is minimal influence from other emission sources in the study area.
scenarios. Consistent with AESRD’s stated preference, all other emission sources within the model
domain have been included along with the addition of ambient background concentrations to the updated
results associated with intermittent Project emissions.
Page 17
BlackPearl states that On this basis, representative 1-hour and annual average background
values are 7.52 and 2.44 µg/m3, respectively. The addition of these background values to the
values provided in the previous tables and figures does not change the conclusion that the
maximum predicted NO2 concentrations in the LSA are less than the respective AAAQOs.
BlackPearl states that On this basis, representative 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual average
background values are 2.62, 2.67 and 0.9 µg/m3, respectively. The addition of these
background values to the values provided in the previous tables and figures does not change
the conclusion that the maximum predicted SO2 concentrations in the LSA are less than the
respective AAAQOs.
BlackPearl states that On this basis, representative 1-hour and 24-hour average background
values are 5.7 and 5.25 µg/m3, respectively. The addition of these background values to the
values provided in the previous tables and figures does not change the conclusion that the
maximum predicted PM2.5 concentrations in the LSA are less than the respective AAAQG and
AAAQO.
The Alberta Air Quality Guideline states that when conducting a screening or refined
assessment, the background value (natural and industrial) for the same substance must be
added to the predicted value before a comparison to the AAAQO is made.
a. Using the updated modelling results, update all text, tables and figures in
Sections 3.6.1 to 3.6.3 to include background concentrations in all predicted
concentrations as required by the Alberta Air Quality Guideline.
Response:
Concentrations predicted using the CALPUFF model in the Integrated Application were based upon a
large domain and comprehensive emission inventory that included all substantive emission sources
located in the Model Domain that includes the entire Lower Athabasca Region (LAR). In the Integrated
Application, ambient background concentrations were compared to model results, but not added directly
to model predictions to account for the influence of distant sources (outside the LAR) as a comparison of
model predictions with ambient concentration measurements indicated reasonable model performance.
The addition of additional “background” was deemed not necessary.
scenarios. Consistent with AESRD’s stated preference representative ambient background values have
been added to values presented in the text, tables and figures in this updated assessment.
15. b. Similarly, update all other applicable text, tables and figures throughout the Integrated
Application where background concentrations have not previously been added to the
predicted concentrations.
Response:
See response to AESRD SIR 15a.
Page 18
15. c. Explain why the assumed background 1-hour average SO2 background concentration
is less than the assumed background 24-hour average SO2 background concentration.
Response:
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline states that the 90th percentile value from the cumulative
frequency distribution of the background monitoring data should be used for refined assessments.
Background SO2 concentration data were obtained from the Fort Chipewyan ambient air quality
monitoring station. As detailed in Volume 2, Appendix 3B of the Integrated Application, the maximum,
99th and 90th percentile one-hour average concentrations are 64.1, 13.1 and 2.62 µg/m3, respectively.
The maximum, 99th and 90th percentile 24-hour average concentrations are 26.5, 9.59 and 2.67 µg/m3,
respectively. The 90th percentile 24-hour average SO2 concentration is slightly greater than the 90th
percentile 1-hour average value.
15. d. Provide dispersion modelling results with background to demonstrate compliance with
the 30-day Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective for SO2.
Response:
design changes on ambient air quality including maximum predicted 30-day SO2 concentrations.
Maximum predicted values in the LSA are much less than the Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objective for all
assessment cases.
16. Volume 2, Appendix 3C, Section 3C.6, Tables 3C-21 and 3C-22, Pages 3C-65 to 3C-68
Volume 2, Appendix 3D, Section 3D.6, Tables 3D-24, 3D-25, 3D-27 to 3D-29, Page 3D-62
and Pages 3D-65 to 67
The Alberta Air Quality Model Guideline states that when dispersion modelling is conducted
using the full CALPUFF model, the default US EPA model options should be used for all
CALPUFF modelling applications. If deviation from the default model options is required,
provide justification.
a. Provide a detailed justification for the use of all non-default values indicated in the
above referenced tables.
Response:
The AESRD 2009 Air Quality Model Guideline recommends that default U.S. EPA model options should
be used for the CALPUFF/CALMET model system. The US EPA default options are made in the context
of the approved regulatory use of this model system in the US. Specifically, the CALPUFF model is an
approved model for evaluating long-range transport effects (i.e., for source receptor distances greater
than 50 km). The CALPUFF default switch recommendations originate from Appendices A and B of the
Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modelling (IWAQM) Phase 2 report on recommendations for long-
range transport impacts: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/7thconf/ calpuff/phase2.pdf. The US EPA has
intentionally made default switch setting recommendations that compromise near-field accuracy of the
CALPUFF model.
Page 19
Updated Tables 3C-21 and 3C-22 are presented as Tables 16-1 and 16-2 below to show and justify the
selection of the non-default values for the CALMET model. Updated Tables 3D-24, 3D-25, 3D-27, 3D-28
and 3D-29 are presented as Tables 16-3, 16-4, 16-5, 16-6 and 16-7 below to show and justify the
selection of the non-default values for the CALPUFF model. In Alberta, the CALPUFF model is used to
examine both short and long range transport, and the selected model options are viewed as being better
suited to address the applicable distance scales.
TABLE 16-1
CALMET MODEL OPTION GROUP 5: WIND FIELD OPTIONS AND PARAMETERS
Parameter Default Project Justification

Wind Field Model Options:
BIAS 0,0,0,0, 1, 1, 1, 1, BIAS = -1 reduces the weight of upper air station by 100%. As upper air stations are not
0,0,0,0, 1, 1, 1, 1 used, this parameter is not relevant.
RMIN2 4 -1.0 RMIN2 is the minimum distance from nearest upper air station to surface station for which
extrapolation of surface winds at surface station will be allowed. RMIN2 is set to -1 for
situations where all surface stations should be extrapolated. RMIN2= -1 was selected as
no upper air stations were used for this assessment.
IPROG 0 14 The default (IPROG=0) specifies that gridded prognostic wind data are not used.
IPROG=14 uses gridded the wind field from the mesoscale prognostic model as the initial
guess wind field.
NINTR2 99,99,99,99 5,5,5,5, NINTR2 is the maximum number of stations used in the interpolation of data to a grid point
99,99,99,99 5,5,5,5 for each layer The effect of increasing NINTR2 is similar to smoothing. Smaller values
were applied to reduce spatial smoothing.
TABLE 16-2
CALMET MODEL OPTION GROUP 6: MIXING HEIGHT,

TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION PARAMETERS

MNMDAV 1 2 MNMDAV is the maximum search distance (in grid cells) for the mixing height spatial
averaging process. Two grid cells (8 km) were used as maximum search radius in
averaging. A demonstration case by the model developers uses 1 or 3, and some studies
use 5 to smooth the mixing height field.
IRHPROG 0 1 The default (IRHPROG=0) is to use relative humidity data from surface data files (typically
from nearby airports). Since there are no nearby airports, the 3D relative humidity output
from the mesoscale prognostic model were used (IRPROG=1).
ITPROG 0 1 The default (ITPROG=0) is to use 3D temperature from observations at both surface and
upper air stations.
Since there are no nearby airports, surface temperatures from 15 surface stations and
upper air temperatures from WRF model were used to create 3D temperature field
(ITPROG=1).
NUMTS 5 15 NUMTS is the maximum number of stations to include in temperature interpolation. Given
the scarcity of temperature stations, a large value was adopted.
SIGMAP 100 Not Applicable SIGMAP is the radius of Influence for precipitation (km) when using precipitation data from
surface data files. This is not applicable for this assessment since the precipitation output
from the mesoscale prognostic model were used.
Page 20
TABLE 16-3
CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS GROUPS 1 AND 2

NSPEC 5 11 The number of chemical species used for the assessment was increased to include the
NSE 3 8 chemical compounds listed in Table 3D-26 (Volume 4, Appendix 3D, Page 3D-71 of the
Integrated Application). These NSPEC and NSE parameters are viewed as being more of
user defined parameters, rather than default parameters.
NRSPD 0 24 The file is updated after every 24-h simulation. This parameter is viewed as being more of
user defined parameter, rather than a default parameter.
MBDW 1 2 The updated PRIME approach (MBDW=2) is used to simulate building downwash effects
associated with the BlackPearl structures instead of the default and older ISC approach
(MBDW=1).
MSPLIT 0 1 Puff splitting (i.e., MSPLIT=1) is necessary for large model domain.
MCHEM 1 3 The default chemical transformation scheme (MCHEM=1) is the older MESOPUFF II
scheme. An updated RIVAD/ARM3 chemical transformation scheme (MCHEM=3) rather
than the older scheme is used. The justification is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 3D,
Section 3D.3.7, Page 3D-29.
MDISP 3 2 The default method indicated in the CALPUFF model is to simulate dispersion using the
Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients (MDISP=3) rather than using dispersion coefficients
determined from micrometeorological variables (MDISP=2). The U.S. EPA decided that it
was acceptable to use the traditional ISC-type approach to calculate dispersion rates
rather than the newer science that is consistent with AERMOD, since in the context of
very-long-range transport, the dispersion scheme was determined to be less important.
To be consistent with the newer science and AERMOD, dispersion coefficients from
internally calculated sigma v, sigma w using micrometeorological variables (e.g., u*, w*, L)
are adopted (MDSIP=2). The justification is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 3D, Section
3D.3.4, Page 3D-27.
MPDF 0 1 The default (i.e., MPDF=0) does not use the probability density function (PDF) that is
applicable to the convective boundary layer. The PDF accounts for the bi-Gaussian
distribution that can occur and often leads to highest observed pollutant concentrations
under convective conditions. The U.S. EPA does not recommend using this option
because, in the context of long-range transport, it isn’t important. In a near-field regulatory
context and for consistency with AERMOD, it is important.
The probability density function (MDF) approach is used for convective conditions (i.e.,
MPDF=1) rather than ignoring the potential for increased concentrations under these
conditions. This is consistent with AERMOD. The justification is provided in Volume 4,
Appendix 3D, Section 3D.3.4, Page 3D-27.
MREG 1 0 The default MREG=1 checks to determine if U.S. EPA default technical options have been
selected. As departures from the default values have been selected (see above), MREG=0
was adopted. The selection does not change the calculations.
TABLE 16-4
CALPUFF MODEL OPTIONS GROUPS 3 AND 4

DATUM WGS-84 NAR-C The NORTH AMERICAN 1983 GRS 80 Spheroid coordinate system is used to be
consistent with the Canadian Digital Elevation Data (CDED) terrain data that were used.
LSAMP T F The default LSAMP=T indicates that a grid format is used to identify the receptor locations.
For this assessment, the receptors were entered in a discrete receptor format rather than
in a grid format (for this reason, LSAMP=F was selected). Input Group 17 indicates that
15,011 discrete receptors are used (see Volume 4, Appendix 3D, Page 3D-80 of the
Integrated Application).
Page 21
TABLE 16-5
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUPS 6 AND 7

Various dry Various Various The deposition parameters that were selected reflect some variations from the default
deposition values. The values that were selected are based on Alberta specific recommendations.
parameters The Davies and Prasad values (2005) are based on a review undertaken by RWDI and
ENSOR International for the Integrated Application of the CALPUFF model to the oil sands
region. The selection of the non-default values for the oil sands area was confirmed by a
report conducted for AESRD (Lundgren et al 2008).
TABLE 16-6
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUPS 8, 9, 10, AND 11

BCKO3 12*80 Not used The default assumes a uniform background ozone concentration of 80 ppb for each month
of the year. Hourly background ozone concentrations (ppb) based on WBEA
measurements were used rather than the generic U.S. default values. The justification is
provided in Volume 4, Appendix 3D, Section 3D.3.8, Page 3D-29.
BCKNH3 12*10 1.59, 1.69, 1.55, The default assumes a uniform background ammonia concentration of 10 ppb for each
1.86, 2.16, 2.79, month of the year. Background ammonia concentrations (ppb) based on WBEA
3.78, 1.90, 2.15, measurements were used rather than the generic U.S. default values. The justification is
1.55, 1.37, 1.59 provided in Volume 4, Appendix 3D, Section 3D.3.9, Page 3D-30.
TABLE 16-7
CALPUFF MODEL OPTION GROUP 12
Parameters Default Project Justification

XSAMLEN 1 10 XSAMLEN is the maximum travel distance of a puff in meteorological grid units during one sampling
step. A preferred value of 10 has been specified in other CALPUFF protocol documents (e.g., Trinity
2006, URS 2006).
MXNEW 99 60 MXNEW is the maximum number of puffs released from one source during one time step. A preferred
value of 60 has been specified in other CALPUFF protocol documents (e.g., Trinity 2006, URS 2006).
MXSAM 99 60 MXSAM is the maximum number of sampling steps during one time step for a puff. A preferred value
of 60 has been specified in other CALPUFF protocol documents (e.g., Trinity 2006, URS 2006).
Parameter PPC
Stability Class Default Project Justification
A 0.50 0.8 The default CALPUFF plume path coefficient (PPC) values are 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.35, and 0.35 for
B 0.50 0.7 PG stability categories A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The selection of these values is not justified
in the user guide (Scire et al. 1999). Lott (1984) compared a number of alternate terrain schemes and
C 0.50 0.6
recommended PPC values of 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.3 for Pasquill-Gifford (PG) stability
D 0.50 0.5 categories A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. These values were adopted in the former Alberta
E 0.35 0.4 ADEPT deposition model.
F 0.35 0.35 For this assessment, PPC values of 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.35 for PG categories A, B, C, D, E
and F, respectively, per Davies and Prasad (2005) were adopted. For stability class F, the 0.35 value
is based on a helicopter plume level measurement in the GCOS (now Suncor) powerhouse stack
plume under stable conditions.
Parameters Default Project Justification
NSPLIT 3 2 NSPLIT is the number of puffs that result every time a puff is split: NSPLIT=2 means that 1 puff splits
into 2. NSPLIT=2 was selected to reduce the number of puffs to keep computational time for the large
domain and number of puffs within reasonable range.
MDEPBC 1 0 MDEPBC is only used if boundary conditions are modelled (i.e., when MBCON in Input Group 2 is
equal to 1 or 2. In these circumstances, background concentrations and deposition from sources
located outside the model domain can be rigorously simulated in the model. The default MDEPBC=1
adjusts boundary condition puff concentrations for near-surface depletion when MBCON=2 or 3.
If MBCON=0, then the selection of MDEPBC parameter is not relevant to the assessment. For this
assessment, background concentrations are accounted for by adding a spatially uniform
concentration as part of the model post-processing.
Page 22
2.3 Air Quality Assessment

Volume 2, Section 3.6.4.1, Table 3.6-11, Page 3-79
BlackPearl states that The Baseline Case emission summary is provided in Table 3.4-3, and
the following compares existing condition and Baseline Case emissions:
• …Overall NOx emissions increase by 71%.

BlackPearl states that The Project along with other existing and planned developments in the
oil sands region collectively result in a substantive increase on precursor NOx and VOC
emissions.
In Table 3.6-11, the predicted baseline case 1-hour and annual NO2 predicted concentrations
are shown by BlackPearl to be significantly less for the baseline case than for the existing
conditions for the Aboriginal and Worker receptors.
a. Provide a discussion explaining this discrepancy.
Response:
Maximum predicted NO2 concentrations are greater than those predicted for the Baseline, Application and
Planned Development Cases (PDC) at some locations within the model domain for a combination of
reasons.
As detailed in Volume 2, Appendix 3A, Section 3A.6 of the Integrated Application, the non-industry
emissions consist of emissions from both urban and commercial heating as well as vehicle traffic.
Adjustment factors (Table 3A-88) are incorporated into the non-industrial emissions to account for
population growth as well as emission reductions associated with the adoption of greater numbers of
newer, lower emission vehicles. Adjustment factors are based upon the report prepared for Environment
Canada entitled “Forecast of Criteria Air Contaminants in Alberta (2002 to 2020)”(Cheminfo 2007). For
purpose of the Air Quality Assessment, it was assumed that Baseline Case NOX emissions associated
with non-industry vehicle emissions will decrease 42% relative to the Existing Case.
While the sum of overall emissions across the entire model domain increases from the Existing Case to
the Baseline Case, there are decreases in emissions for a number of specific emission sources. For
example, as mining activity shifts from existing mines nearing the end of their life, such as the Suncor
Millenium mine pit, mining activity and associated emissions move to newer mine areas such as the
Suncor North Steepbank extension. This has the effect of moving emissions further from and lowing
concentration predictions at some receptors.
Page 23
3.0 WATER
3.1 Water Management
BlackPearl indicates that the current design of the storm pond in the CPF area is sized at a
minimum for 1:10 year, 24-hour storm rainfall of 64 mm. BlackPearl also indicates that a larger
pond size is also being considered due to the precipitation levels in the area of the past couple
of years.
Since the lifetime of the plant facilities is much longer than 10 years, a 1:10 year 24-hour
duration storm may happen or be surpassed a few times during the project.
BlackPearl indicates that retention ponds will be constructed to collect the runoff from the well
pads. However, the design of the ponds for the well pads was not provided.
a. Provide data to support that a storm pond designed for a 1:10 year 24-hour duration
storm will be sufficient for the plant facilities. If not, provide a storm pond design
suitable for the lifetime of the CPF.
Response:
The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) “A guide to content of industrial approval
applications” (AENV 1999a, pages 21 -23) requires to describe “runoff volume from a one-in-ten year
storm of 24-hour duration” and indicates that pond sizing criteria be either 1:10 year, 24-hour storm or
1:25 year, 24-hour storm. Accordingly, BlackPearl provides the minimum storage required to store runoff
due to a 1:10 year 24-hour duration storm in the Integrated Application to meet the EPEA requirements.
The ultimate pond size will be determined at the detailed design stage and will be subject to pond
operations requirements and other factors as described in Section 2.5 of Project Update. Sizing the pond
for a 1:10 year storm should be adequate in terms of protecting downstream water quality. If the pond
spills during a more serve rainfall storm event, the overflow would be significantly diluted by ambient
runoff and consequently contaminants carried by the overflow, if any, would become undetectable in the
downstream area.
18. b. Provide the design for the retention ponds to be constructed on the well pads.
Response:
The retention pond will be a low point on the well pad and will have a packed clay base to trap surface
water. The pad retention pond will be manually pumped off lease with a portable pumping system.
Page 24
Volume 3, Section 2.9.1. Page 2-20
BlackPearl states in Volume 3, Section 2.9.2.1, Page 2-23 that The effects for the Application
Case on runoff volumes are greatest for Basin A2 with an overall average increase of 9.8%
over the Pre-development Case. The main contributing factor of this increase is the CPF runoff
released into Basin A2.
BlackPearl states in Section 2.9.1, Page 2-20,that The runoff from the CPF may be poorer in
quality than the runoff from natural areas. It will be collected and stored in a storm water pond..
The water will be tested and released slowly and well after the surrounding natural runoff. As
such, much of the water will be lost to evaporation and infiltration.
Volume 1, Page 6-9, indicates that the preliminary size of the storm pond is designed to a
3
capacity of 48,200 m , to stand a 1:10 year storm, 24-hour storm rain of 64 mm. BlackPearl
indicates that a larger pond is being considered due to the precipitation levels of the last couple
of years in the area.
a. Indicate why a runoff coefficient of 0.6 was considered, given that BlackPearl indicates
most of the water from the CPF will be lost to evaporation and infiltration.
Response:
The runoff coefficient approach was used to evaluate potential impacts on the surface water hydrology for
a worst-case scenario. The runoff coefficient value of 0.6 is selected based on the land use type of the
CPF. The runoff will be stored in a storm water pond and released to the surrounding environment as
described in Volume 3, Section 2.9.1 of the Integrated Application. As the release rate will be relatively
small, the resulting surface runoff volume to the downstream basin will be small but could be noticeable
under certain conditions (e.g., ambient ground is saturated for wet weather). To evaluate the potential
impacts for the worst-case scenario, we adopted a conservative assumption that the water from the pond
is released slowly as surface runoff to the downstream basin.
19. b. Indicate whether the large retention capacity of the pond was considered in the HSPF
simulation of the Application Case for the CPF. If not, update the model accordingly, if
necessary.
Response:
The HSPF model considered a large retention capacity of the storm water pond.
Page 25
BlackPearl indicates it will use surface water for drilling, pad and road construction and dust
control if necessary, and that they plan to apply for a Water Act temporary diversion license
from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.
a. Provide annual and seasonal volume estimates for the use of surface water for the life
of the project.
Response:
BlackPearl does not anticipate needs of water for pad construction. BlackPearl would apply for a Water
Act temporary diversion license to use surface water for drilling, road construction (freezing winter road),
dust control and hydro testing, if required. Specific details for each item are provided below:
Drilling Requirements:
For the Phase 1 drilling program, the CPF water treatment facilities may not be ready for operation. In
that case, BlackPearl intends to use surface water for drilling. The duration of this practice, if undertaken,
will be limited to the first two years of Phase 1 only (2014 – 2015). Once the water treatment facilities are
ready, BlackPearl will use the Grosmont (saline) water for drilling. The Grosmont water will be treated
through an RO system to a sufficient quality to use.
BlackPearl anticipates a need for approximately 10,000 m3 of surface water per year to complete the
Phase 1 drilling program from 2014 through 2015.
Road Construction:
For the purposes of freezing in winter roads for future BlackPearl OSE programs, BlackPearl will use
surface water. Based on BlackPearl’s previous OSE programs, it is estimated that 3,500 to 5,000 m3 of
water may be used each winter.
Dust Control:
A dust control program is unlikely required for the Blackrod Project because the trucking traffic will be
minimal outside of project construction periods while the production from Blackrod being pipeline
connected. A dust control program was not required for the Pilot Project. However, BlackPearl plans to
monitor the Phase 1 construction process and to evaluate the need for dust control. Required water
volumes will then be estimated, if required.
Hydrotesting:
BlackPearl will have an onsite hydrotesting program during the construction of each phase of the Project.
BlackPearl will use treated Grosmont C/D water for hydrotesting when the CPF water treatment facilities
are in operation. BlackPearl is evaluating the sources for hydro-test water for the Phase 1 construction
period (2014-2015) before the water treatment system is ready. BlackPearl may not have to withdraw
surface water for that period. Further details are provided in the response to AESRD SIR 20d.
It is anticipated that Phase 1 construction will need about 20,000 m3 of water per year for hydrotesting.
Page 26
20. b. Identify and map proposed surface water withdrawal points for this water.
Response:
Refer to Figure 20-1 for the proposed surface water withdrawal points for the Project. The primary surface
water source will be the CPF storm water pond however alternative borrow pit locations have be identified
in addition to the CPF storm water pond.
20. c. Clarify whether these withdrawals were accounted for in the impact assessment for
hydrology and fisheries and aquatics. If not, provide this assessment.
Response:
As described in the response to ERCB SIR 20a, surface water may be used for drilling and hydrotesting
in the first two years of Phase 1. In that case, BlackPearl plans to withdraw the water from the CPF storm
water pond. The estimated volumes of the water for these purposes are 30,000 m3 per year, which is
equivalent to about 14% of the mean annual runoff volume from the CPF plant site to be received by the
storm water pond. The potential impacts will be temporary as the practice will take place for the first two
years of Phase 1. They will not be adverse impacts because they will reduce the increase in runoff
volumes from the CPF plant site to be discharged to the natural environment.
Water consumption for winter road construction will take place through the life of the Project. The water
will also be obtained from the CPF storm water pond. The estimated volume of the required water is
relatively small (up to 2% of the mean annual runoff volume from the CPF plant site). No perceptible or
adverse impacts are expected.
The assessment as described above is included in the updated Hydrology Assessment report
(Section 2.5 of the Project Update). As the water will be from the CPF storm water pond, an assessment
for fisheries or aquatics is not necessary.
Page 27

"

"

¯


"

"

t6790_Figure_20_1_Surface_Water_Withdrawal_Locations_20130326
Project Footprint
!

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site Surface Water Withdrawal Points
!

"
""

Phase 2 Sump Site Permanent Operations BlackPearl Oil Sand Holdings
Camp Site
Phase 3A Log Deck Proposed Blackrod Road Waterbody

#
Existing Blackrod Road

!

Phase 3B

UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 65,000
Project Footprint: Altus Geomatics 2013; km
Surface Water Withdrawal Points: BlackPearl Resources Inc. 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011; 0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
20. d. From where will water required for hydrostatic testing be sourced?
Response:
For Phase 1 construction, BlackPearl has several options for hydrostatic water testing sources. Subject to
availability, quality and treating capacity BlackPearl will use one or all of the water sources provided.
• Municipal source from the town of Wandering River.
• L.GR 3 water (non-potable) for the Phase 1 CPF only. Will need to be treated though a
Reverse Osmosis (RO) system to sufficient quality before it can be used for hydrostatic
testing.
• Surface water sources.
BlackPearl will adhere to the AESRD hydrostatic testing of pipeline requirements for this project. TDL
licenese will be applied for when using non-saline wate sources. Beyond Phase 1 it is anticipated that
saline water from the Grosmont can be treated to sufficient quality for future hydro testing needs.
20. e. Was water to be used for this purpose included in the impact assessment? If not
provide this assessment.
Response:
In case surface water will be used for hydrotesting in Phase 1, the assessment of impacts on surface
water hydryology is included in the updated hydrology assessment (Section 2.5 of the Project Update).
Future hydrotesting will use water from the Grosmont C/D, a saline water source. An impact assessment
for the withdrawal of salne water from the Grosmont C/D aquifer was provided in the Integrated
Application (Volume 3, Section 1.6.1.1, pages 1-22 to 1-28).
Page 29
3.2 Hydrogeology
Volume 1, Appendix 3B, Page 8 of 37
BlackPearl indicates that the bitumen reservoir in the Lower Grand Rapids (L.GR 1) is marked
by regionally extensive capping shale ranging in thickness from 2 to 4 m. On Page 3-19,
BlackPearl states that In core the first 1.0 to 1.5 m of Capping Shale, directly above the
reservoir, is typically composed of a medium to dark grey well indurated, slightly fissile shale
that is free of vertical fractures.
However, the mini-frac test in the capping shale (Appendix 3B, Page 8 of 37) indicates a
possible near wellbore fracture, with a higher than expected leak off into the formation,
suggesting that the formation is taking fluid at higher than optimal rate.
a. Clarify the discrepancy between the above statement reporting no fracture in the
capping shale and the observation of the mini-frac suggesting a near wellbore fracture.
Update throughout the report as necessary.
Further explanation regarding this question was provided to BlackPearl on February 27, 2013.
The ESRD believes the MFS cap rock is a major aquitard (or aquiclude) and any data on the properties
defined above will be useful for its evaluation. Specifically, data on the hydraulic conductivity should be
included. SIR 21 is meant to obtain clarifications on the MFS cap rock formation for hydrogeological
evaluation purposes (which, in some cases, includes geological and geotechnical properties). It does not
question the fact that the ERCB recognizes the Joli Fou as the primary cap rock for the L. GR 1 based on
the approvals already granted by ERCB for the pilot project.
Response:
The statement in Appendix 3B, Page 8, regarding a possible near wellbore fracture was written by
Schlumberger, the company that conducted the mini-frac test. Based on the additional core evaluation
work that BlackPearl has conducted, the near-wellbore fracture observed by Schlumberger is likely a
drilling disturbance and not a natural occurrence.
21. b. Discuss the integrity of the capping shale under sustained high temperatures and
pressures during SAGD operations, taking into account its small thickness of 2 to 4 m
within the ARA and knowing that the maximum temperature in a steam injection well
o
will be approximately 300 C during its 8 to 12 years of production.
Response:
To clarify, steam will not reach 300oC downhole; saturated steam temperatures downhole will range from
230 - 240oC at the planned injection pressure. More importantly, as steam will be injected well below the
fracture pressure of the capping shale immediately above the L.GR 1 bitumen reservoir, BlackPearl does
not expect that the integrity of the capping shale will be compromised as a result of SAGD operations.
Page 30
21. c. Provide the expected safety factor from plastic failure within the caprock during the
high pressure startup operation.
Response:
During startup operations, steam will be injected at pressures approaching the capping shale fracture
pressure for a very short period (24- 48 hrs) in order to evacuate the residual completion fluids from the
wellbore. Following evacuation of these fluids, steam injection pressures will fall back to normal operating
ranges well below the capping shale fracture pressure.
21. d. Indicate how the capping shale integrity will be monitored throughout the project.
Response:
Planned observation wells will be completed with temperature gauges to monitor steam chamber
propagation. Several of these gauges will be placed within and above the capping shale to monitor
temperature growth.
Additionally, all injection wells will be equipped with instrumentation and control systems at surface for
continuous monitoring and regulation of steam injection pressures and rates. The control systems will be
set and programmed to ensure that the bottomhole steam chamber pressures never exceed the
Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP).
21. e. Discuss mitigation measures in case of failure of the capping shale and communication
between the Upper Grand Rapids aquifer and the Lower Grand Rapids bitumen
reservoir.
Response:
As there will be control systems at surface for continuous monitoring and regulation of steam injection
pressures and rates, it is very unlikely that the bottomhole steam chamber pressure will ever exceed the
MOP. It is even more unlikely that the bottomhole steam chamber pressure will cause capping shale
failure; however, if steam breakthrough is observed in the observation wells, BlackPearl Operations will
immediately carry out the corrective measures to lower the steam injection pressure so that the
bottomhole steam chamber falls back to a pressure below the MOP. BlackPearl will notify the Energy
Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and review all available data to determine if any detrimental
impacts, such as steam breakthrough, resulted from the MOP exceedance.
21. f. Provide hydraulic properties of the capping shale within the ARA.
Response:
Direct measurement of the hydraulic properties (e.g., horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity) of a
shale deposit typically cannot be made due to the very low permeability of the shale. In hydrogeology
studies, the hydraulic properties are estimated from the steady-state calibration of a groundwater flow
model. The capping shale in the Application Resource Area (ARA) is directly overlain by the Grand
Rapids ‘A’ shale. The Grand Rapids ‘A’ shale, combined with the overlying Joli Fou and lower Viking
shales, is a regionally extensive aquitard. Horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities for the Joli Fou
shales that were estimated from the steady-state calibration of a groundwater flow model are 1.2 x 10-8
and 1.5 x 10-11 m/s (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Page 1A-60 of the Integrated Application). Horizontal and
Page 31
vertical hydraulic conductivities for the Grand Rapids ‘A’ shale that were estimated from the steady-state
calibration of another groundwater flow model are 1.0 x 10-10 and 1.0 x 10-11 m/s (Cenovus, 2011 –
Volume 4, Appendix 4-II, Table 2). Based on these values, a reasonable estimate of the horizontal
hydraulic conductivity of the capping shale in the ARA is in the range of 1.0 x 10-10 to 1.2 x 10-8 m/s, and a
reasonable estimate of the vertical hydraulic conductivity is in the range of 1.0 x 10-11 to 1.5 x 10-11 m/s.
22. Volume 1, Section 3.3.7, Pages 3-39 and 3-40
Volume 1, Appendix 3A
Volume 1, Appendix 3B
The pressure values (kPa) reported on Page 3-39 are slightly different from those shown in
Appendix 3A and Appendix 3B.
a. The references to Appendix 3A (Section 3.3.7.1) and to Appendix 3B (Section 3.3.7.2)

were inter-changed. Update the above referenced sections to reflect the correct data.
Response:
In Section 3.3.7.1 the mini frac data from OSE 13-25-76-18 W4M is updated as Appendix 3B. In section
3.3.7.2 the mini frac data from OSE 01-36-076-18W4M is updated as Appendix 3A.
22. b. The base of Joli Fou shown on Page 3-40 is 250 m; it is different from that indicated in
Appendix 3A, in the Table at the end of Section 5. Provide a value for the base of Joli
Fou in the above reference sections, which reflects consistency with the rest of the
Integrated Application report.
Response:
The base of the Joli Fou in OSE 01-36-76-18W4 mini frac test well is 262.0 mKB.
Page 32
BlackPearl states that The pilot project has an extensive monitoring program in place to
monitor ground water, well performance and to ensure that the project remains within the
ERCB approved operational pressure limits.
However, no data was provided on the extensive monitoring program indicated in the above
statement.
BlackPearl states that Prior to pilot operations commencing, all non-saline ground water
formations were tested to obtain the baseline water composition. SAGD operational procedures
are in place to prevent contamination of non-saline water sources.
a. Provide data collected from the two observation wells offsetting the heel and the toe of
the SAGD well pair for the pilot project.
Response:
The 13-25-76-18-W4M Toe Observation Well (13-25 Observation Well) and 14-25-76-18-W4M Heel
Observation Well (14-25 Observation Well) are equipped with multilevel thermistor strings positioned in
each of the following: the shale above the capping shale; the capping shale; the Lower Grand Rapids 1
(LGR1); and the Lower Grand Rapids 2 (LGR2). In addition, the 14-25 Observation Well is equipped with
one thermistor and one pressure gauge positioned in the (LGR3) aquifer (also referred to as the Grand
Rapids ‘B’ aquifer). Data obtained from these two wells are used to manage the SAGD operation.
Neither the 13-25 Observation Well nor 14-25 Observation Well is designed to accommodate
groundwater sampling equipment. Therefore, baseline water composition data are not available for the
LGR3 aquifer at the sites of these two wells.
23. b. Provide a list of all non-saline groundwater formations referred to in the above
statement and corresponding data obtained from baseline testing of each non-saline
hydrostratigraphic unit.
Response:
The non-saline groundwater formations include the near-surface Quaternary deposits (i.e., the shallow
groundwater at and immediately below the water table), the Viking aquifer and the LGR3 (Grand Rapids
‘B’) aquifer. Baseline chemistry data for the shallow Quaternary deposits are provided in the response for
AESRD SIR 42a and baseline chemistry data for the Viking and LGR3 aquifers are provided in the
response for AESRD SIR 41a.
The water-saturated sandstones of the Upper Grand Rapids (i.e., the Grand Rapids ‘A’ aquifer) are thin or
absent in the Project Area and the Hydrogeology LSA (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-36, Page 1A-
45 of the Integrated Application). Consequently, the Grand Rapids ‘A’ aquifer is not a groundwater
management unit (Westwater 2011). As a result, monitoring of the Grand Rapids ‘A’ aquifer is not
undertaken for the Pilot Project which is in compliance with the EPEA approval.
Page 33
23. c. Describe the procedures in place referred to in the above statement, to prevent
contamination of non-saline water sources.
Response:
The SAGD operational procedures in place to prevent steam and heated bitumen from migrating into the
LGR3 (Grand Rapids ‘B’) aquifer are discussed in Westwater (2011) and summarized as follows. Real-
time pressure and temperature monitoring is conducted at the 14-25 Obsservation Well. The monitoring is
designed to detect any pressure or temperature changes in the LGR3 aquifer. Adjustments to the steam
injection parameters could be warranted if the pressure in the LGR3 aquifer increases to 2,500 kPa. In
addition, the producer SAGD well is positioned about 15 m above the aquifer. This well positioning,
coupled with maintaining a pressure balance between the producing zone and the underlying aquifer, is
designed to avoid diverting steam and heated bitumen below the producing zone.
23. d. Provide pressure, temperature and hydraulic data collected from the two wells drilled to
monitor the bottom water zone in the Lower Grand Rapids formation at 03-36-76-18-
W4 and 14-25-76-18-W4.
Response:
Water level and temperature data from MW LGR 3-36 (03-36-76-18-W4M) and MW LGR 14-25 (14-25-
76-18-W4M) are presented in Figures 23-1 and 23-2, respectively. Discussion of the data is presented in
AMEC (2013a). Hydraulic data (i.e., transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values) are not available for
either well.
23. e. Provide pressure, temperature and hydraulic data collected from the well drilled to
monitor the Viking aquifer at 15-25-76-18-W4.
Response:
Water level data from MW VIK 15-25 (15-25-76-18-W4M) are presented in Figure 23-3. Discussion of the
data is presented in AMEC (2013a).
A pumping test was conducted on MW VIK 15-25 on August 10, 2011. The test results indicate the
transmissivity of the Viking aquifer at the site of this well is 3.5 m2/d and the hydraulic conductivity is
6 x 10-6 m/s (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.5.1.3, Page 1A-58 of the Integrated Application).
Page 34
17.0
16.5
Temperature (ºC)
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
Dec-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Sep-11 Dec-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12
Date
80
Gauge depth = 320.1 mKB (TVD)

Top of Aquifer = 326.3 mKB (TVD)
100 = 388.1 mKB (MD)
KB)
120
Depth to Water (mK
140
160
180
200
Date
Figure 23-1
Notes: Water Level and Temperature
Gaps in data set due to power loss to instrumentation. in MW LGR 3-36
Sudden decreases in water level correspond to purging during sampling events. April, 2013
Sudden increases in temperature correspond to operation of the pump for purging and sampling.
J:\CC3762 Blackrod EIA-SIRs\Deliverables\Archive\WL and T for MW LGR 3-36.xlsx

17.0
16.5
Temperature (ºC)
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
Date
80
Gauge depth = 319.0 mKB (TVD)
Top of Aquifer = 326.0 mKB (TVD)
100
= 385.1 mKB (MD)
Depth to Water (mKB)
120
140
160
180
200
Date
Figure 23-2
Notes: Water Level and Temperature
Gaps in data set due to power loss to instrumentation. in MW LGR 14-25
Sudden decreases in water level correspond to purging during sampling events. April, 2013
Sudden increases in temperature correspond to operation of the pump for purging and sampling.
J:\CC3762 Blackrod EIA-SIRs\Deliverables\Archive\WL and T for MW LGR 14-25.xlsx

80
100
120
Depth to Water (mKB)
Gauge Depth = 216.5 mKB

140
Top of Aquifer = 217 mKB
160
180
200
Date
Figure 23-3
Water Level in MW VIK 15-25
April, 2013
J:\CC3762 Blackrod EIA-SIRs\Deliverables\Archive\WL Data for MW-VIK 15-25 obs.xlsx

24. Volume 1, Section 4.7.2, Page 4-21Volume 1, Section 4.7.2, Figure 4.7-4, Page 4-22
BlackPearl established a proximity setback of 100 m from existing drainages for the well pads.
However, Figure 4.7-4 shows that some well pads located in sections 23, 24 and 35 in Twp 76,
Rge 18 W4M are located close to or on existing drainages.
BlackPearl indicates in Volume 3, Page 2-21, that the drainage in Section 23 will be re- routed
around the well pad and back to its original pathway.
a. Indicate whether and how the 100-m setback will be respected for the well pads
located within the above mentioned sections.
Response:
Figure 4.7-4 does not make a distinction between drainages with or without defined bed and banks.
BlackPearl will implement a 100 m set-back for well pads to a watercourse with defined bed and banks,
where feasible. Where it is not possible to maintain a 100 m setback to watercourses with defined bed
and banks, the mitigative measures outlined in ERCB Directive 56 (2011) will be implemented. The
proximity setback of 100 m applies only to watercourses with defined channels (i.e., bed and banks). The
exact locations of drainages without defined channels cannot be determined and likely vary from season
to season, depending on runoff volumes, vegetation conditions and many other factors. As such, there is
not a “feature” to protect or buffer. However, the connectivity of such drainage paths will be maintained by
grading, clearing and providing a ditch channel and/or culverts as required.
24. b. Provide mitigation measures in the event that the 100-m setback is not met.
Response:
Where it is not possible to maintain a 100 m setback for watercourses with defined channels (bed and
banks), the mitigative measures outlined in ERCB Directive 56 (2011) will be implemented (Volume 3,
Section 4.7.1). For drainages without defined channels, this criterion does not apply; but their connectivity
will be maintained.
24. c. Clarify whether the 100-m setback will be respected when the drainage is re-routed
around the well pad in Section 23.
Response:
The 100-m setback criterion does not apply to drainages without defined channels.
This is a drainage without a defined channel (it does not have defined bed and banks). As such, water
flow will be diverted away from the well pad while maintaining connectivity and its original course (Volume
3, Section 2.9.1.2). If feasible, a setback of 100 m from the well pad may be maintained.
BlackPearl will also consider the guidelines as described in Stepping Back from the Water: A Beneficial
Management Practices Guide for New Development Near Water Bodies in Alberta’s Settled Region
(AESRD 2012), which provides recommended buffers for different types of waterbodies and recommends
a vegetated width of 50 m for permanent waterbodies.
Page 38
BlackPearl states Where surface constraints prevent placement of an observation well, tilt
metres or [a] satellite monitoring system to measure surface movement may be considered.
In section 4.10.3, BlackPearl indicates Based on the projects[’] injection pressures, the
potential environmental effects are expected to be indiscernible as the actual changes will be
indiscernible as they occur. Consequently, the effect of the Project on topography due to
ground heave or subsidence is not carried forward in the assessment.
a. What is meant by actual changes will be indiscernible as they occur? Does BlackPearl
mean that actual changes will not be measureable?
Response:
Given the presence of bottom water, the reservoir pressures will be maintained very close to balanced
based on virgin reservoir pressures. The result of this balanced scenario is that surface heave is less
likely to occur at the Blackrod Project. BlackPearl is not stating that changes in surface heave cannot be
measured should they occur. Tiltmeter systems or interferometric synthetic aperture radar (INSAR)
methods using satellite technology can be used to measure change in ground level elevations.
Until heave is measured at the Project, heave impact is speculative. Heave occurs as a normal part of
operations at SAGD projects within Alberta.
25. b. If the changes are measureable, over what time frame will they occur and how were
they determined to be ecologically irrelevant? Provide supporting data.
Response:
BlackPearl does recognize that surface heave could still occur, but maintains that environmental effects
will be indiscernible as surface heave is not expected to be uniform and would occur gradually over a
10 year period during a SAGD well pairs life at a rate of millimeters to centimeters per year. A metering
system such as satellite or a tiltmeter measurement will be needed to monitor heave.
If surface heave does occur it will be limited to the immediate area above any SAGD wells. Any
displacement of the surface would taper off as the distance from the well increases. If surface heave does
occur it will be indiscernible more than 100 m to 200 m laterally from the subsurface SAGD well pairs.
For example, it is extremely unlikely that ground level elevation changes resulting from surface heave will
change the direction of surface flow in the LSA. BlackPearl will implement an INSAR monitoring program
for reservoir performance monitoring andthis data will provide early indication of surface heave.
Therefore, once actual field data is obtained, BlackPearl can provide AESRD with data predicting the
potential for surface heave.
25. c. Provide an estimate of surface heave expected.
Response:
Other SAGD projects have measured surface heave from 0 cm to 30 cm. It is possible the Project could
see similar levels of heave.
Page 39
25. d. Identify and map any areas where surface heave is expected to intersect with
watercourses or water bodies.
Response:
As noted above, if surface heave does occur it will be indiscernible more than 100 m to 200 m laterally
from the subsurface SAGD well pairs. Refer to Figure 62-1 for a map that shows well pads within 100 m
of a watercourse. Phase 1 of BlackPearl’s development does not occur within 200 m of a watercourse.
During Phase 1, BlackPearl will implement a heave monitoring program on one of the well pads. This will
provide useful information on potential surface heave prior to implementation of Phase 2.
25. e. How will surface heave be monitored?
Response:
As part of Phase 1 reservoir monitoring, BlackPearl plans to install a tilt-meter system or a INSAR along
one of the SAGD drainage patterns, similar to many other thermal projects in the region. The INSAR
technique measures ground displacement by satellite at reflector locations. The reflectors will be
strategically placed throughout the drainage pattern to monitor the growth of the stream chamber. The
data obtained will also provide early indication of any surface heave that may be caused by steam
injection.
The data will verify if surface heave is occurring. If surface heave does occur the results will be used to
strategically place heave measurement on other drainage patterns as they are developed.
25. f. Discuss whether there will be hydrological and/or aquatic impacts as a consequence of
surface heave. Provide support for the conclusions presented.
Response:
The consequences of heave cannot be provided until field data is obtained verifying if heave is occurring
and the associated rate of heave per year. Surface heave is accepted as a normal part of SAGD
operations and, to date, BlackPearl is not aware of any SAGD projects in which heave has resulted in
hydrologic or aquatic impacts.
25. g. Provide mitigation measures BlackPearl plans to implement should in case subsidence
due to ground heave
Response:
BlackPearl cannot provide mitigation measures until it is known whether heave will or will not occur. If
heave does occur, BlackPearl will adapt the industry accepted practises, such as a facility equipment
alignment monitoring program, to ensure that pumps and other equipment transporting fluids do not leak.
If heave occurs, it is a result of normal SAGD operations and cannot be mitigated because the only
mitigation measure would be to stop steam injection.
Page 40
BlackPearl states that Table 7.7-1 is provided to illustrate the composition of the project fluid
streams that are sent to underground disposal as well as the water composition from the
underground source. The tables illustrate that any fluid that is disposed is of similar quality to
the subsurface formation fluid that it is being pumped into.
In Volume 3 Page 1-1, BlackPearl states that The planned wastewater disposal zone is the
Lower 'A' and 'B' units of the Grosmont Formation.
a. Specifically state which tables illustrate that any fluid that is being disposed is of similar
quality to the subsurface formation fluid that it is being pumped into, since Table 7.7-1
does not show the formation fluid composition of the Grosmont A and B units which are
planned to be used as disposal zones.
Response:
Water chemistry data are not available for the Grosmont ‘A’ and ‘B’ units. However, it is expected the
chemistry of those two Grosmont units will be similar to the chemistry of the Grosmont ‘D’ unit as shown
in Table 7.7-1 in Volume 1, Section 7.0 of the Integrated Application.
27. Volume 1, Appendix 3A, Section 5
The formation intervals indicated in Appendix 3A are not consistent with the formation
thicknesses provided on Page 3-5 (e.g., the thickness of Joli Fou is shown as 20 to 26 m on
Page 3-5, but it is calculated at 42.5 m according to the Formation interval's Table shown in
Appendix 3, Section 5).
a. Clarify the formation thicknesses.
Response:
The Joli Fou formation isopach is mapped in Figure 3.1-11 in Volume 1, Section 3.0, Page 3-5 of the
Integrated Application. The Joli Fou thickness in OSE 01-36-76-18W4M is 23.8 m, as referenced in
Appendix 3A.
Page 41
Volume 1, Section 3.1.1, Figure 3.1-3, Page 3-7
BlackPearl states that The aquifer overlying the bitumen reservoir is the Viking aquifer.
Figure 3.1-3 (Volume 1, Page 3-7) shows that the bitumen reservoir is immediately overlain by
the Upper Grand Rapids aquifer, described as a 40 to 50-m thick stacked shoreface sandstone
sequence (Volume 1, Section 3.1.1.2, Page 3-4).
a. Clarify which aquifer is overlaying the bitumen reservoir. Provide figure(s) to illustrate.
Response:
In ascending order, the bitumen reservoir is overlain by the Grand Rapids ‘A’ shale (aquitard), the Grand
Rapids ‘A’ sandstone (aquifer) where present, the Joli Fou shale (aquitard), the lower Viking shale
(aquitard) and the Viking sandstone (aquifer) as shown in Volume 3, Figure 1A-4, Page 1A-11 of the
29. Volume 3, Section 1.3.4.3, Pages 1-7 and 1-8
Volume 3, Section 1.6.1.3, Pages 1-29 and 1-30
BlackPearl indicates that the Viking aquifer and possibly the Grand Rapids 'B' aquifer will be
subjected to heating due to steam injection, which will reach a temperature of 300⁰C over the
8- to 12-year period of the life of a SAGD well pair.
BlackPearl further states that Prior to steaming, dissolved chemical constituents in the aquifer
water and minerals in the aquifer sediments will be in thermodynamic equilibrium. As the
temperature increases, new thermodynamic conditions will evolve in the aquifer and the
concentrations of some chemical constituents could increase.
On Page 1-29, BlackPearl indicates that the temperature at which arsenic is released in the
water is approximately 50⁰C.
On Page 1-30, BlackPearl further states that There is a possibility that any arsenic in the
aquifer sediments will be released due to the heating and that arsenic plumes could develop.
On Page 1-31, BlackPearl also states that Monitoring of the Viking and Grand Rapids 'B'
aquifers is currently underway at the Pilot Project and the monitoring program will be expanded
for Phase 1 of the Project.
BlackPearl finally states that In the event groundwater quality changes are detected, the need
for mitigation measures will be discussed with ESRD.
a. Provide details on the monitoring program to be implemented during the full

commercial project starting with Phase 1.
Response:
The terms and conditions attached to the Approval to be issued by ESRD for the Project will include a
clause that requires the submission of a proposed groundwater monitoring program. The proposed
program will include the aquifers to be monitored, the rationale for proposed monitoring well locations, a
Page 42
list of analytical parameters and a monitoring schedule. Many of the components of the proposed
program as currently envisaged are presented in the Integrated Application (Volume 3, Section 1.8,
Pages 1-34 to 1-38). It is noted that the planned layout of the CPF as presented in the Integrated
Application (Volume 3, Section 1.8.1, Figure 1.8-1, Page 1-35) has been revised, as well as the number
and locations of well pads and proposed groundwater monitoring wells (Volume 3, Section 1.8.3,
Figure 1.8-2, Page 1-38 of the Integrated Application). The revised planned layout of the CPF is
presented in Appendix A of the Project Update, and the revised locations of well pads and proposed
groundwater monitoring wells are shown in Figures 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 of the Project Update.
The proposed groundwater monitoring program described in the Integrated Application (Volume 3,
Section 1.8, Pages 1-34 to 1-38) and with the above-noted revisions applies to Phase 1 of the Project.
Revisions to the proposed program may be made following discussions with AESRD after the Approval
for the Project has been issued. Expansion of the monitoring program for the subsequent phases of the
Project will be based on the monitoring results obtained during Phase 1 in order to optimize the
effectiveness of the program. Consequently, forecasting the details of the monitoring program for the full
Commercial Project is not feasible at this time.
29. b. Indicate the aquifers that will be monitored, the chemical parameters to be monitored
and the anticipated density of monitoring wells.
Response:
Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 29a.
29. c. Discuss how the monitoring results will be evaluated, given the current lack of baseline
data.
Response:
Baseline monitoring data have been obtained for the Pilot Project and baseline data for the Commercial
Project will be collected before the startup of Phase 1. Baseline data for the Pilot Project were obtained
prior to startup in April 2011 (Westwater 2011). Data obtained in 2011 and 2012 continue to be
representative of baseline conditions.
The groundwater monitoring well network for Phase 1 of the Project will be installed before startup to
collect baseline data. For the shallow monitoring wells at the CPF, the first set of samples will be collected
at the time the monitoring wells are installed prior to the start of operations. For the bedrock aquifer
monitoring wells, it is envisaged the Approval may require five monthly sampling events prior to startup.
It is expected that the same data evaluation methods used for the Pilot Project data will be used for the
Project data. These include control charts and the Mann-Kendal test for trend for key indicator
parameters. As well, targets and thresholds will be developed for the Viking and LGR3 (Grand Rapids ‘B’)
aquifers and tolerance limits will be developed for the shallow groundwater at the CPF. Details regarding
evaluation methods are presented in Westwater (2011).
Page 43
29. d. Provide details on mitigation measures to be discussed with ESRD in case of chemical
changes.
Response:
A Groundwater Response Plan will be implemented in the event an unexpected change in the chemical
quality of the groundwater in a monitoring well is detected. General descriptions of mitigation measures
and the response plans for the shallow groundwater at the CPF and the bedrock aquifers are presented
in the Integrated Application (Volume 3, Section 1.8.4, Page 1-37). If warranted under a response plan,
appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and discussed with AESRD based on the site and
event-specific circumstances. Consequently, details on the mitigation measures cannot be provided until
those circumstances are known.
The noted table describes the assessment criteria used for hydrogeology. Although impact
balance, spatial boundary, temporal context, magnitude, probability of occurrence, and level of
confidence are listed as criteria, significance appears to be based solely on reversibility (one
criterion in temporal context) and whether environmental, social and/or regulatory standards
have been exceeded.
a. Which environmental, social and/or regulatory standards were used in the assessment
of significance for hydrogeology?
Response:
The definition of “significance” for hydrogeology is elaborated on in Volume 3, Section 1.3.6.1, Page 1-10
of the Integrated Application. As indicated in that section, established guidelines, thresholds or criteria
were considered. More specifically, the Project will be operated in accordance with the terms and
conditions for groundwater as specified in the EPEA Approval to be issued by AESRD for the Project. The
Approval will include a clause that requires the submission of a proposed groundwater monitoring
program (Volume 3, Section 1.8.1, Page 1-34 and Volume 3, Section 1.8.3, Page 1-36 of the Integrated
Application). In addition, well pad monitoring will be discussed with AESRD (Volume 3, Section 1.8.2,
Page 1-36 of the Integrated Application) and, if required, will be included in the proposed groundwater
monitoring program.
The proposed groundwater monitoring program for the bedrock aquifers will identify targets and
thresholds based on control charts for groundwater quality and groundwater quantity in accordance with
the regulatory requirements to be specified in the Approval. The proposed program for the shallow
groundwater at the CPF will identify tolerance limits based on control charts for groundwater quality. It is
anticipated at this time that the programs will be the same or similar to the programs currently in place for
the Pilot Project, which operates under EPEA Approval No. 264736-00-00 (Volume 3, Section 1.8.1,
Page 1-34 and Volume 3, Section 1.8.3, Page 1-36 of the Integrated Application).
The programs for the Pilot Project include groundwater response plans and the proposed programs for
the Project will also include groundwater response plans (Volume 3, Section 1.8.4, Page 1-37 of the
Integrated Application). A Groundwater Response Plan will be implemented in the event a target or
tolerance limit is exceeded (i.e., a potentially significant event has occurred). Events requiring mitigation
or remediation represent significant events. Through the triggering of a groundwater response plan, a
significant or potentially significant event will be addressed to the satisfaction of AESRD.
Page 44
30. b. In the absence of environmental, social or regulatory standards, BlackPearl appears to

have used only reversibility to assess significance. Consequently, BlackPearl has only
described the significance of impacts occurring well past decommissioning and
closure. It does not provide insight into the significance of impacts occurring during the
project construction or operations. Revise the assessment of significance to better
characterize impacts occurring during construction, operations and decommissioning.
Response:
BlackPearl’s Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (Volume 1, Section 9.0 and
Volume 3, Section 1.6.2.4, Page 1-31) will be in effect during the construction phase of the Project. The
System, which will be subject to EPEA approval, includes a Spill Response Plan which will serve to
address potential sources of shallow groundwater contamination.
The proposed groundwater monitoring program will be submitted to AESRD prior to the start of Phase 1
operations. Operations will not begin until authorization to implement the program has been granted by
AESRD. The groundwater monitoring program (including the groundwater response plans), and all other
terms and conditions for groundwater as specified in the EPEA Approval, will be in effect during the
operations and reclamation phases of the Project.
In view of the foregoing and the response to AESRD SIR 30a, “significance” for hydrogeology is based on
reversibility and on regulatory standards through the EPEA Approval that will be in effect during the
construction, operations and reclamation phases of the Project. Therefore, revision to the assessment of
significance is not warranted.
BlackPearl states that A steady-state calibration of the model was not performed due to an
insufficient number and distribution of hydraulic head data points, and the absence of hydraulic
head data specific to the Grosmont ’D’ aquifer.
Model Calibration (Steady State and Transient State) is the most important component of
groundwater modelling protocol, especially when the model is used for predictive purposes.
Basically, the model must first be calibrated before it can be used to generate groundwater
head forecasts/predictions. That is, model parameters are adjusted until the simulation is
consistent with the analyst’s understanding of the groundwater system and all available data;
computed values of head should closely match these measured at selected points
(observations wells) in the aquifer. This means that a set of historical data is used to compare
with the generated groundwater heads derived by simulation. Analysis of the difference
between measured and computed heads gives an indication as to where adjustment of output
parameters may be necessary in order to minimize this difference. This portion (calibration) of
modeling protocol was not performed.
a. Provide steady state and transient state calibrations using data collected from the
Project area.
Response:
Model calibration is an important component of the groundwater modelling protocol but only if observed
target data (i.e., measured head values) exist. A steady-state calibration could not be performed due to
the lack of specific calibration targets in the model domain. Although only a few hydrogeological studies
have been conducted for the Grosmont Formation (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.5.1.13, Page 1A-
62 of the Integrated Application), the common understanding is it is a thick, spatially vast, productive
saline groundwater system. Only one hydraulic head data point exists for the Grosmont ‘D’ aquifer in the
Hydrogeology Regional Study Area (RSA), which is not enough to calibrate a model. The best procedure
available was to calibrate the model to a published hydraulic head distribution (Volume 3, Section 1.5.2.3,
Page 45
Page 1-14 of the Integrated Application), which is the most reliable reference for groundwater trends in
the Grosmont. Although this procedure did not apply exact calibration targets, it did allow the model to
represent the regional groundwater flow patterns reasonably well.
31. b. Provide calibration results (scatterplots, calibration histograms, maps, contour patterns,
and assessment of input aquifer properties and boundary conditions)
Response:
Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 31a. The simulated hydraulic head distribution for the Grosmont
Formation prior to groundwater withdrawal is shown in Volume 3, Figure 1.5-3, Page 1-19 of the
31. c. Describe the worst-case and best-case prediction under calibrated conditions.
Response:
Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 31a regarding calibrated conditions. The best-case prediction is
represented by Scenario 1 and the worst-case prediction is represented by Scenario 2 (Volume 3,
Section 1.5.2.5, Page 1-18 and Section 1.6.1.1, Page 1-22 of the Integrated Application).
31. d. Discuss different assumptions made and the impact of errors that may result from
these assumptions. Provide a map showing areas that are most sensitive to these
errors and where aquifer parameter adjustment was required.
Response:
Refer to the responses for AESRD SIRs 31a and 31c regarding assumptions. In view of the assumptions
and available baseline data, an error assessment cannot be made and a map showing sensitive areas
cannot be provided.
Sensitivity analysis is a standard procedure for scientific evaluation and assessment of the
model’s response to parameter inputs. A sensitivity analysis identifies the model inputs that
have the most impact on the calibration and on the conclusions of the modeling analysis. This
portion (sensitivity analysis) of modeling protocol was not performed.
a. Provide a sensitivity analysis of the model.
Response:
Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 31a. Without calibration target points, a sensitivity analysis would
not produce meaningful results.
Page 46
32. b. Provide an assessment on the impact of parameter uncertainty on model predictions,

and describe the percentage of variance contributed by each parameter in the
predictions for simulated cases.
Response:
Model predictions are most sensitive to the hydraulic conductivity model parameter. Hydraulic conductivity
was varied by half an order of magnitude in two predictive simulations (refer to the response for AESRD
SIR 31c). Lowering the hydraulic conductivity for Scenario 2 resulted in an increase in drawdown in the
pumping well grid cell (Volume 3, Figure 1.5-5, Page 1-22 and Figure 1.6-3, Page 1-25 of the Integrated
Application), as well as an increase in the extent of drawdown by a factor of two (Volume 3, Figure 1.6-4,
Page 1-26 and Figure 1.6-5, Page 1-27 of the Integrated Application).
32. c. Explain an evaluation of used values since many reasonable combinations can history
match the observed data.
Response:
Refer to the responses for AESRD SIRs 31a and 31c.
Volume 3, Section 1.5.2.3, Figure 1.5-1, Page 1-15
BlackPearl states that The grid cell dimension within the BlackPearl leases is 500 m by 500 m.
a. Provide the grid sizes in other areas and the rationale behind the grid refinement in
some areas.
Response:
The grid spacing of the model represents the overall resolution of the surface interpretations of the
geology and groundwater flow. The grid was refined in the area of the Grosmont source wells to better
depict the steeper hydraulic gradients that will exist in the area of these wells. Greater refinement was not
needed to determine drawdown impacts. The 500 m x 500 m grid spacing was appropriate for this
purpose.
33. b. Discuss the impact of model grid spacing to the groundwater flow predictions within the
RSA.
Response:
The model grid spacing represents the overall resolution of the surface interpretations of the geology and
groundwater flow. Therefore, the grid spacing does not impact the drawdown predictions.
Page 47
33. c. Discuss the effects of grid spacing on the predicted drawdown versus the actual
drawdown in the vicinity of the pumping wells.
Response:
The main objective of the model simulations was to estimate the extent of drawdown in the Hydrogeology
RSA. The grid spacing used was appropriate for this purpose and applying a finer grid spacing would not
improve the modelling predictions. The grid spacing was also appropriate for determining the drawdown
in the vicinity of the well field. During model development, grid spacing was tested and further refinement
did not result in improved drawdown predictions. It is noted that actual drawdown data in the vicinity of the
pumping wells are not available.
33. d. Discuss the assessment of any numerical error that may have been introduced as a
result of inappropriate solution techniques or poor choice of grid spacing and time
increment.
Response:
The solution techniques incorporated in MODFLOW-2000 were appropriate for assessing the potential
effects of groundwater withdrawal from the Grosmont ‘D’ aquifer. As discussed in the response for
AESRD SIR 33c, the grid spacing used was appropriate. The time increments chosen for the simulations
were appropriate, as discussed in the response for AESRD SIR 33e.
33. e. Describe time discretization (critical time step) under transient scenarios.
Response:
The time steps were chosen for smooth convergence of the transient model so as to achieve solution
convergence with a small mass balance error. The mass balance error was close to zero for all time steps
of the predictive simulations. Unlike transport simulations, critical time stepping does not play a critical
role in the accuracy of groundwater flow calculations.
33. f. If Modpath was used for particle tracking, explain how the cell size affected the pathline
results.
Response:
MODPATH was not used.
Page 48
Volume 3, Sections 1.5.2.4. and 1.5.2.6, Page 1-18
On Page 1-14, BlackPearl states that The (model) domain extends beyond the limits of the
Hydrogeology RSA and includes a large part of the Grosmont mapping available from Walker
and Harrison (1985). The domain was extended to cover this large area so that simulated
drawdowns would not be constrained or influenced by the boundary conditions.
Hydrogeological conditions within the RSA were extrapolated beyond the RSA.
The layer which was modelled is the Grosmont aquifer D which is intended to be the water
source for the project. In this case, it was extended to the whole Grosmont mapping available
from the literature (Harrison and Walker, 1985), which is over four times the size of the
hydrogeology RSA. The extension of the model to such a large area minimizes considerably
the prediction accuracy to a point that it becomes almost irrelevant within the RSA, the LSA
and the Project Area. The results of simulated head distribution shown on Figure 1.5-3 are too
general for any use within the RSA or the Project Area. Furthermore, data used for the model is
mainly obtained outside the RSA, and only one data point is available from the Project Area.
a. The active model domain should not be too broad to lack specific information relevant
to the RSA, LSA and Project Area. Review the model and its size to only reflect
specific information relevant to the RSA, LSA and Project Area.
Response:
The model domain represents the scale of the available geologic and hydrogeologic data for the
Hydrogeology RSA. Further data for the Hydrogeology LSA and Project Area are not available (aside
from the one data point as noted above). Therefore, reduction in the active model domain is not
warranted.
34. b. Provide sufficient site specific data within the Project Area for accurate predictions in
the Project Area, the LSA and the RSA.
Response:
The available site-specific hydrogeologic data for the Project Area are presented in Volume 3,
Appendix 1A, Section 1A.5.1.13, Pages 1A-62 and 1A-63 of the Integrated Application. These data were
the only data available for the groundwater flow model.
34. c. Discuss the significance of the model results provided in Section 1.5.2.4 to the Project
Area, given the limitations and constraints connected with lack of data and the
extension of the model to the whole Grosmont aquifer.
Response:
The model represents the best available information for the Grosmont Formation and, therefore, provides
the best predictions that can be made. Uncertainty has been reduced as much as possible (Volume 3,
Section 1.5.2.6, Page 1-18 of the Integrated Application).
Page 49
BlackPearl shows the water inflow and outflow within the boundaries of the model.
a. Provide the general water-balance for all inflows rate entering the model domain
(recharge, boundaries, etc.) and outflows rate (wells, boundaries etc.) across the RSA
boundaries (inflow vs. outflow + change of storage) for simulated cases.
Response:
The water balance for the model (Volume 3, Section 1.5.2.4, Page 1-18 of the Integrated Application) did
not vary significantly between model simulations for the two scenarios.
BlackPearl states that The numerical groundwater flow model was based on limited data
available for the region. The best available interpretations for the model inputs were used in
the development of the model. Therefore, uncertainty has been reduced as much as possible.
BlackPearl also states that The scale of the modelling was regional and did not account for
local-scale heterogeneities that likely exist in the Grosmont Formation. An equivalent porous
media approach was applied which assumes the Grosmont acts like a porous media at a
regional scale. Devonian strata can have fractures but the fractures could be local and
randomly distributed. The paleokarst features of the Grosmont give further support to the
equivalent porous media approach.
a. Explain how interpolations between distant observation wells were conducted, and
discuss whether the parameter values were assigned in a patchwork pattern
(parameters are adjusted on a block-by-block basis to achieve a good calibration
without regard for geologic evidence) or based on geologic evidence.
Response:
Observation wells are not present in the Hydrogeology RSA and, therefore, interpolations between distant
observation wells were not made. Single value hydraulic parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) were
used in the model and did not vary spatially. Patchwork patterns were not applied.
36. b. Describe the level of parameter uncertainty and discuss the methods used for
evaluating uncertainty and the plans to resolve uncertainty due to data limitations.
Response:
See response for AESRD SIR 32b.
36. c. Compare the importance of the variability in parameters and distribution to each input
parameter in the model and identify the critical inputs that introduce the greatest
uncertainty in performance predictions obtained with the model.
Response:
See response for AESRD SIR 32b.
Page 50
BlackPearl indicates that leaks or accidental spills will be remediated and therefore the effects
are reversible, concluding that because the effects are reversible and unlikely to occur, the
effects are not significant.
a. Discuss the efficacy of spill remediation in the shallow groundwater conditions local to
the project area.
Response:
Any leaks or spills that do occur will be cleaned-up to regulatory standards (Volume 3, Section 1.6.3.4,
Page 1-32 of the Integrated Application). The regulation standards specified in EPEA Approval
No. 264736-00-00 for the Pilot Project are the Alberta Tier 1 and Alberta Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater
Remediation Guidelines (AENV 2010a,b). It is anticipated these guidelines will also be specified in the
Approval to be issued for the Project. By applying these regulatory standards, an adverse impact to the
shallow groundwater (i.e., a significant effect) will be reversed to a non-significant status that will meet the
expectations of AESRD. Remediation of impacted shallow groundwater in clay till is a common
undertaking in Alberta.
37. b. Are all potential leaks and spills that affect groundwater fully reversible?
Response:
Reversibility in the context of this potential effect does not imply remediation to baseline conditions.
Rather, the remediation goal for any impacted shallow groundwater will be the regulatory standards
specified in the Approval for the Project as indicated in the response for AESRD SIR 37a.
37. c. If not, reconsider the conclusion that the effects are not significant.
Response:
Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 37a. The conclusion that the effects are not significant is still valid.
BlackPearl states The Project activities expected to have residual effects on groundwater
quality are thermal effects on non-saline aquifers, and surface facility leaks and spills.
a. The groundwater quality in the disposal zone will be affected by the disposal
constituents. Why was this not listed as a residual effect?
Response:
There are no regulatory guidelines with respect to groundwater quality for saline aquifers in Alberta.
Consequently, identifying the change in the groundwater quality of the disposal zone was not warranted.
Page 51
38. b. Does the disposal zone intersect down-gradient with the Athabasca River? If so, when
and where will disposal-affected water connect with the Athabasca River? Assess the
potential impacts to Athabasca River water quality and aquatic ecology.
Response:
The disposal zone does not intersect the Athabasca River within or down-gradient of the Project Area.
The planned wastewater disposal zone is the ‘A’ and ‘B’ units of the Grosmont Formation. The elevation
of the Athabasca River in the vicinity of the Project Area is approximately 500 masl (Volume 3,
Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-5 of the Integrated Application) and the elevation of the Grosmont ‘B’ unit
(i.e., the top of the disposal zone) is approximately 120 masl (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-8 of the
Integrated Application). Therefore, the disposal zone in the vicinity of the Project Area is approximately
380 m below the Athabasca River. Available information for the Grosmont Formation indicates the
wastewater will flow to the northwest away from the Athabasca River.
BlackPearl argues that because Quaternary deposits in the Project Area primarily consist of
clay till, thermal effects in the Quaternary Deposits are not considered to be a concern and a
well pad monitoring program with shallow monitoring wells is not warranted
a. Describe Quaternary deposit sampling undertaken to establish clay till substrates are
consistent across the Project Area.
Response:
Quaternary deposit sampling was undertaken at the CPF for the Pilot Project (Volume 3, Appendix 1A,
Section 1A.4.3, Page 1A-55 of the Integrated Application) and sampling will be undertaken at the CPF for
the Project during the installation of the shallow monitoring wells (Volume 3, Section 1.8.1, Page 1-34 of
the Integrated Application). The borehole drilled for one steam injection well or production well at each
well pad will be logged to surface. The logs will be assessed for potential occurrences of sand layers
within the Quaternary deposits (clay till). The resulting information will be provided to AESRD during the
discussion on the possible need for a well pad monitoring program (Volume 3, Section 1.8.2, Page 1-36
of the Integrated Application). If a monitoring program is considered to be warranted for a well pad,
Quaternary deposit sampling will be undertaken during the installation of monitoring wells.
39. b. Discuss BlackPearl’s confidence that Quaternary deposits’ downgradient of current pad
locations are consistent with the characterization of groundwater flow presented.
Response:
Groundwater flow patterns within the shallow Quaternary deposits will be typical of a topographic (gravity-
driven) flow system wherein groundwater will flow from topographic highs to the adjacent topographic
lows (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.5.3, Page 1A-63). If a monitoring program is considered to be
warranted for a well pad, monitoring well locations will be selected on this basis.
Page 52
39. c. Based on the data available, what is the maximum extent of thermal plumes
anticipated in the Quaternary deposit?
Response:
Heat transport modelling was undertaken to derive an estimate of the potential maximum size of a
thermal plume that will form in the Quaternary deposits (clay till) adjacent to a steam injection well. The
three-dimensional modelling was undertaken with the numerical finite-element model FEFLOW (DHI-
WASY GmbH, 2005). Volumetric heat capacity and heat conductivity values for water and solids included
with the FEFLOW software were used. The other input parameters were:
• Source temperature: 300°C at the well casing (Volume 3, Section 1.3.4.3, Page 1-8 of
the Integrated Application)
• Ambient temperature: 5°C (refer to Table 42-1 in the response for AESRD SIR 42a)
• Time: 12 years (Volume 3, Section 1.3.4.3, Page 1-8 of the Integrated Application)
-9
• Hydraulic conductivity: 3 x 10 m/s (Volume 3, Section 1.6.2.3, Page 1-30 of the
Integrated Application)
• Hydraulic gradient: 1% (typical upper value)
• Longitudinal dispersivity: 1 m (typical upper value for this scale of transport)
• Transverse (lateral and vertical) dispersivity: 0.1 m (typical upper value for this scale of
transport)
• Effective porosity: 40% (typical textbook value)
• Average thickness of clay till: 50 m (Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.4.3, Page 1A-
55 of the Integrated Application)
The model was divided into 10 layers, each with a thickness of 5 m. The initial temperature for all layers
was 5°C. The temperature of the uppermost layer was constrained at 5°C (i.e., a constant temperature
boundary condition) due to the cool to cold air temperatures for most of the year.
Results of the modelling simulation show that after 12 years of heating, the distance to the edge of the
thermal plume would be approximately 30 m. Due to the low hydraulic conductivity of the clay till, diffusive
transport (i.e., conduction) would be dominant compared to advective transport (i.e., forced convection).
Under diffusive transport, heat transport from the well casing will be radial, giving the thermal plume a
“halo” type of heat distribution.
Once steam injection ends, the thermal plume will continue to migrate in the dominant direction of
groundwater flow but the temperatures within the plume will dissipate. Modelling results indicate that
40 years after the end of steam injection the plume will have migrated another 10 m (i.e., total distance of
40 m from the well casing). After 40 years, the plume will begin to shrink in size. Throughout this entire
transport period, the uppermost 5 m of the subsurface will remain at 5°C due to the constant temperature
boundary condition.
Page 53
39. d. Discuss BlackPearl’s confidence that thermal plumes will not extend to intersect with a
watercourse or waterbody. Support this discussion using maps and modelling
requested above.
Response:
Based on the modelling results, thermal plumes should not migrate to a watercourse or waterbody.
Volume 3, Section 2.9.1, Table 2.9-1, Page 2-19
The data representing the baseline case at the bottom portion of Table 2.9-1 are partly different
from data presented for baseline conditions in Table 2.8-1
a. Clarify the differences. If required, update the tables accordingly.
Response:
Table 2.8-1 in Volume 3, Section 2.8.2 is for the Baseline Case only. The overlapped areas of
disturbance for the Baseline Case and for the Project were deducted from the disturbed areas for the
Baseline Case but counted as the Project disturbances. The differences in area between the Baseline
Cases in Table 2.9-1 and Table 2.8-1 are the areas where the Project disturbance area overlapped with
the baseline disturbance area.
Page 54
41. Terms of Reference, Section 3.2.1, Page 7
Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.5.1, Pages 1A-57 to 1A-72
Section 3.2.1 of the Terms of Reference states:
(b) present regional and Project Area hydrogeology describing:
(i) the major aquifers, aquitards and aquicludes (Quaternary and bedrock), their spatial
distribution, properties, hydraulic connections between aquifers, hydraulic heads,
gradients, groundwater flow directions and velocities. Include maps and cross sections.
BlackPearl states on Page 1A-57 that Hydraulic parameters for several aquifers and all of the
aquitards in the Hydrogeology RSA are not available. However, hydraulic parameters are
available in the report for the groundwater flow model for the Athabasca Oil Sands (In Situ)
area south of Fort McMurray (WorleyParsons 2010). The part of the Hydrogeology LSA on the
east side of the Athabasca River including the Project Area is within the model domain. The
hydraulic parameters cited below from this report were derived from a calibrated model and
although not confirmed by field-testing methods, should represent reasonable regional
estimates.
Overall, the hydrogeology study was conducted on a regional scale with very little site specific
information on the Project Area. Throughout the hydrogeological study, BlackPearl relied
mostly on:
• regional data published by WorleyParsons (2010) in the draft report for the
Groundwater flow model for the Athabasca Oilsands (In Situ) Area South of Fort
MacMurray, Phase 2;
• data obtained from a study conducted by Husky (2008) for their Application for
Approval of the McMullen Thermal Pilot Project located outside the RSA within
Twp 79 Rge 1 W5;
• data obtained from a study conducted by Canadian Natural Resources Limited
(2005) for their application for groundwater diversions for the Brintnell project which
encroaches on the northwestern potion of the RSA; and
• regional data from published literature.
None of these document provide hydrogeology data specific to the Project Area.
a. Provide groundwater baseline data for the determination of hydraulic heads, gradients,
groundwater flow directions, velocities, water chemistry, groundwater flow contour
maps and/or cross-sections specific to the Project Area with emphasis on the following
hydrostratigraphic units: Quaternary/Tertiary aquifers/aquitards, Viking aquifer, Grand
Rapids A aquifer, Lower Grand Rapids, and Grosmont aquifer.
Response:
Groundwater baseline data specific to the Project Area for the Viking aquifer, the LGR3 aquifer (Grand
Rapids ‘B’ aquifer) and the Grosmont ’D’ aquifer are provided in Volume 3, Appendix 1A of the Integrated
Application and in AMEC (2013a,b) as noted below. Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 42a for
baseline data for the Quaternary aquitard (there are no known Quaternary aquifers in the Project Area).
The Upper Grand Rapids ‘A’ aquifer, which is thin or absent in the Project Area (Volume 3, Appendix 1A,
Figure 1A-36, Page 1A-45 of the Integrated Application), is not a groundwater management unit (refer to
the response for AESRD SIR 23b).
Viking Aquifer
Hydraulic head and hydraulic parameter data for MW VIK 15-25 are provided in Volume 3, Appendix 1A
of the Integrated Application as follows: Section 1A.5.1.3 (Page 1A-58); Figure 1A-44 (Page 1A-59);
Page 55
Table 1A1-2 (Page 1A-86); and Table 1A1-4 (Page 1A-89). Water level data are presented in
Figure 23-3, and the data are discussed in AMEC (2013a).
Groundwater chemistry data for samples collected from MW VIK 15-25 in 2010 and 2011 are provided in
Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Table 1A2-1, Pages 1A-91 to 1A-93 of the Integrated Application. The data for
these samples and the samples collected in 2012 are provided in Tables 41-1, 41-2 and 41-3. Discussion
of the data is presented in AMEC (2013a).
LGR3 (Grand Rapids ‘B’) Aquifer

Hydraulic head and hydraulic parameter data for WSW-LGR 14-24 and OBS-LGR 14-24 are provided in
Volume 3, Appendix 1A of the Integrated Application as follows: Section 1A.5.1.7 (Page 1A-60),
Figure 1A-45 (Page 1A-61), Table 1A1-2 (Page 1A-87) and Table 1A1-4 (Page 1A-89). Water level data
for these two wells in 2012 are provided and discussed in AMEC (2013b). In addition, water level data for
MW LGR 3-36 and MW LGR 14-25 are presented in Figures 23-1 and 23-2, and discussed in AMEC
(2013a).
Groundwater chemistry data for samples collected from WSW-LGR 14-24, MW LGR 3-36 and MW
LGR 14-25 in 2010 and 2011 are provided in Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Table 1A2-2, Pages 1A-94 to 1A-
96 of the Integrated Application. Data for samples collected from MW LGR 3-36 and MW LGR 14-25 in
2010, 2011 and 2012 are provided in Tables 41-1, 41-2 and 41-3. Discussion of the data is presented in
AMEC (2013a).
Grosmont ‘D’ Aquifer

Hydraulic head and hydraulic parameter data for DW-GROS 15-25 are provided in Volume 3,
Appendix 1A of the Integrated Application as follows: Section 1A.5.1.13 (Page 1A-62), Figure 1A-46
(Page 1A-64), Table 1A1-2 (Page 1A-87) and Table 1A1-4 (Page 1A-89).
Groundwater chemistry data for samples collected from DW-GROS 15-25 are provided in Volume 3,
Appendix 1A, Table 1A2-3, Pages 1A-97 to 1A-99 of the Integrated Application.
Additional Baseline Data

Additional groundwater baseline data for the Viking aquifer, the LGR3 (Grand Rapids ‘B’) aquifer and the
Grosmont ‘D’ aquifer will be obtained after the Approval for the Project has been issued and prior to the
start of operations. Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 43a. As noted in that response, the data will be
used to prepare piezometric contour maps and hydrogeologic cross-sections, and to determine
groundwater flow directions, gradients and velocities.
Page 56
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project AESRD SIR1 Responses
TABLE 41-1
MAJOR IONS AND GENERAL CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Magnesium (Mg) - dissolved
Potassium (K) -dissolved

Calcium (Ca) - dissolved
Total Suspended Solids

Sodium (Na) -dissolved
Magnesium (Mg) - total
Total Dissolved Solids

Potassium (K) -total
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Sodium (Na) - total
Calcium (Ca) total
Conductivity (EC)
Carbonate (CO3)
Alkalinity, Total
Hydroxide (OH)
Sulphate (SO4)
(PP as CaCO3)
Chloride (Cl)
Ion Balance
Cation Sum
Anion Sum
(as CaCO3)
(as CaCO3)
Hardness
Alkalinity
Turbidity
pH
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L N/A N/A uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L meg/L Meg/L mg/L mg/L NTU
Viking Formation
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 14-Nov-12 F 1.3 0.5 2.6 490 1.60 0.67 3.00 520.0 220 <1.0 790 71.00 <0.50 100% 8.81 2100 770 59 1200 53 39 1200 53 39
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 08-May-12 F 1.2 0.52 2.7 460 1.40 0.59 2.60 470.00 220 <1.0 760 58.00 <0.50 98% 8.76 2100 720 48 1100 51 26 1100 51 26
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 29-Feb-12 F 1.2 0.5 2.4 420 1.20 0.54 2.40 420.00 220 <1.0 810 50.00 <0.50 89% 8.71 2100 750 41 1100 4 12 1100 4 12
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 10-Aug-11 F 1.3 0.53 2.7 450 3.50 1.60 3.40 440.00 220 <1.0 790 55.00 <0.50 94% 8.89 2000 740 46 1100 850 350 1100 850 350
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 05-Apr-11 F 1.2 0.47 2.5 450 1.30 0.54 2.50 450.00 220 <1.0 780 64.00 <0.50 95% 8.77 2000 740 53 1100 24 19 1100 24 19
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 01-Mar-11 F 1.3 0.5 2.4 440 1.40 0.55 2.60 460.00 210 1.1 780 62.00 <0.50 93% 8.76 2000 750 52 1100 23 19 1100 23 19
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 27-Jan-11 F 1.4 0.59 2.6 450 1.50 0.68 2.80 470.00 230 <1.0 800 62.00 <0.50 91% 8.75 2100 760 52 1200 28 25 1200 28 25
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK15-25 27-Dec-10 F 1.4 0.63 2.8 460 1.60 0.71 2.90 460.00 220 <1.0 780 54.00 <0.50 96% 8.74 2000 730 45 1100 33 23 1100 33 23
MW VIK 15-25 MW VIK 15-25 27-Nov-10 F 2 0.83 3.8 520 2.00 0.96 3.90 500.0 230 <1.0 780 50.00 <0.50 110% 8.73 2100 730 41 1200 44 36 1200 44 36
Lower Grand Rapids Formation
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 15-Nov-12 F 6.7 5.5 12 1500 6.40 5.70 12.00 1600.0 1300 <1.0 1800 64.00 <0.50 98% 8.48 6700 1600 53 3900 1.3 6.6 3900 1.3 6.6
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 07-May-12 F 6.4 5.2 11 1500 6.90 6.10 12.00 1500.0 1300 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 97% 8.18 6400 1500 <0.50 3800 2 8.1 3800 2 8.1
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 28-Feb-12 F 6.2 5 11 1400 6.50 5.60 12.00 1300.0 1400 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 90% 8.20 6600 1600 <0.50 3800 2 22 3800 2 22
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 09-Aug-11 F 5.6 4.6 11 1400 6.70 6.10 13.00 1500.0 1300 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 93% 8.12 6400 1600 <0.50 3700 <1.0 8.5 3700 <1.0 8.5
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 05-Apr-11 F 6.2 4.4 10 1600 7.10 5.70 12.00 1500.0 1300 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 100% 8.25 6500 1600 <0.50 3900 3 4.9 3900 3 4.9
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 01-Mar-11 F 6 4.3 10 1400 6.70 5.60 12.00 1500.0 1300 1.2 1900 <0.50 <0.50 91% 8.22 6400 1600 <0.50 3700 7 7.8 3700 7 7.8
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 28-Jan-11 F 6.8 5.4 11 1400 7.40 6.20 12.00 1400.0 1400 <1.0 2000 <0.50 <0.50 87% 8.17 6500 1600 <0.50 3800 1 12 3800 1 12
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 28-Dec-10 F 6.8 5.2 14 1500 7.30 5.90 15.00 1500.0 1300 8.4 1900 <0.50 <0.50 97% 8.19 6400 1500 <0.50 3800 6 11 3800 6 11
MW LGR 14-25 MW LGR 14-25 26-Nov-10 F 10 6.1 14 1400 10.00 6.50 14.00 1400.0 1400 <1.0 1800 <0.50 <0.50 93% 8.28 6500 1500 <0.50 3700 9 17 3700 9 17
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 15-Nov-12 F 6.7 5.9 13 1500 6.60 6.10 14.00 1600.0 1400 <1.0 1800 62.00 <0.50 97% 8.48 6800 1600 52 3900 <1.0 7.1
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 07-May-12 F 7 5.5 12 1500 7.30 6.50 14.00 1600.0 1400 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 97% 8.28 6600 1500 <0.50 3900 <1.0 7.1 3900 <1.0 6.6
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 28-Feb-12 F 6.8 5.1 11 1400 7.40 6.20 13.00 1300.0 1400 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 89% 8.24 6700 1600 <0.50 3900 <1.0 6.6 3800 <1.0 8.8
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 09-Aug-11 F 14 7.2 13 1500 13.00 7.80 13.00 1500.0 1400 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 93% 8.07 6300 1600 <0.50 3800 <1.0 8.8 3900 1 17
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 05-Apr-11 F 15 5.5 10 1600 18.00 7.50 12.00 1600.0 1400 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 100% 8.22 6800 1600 <0.50 3900 1 17 4000 7 20
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 01-Mar-11 F 18 6.1 11 1500 22.00 8.20 13.00 1600.0 1500 2.2 1900 <0.50 <0.50 93% 8.20 6800 1600 <0.50 4000 7 20 4000 7 26
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 27-Jan-11 F 25 8.3 13 1500 26.00 9.20 14.00 1400.0 1600 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 88% 8.15 7000 1600 <0.50 4000 7 26 4100 10 42
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 28-Dec-10 F 45 11 15 1700 50.00 13.00 17.00 1700.0 1700 <1.0 1900 <0.50 <0.50 99% 8.10 7500 1500 <0.50 4100 10 42 4500 12 56
MW LGR 3-36 MW LGR 3-36 25-Nov-10 F 48 12 18 1500 51.00 13.00 18.00 1500.0 1700 <1.0 1800 <0.50 <0.50 92% 8.20 7300 1500 <0.50 4500 12 56 4200 25 65
Trip Blanks
Blackrod SAGD Pilot
TRIP BLANK 14-Nov-12 TB <0.30 <0.20 <0.30 <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 --- 5.24 1.1 <0.50 <0.50 0.0000 0.000 <10 <1.0 <0.10 0.0000
Plant
Page 57
TABLE 41-2
TOTAL METALS AND TRACE ELEMENTS
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Phosphorus (P)
Chromium (Cr)
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Cadmium (Cd)
Beryllium (Be)
Potassium (K)
Strontium (Sr)
Selenium (Se)
Molybdenum
Calcium (Ca)
Thallium (Tl)
Mercury(Hg)
Arsenic (As)
Sodium (Na)
Copper (Cu)
Barium (Ba)
Lithium (Li)
Cobalt (Co)
Silver (Ag)
Nickel (Ni)
Boron (B)
Lead (Pb)
Sulfur (S)
Iron (Fe)
Tin (Sn)
Silicon
(Mo)
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Viking Formation
MW VIK MW VIK 14-Nov-12 F 0.4600 <0.00060 0.00081 0.070 <0.0010 3.900 0.0290 1.60 0.1700 0.00110 0.12000 4.100 0.03800 0.100 0.67 0.0560 0.0029 0.00360 0.00560 0.55 3.00 <0.00020 5.00 <0.00010 520.0 0.110 0.86 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK 08-May-12 F 0.1900 <0.00060 0.00023 0.067 <0.0010 3.600 0.0100 1.40 0.0480 0.00038 0.09800 1.400 0.03000 0.095 0.59 0.0260 0.0046 0.00220 0.00230 0.48 2.60 <0.00020 4.30 <0.00010 470.00 0.110 0.31 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK 29-Feb-12 F 0.3000 <0.00060 0.00029 0.056 <0.0010 3.400 <0.0050 1.20 0.1100 0.00046 0.05400 1.400 0.01800 0.092 0.54 0.0240 <0.0020 0.00240 0.00200 0.44 2.40 <0.00020 3.50 <0.00010 420.00 0.092 0.29 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK 10-Aug-11 F 3.2000 <0.00060 0.00390 0.150 <0.0010 3.700 0.0680 3.50 0.4400 0.00470 2.2000 13.000 0.75000 0.110 1.60 0.1800 0.0550 0.00570 0.02000 0.86 3.40 0.00028 8.80 0.00016 440.00 0.170 3.80 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK 05-Apr-11 F 0.0600 0.00037 0.00068 0.058 <0.0010 3.400 0.0099 1.30 0.0330 0.00060 0.04700 2.300 0.01600 0.088 0.54 0.0370 0.0035 0.00340 0.00490 0.40 2.50 <0.00020 3.90 0.00012 450.00 0.100 0.30 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK 01-Mar-11 F 0.0600 0.00120 0.00050 0.064 <0.0010 3.600 0.0230 1.40 0.0370 0.00066 0.04700 2.300 0.01600 0.099 0.55 0.0420 <0.0020 0.00380 0.00530 0.46 2.60 <0.00020 3.70 <0.00010 460.00 0.110 0.40 <0.00020 0.0021
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK 27-Jan-11 F 0.2200 <0.00020 0.00060 0.066 <0.0010 3.600 0.0460 1.50 0.0500 0.00086 0.14000 2.900 0.03800 0.092 0.68 0.0560 0.0042 0.00410 0.00730 0.38 2.80 <0.00020 4.40 <0.00010 470.00 0.110 0.65 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW VIK MW VIK15- 27-Dec-10 F 0.3700 0.00046 0.00066 0.067 <0.0010 3.500 0.0150 1.60 0.0710 0.00099 0.34000 3.100 0.12000 0.093 0.71 0.0590 0.0035 0.00790 0.00720 0.52 2.90 <0.00020 4.20 <0.00010 460.00 0.110 0.34 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 25
MW VIK MW VIK 27-Nov-10 F 0.5600 0.00035 0.00066 0.086 <0.0010 3.900 0.0170 2.00 0.0650 0.00100 0.62000 2.600 0.21000 0.110 0.96 0.0500 <0.0020 0.00370 0.00690 0.51 3.90 <0.00020 6.40 <0.00010 500.0 0.140 0.73 <0.00020 <0.0010
15-25 15-25
MW LGR MW LGR 15-Nov-12 F 0.0110 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.470 <0.0050 4.600 <0.025 6.40 <0.0050 <0.0015 0.0055 1.600 0.0025 0.440 5.70 0.0240 <0.0020 0.0016 <0.0025 0.20 12.00 <0.0010 5.30 <0.00050 1600.0 0.970 <0.20 <0.0010 <0.0050
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 07-May-12 F 0.0070 <0.00060 <0.00020 0.510 <0.0010 4.500 0.0070 6.90 0.0054 <0.00030 0.00290 2.000 0.00210 0.450 6.10 0.0260 0.0030 0.00150 0.00180 0.23 12.00 <0.00020 5.30 <0.00010 1500.0 1.000 0.28 <0.00020 <0.0010
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Feb-12 F 0.0220 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.440 <0.0050 4.200 <0.025 6.50 0.0065 <0.0015 0.0110 3.100 0.0087 0.390 5.60 0.0340 <0.0020 0.0018 0.0026 0.17 12.00 <0.0010 4.70 <0.00050 1300.0 0.930 0.31 <0.0010 <0.0050
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 09-Aug-11 F 0.0150 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.440 <0.0050 4.900 <0.025 6.70 <0.0050 <0.0015 0.0024 2.300 0.0023 0.410 6.10 0.0300 0.0047 0.0015 <0.0025 0.32 13.00 <0.0010 5.20 <0.00050 1500.0 0.920 0.68 <0.0010 <0.0050
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 05-Apr-11 F 0.012 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.470 <0.010 4.300 0.087 7.10 <0.010 <0.0030 <0.0020 1.600 <0.0020 0.410 5.70 0.0210 0.0035 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.12 12.00 <0.0020 4.80 0.0024 1500.0 0.980 0.63 <0.0020 <0.010
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 01-Mar-11 F <0.010 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.480 <0.010 4.500 0.092 6.70 <0.010 <0.0030 <0.0020 2.200 <0.0020 0.440 5.60 0.0340 <0.0020 0.0027 <0.0050 0.29 12.00 <0.0020 4.70 <0.0010 1500.0 1.000 0.99 <0.0020 <0.010
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Jan-11 F <0.010 <0.0020 0.0023 0.440 <0.010 4.600 <0.050 7.40 <0.010 <0.0030 0.0058 2.100 <0.0020 0.400 6.20 0.0300 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.15 12.00 <0.0020 5.00 <0.0010 1400.0 0.930 1.30 <0.0020 <0.010
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Dec-10 F <0.010 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.430 <0.010 4.500 0.060 7.30 <0.010 <0.0030 0.0037 2.800 0.0091 0.420 5.90 0.0430 <0.0020 0.0082 0.0091 0.29 15.00 <0.0020 4.80 <0.0010 1500.0 0.900 3.70 <0.0020 <0.010
14-25 14-25
MW LGR MW LGR 26-Nov-10 F 0.043 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.480 <0.010 4.700 <0.050 10.00 <0.010 <0.0030 0.0120 3.400 0.0130 0.420 6.50 0.0650 <0.0020 0.0040 0.0050 0.19 14.00 <0.0020 5.20 <0.0010 1400.0 0.990 3.20 <0.0020 <0.010
14-25 14-25
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 15-Nov-12 F 0.0110 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.620 <0.0050 4.600 <0.025 6.60 0.0220 <0.0015 0.0047 1.800 0.0016 0.450 6.10 0.0200 <0.0020 0.0015 0.0027 0.21 14.00 <0.0010 5.30 <0.00050 1600.0 1.100 0.23 <0.0010 <0.0050
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 07-May-12 F 0.0099 <0.00060 0.00020 0.750 <0.0010 4.600 0.0098 7.30 0.0200 <0.00030 0.00110 1.800 0.00023 0.460 6.50 0.0180 0.0026 0.00140 0.00210 0.18 14.00 <0.00020 5.40 <0.00010 1600.0 1.100 0.27 <0.00020 <0.0010
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 28-Feb-12 F 0.0100 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.640 <0.0050 4.200 <0.025 7.40 0.0180 <0.0015 0.0033 2.300 <0.0010 0.400 6.20 0.0230 <0.0020 0.0017 0.0034 0.23 13.00 <0.0010 4.80 <0.00050 1300.0 1.000 0.28 <0.0010 <0.0050
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 09-Aug-11 F 0.0120 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.310 <0.0050 4.800 <0.025 13.00 0.0210 <0.0015 <0.0010 3.200 0.0010 0.420 7.80 0.0310 0.0043 0.0015 <0.0025 0.30 13.00 <0.0010 5.10 <0.00050 1500.0 1.200 0.55 <0.0010 <0.0050
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 05-Apr-11 F <0.010 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.210 <0.010 4.300 <0.050 18.00 0.022 <0.0030 <0.0020 3.500 <0.0020 0.360 7.50 0.0270 0.0050 <0.0020 <0.0050 <0.10 12.00 0.0024 4.80 0.0013 1600.0 1.300 0.98 <0.0020 <0.010
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 01-Mar-11 F 0.014 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.210 <0.010 4.500 0.130 22.00 0.021 <0.0030 <0.0020 4.500 <0.0020 0.470 8.20 0.0400 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.31 13.00 <0.0020 4.70 <0.0010 1600.0 1.500 1.30 <0.0020 <0.010
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 27-Jan-11 F 0.013 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.210 <0.010 4.500 <0.050 26.00 0.018 <0.0030 <0.0020 4.300 <0.0020 0.420 9.20 0.0400 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0050 0.18 14.00 <0.0020 5.00 <0.0010 1400.0 1.400 1.80 <0.0020 <0.010
36 3-36
Page 58
TABLE 41-2 Cont'd
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Phosphorus (P)
Chromium (Cr)
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Cadmium (Cd)
Beryllium (Be)
Potassium (K)
Strontium (Sr)
Selenium (Se)
Molybdenum
Calcium (Ca)
Thallium (Tl)
Mercury(Hg)
Arsenic (As)
Sodium (Na)
Copper (Cu)
Barium (Ba)
Lithium (Li)
Cobalt (Co)
Silver (Ag)
Nickel (Ni)
Boron (B)
Lead (Pb)
Sulfur (S)
Iron (Fe)
Tin (Sn)
Silicon
(Mo)
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 28-Dec-10 F 0.011 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.130 <0.010 4.600 <0.050 50.00 0.012 <0.0030 0.0035 5.600 0.0061 0.490 13.00 0.0670 <0.0020 0.0036 0.0080 0.24 17.00 <0.0020 4.90 <0.0010 1700.0 1.900 3.10 <0.0020 <0.010
36 3-36
MW LGR 3- MW LGR 25-Nov-10 F 0.080 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.370 <0.010 4.900 0.150 51.00 0.022 <0.0030 0.0380 9.200 0.0440 0.490 13.00 0.1200 <0.0060 0.0063 0.0110 0.20 18.00 <0.0020 5.60 <0.0010 1500.0 1.800 3.10 <0.0020 <0.010
36 3-36
Trip Blanks
Blackrod TRIP 14-Nov-12 TB --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- <0.0020 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
SAGD Pilot BLANK
Plant
Page 59
TABLE 41-3
ORGANIC PARAMETERS
General Organic
Parameters Petroleum Hydrocarbons Glycols
Diethylene Glycol
Naphthenic acids
Propylene Glycol
Organic Carbon
Ethylene Glycol
Oil and Grease
Total Phenols
Tetraethylene
Ethylbenzene
Total Organic
m+p-Xylenes
F2 (C10-C16)
F1 (C6-C10)
Triethylene
Dissolved
F1 -BTEX
o-Xylene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Carbon
Glycol
Glycol
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Viking Formation
MW VIK MW VIK 14-Nov- F --- 9.60 4.7 1.40 4.20 0.70 2.70 1.80 0.84 <100 <100 <0.10 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0044
15-25 15-25 12
MW VIK MW VIK 08-May- F --- 9.10 3.3 <0.40 1.10 <0.40 1.60 1.10 0.54 <100 <100 <0.10 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0020
15-25 15-25 12
MW VIK MW VIK 29-Feb- F --- <10 2.5 <0.40 1.00 0.83 4.80 3.50 1.30 <100 <100 0.16 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0043
15-25 15-25 12
MW VIK MW VIK 10-Aug- F --- 6.7 7.2 1.00 1.50 0.53 3.70 2.50 1.30 <100 <100 0.11 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0024
15-25 15-25 11
MW VIK MW VIK 05-Apr- F --- 6.60 2.3 5.50 5.30 0.82 6.70 4.30 2.40 <100 <100 <0.10 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0030
Page 60
15-25 15-25 11
MW VIK MW VIK 01-Mar- F --- 7.60 3.5 3.10 7.30 3.40 20.00 13.00 6.20 <100 <100 <0.10 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0046
15-25 15-25 11
MW VIK MW VIK 27-Jan- F --- 7.98 <2.0 2.30 2.20 0.99 6.10 4.00 2.10 <100 <100 0.13 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0067
15-25 15-25 11
MW VIK MW 27-Dec- F --- 8.50 3.5 4.70 4.80 1.40 10.00 5.90 4.30 <100 <100 <0.10 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0039
15-25 VIK15-25 10
MW VIK MW VIK 27-Nov- F --- 11.00 <2.0 6.30 4.80 1.20 7.30 4.20 3.10 <100 <100 <0.10 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0022
15-25 15-25 10
MW LGR MW LGR 15-Nov- F --- <5.0 6.8 5.70 230.00 2.20 15.00 8.80 6.10 410 160 0.95 --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 <0.020
14-25 14-25 12
MW LGR MW LGR 07-May- F --- 1.4 2.5 3.30 160.00 1.90 13.00 7.90 5.20 160 <100 0.31 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 <0.010
14-25 14-25 12
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Feb- F --- <10 9.0 3.20 170.00 2.10 14.00 8.30 5.70 180 <100 0.88 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0100
14-25 14-25 12
MW LGR MW LGR 09-Aug- F --- <5.0 2.5 4.10 160.00 1.90 15.00 9.30 6.10 260 <100 0.22 --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 <0.010
14-25 14-25 11
MW LGR MW LGR 05-Apr- F --- 0.55 3.8 11.00 240.00 5.30 42.00 27.00 15.00 640 340 0.42 --- --- --- --- --- 1.7 0.0110
14-25 14-25 11
MW LGR MW LGR 01-Mar- F --- 2.70 7.2 8.60 280.00 3.90 26.00 16.00 10.00 320 <100 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0250
14-25 14-25 11
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Jan- F --- 2.64 2.0 7.60 210.00 2.60 21.00 13.00 7.60 250 <100 0.22 --- --- --- --- --- 2.0 <0.020
14-25 14-25 11
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Dec- F --- 4.40 3.4 23.0 960.0 12.0 100.0 60.0 40.0 2700 1600 0.89 --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 <0.020
14-25 14-25 10
TABLE 41-3 Cont'd
General Organic
Parameters Petroleum Hydrocarbons Glycols
Diethylene Glycol
Naphthenic acids
Propylene Glycol
Organic Carbon
Ethylene Glycol
Oil and Grease
Total Phenols
Tetraethylene
Ethylbenzene
Total Organic
m+p-Xylenes
F2 (C10-C16)
F1 (C6-C10)
Triethylene
Dissolved
F1 -BTEX
o-Xylene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Carbon
Glycol
Glycol
Viking Formation
MW LGR MW LGR 26-Nov- F --- 8.00 9.2 22.00 760.00 13.00 100.00 62.00 40.00 1100 230 0.83 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 <0.010
14-25 14-25 10
MW LGR MW LGR 15-Nov- F --- <5.0 6.0 4.3 14.0 7.4 33.0 25.0 8.2 <1000 <1000 0.52 --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 <0.020
3-36 3-36 12
MW LGR MW LGR 07-May- F --- 2.7 <2.0 1.20 1.60 4.60 20.00 15.00 4.60 <100 <100 0.16 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 <0.010
3-36 3-36 12
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Feb- F --- <10 <2.0 2.00 3.40 5.90 29.00 22.00 6.40 130 <100 0.27 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0100
3-36 3-36 12
MW LGR MW LGR 09-Aug- F --- <5.0 <2.0 1.90 2.30 4.90 24.00 19.00 5.40 <100 <100 0.26 --- --- --- --- --- 1.3 <0.010
3-36 3-36 11
Page 61
MW LGR MW LGR 05-Apr- F --- 3.70 <2.0 3.50 4.40 8.80 42.00 32.00 9.60 <100 <100 0.24 --- --- --- --- --- 1.9 0.0120
3-36 3-36 11
MW LGR MW LGR 01-Mar- F --- 6.50 2.0 5.40 10.00 11.00 51.00 39.00 12.00 <100 <100 0.18 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 0.0360
3-36 3-36 11
MW LGR MW LGR 27-Jan- F --- 5.97 8.3 4.10 3.70 8.00 41.00 33.00 8.20 <100 <100 0.18 --- --- --- --- --- 2.1 <0.020
3-36 3-36 11
MW LGR MW LGR 28-Dec- F --- 11.00 15.0 13.00 12.00 29.00 140.00 110.00 32.00 350 160 2.60 --- --- --- --- --- 2.0 <0.020
3-36 3-36 10
MW LGR MW LGR 25-Nov- F --- 9.00 220 7.50 9.00 30.00 150.00 110.00 34.00 350 150 5.90 --- --- --- --- --- <1.0 <0.010
3-36 3-36 10
Trip Blanks
Blackrod TRIP 14-Nov- TB <0.50 <0.50 <2.0 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1.0 <0.0020
SAGD Pilot BLANK 12
Plant
42. Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.5.1.1, Page 1A-57
BlackPearl states that ten shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the Pilot
Project CPF in May, 2011. The wells were completed in the clay till deposit to depths ranging
from 4.53 to 8.20 m. The results of the hydraulic response tests performed on the wells indicate
the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow clay till ranges from 1 x 10-9 to 6 x 10-9 m/s with a
geometric mean of 3 x 10-9 m/s.
a. Provide data on the wells with respect to:

i the location of the wells within the Project Area,
ii. details on hydraulic heads, hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic gradients,
iii. shallow and deep groundwater flow directions and velocities,
iv. piezometric contour maps including collected data, and
v. water chemistry.
Response:
The locations of the monitoring wells at the Pilot CPF are shown on Figure 42-1.
Water levels measured during the monitoring events conducted in 2011 and 2012 are presented in
Table 42-1.
Page 62
TABLE 42-1
WATER LEVEL AND FIELD PARAMATER DATA
Depth to Water Specific Dissolved Redox

Water Elevation pH Conductivity Temperature Oxygen Potential
LOCATION DATE m bTOC m asl pH uS/cm deg C mg/L mV
GMW-1 19-May-11 >9.15 <608.05 nm nm nm nm nm
GMW-1 02-Jun-11 >9.15 <608.05 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
GMW-1 09-Aug-11 6.46 610.74 7.9 9440 7.8 4.81 87.4
GMW-1 29-Nov-11 4.14 613.06 7.3 9134 5.9 4.78 181.3
GMW-1 27-Feb-12 4.67 612.53 6.6 10300 1.1 7.43 20.7
GMW-1 06-May-12 5.21 611.99 7.2 9560 6.6 2.56 168.9
GMW-1 15-Nov-12 3.69 613.51 6.9 9221 2.2 20.26 365.3
GMW-2 19-May-11 5.13 612.07 nm nm nm nm nm
GMW-2 02-Jun-11 3.71 613.48 7.3 6230 6.0 11.03 92.2
GMW-2 09-Aug-11 1.79 615.41 7.6 4800 6.7 4.91 108.6
GMW-2 30-Nov-11 2.09 615.11 7.1 4909 6.2 6.11 161.2
GMW-2 27-Feb-12 2.53 614.67 7.6 5950 2.1 7.59 -136.9
GMW-2 07-May-12 2.65 614.55 7.4 5770 5.2 2.16 178.2
GMW-2 14-Nov-12 1.95 615.46 7.4 5354 6.1 8.60 -
GMW-3 02-Jun-11 4.15 613.05 7.4 7070 7.5 8.76 122.9
GMW-3 09-Aug-11 1.55 615.65 7.7 5440 8.9 5.27 89.9
GMW-3 30-Nov-11 1.97 615.23 7.1 5459 4.1 8.37 112.8
GMW-3 27-Feb-12 2.40 614.80 6.2 7770 1.2 10.43 -178.2
GMW-3 07-May-12 2.74 614.46 7.1 5860 4.2 2.40 196.3
GMW-3 14-Nov-12 2.05 615.37 6.2 5682 6.1 12.39 331.0
GMW-4 02-Jun-11 3.56 613.64 7.1 4740 5.2 9.11 125.7
GMW-4 09-Aug-11 2.83 614.37 7.6 4470 7.3 5.17 119.6
GMW-4 29-Nov-11 2.74 614.46 7.1 4166 4.1 4.61 105.3
GMW-4 28-Feb-12 3.01 614.19 6.7 5310 1.1 7.07 -148.9
GMW-4 06-May-12 3.31 613.89 7.2 4300 3.8 3.13 171.7
GMW-4 15-Nov-12 2.70 614.81 6.5 4414 4.0 24.29 93.3
GMW-5 02-Jun-11 3.65 613.55 - - - - -
GMW-5 03-Jun-11 - - 7.4 4900 7.8 9.31 127.9
GMW-5 09-Aug-11 1.93 615.27 7.7 4760 7.2 7.12 103.1
GMW-5 30-Nov-11 1.67 615.53 7.0 4333 2.4 4.15 97.2
GMW-5 06-May-12 Frozen Frozen nm nm nm nm nm
GMW-5 14-Jun-12 nm nm 7.4 3910 8.0 4.94 153.1
GMW-5 15-Nov-12 1.75 615.74 6.3 4639 4.0 31.12 193.4
GMW-6 02-Jun-11 Frozen Frozen nm nm nm nm nm
GMW-6 09-Aug-11 1.61 615.59 7.4 5150 8.2 6.82 113.8
GMW-6 29-Nov-11 1.67 615.53 6.8 4435 7.6 7.33 94.8
GMW-6 28-Feb-12 1.75 615.45 7.6 4360 6.6 8.74 -31.7
GMW-6 06-May-12 2.21 614.99 6.9 4360 10.7 2.31 165.2
GMW-6 15-Nov-12 1.85 615.3 6.7 4336 10.7 9.66 89.5
GMW-7 02-Jun-11 3.89 613.31 7.3 4750 8.0 10.98 138.3
GMW-7 09-Aug-11 2.96 614.24 7.5 5060 7.9 4.91 84.2
GMW-7 29-Nov-11 2.30 614.9 6.8 4488 4.2 7.18 108.4
GMW-7 27-Feb-12 2.52 614.68 7.1 5060 2.3 7.54 93.3
Page 64
TABLE 42-1 Cont'd

Depth to Water Specific Dissolved Redox
Water Elevation pH Conductivity Temperature Oxygen Potential
GMW-7 07-May-12 2.74 614.46 6.9 4550 3.7 3.42 195.7
GMW-7 14-Nov-12 2.20 614.74 6.9 4757 4.1 23.00 135.1
GMW-8 02-Jun-11 6.19 611.01 7.6 7950 8.7 9.34 154.9
GMW-8 10-Aug-11 3.84 613.36 7.8 8030 9.3 5.81 86.3
GMW-8 29-Nov-11 2.32 614.88 7.1 8273 5.0 4.83 135.2
GMW-8 27-Feb-12 3.00 614.2 7.0 9110 1.1 6.50 -99.9
Depth to Water pH Specific Temperature Dissolved Redox
Water Elevation Conductivity Oxygen Potential
GMW-9 02-Jun-11 >6.5 <609.27 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
GMW-9 10-Aug-11 2.82 614.38 7.7 1920 8.1 4.80 69.8
GMW-9 29-Nov-11 3.31 613.89 7.2 2712 4.8 7.09 70.1
GMW-9 27-Feb-12 3.60 613.6 7.2 3080 4.2 6.69 -144.2
GMW-9 06-May-12 3.96 613.24 7.7 3050 6.9 4.71 152.3
GMW-9 14-Nov-12 3.18 612.6 7.3 2836 8.1 5.52 279.7
GMW-10 02-Jun-11 6.21 610.99 7.6 6670 5.5 9.53 122.7
GMW-10 10-Aug-11 4.03 613.17 7.4 6610 8.1 5.22 112.5
GMW-10 29-Nov-11 3.29 613.91 6.7 5867 5.4 5.54 80.4
GMW-10 27-Feb-12 3.53 613.67 6.3 4710 0.5 6.75 -56.5
GMW-10 06-May-12 3.33 613.87 7.7 4060 6.2 5.41 150.9
GMW-10 14-Nov-12 2.79 610.55 4.9 2946 2.5 51.83 508.9
Notes: - nm = not measured.
- Only water levels were measured during May 2011, following well installation.
- At GMW-5, water levels were measured on June 2, 2011, while other parameters were measured on June 3, 2011.
Groundwater contour maps prepared using the water level data obtained in May and November 2012 are
provided in Figures 42-2 and 42-3, respectively.
Field water quality parameters measured during the monitoring events conducted in 2011 and 2012 are
presented in Table 42-1. Laboratory chemical analysis results for samples collected during the 2011 and
2012 monitoring events are provided in Tables 42-2a to 42-2d.
Page 65
TABLE 42-2
MAJOR IONS AND GENERAL CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Potassium (K)
Alkalinity (PP
Calcium (Ca)
Conductivity
Chloride (Cl)
Sodium (Na)
Bicarbonate
Ion Balance
Magnesium
as CaCO3)
Carbonate
Hydroxide
Alkalinity,
Sulphate
Total (as
CaCO3)
(HCO3)
(CO3)
(SO4)
(OH)
(Mg)
(EC)
pH
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L N/A N/A uS/cm mg/L mg/L
Quaternary
GMW-1 GMW1 14-Nov-12 F 220 170 14 2100 50 4900 1000 <0.50 <0.50 99% 7.91 9400 830 <0.50
GMW-1 GMW-1 06-May-12 F 160 110 12 2100 60 4800 950 <0.50 <0.50 94% 7.66 9100 780 <0.50
GMW-1 GMW-1 27-Feb-12 F 150 110 13 2100 57 4700 1000 <0.50 <0.50 94% 7.62 9300 830 <0.50
GMW-1 GMW-1 01-Dec-11 F 200 140 14 2000 60 4900 970 <0.50 <0.50 92% 7.94 9400 800 <0.50
GMW-1 GMW-1 09-Aug-11 F 140 74 13 2300 81 4700 960 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.56 9400 790 <0.50
GMW-2 GMW2 15-Nov-12 F 280 140 11 990 12 2700 690 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.84 5400 570 <0.50
GMW-2 GMW-2 07-May-12 F 260 140 9.9 990 22 2900 680 <0.50 <0.50 93% 7.67 5600 560 <0.50
GMW-2 GMW-2 27-Feb-12 F 230 130 10 970 18 2900 690 <0.50 <0.50 88% 7.51 5400 570 <0.50
GMW-2 GMW-2 01-Dec-11 F 280 150 12 910 12 2600 650 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.77 5200 530 <0.50
GMW-2 GMW-2 09-Aug-11 F 290 140 9.2 710 7.8 2400 610 <0.50 <0.50 97% 7.15 4600 500 <0.50
GMW-2 GMW-2 02-Jun-11 F 220 110 15 1100 33 3100 790 <0.50 <0.50 86% 7.80 6200 650 <0.50
GMW-3 GMW3 15-Nov-12 F 310 160 11 1000 21 3200 710 <0.50 <0.50 95% 7.87 6000 580 <0.50
GMW-3 GMW-3 07-May-12 F 310 160 9.4 990 34 3200 720 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.72 6100 590 <0.50
GMW-3 GMW-3 27-Feb-12 F 300 160 10 940 21 3100 680 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.43 5700 560 <0.50
GMW-3 GMW-3 01-Dec-11 F 330 170 10 740 8.7 2400 670 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.87 5000 550 <0.50
GMW-3 GMW-3 09-Aug-11 F 350 160 9.9 820 15 2700 700 <0.50 <0.50 98% 7.22 5300 570 <0.50
GMW-3 GMW-3 02-Jun-11 F 270 130 18 1200 34 3400 730 <0.50 <0.50 90% 7.72 6500 600 <0.50
GMW-4 GMW4 15-Nov-12 F 300 130 8.2 680 16 2000 850 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.70 4500 700 <0.50
GMW-4 GMW-4 06-May-12 F 290 120 6.3 630 16 2000 800 <0.50 <0.50 95% 7.50 4200 650 <0.50
GMW-4 GMW-4 28-Feb-12 F 280 130 8.5 700 18 2000 870 <0.50 <0.50 97% 7.25 4400 710 <0.50
GMW-4 GMW-4 01-Dec-11 F 310 140 11 760 18 2200 880 <0.50 <0.50 99% 7.60 4700 730 <0.50
GMW-4 GMW-4 10-Aug-11 F 290 120 8.7 660 16 1900 860 <0.50 <0.50 100% 6.87 4300 710 <0.50
GMW-4 GMW-4 02-Jun-11 F 250 100 12 600 18 2100 890 <0.50 <0.50 82% 7.47 4500 730 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW5 15-Nov-12 F 230 100 7.6 820 20 2200 810 <0.50 <0.50 93% 7.84 4500 670 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW55 15-Nov-12 FD 230 100 7.9 840 20 1800 810 <0.50 <0.50 110% 7.86 4500 660 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-5 14-Jun-12 F 300 100 3.3 400 14 1600 730 <0.50 <0.50 89% 7.75 3600 600 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-55 01-Dec-11 FD 260 110 8.1 880 22 1900 800 <0.50 <0.50 110% 7.79 4700 660 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-5 01-Dec-11 F 230 110 8.6 780 23 1900 800 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.74 4700 660 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-55 10-Aug-11 FD 200 100 8.8 770 21 1900 790 <0.50 <0.50 98% 7.06 4200 640 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-5 10-Aug-11 F 230 100 8 810 23 2000 800 <0.50 <0.50 99% 7.14 4600 660 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-55 03-Jun-11 FD 230 97 11 740 26 2100 850 <0.50 <0.50 89% 7.82 4900 690 <0.50
GMW-5 GMW-5 03-Jun-11 F 230 96 11 720 26 2200 850 <0.50 <0.50 85% 7.68 4900 700 <0.50
GMW-6 GMW6 15-Nov-12 F 410 190 7.3 470 17 2000 810 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.67 4400 670 <0.50
GMW-6 GMW-6 06-May-12 F 420 210 7.4 470 18 2700 830 <0.50 <0.50 84% 7.29 5000 680 <0.50
GMW-6 GMW-6 28-Feb-12 F 380 200 7.1 450 17 2300 780 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.16 4300 640 <0.50
GMW-6 GMW-6 01-Dec-11 F 390 240 11 660 17 2600 830 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.48 4900 680 <0.50
GMW-6 GMW-6 10-Aug-11 F 410 200 8.1 490 15 2400 840 <0.50 <0.50 92% 6.63 4800 690 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW7 14-Nov-12 F 300 140 8.9 750 27 2300 1000 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.72 5100 820 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW-7 07-May-12 F 310 140 7.8 670 26 2200 930 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.53 4900 770 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW-77 07-May-12 FD 320 140 6.5 620 25 2200 890 <0.50 <0.50 92% 7.49 4800 730 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW-7 27-Feb-12 F 270 130 8.6 790 25 2200 920 <0.50 <0.50 96% 7.27 4700 760 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW-7 01-Dec-11 F 290 150 13 860 27 2300 960 <0.50 <0.50 99% 7.61 5000 790 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW-7 09-Aug-11 F 240 120 9.3 790 23 2000 830 <0.50 <0.50 100% 6.90 4500 680 <0.50
GMW-7 GMW-7 02-Jun-11 F 250 110 12 660 23 2100 760 <0.50 <0.50 90% 7.54 4500 620 <0.50
GMW-8 GMW8 14-Nov-12 F 380 270 19 1600 38 4100 1300 <0.50 <0.50 100% 7.71 8500 1100 <0.50
Page 68
TABLE 42-2 Cont'd
Potassium (K)
Alkalinity (PP
Calcium (Ca)
Conductivity
Chloride (Cl)
Sodium (Na)
Bicarbonate
Ion Balance
Magnesium
as CaCO3)
Carbonate
Hydroxide
Alkalinity,
Sulphate
Total (as
CaCO3)
(HCO3)
(CO3)
(SO4)
(OH)
(Mg)
(EC)
pH
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L N/A N/A uS/cm mg/L mg/L
GMW-8 GMW-8 06-May-12 F 320 220 17 1600 41 4200 1200 <0.50 <0.50 95% 7.52 8100 1000 <0.50
GMW-8 GMW-8 27-Feb-12 F 300 210 16 1500 38 4100 1300 <0.50 <0.50 93% 7.34 8000 1000 <0.50
GMW-8 GMW-8 01-Dec-11 F 350 250 20 1600 35 4500 1300 <0.50 <0.50 93% 7.72 8400 1000 <0.50
GMW-8 GMW-8 10-Aug-11 F 270 160 16 1600 46 4100 1300 <0.50 <0.50 90% 7.36 8100 1000 <0.50
GMW-8 GMW-8 02-Jun-11 F 180 74 18 1600 64 3400 1500 <0.50 <0.50 88% 7.94 7700 1200 <0.50
GMW-9 GMW9 14-Nov-12 F 140 73 8.8 490 6.7 1100 730 <0.50 <0.50 98% 7.85 3200 600 <0.50
GMW-9 GMW-9 06-May-12 F 130 65 6 370 7.3 1300 680 <0.50 <0.50 71% 7.64 3400 560 <0.50
GMW-9 GMW-9 27-Feb-12 F 130 65 6.7 350 6.1 950 660 <0.50 <0.50 89% 7.42 2700 540 <0.50
GMW-9 GMW-9 01-Dec-11 F 130 65 7.5 370 4.7 980 660 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.80 2600 540 <0.50
GMW-9 GMW-9 10-Aug-11 F 120 61 5.7 300 5 920 690 <0.50 <0.50 79% 6.95 2600 560 <0.50
GMW-10 GMW10 14-Nov-12 F 170 96 7.5 490 7.1 1100 730 <0.50 <0.50 110% 7.69 3100 600 <0.50
GMW-10 GMW-10 06-May-12 F 310 190 12 900 25 3000 990 <0.50 <0.50 91% 7.34 6000 810 <0.50
GMW-10 GMW-10 27-Feb-12 F 240 140 8.6 620 21 2500 910 <0.50 <0.50 76% 7.24 5100 750 <0.50
GMW-10 GMW-10 01-Dec-11 F 220 140 9.6 620 22 2400 910 <0.50 <0.50 76% 7.58 5500 750 <0.50
GMW-10 GMW-10 10-Aug-11 F 300 190 15 940 28 3300 970 <0.50 <0.50 85% 6.92 6200 790 <0.50
GMW-10 GMW-10 02-Jun-11 F 180 91 14 1200 38 3200 840 <0.50 <0.50 84% 8.08 6600 690 <0.50
Page 69
TABLE 42-3
TOTAL METALS AND TRACE ELEMENTS
Molybdenum (Mo)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Phosphorus (P)
Chromium (Cr)
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Cadmium (Cd)
Beryllium (Be)
Strontium (Sr)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Vanadium (V)
Mercury (Hg)
Calcium (Ca)
Titanium (Ti)
Thallium (Tl)
Arsenic (As)
Sodium (Na)
Copper (Cu)
Uranium (U)
Barium (Ba)
Lithium (Li)
Cobalt (Co)
Silver (Ag)
Nickel (Ni)
Boron (B)
Lead (Pb)
Sulfur (S)
Zinc (Zn)
Iron (Fe)
Tin (Sn)
Silicon
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Quaternary
GMW-1 GMW-1 14-Nov-12 F 2.2000 <0.0030 0.0018 0.052 <0.0050 3.200 0.081 210.00 <0.0050 0.0091 0.0040 3.500 0.0040 0.650 170.00 0.6600 --- 0.0044 0.0210 <0.10 15.00 0.0013 7.90 <0.00050 2100.0 6.90 1600.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0660 0.00430 <0.0050 0.064
GMW-1 GMW-1 06-May-12 F 13.000 <0.0030 0.0072 0.160 <0.0050 3.000 0.230 170.00 0.0080 0.0140 0.0110 14.000 0.0170 0.550 120.00 0.4900 --- 0.0110 0.0270 0.45 16.00 0.0020 24.00 <0.00050 2100.0 6.30 1600.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.2500 0.00500 0.0230 0.230
GMW-1 GMW-1 27-Feb-12 F 7.8000 <0.0030 0.0048 0.055 <0.0050 3.000 0.300 160.00 <0.0050 0.0150 0.0093 8.800 0.0160 0.550 120.00 0.4800 --- 0.0120 0.0300 0.39 14.00 0.0013 11.00 <0.00050 2000.0 6.30 1500.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1500 0.00480 0.0140 0.110
GMW-1 GMW-1 01-Dec-11 F 4.5000 <0.0030 0.0035 0.043 <0.0050 3.100 0.190 190.00 <0.0050 0.0120 0.0037 2.700 0.0037 0.560 140.00 0.5600 --- 0.0220 0.0240 0.15 14.00 0.0012 6.90 <0.00050 2000.0 7.50 1700.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1300 0.00610 0.0073 0.033
GMW-1 GMW-1 09-Aug-11 F 8.100 0.00470 0.01000 0.220 0.0013 2.800 0.3500 150.00 0.0065 0.01700 0.01000 16.000 0.02000 0.480 80.00 0.9500 --- 0.07000 0.03000 0.31 16.00 0.00490 23.00 0.00026 2400.0 6.40 1600.0 <0.00020 0.0028 0.2300 0.01500 0.0210 0.1200
GMW-2 GMW2 15-Nov-12 F 10.0000 <0.0030 0.0099 0.200 <0.0050 2.300 0.210 280.00 0.0130 0.0130 0.0270 27.000 0.0170 0.430 150.00 0.9100 --- 0.0044 0.0280 0.96 13.00 0.0015 22.00 <0.00050 980.0 4.500 950.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1300 0.00650 0.0300 0.120
GMW-2 GMW-2 07-May-12 F 34.000 <0.0030 0.0300 0.450 <0.0050 2.000 0.690 250.00 0.0490 0.0310 0.0720 65.000 0.0440 0.440 140.00 1.2000 --- 0.0095 0.0780 2.40 16.00 0.0027 50.00 <0.00050 1100.0 4.400 980.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.2200 0.00790 0.1100 0.320
GMW-2 GMW-2 27-Feb-12 F 5.0000 <0.0030 0.0066 0.063 <0.0050 1.900 0.430 240.00 0.0070 0.0140 0.0120 23.000 0.0170 0.380 130.00 0.9200 --- 0.0043 0.0260 1.30 11.00 <0.0010 11.00 <0.00050 970.0 4.000 930.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1100 0.00590 0.0230 0.130
GMW-2 GMW-2 01-Dec-11 F 6.7000 <0.0030 0.0044 0.087 <0.0050 1.800 0.170 250.00 0.0069 0.0110 0.0090 8.100 0.0072 0.370 130.00 0.7700 --- 0.0050 0.0230 0.27 12.00 <0.0010 12.00 <0.00050 910.0 3.900 880.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.2200 0.00710 0.0170 0.046
GMW-2 GMW-2 09-Aug-11 F 12.000 0.00160 0.01400 0.320 0.0015 1.200 0.5000 310.00 0.0180 0.02400 0.03100 35.000 0.02900 0.350 160.00 1.3000 --- 0.00870 0.05800 1.00 13.00 0.00200 32.00 0.00017 720.0 3.800 820.0 0.00036 0.0028 0.1900 0.01500 0.0430 0.1700
GMW-2 GMW-2 02-Jun-11 F 12.000 <0.0030 0.0096 0.200 <0.0050 1.800 0.370 240.00 0.0084 0.0210 0.0140 20.000 0.0260 0.430 130.00 1.4000 --- 0.0240 0.0360 0.81 18.00 0.0063 21.00 <0.00050 1100.0 4.200 960.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1900 0.01700 0.0280 0.097
GMW-3 GMW3 15-Nov-12 F 8.5000 <0.0030 0.0070 0.130 <0.0050 1.700 0.150 310.00 0.0084 0.0120 0.0190 14.000 0.0130 0.450 160.00 0.9600 --- 0.0033 0.0230 0.43 12.00 0.0012 17.00 <0.00050 1000.0 4.700 1100.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1200 0.01600 0.0200 0.085
GMW-3 GMW-3 07-May-12 F 25.000 <0.0030 0.0220 0.340 <0.0050 1.700 0.600 300.00 0.0360 0.0280 0.0540 44.000 0.0330 0.480 160.00 1.1000 --- 0.0091 0.0680 2.00 15.00 0.0027 41.00 <0.00050 1100.0 4.700 1100.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1900 0.01500 0.0830 0.250
GMW-3 GMW-3 27-Feb-12 F 7.7000 <0.0030 0.0077 0.110 <0.0050 1.500 0.480 310.00 0.0089 0.0170 0.0190 21.000 0.0180 0.450 160.00 1.1000 --- 0.0047 0.0360 1.10 12.00 0.0012 15.00 <0.00050 970.0 4.400 1000.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0930 0.01700 0.0270 0.180
GMW-3 GMW-3 01-Dec-11 F 3.8000 <0.0015 0.00150 0.043 <0.0025 1.100 0.200 340.00 0.0032 0.00940 0.00360 2.300 0.00300 0.390 170.00 0.9200 --- 0.00510 0.0200 <0.10 11.00 0.00054 7.80 <0.00025 800.0 4.100 930.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1300 0.03100 0.0049 0.0260
GMW-3 GMW-3 09-Aug-11 F 9.300 0.00130 0.00990 0.260 0.0013 1.100 0.3900 360.00 0.0120 0.02000 0.01900 22.000 0.02200 0.410 180.00 1.4000 --- 0.01500 0.04400 0.52 13.00 0.00220 27.00 0.00012 840.0 4.400 960.0 0.00030 0.0025 0.1900 0.03400 0.0300 0.1200
GMW-3 GMW-3 02-Jun-11 F 2.3000 0.0043 0.0054 0.055 <0.0050 1.500 0.240 290.00 <0.0050 0.0170 0.0027 1.900 0.0078 0.470 150.00 1.4000 --- 0.0460 0.0370 0.18 18.00 0.0130 6.40 <0.00050 1100.0 4.400 1100.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0300 0.02000 0.0069 0.022
GMW-4 GMW4 15-Nov-12 F 1.1000 <0.0015 0.00099 0.036 <0.0025 1.500 0.066 290.00 <0.0025 0.00660 0.00280 2.500 0.00180 0.340 120.00 1.1000 --- 0.00098 0.0083 <0.10 8.60 <0.00050 6.70 <0.00025 680.0 3.600 710.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0310 0.00580 0.0031 0.0170
GMW-4 GMW-4 06-May-12 F 28.000 <0.0015 0.02100 0.470 0.0031 1.400 0.540 310.00 0.0370 0.02100 0.05200 50.000 0.03400 0.370 140.00 1.2000 --- 0.00300 0.0590 2.10 12.00 0.00200 44.00 <0.00025 670.0 3.600 670.0 0.00052 <0.0025 0.3000 0.01000 0.0870 0.2300
GMW-4 GMW-4 28-Feb-12 F 2.6000 <0.0015 0.00360 0.042 <0.0025 1.500 0.270 280.00 0.0037 0.01100 0.01000 13.000 0.00980 0.370 130.00 1.3000 --- 0.00110 0.0180 0.97 9.50 <0.00050 7.40 <0.00025 700.0 3.600 700.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0490 0.00630 0.0130 0.0650
GMW-4 GMW-4 01-Dec-11 F 6.400 <0.0015 0.00640 0.140 <0.0025 1.800 0.170 300.00 0.0160 0.01100 0.01400 13.000 0.00760 0.470 140.00 1.3000 --- 0.00250 0.0230 0.51 14.00 0.00058 15.00 <0.00025 800.0 4.200 740.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.2000 0.00470 0.0240 0.0650
GMW-4 GMW-4 10-Aug-11 F 6.800 0.00087 0.00840 0.220 <0.0010 1.300 0.3100 300.00 0.0120 0.01600 0.02200 21.000 0.01500 0.340 130.00 1.4000 --- 0.00410 0.03600 0.79 11.00 0.00130 21.00 <0.00010 660.0 3.600 670.0 0.00020 0.0023 0.1300 0.01200 0.0280 0.1100
GMW-4 GMW-4 02-Jun-11 F 4.2000 <0.0030 0.0053 0.100 <0.0050 1.300 0.250 270.00 <0.0050 0.0140 0.0064 9.200 0.0110 0.370 130.00 1.5000 --- 0.0100 0.0260 0.67 14.00 0.0022 10.00 <0.00050 640.0 3.400 630.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0750 0.01500 0.0130 0.044
GMW-5 GMW5 15-Nov-12 F 3.7000 <0.0015 0.00270 0.079 <0.0025 1.800 0.066 250.00 0.0039 0.00780 0.00900 7.400 0.00590 0.340 110.00 0.7000 --- 0.00270 0.0100 0.16 9.30 0.00057 12.00 <0.00025 820.0 3.700 720.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0720 0.00390 0.0100 0.0400
GMW-5 GMW55 15-Nov-12 FD 4.0000 <0.0015 0.00300 0.081 <0.0025 1.700 0.068 240.00 0.0045 0.00800 0.00970 7.900 0.00650 0.320 110.00 0.6800 --- 0.00250 0.0110 0.27 8.80 0.00058 12.00 <0.00025 810.0 3.400 710.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0850 0.00380 0.0110 0.0430
GMW-5 GMW-5 14-Jun-12 F 2.4000 <0.0015 0.00130 0.063 <0.0025 0.560 0.120 280.00 <0.0025 0.00340 0.00240 3.000 0.00390 0.190 95.00 0.2600 --- 0.00170 0.0110 0.14 3.30 0.00100 9.70 <0.00025 330.00 2.300 420.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0690 0.01600 0.0046 0.0240
GMW-5 GMW-55 01-Dec-11 FD 11.000 <0.0015 0.00810 0.190 <0.0025 1.500 0.320 250.00 0.0120 0.01500 0.02000 21.000 0.01800 0.280 110.00 0.9100 --- 0.00510 0.0300 0.74 9.50 0.00097 23.00 <0.00025 800.0 3.400 720.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1600 0.00700 0.0300 0.1000
GMW-5 GMW-5 01-Dec-11 F 13.000 <0.0015 0.00930 0.240 <0.0025 1.600 0.370 250.00 0.0140 0.01600 0.02400 24.000 0.02100 0.360 120.00 0.9500 --- 0.00540 0.0340 0.96 12.00 0.00110 27.00 <0.00025 760.0 3.700 680.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1700 0.00740 0.0340 0.1200
GMW-5 GMW-55 10-Aug-11 FD 4.9000 0.0018 0.00370 0.099 <0.0025 0.790 0.140 170.00 0.0046 0.00920 0.00910 6.900 0.00840 0.210 82.00 0.5900 --- 0.00600 0.0230 0.28 7.40 0.00210 11.00 <0.00025 390.00 2.100 370.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1000 0.01400 0.0120 0.0430
GMW-5 GMW-5 10-Aug-11 F 4.6000 0.0020 0.00360 0.120 <0.0025 0.810 0.180 190.00 0.0044 0.00910 0.00820 7.900 0.00780 0.230 81.00 0.6200 --- 0.00620 0.0230 0.20 7.90 0.00220 14.00 <0.00025 420.00 2.400 390.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1000 0.01500 0.0110 0.0400
GMW-5 GMW-55 03-Jun-11 FD 6.100 <0.0030 0.0064 0.110 <0.0050 1.400 0.410 240.00 <0.0050 0.0210 0.0087 12.000 0.0210 0.330 110.00 1.4000 --- 0.0140 0.0360 1.00 12.00 0.0042 11.00 <0.00050 780.0 3.400 690.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0850 0.01300 0.0180 0.069
GMW-5 GMW-5 03-Jun-11 F 15.000 <0.0030 0.0120 0.280 <0.0050 1.400 0.490 250.00 0.0120 0.0260 0.0210 29.000 0.0340 0.340 110.00 1.6000 --- 0.0150 0.0480 1.30 15.00 0.0050 25.00 <0.00050 790.0 3.400 690.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1900 0.01500 0.0370 0.130
GMW-6 GMW6 15-Nov-12 F 3.7000 <0.0015 0.00250 0.100 <0.0025 1.000 0.098 440.00 0.0031 0.00990 0.00690 8.000 0.00600 0.490 220.00 1.9000 --- 0.00080 0.0220 0.29 9.60 0.00068 14.00 <0.00025 560.0 4.600 840.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0920 0.02500 0.0092 0.0350
GMW-6 GMW-6 06-May-12 F 9.000 <0.0015 0.00380 0.140 <0.0025 0.840 0.190 410.00 0.0061 0.00880 0.00880 10.000 0.00970 0.470 210.00 1.4000 --- 0.00120 0.0230 0.42 9.60 <0.00050 19.00 <0.00025 490.00 4.300 810.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.2200 0.02700 0.0180 0.0480
GMW-6 GMW-6 28-Feb-12 F 4.8000 <0.0015 0.00280 0.083 <0.0025 0.770 0.180 390.00 0.0032 0.01000 0.00680 8.100 0.01100 0.450 200.00 1.5000 --- 0.00086 0.0200 0.37 8.20 <0.00050 13.00 <0.00025 450.00 4.100 770.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0810 0.02600 0.0100 0.0780
GMW-6 GMW-6 01-Dec-11 F 3.2000 <0.0015 0.00180 0.064 <0.0025 0.940 0.120 420.00 <0.0025 0.01200 0.00330 4.200 0.00430 0.700 260.00 2.2000 --- 0.00061 0.0220 0.12 14.00 <0.00050 9.30 <0.00025 700.0 6.00 950.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1000 0.03100 0.0060 0.0330
GMW-6 GMW-6 10-Aug-11 F 3.5000 <0.00060 0.00270 0.110 <0.0010 0.670 0.2500 420.00 0.0032 0.01000 0.00490 7.500 0.00810 0.450 200.00 1.6000 --- 0.00120 0.01800 0.10 8.50 0.00055 15.00 <0.00010 470.00 4.300 830.0 <0.00020 0.0013 0.1200 0.02400 0.0100 0.0390
GMW-7 GMW7 14-Nov-12 F 7.6000 <0.0030 0.0080 0.160 <0.0050 2.100 0.110 300.00 0.0110 0.0120 0.0230 18.000 0.0110 0.450 150.00 1.2000 --- 0.0026 0.0230 0.50 12.00 <0.0010 19.00 <0.00050 840.0 4.600 780.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1000 0.00560 0.0240 0.089
GMW-7 GMW-7 07-May-12 F 6.6000 <0.0015 0.00430 0.100 <0.0025 1.500 0.200 310.00 0.0061 0.00900 0.00890 9.400 0.00810 0.400 150.00 0.8800 --- 0.00260 0.0190 0.26 9.80 0.00090 14.00 <0.00025 700.0 4.100 740.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.2100 0.01100 0.0160 0.0500
GMW-7 GMW-77 07-May-12 FD 7.000 <0.0015 0.00430 0.099 <0.0025 1.400 0.180 290.00 0.0064 0.00940 0.00940 9.200 0.00790 0.360 140.00 0.8900 --- 0.00260 0.0190 0.26 9.60 0.00077 16.00 <0.00025 770.0 3.700 740.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1500 0.01100 0.0170 0.0520
GMW-7 GMW-7 27-Feb-12 F 3.6000 <0.0015 0.00440 0.057 <0.0025 1.500 0.280 270.00 0.0045 0.01200 0.01100 11.000 0.01000 0.360 130.00 1.1000 --- 0.00270 0.0210 0.57 9.50 <0.00050 10.00 <0.00025 770.0 3.700 740.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0480 0.00900 0.0140 0.1100
GMW-7 GMW-7 01-Dec-11 F 36.000 <0.0030 0.0160 0.350 <0.0050 1.800 0.470 280.00 0.0220 0.0220 0.0400 34.000 0.0280 0.460 140.00 1.5000 --- 0.0061 0.0450 1.20 16.00 0.0015 34.00 <0.00050 810.0 4.200 740.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1900 0.00950 0.0490 0.190
GMW-7 GMW-7 09-Aug-11 F 9.300 <0.0015 0.00760 0.170 <0.0025 1.500 0.430 280.00 0.0093 0.02000 0.01900 17.000 0.02000 0.370 150.00 1.6000 --- 0.00650 0.0380 0.62 12.00 0.00170 18.00 <0.00025 750.0 3.600 720.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1500 0.01400 0.0240 0.1100
GMW-7 GMW-7 02-Jun-11 F 3.9000 <0.0030 0.0045 0.087 <0.0050 1.200 0.290 270.00 <0.0050 0.0160 0.0047 5.200 0.0100 0.370 130.00 1.5000 --- 0.0140 0.0290 0.35 14.00 0.0035 10.00 <0.00050 650.0 3.400 670.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0710 0.02000 0.0110 0.042
GMW-8 GMW8 14-Nov-12 F 3.1000 <0.0030 0.0035 0.052 <0.0050 3.000 0.110 370.00 0.0086 0.0120 0.0130 4.600 0.0067 1.200 270.00 2.2000 --- 0.0019 0.0250 0.12 20.00 <0.0010 9.70 <0.00050 1500.0 7.60 1400.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0690 0.00780 0.0110 0.073
GMW-8 GMW-8 06-May-12 F 3.6000 <0.0030 0.0042 0.043 <0.0050 2.700 0.160 330.00 <0.0050 0.0130 0.0069 5.900 0.0081 1.000 240.00 1.7000 --- 0.0022 0.0260 0.28 18.00 <0.0010 8.50 <0.00050 1600.0 7.70 1400.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1200 0.00640 0.0096 0.110
GMW-8 GMW-8 27-Feb-12 F 3.2000 <0.0030 0.0045 0.033 <0.0050 2.500 0.210 300.00 0.0054 0.0160 0.0120 9.500 0.0140 0.930 220.00 1.6000 --- 0.0020 0.0340 0.40 17.00 <0.0010 7.90 <0.00050 1500.0 7.30 1400.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1100 0.00770 0.0110 0.086
GMW-8 GMW-8 01-Dec-11 F 2.0000 <0.0030 0.0023 0.040 <0.0050 2.400 0.280 320.00 0.0051 0.0200 0.0044 3.300 0.0041 1.200 220.00 1.7000 --- 0.0075 0.0390 <0.10 12.00 <0.0010 7.60 <0.00050 1500 6.9 1200 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0690 0.00980 <0.0050 0.097
GMW-8 GMW-8 10-Aug-11 F 10.000 <0.0030 0.0078 0.180 <0.0050 2.900 0.360 290.00 0.0068 0.0290 0.0340 15.000 0.0260 0.830 190.00 1.4000 --- 0.0210 0.0550 0.42 19.00 0.0031 20.00 <0.00050 1600.0 6.100 1400.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.2100 0.01600 0.0220 0.160
GMW-8 GMW-8 02-Jun-11 F 2.8000 0.0086 0.0068 0.048 <0.0050 2.700 0.250 200.00 <0.0050 0.0170 0.0042 1.900 0.0086 0.480 96.00 1.1000 --- 0.0770 0.0320 0.24 21.00 0.0150 6.10 <0.00050 1500.0 4.300 1000.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0220 0.02700 0.0077 0.066
GMW-9 GMW9 14-Nov-12 F 5.5000 <0.0015 0.00450 0.130 <0.0025 1.100 0.096 140.00 0.0060 0.00870 0.01300 12.000 0.01000 0.350 75.00 0.8200 --- 0.00130 0.0170 0.36 11.00 0.00120 17.00 <0.00025 570.0 2.000 400.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0940 0.00920 0.0160 0.0600
GMW-9 GMW-9 06-May-12 F 4.2000 <0.0015 0.00430 0.065 <0.0025 0.900 0.350 140.00 0.0045 0.01200 0.01500 16.000 0.01400 0.350 78.00 0.9100 --- 0.00120 0.0230 0.95 9.30 0.00110 11.00 <0.00025 480.00 2.100 390.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0670 0.01000 0.0190 0.0910
GMW-9 GMW-9 27-Feb-12 F 4.2000 <0.0015 0.00290 0.054 <0.0025 0.680 0.250 130.00 <0.0025 0.00880 0.00900 8.300 0.01200 0.260 69.00 0.6200 --- 0.00097 0.0150 0.43 7.80 0.00075 9.00 <0.00025 360.00 1.600 300.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0480 0.01100 0.0110 0.0610
GMW-9 GMW-9 01-Dec-11 F 3.6000 <0.0015 0.00200 0.078 <0.0025 0.650 0.130 130.00 0.0038 0.00550 0.00530 4.900 0.00570 0.210 63.00 0.5400 --- 0.00180 0.0120 0.17 7.80 0.00051 12.00 <0.00025 350.00 1.400 270.00 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.0910 0.01100 0.0068 0.0290
GMW-9 GMW-9 10-Aug-11 F 27.000 0.00095 0.01700 0.360 0.0058 0.770 1.1000 140.00 0.0220 0.04800 0.04800 60.000 0.06700 0.290 79.00 2.4000 --- 0.00300 0.06900 2.50 13.00 0.00240 39.00 0.00011 370.00 1.700 290.00 0.00070 0.0036 0.2100 0.01800 0.0770 0.3800
GMW-10 GMW10 14-Nov-12 F 5.7000 <0.0015 0.00520 0.140 <0.0025 1.200 0.140 210.00 0.0069 0.01200 0.01500 13.000 0.01000 0.500 130.00 1.6000 --- 0.00170 0.0250 0.36 11.00 0.00160 17.00 <0.00025 630.0 3.100 590.0 <0.00050 <0.0025 0.1000 0.00960 0.0160 0.0870
GMW-10 GMW-10 06-May-12 F 15.000 <0.0030 0.0110 0.150 <0.0050 1.800 0.450 310.00 0.0140 0.0280 0.0300 23.000 0.0220 0.760 210.00 2.4000 --- 0.0025 0.0580 1.10 16.00 0.0016 19.00 <0.00050 920.0 5.50 920.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.2300 0.01100 0.0360 0.160
GMW-10 GMW-10 27-Feb-12 F 9.700 <0.0030 0.0087 0.080 <0.0050 1.500 0.580 280.00 0.0096 0.0260 0.0310 25.000 0.0290 0.610 180.00 1.9000 --- 0.0017 0.0540 1.50 13.00 0.0015 16.00 <0.00050 850.0 4.300 860.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1600 0.01500 0.0360 0.190
GMW-10 GMW-10 01-Dec-11 F 1.6000 <0.0030 <0.0010 0.048 <0.0050 0.900 0.190 200.00 <0.0050 0.0074 0.0038 2.000 0.0026 0.350 130.00 1.1000 --- 0.0018 0.0200 <0.10 8.30 0.0033 8.40 <0.00050 540.0 2.900 500.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.0450 0.01700 <0.0050 0.031
GMW-10 GMW-10 10-Aug-11 F 9.700 <0.0030 0.0057 0.180 <0.0050 1.700 0.370 330.00 0.0061 0.0280 0.0100 14.000 0.0220 0.780 240.00 2.3000 --- 0.0048 0.0570 0.37 19.00 0.0025 22.00 <0.00050 950.0 4.900 1000.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.2400 0.02400 0.0190 0.130
GMW-10 GMW-10 02-Jun-11 F 9.800 0.0035 0.0079 0.180 <0.0050 2.100 0.220 200.00 0.0062 0.0130 0.0093 14.000 0.0180 0.430 110.00 0.9600 --- 0.0300 0.0220 0.38 17.00 0.0051 19.00 <0.00050 1200.0 4.100 960.0 <0.0010 <0.0050 0.1900 0.01400 0.0210 0.075
Page 70
TABLE 42-4
ORGANIC PARAMETERS
General Organic Parameters Petroleum Hydrocarbons Glycols
Propylene Glycol
Organic Carbon
Ethylene Glycol
Oil and Grease
Total Phenols
Tetraethylene
Ethylbenzene
Total Organic
m+p-Xylenes
F2 (C10-C16)
F1 (C6-C10)
Naphthenic
Triethylene
Diethylene
Dissolved
F1 -BTEX
o-Xylene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Carbon
Glycol
Glycol
Glycol
Acids
Quaternary
GMW-1 GMW1 14-Nov-12 F 4.60 5.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0034
GMW-1 GMW-1 06-May-12 F 5.00 4.70 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-1 GMW-1 27-Feb-12 F 5.00 4.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-1 GMW-1 01-Dec-11 F 6.10 5.80 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0060
GMW-1 GMW-1 09-Aug-11 F 15.00 8.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0059
GMW-2 GMW2 15-Nov-12 F 12.00 16.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0033
GMW-2 GMW-2 07-May-12 F 9.40 11.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-2 GMW-2 27-Feb-12 F 11.00 10.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-2 GMW-2 01-Dec-11 F 12.00 12.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0042
GMW-2 GMW-2 09-Aug-11 F 15.00 15.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0025
GMW-2 GMW-2 02-Jun-11 F 10.00 8.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0051
GMW-3 GMW3 15-Nov-12 F 15.00 17.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0043
GMW-3 GMW-3 07-May-12 F 11.00 13.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-3 GMW-3 27-Feb-12 F 16.00 15.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0033
GMW-3 GMW-3 01-Dec-11 F 21.00 18.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0040
GMW-3 GMW-3 09-Aug-11 F 23.00 22.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 1.40 0.96 0.41 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0028
GMW-3 GMW-3 02-Jun-11 F 9.10 8.90 --- 8.30 7.80 8.40 24.00 16.00 9.00 110 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0052
GMW-4 GMW4 15-Nov-12 F 5.80 5.70 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0025
GMW-4 GMW-4 06-May-12 F 5.60 6.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-4 GMW-4 28-Feb-12 F 5.90 5.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0039
GMW-4 GMW-4 01-Dec-11 F 6.00 6.10 --- <0.40 0.51 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0043
GMW-4 GMW-4 10-Aug-11 F 6.50 6.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-4 GMW-4 02-Jun-11 F 6.90 6.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0040
GMW-5 GMW5 15-Nov-12 F 7.70 8.20 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0029
GMW-5 GMW55 15-Nov-12 FD 8.00 8.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0025
GMW-5 GMW-5 14-Jun-12 F 11.00 11.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0045
GMW-5 GMW-55 01-Dec-11 FD 8.30 8.20 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 1.00 <0.80 1.00 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0054
GMW-5 GMW-5 01-Dec-11 F 8.00 8.50 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0038
GMW-5 GMW-55 10-Aug-11 FD 9.80 9.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0050
GMW-5 GMW-5 10-Aug-11 F 9.20 9.20 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0033
GMW-5 GMW-55 03-Jun-11 FD 7.60 7.50 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 130 130 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0033
GMW-5 GMW-5 03-Jun-11 F 7.60 8.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0039
GMW-6 GMW6 15-Nov-12 F 7.00 7.40 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0026
GMW-6 GMW-6 06-May-12 F 7.50 6.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-6 GMW-6 28-Feb-12 F 6.80 7.20 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0040
GMW-6 GMW-6 01-Dec-11 F 6.20 6.50 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0055
GMW-6 GMW-6 10-Aug-11 F 11.00 5.10 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0038
GMW-7 GMW7 14-Nov-12 F 6.50 8.40 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0026
GMW-7 GMW-7 07-May-12 F 7.40 8.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-7 GMW-77 07-May-12 FD 5.90 8.40 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-7 GMW-7 27-Feb-12 F 7.40 7.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0040
GMW-7 GMW-7 01-Dec-11 F 7.90 6.50 --- <0.40 0.49 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0037
GMW-7 GMW-7 09-Aug-11 F 8.60 9.20 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0044
GMW-7 GMW-7 02-Jun-11 F 9.30 9.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0046
GMW-8 GMW8 14-Nov-12 F 7.10 7.80 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0024
GMW-8 GMW-8 06-May-12 F 7.70 7.20 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
Page 71
TABLE 42-4 Cont'd

General Organic Parameters Petroleum Hydrocarbons Glycols
Propylene Glycol
Organic Carbon
Ethylene Glycol
Oil and Grease
Total Phenols
Tetraethylene
Ethylbenzene
Total Organic
m+p-Xylenes
F2 (C10-C16)
F1 (C6-C10)
Naphthenic
Triethylene
Diethylene
Dissolved
F1 -BTEX
o-Xylene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Carbon
Glycol
Glycol
Glycol
Acids
GMW-8 GMW-8 27-Feb-12 F 7.90 7.70 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0023
GMW-8 GMW-8 01-Dec-11 F 9.00 9.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0091
GMW-8 GMW-8 10-Aug-11 F 8.80 9.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0040
GMW-8 GMW-8 02-Jun-11 F 9.50 9.40 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0032
GMW-9 GMW9 14-Nov-12 F 24.00 25.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0036
GMW-9 GMW-9 06-May-12 F 21.00 21.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-9 GMW-9 27-Feb-12 F 21.00 21.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0023
GMW-9 GMW-9 01-Dec-11 F 20.00 22.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0066
GMW-9 GMW-9 10-Aug-11 F 24.00 22.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0060
GMW-10 GMW10 14-Nov-12 F 11.00 12.00 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0021
GMW-10 GMW-10 06-May-12 F 11.00 9.30 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-10 GMW-10 27-Feb-12 F 9.10 9.40 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- <0.0020
GMW-10 GMW-10 01-Dec-11 F 9.20 9.50 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0059
GMW-10 GMW-10 10-Aug-11 F 11.00 9.90 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0080
GMW-10 GMW-10 02-Jun-11 F 8.90 8.10 --- <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.80 <0.40 <100 <100 <0.10 <5.0 <10 <10 <10 <10 --- 0.0045
Page 72
TABLE 42-5
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHATE PARAMETERS
Ammonia-N Nitrate+Nitrite-N Nitrate-N Nitrite-N Ortho Phosphate as P

LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
Quaternary
GMW-1 GMW1 14-Nov-12 F 6.60 2.200 1.800 0.440 0.0070
GMW-1 GMW-1 06-May-12 F 6.40 2.700 2.500 0.240 0.0060
GMW-1 GMW-1 27-Feb-12 F 6.40 0.2700 0.0930 0.1800 0.0060
GMW-1 GMW-1 01-Dec-11 F 7.20 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0030
GMW-1 GMW-1 09-Aug-11 F 6.80 0.0600 0.0540 0.0060 0.0100
GMW-2 GMW2 15-Nov-12 F 3.50 0.081 0.081 <0.015 0.0080
GMW-2 GMW-2 07-May-12 F 3.00 1.3000 0.9700 0.3700 0.0040
GMW-2 GMW-2 27-Feb-12 F 2.70 0.8700 0.5400 0.3400 0.0030
GMW-2 GMW-2 01-Dec-11 F 2.80 0.1300 0.1100 0.0110 0.0040
GMW-2 GMW-2 09-Aug-11 F 1.500 0.1200 0.1200 0.0060 0.0060
GMW-2 GMW-2 02-Jun-11 F 3.00 0.0820 0.0700 0.0120 0.0040
GMW-3 GMW3 15-Nov-12 F 3.40 0.160 0.140 0.026 0.0060
GMW-3 GMW-3 07-May-12 F 2.60 1.5000 1.4000 0.0980 0.0050
GMW-3 GMW-3 27-Feb-12 F 1.800 1.2000 0.8600 0.3100 0.0030
GMW-3 GMW-3 01-Dec-11 F 2.000 0.0830 0.0730 0.0100 0.0060
GMW-3 GMW-3 09-Aug-11 F 1.600 0.0680 0.0420 0.0260 0.0080
GMW-3 GMW-3 02-Jun-11 F 2.90 0.0730 0.0550 0.0180 0.0070
GMW-4 GMW4 15-Nov-12 F 1.700 0.110 0.051 0.059 0.0040
GMW-4 GMW-4 06-May-12 F 1.300 1.000 0.760 0.240 0.0040
GMW-4 GMW-4 28-Feb-12 F 1.700 0.4300 0.2400 0.1900 0.0030
GMW-4 GMW-4 01-Dec-11 F 2.10 0.0260 0.0170 0.0090 <0.0030
GMW-4 GMW-4 10-Aug-11 F 1.400 0.0180 0.0100 0.0080 0.0050
GMW-4 GMW-4 02-Jun-11 F 1.500 0.0390 0.0390 <0.0030 0.0070
GMW-5 GMW5 15-Nov-12 F 2.30 0.0370 0.0210 0.0160 0.0050
GMW-5 GMW55 15-Nov-12 FD 2.20 0.0410 0.0270 0.0140 0.0050
GMW-5 GMW-5 14-Jun-12 F 0.360 0.540 0.540 <0.015 0.0070
GMW-5 GMW-55 01-Dec-11 FD 1.500 0.1800 0.1700 0.0070 0.0040
GMW-5 GMW-5 01-Dec-11 F 1.500 0.1900 0.1800 0.0080 0.0030
GMW-5 GMW-55 10-Aug-11 FD 2.30 0.2000 0.1500 0.0500 0.0050
GMW-5 GMW-5 10-Aug-11 F 1.900 0.2100 0.1600 0.0490 0.0070
GMW-5 GMW-55 03-Jun-11 FD 2.10 0.0620 0.0620 <0.0030 0.0060
GMW-5 GMW-5 03-Jun-11 F 1.700 0.0610 0.0610 <0.0030 0.0050
GMW-6 GMW6 15-Nov-12 F 1.100 0.046 0.018 0.028 0.0050
GMW-6 GMW-6 06-May-12 F 0.580 0.140 0.110 0.035 0.0040
GMW-6 GMW-6 28-Feb-12 F 0.810 0.0130 0.0040 0.0094 0.0050
GMW-6 GMW-6 01-Dec-11 F 1.800 0.0040 0.0040 <0.0030 <0.0030
GMW-6 GMW-6 10-Aug-11 F 0.950 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0090
GMW-7 GMW7 14-Nov-12 F 2.30 0.099 0.070 0.028 0.0040
GMW-7 GMW-7 07-May-12 F 1.100 0.720 0.670 0.050 0.0040
GMW-7 GMW-77 07-May-12 FD 1.100 0.740 0.710 0.035 0.0040
GMW-7 GMW-7 27-Feb-12 F 1.700 0.3900 0.3200 0.0670 0.0030
GMW-7 GMW-7 01-Dec-11 F 2.20 0.0860 0.0800 0.0060 0.0040
GMW-7 GMW-7 09-Aug-11 F 1.700 0.1800 0.1600 0.0200 0.0060
GMW-7 GMW-7 02-Jun-11 F 1.400 0.0520 0.0520 <0.0030 0.0060
GMW-8 GMW8 14-Nov-12 F 5.10 0.860 0.750 0.110 0.0070
GMW-8 GMW-8 06-May-12 F 5.20 0.180 0.050 0.130 0.0050
GMW-8 GMW-8 27-Feb-12 F 4.90 0.0150 0.0150 <0.0030 0.0040
GMW-8 GMW-8 01-Dec-11 F 5.30 0.025 0.025 <0.015 0.0030
GMW-8 GMW-8 10-Aug-11 F 5.30 0.0150 0.0120 0.0030 0.0080
GMW-8 GMW-8 02-Jun-11 F 5.20 0.0970 0.0800 0.0170 0.0050
GMW-9 GMW9 14-Nov-12 F 1.500 0.1600 0.1400 0.0190 0.0050
Page 73
TABLE 42-5 Cont'd

Ammonia-N Nitrate+Nitrite-N Nitrate-N Nitrite-N Ortho Phosphate as P
LOCATION ID DATE TYPE mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
GMW-9 GMW-9 06-May-12 F 2.50 0.710 0.710 <0.015 0.0040
GMW-9 GMW-9 27-Feb-12 F 0.800 0.6000 0.4100 0.1900 0.0030
GMW-9 GMW-9 01-Dec-11 F 0.750 0.0100 0.0100 <0.0030 <0.0030
GMW-9 GMW-9 10-Aug-11 F 0.550 0.0210 0.0140 0.0070 0.0080
GMW-10 GMW10 14-Nov-12 F 1.900 0.2400 0.2400 0.0070 0.0040
GMW-10 GMW-10 06-May-12 F 1.600 0.360 0.360 <0.015 0.0040
GMW-10 GMW-10 27-Feb-12 F 1.200 0.7800 0.7500 0.0290 0.0030
GMW-10 GMW-10 01-Dec-11 F 0.870 0.3500 0.3400 0.0120 <0.0030
GMW-10 GMW-10 10-Aug-11 F 2.70 0.0450 0.0400 0.0050 0.0060
GMW-10 GMW-10 02-Jun-11 F 1.700 0.0220 <0.0030 0.0220 0.0060
Trip Blanks
Blackrod TRIP 14-Nov-12 TB <0.050 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 ---
SAGD Pilot BLANK
Plant
Discussion of the monitoring results is presented in AMEC (2013a). It is noted that, as currently planned,
the Pilot CPF will be decommissioned prior to the startup of the Commercial Project (i.e., the Pilot CPF is
not part of the Commercial Project).
42. b. Provide an equivalent level of information in other parts of the Project Area.
Response:
Groundwater baseline data for the Quaternary aquitard at the Project CPF will be obtained after the
Approval for the Project has been issued and prior to the start of operations. Any additional requirements
for baseline data will be discussed with AESRD.
Page 74
43. Volume 3, Appendix 1A, Sections 1A.5.1.3 to 1A.5.1.13, Pages 1A-58 to 1A-63
BlackPearl indicates that one well was completed into the Viking aquifer within the Project at
15-25-76-18-W4.
Two wells were drilled within the Grand Rapids 'B' aquifer at 14-24-76-18-W4.
One well was drilled in the Grosmont D aquifer at 15-25-076-18-W4.
One well was drilled in the Grosmont A aquifer at 2-25-76-18-W4.
The Integrated Application report provided no well data in the Project Area for Grand Rapids 'A'
aquifer.
a. Provide additional baseline data within the Project Area to determine groundwater flow
directions and velocities, piezometric contour maps and chemistry within the above
mentioned aquifers.
Response:
Additional groundwater baseline data for the Viking aquifer, the Lower Grand Rapids (LGR3) aquifer
(Grand Rapids ‘B’ aquifer), and the Grosmont ‘D’ and ‘A’ aquifers will be obtained after the Approval for
the Project has been issued and prior to the start of operations. The data will be used to prepare
piezometric contour maps and hydrogeologic cross-sections, and to determine groundwater flow
directions, gradients and velocities. The information for the non-saline aquifers (i.e., the Viking and LGR3
aquifers) will be presented in annual reports as required under the EPEA Approval issued for the Project.
The Upper Grand Rapids ‘A’ aquifer, which is thin or absent in the Project Area (Volume 3, Appendix 1A,
Figure 1A-36, Page 1A-45 of the Integrated Application), is not a groundwater management unit (refer to
the response for AESRD SIR 23b). Therefore, obtaining groundwater baseline data is not warranted.
43. b. Provide additional baseline data to determine groundwater flow directions and
velocities, hydraulic gradients, contour maps and investigate karst related issues within
the Grosmont aquifers.
Response:
43. c. Provide data within the Project Area to properly calibrate the groundwater model within
the Grosmont aquifer.
Response
Page 75
44. Volume 3, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.6-1, Page 2A-11
BlackPearl states that Basin B is drained to the north by four small streams and drainages that
flow directly into the Athabasca River.
a. Explain the rationale for the existence of sub-basin B3, provided that it has no stream.
Explain how the natural drainage occurs in the sub-basin. If required, update Figure
2.6-1 and other figures throughout the Integrated Application report to show the
drainage stream in sub-basin B3.
Response:
The hydrography mapping for this study was based on the 1:20,000 scale Alberta Spatial Data
Warehouse (SDW) maps and 1:50,000 scale National Topographic Service (NTS) maps. Neither of these
sources, nor field observations around the Project Area, provides information on existing streams or
drainage courses in sub-basin B3.
The basin boundaries were delineated based on NTS maps, 1:50,000 scale GeoBase DEM and available
LiDAR data. These data indicate that runoff from sub-basin B3 generally flows north to the Athabasca
River. In general, basin boundaries are only defined by topography and a basin does not have to have
existing streams. In such a case, runoff will flow overland following ground slopes.
3.3 Hydrology
BlackPearl describes mitigation to be implemented for the construction of facilities in wetland

areas, identifying that culverts on access roads will be installed every 400 metres to maintain
hydrological connectivity and ditches shall be constructed to direct the flow away from the
facility.
a. How will BlackPearl monitor to ensure hydrological connectivity is maintained?
Response:
BlackPearl will perform an annual inspection to ensure the integrity and functionality of the culverts and
ditches.
45. b. Provide a conceptual plan describing what will be monitored, as well as when, how
often, and how the results will be reported.
Response:
BlackPearl will inspect the culverts and ditches annually and perform maintenance as required.
Damaged/blocked culverts will be repaired or replaced. Such inspection and maintenance will be
documented in the maintenance records of BlackPearl.
Page 76
45. c. Describe what additional mitigation might be implemented to address any issues
discovered during monitoring and how quickly they will be remediated.
Response:
BlackPearl expects that its drainage plan will provide adequate hydrological connectivity. If drainage
issues are discovered during the annual inspections, they will be fixed as soon as possible to ensure the
integrity of all facilities.
BlackPearl states that Long term precipitation records are also available at the Cold Lake
Airport and Slave Lake Airport, but they are not considered herein, as they are located
relatively far away from the basins selected for the regional hydrologic assessment.
a. Clarify the reasons for using the data from Cold Lake Airport and Slave Lake Airport for
temperature calculations and not for precipitations.
Response:
Temperature data from Cold Lake Airport and Slave Lake Airport were included in the report only to
describe a general spatial variation of temperature in the region. They were not used in any calculations.
Most of the gauged river basins included in the regional hydrological analysis are close to Fort McMurray
or Calling Lake (as shown in Figure 2.3-1 in Volume 3, Section 2.4.2 of the Integrated Application);
therefore, the precipitation data from these stations are the best to be used for comparison with the runoff
data from these basins. The Cold Lake Airport and Slave Lake Airport are relatively far away from these
gauged basins.
46. b. Clarify the reasons for dismissing the data from Slave Lake Airport for precipitations
calculations, given that the distance of 130 km from the study area to Fort McMurray
Airport (used for the data) is fairly comparable to the distance of 140 km between the
study area and the Slave Lake Airport.
Response:
See response for AESRD SIR 46a.
In the description of the study sites, BlackPearl indicates for each that the estimated peak
discharge for all sites is much higher than the measured discharge for June 2011.
a. Discuss why the modeled estimates are so much higher than the measured values.
Response:
The comparisons discussed in Page 2-13 in Volume 3, Section 2.6.3 of the Integrated Application are
between the maximum discharges measured directly by our field staff while on site and the discharges
estimated from the maximum water levels recorded with automatic data loggers based on the rating
Page 77
curves established from the direct measurements. They were different because they did not occur at the
same time (e.g., the maximum measured discharge at Site A1-1 was taken on August 30, 2010 but the
maximum water level over the entire monitoring period was recorded in June 2011). The comparisons
were intended to describe how much the rating curves were extrapolated.
47. b. How does this affect BlackPearl’s confidence in the assessment?
Response:
This does not affect our confidence in the hydrological assessment.
The one-year water level records and subsequently estimated discharges were used to describe temporal
variation of runoff in the study area, estimate the order of magnitude of the runoff discharges, and validate
the HSPF modelling results in terms of simulated hydrograph shapes and the order of magnitude of
discharges. For these purposes, the accuracy of these data is considered adequate. The hydrological
assessment was primarily based on long-term regional records.
The hydrology study uses estimated runoff coefficients that change with the land use. Errors
may be made in the approximation of the runoff coefficient, which directly impacts the runoff.
The HSPF model also uses a number of parameters that have significant impact on the end
results of the model.
a. Provide a discussion on the sensitivity of the runoff due to potential errors made in the
approximation of the runoff coefficient.
Response:
The runoff coefficient values were selected carefully based on literature and experience. By definition, the
runoff volume is proportional to the runoff coefficient value; therefore, a 10% error in the runoff coefficient
value would result in a 10% error in the runoff volume estimate for an individual site.
48. b. Provide a discussion on the sensitivity of the end results of the HSPF model with
respect to different parameters used in the model.
Response:
In the HSPF model, two parameters were adjusted to represent changes of land use type: one associated
with the evapotranspiration potential and one associated with the upper layer soil storage capacity. For an
individual site, a 10% error in the evapotranspiration parameter value would result in an error of up to
14% in the annual runoff volume or up to 12% in the predicted 2-year peak discharge. A 10% error in the
soil storage capacity value would result in an error of up to 4% in the annual runoff volume or up to 6% in
the predicted 2-year peak discharge.
Page 78
BlackPearl indicates it did not undertake HSPF simulations for all affected local basins.
a. It is interpreted, based on the use of the term ‘affected’ that these local basins may be
influenced by the project. Given the intent of the environmental assessment process is
to characterize the full impact, provide a rationale for this decision and revise the
assessment as appropriate.
Response:
The HSPF simulation results for all affected basins are included in the Project update report. The runoff
coefficient method was used to assess the less affected basins in the original report. Only the basins with
the largest impacts were assessed in more detail with HSPF in the original report.
BlackPearl indicates that the total disturbance area for the borrow pits will be 179.6 ha. The
sizes and depths of the borrow pits were not provided.
BlackPearl states that Water collected in the borrow pits will either evaporate or seep into the
ground. No runoff will be generated from these areas.
However, the borrow pits will be installed mostly in the Quaternary layer and will likely collect
significant amounts of water during their use, due to the existence of Muskeg and anticipated
high water table. Water collecting in the borrow pits will likely require to be pumped out for
material extraction. However, the report does not include a plan to manage the water from the
borrow pits.
In Volume 1, Page 11-20, BlackPearl states that, for reclamation, BlackPearl will strive to
provide connectivity to surrounding natural drainage patterns to provide water inflow and
outflow from the reclaimed borrow pits.
a. Provide a design with depth and size for the borrow pits.
Response:
A conceptual design for borrow pit construction has been provided in the response to AESRD SIR 101.
The depth and size for each borrow pit will be determined upon the completion of a geotechnical
assessment for the borrow areas.
50. b. Provide data proving that water collected in the borrow pits will generate no runoff or
dewatering during the operation of the borrow pits. If not, provide an estimate of
quantities of water to be pumped out of the borrow pits during their operation.
Response:
The borrow pits are not expected to receive runoff from the surrounding area. They will receive direct
precipitation only. The estimated average annual precipitation is 460 mm and the average annual
evaporation is 579 mm. Even without infiltration, evaporation will consume all the water due to
Page 79
precipitation collected in the borrow pits. Therefore, no overflow runoff from the borrow pits is expected
and dewatering will not be required. The assessment was carried out for the condition of maximum
development when the borrow pits will not be in use. Dewatering of borrow pits during the Construction
Phase is not expected to be significant since much of the construction will be carried out during winter.
50. c. Provide a study showing the impact of the dewatering process on surface water and
subsurface aquifer.
Response:
Dewatering, if required, will not occur during a runoff event. Water will be pumped at a small rate to the
natural environment. Most of the water will be lost to evaporation or infiltrate back to the subsurface.
Impacts to the environment will be insignificant and temporary only.
50. d. Provide a management plan for the water collected from the borrow pits.
Response:
Runoff from the surrounding area to the borrow pits will be avoided. Water from direct precipitation will be
lost to evaporation and infiltration. If dewatering is required, water will be pumped slowly to the natural
environment after the runoff event is complete.
50. e. Update the water balance of the project accordingly, if necessary.
Response:
It is not necessary.
50. f. Indicate whether and how the inflow/outflows from the reclaimed borrow pits will
connect with the existing natural drainage.
Response:
Where a self draining pit can be constructed, the reclaimed pit will be re-contoured to promote
connectivity of the inflows to the pit and outflows to the natural drainage in the adjacent lands.
Page 80
3.4 Surface Water Quality

In a discussion of surface water quality and vegetation monitoring, BlackPearl indicates If

substantial negative impacts are detected, remedial measures will be implemented.
a. Provide the criteria and decision points BlackPearl will use to determine whether
negative impacts are “substantial”, and whether to implement remedial measures.
Response:
A substantial negative effect will be determined on a site by site basis. The monitoring program will
sample for the same suite of parameters as the Baseline Case (please see Volume 3- Section 3.0, Table
3.3-1 of the Integrated Application). For parameters that were below applicable guidelines in the Baseline
Case, a substantial negative effect will be determined if the parameter is above applicable guidelines
during monitoring. For parameters that were above applicable guidelines during the Baseline Case, a
substantial negative effect will be determined if the parameter is above baseline levels or otherwise
specified in the applicable guidelines (e.g., In the Surface Water Quality Guidelines for use in Alberta, the
Alberta pH guideline is to be in the range of 6.5 to 8.5 but not altered by more than 0.5 pH units from
background levels). For more information on the monitoring program please see response to AESRD
SIR 56.
BlackPearl lists the following among the criteria for the release of the water collected in the
down gradient corner of a well pad:
• Chloride content below 500 mg/L;

• pH 6.0 to 9.5;
a. Provide the basis for establishing the above mentioned criteria.
Response:
Please note, a typing error was present in the reported pH criteria, the correct range is 6.0- 9.0.
The above mentioned criteria were established from ERCB Directive 55: Storage Requirements for the
Upstream Petroleum Industry (Directive 55, Section 11: Criteria for the Surface Discharge of Collected
Surface Run-on/Runoff Waters [page 34]). This Directive states that “provided the water has not been
contaminated, surface run-on/runoff waters collected on an upstream petroleum site (e.g., within a diked
area of a tank farm, within the surface water collection system) should be released back into the
environment (hydrology cycle). Collected waters must be tested and meet the following criteria prior to
being released in a controlled fashion to adjacent lands:
• Chloride content 500 mg/L maximum (e.g., test strips);
• pH 6.0 to 9.0 (e.g., test strips and/or meter readings);
• No visible hydrocarbon sheen (roughly equates to less than 10 mg/L);
• No other chemical contamination (e.g., clean operating conditions such that collected
waters are not impacted by spills/releases);
• Landowner or occupant consent;
Page 81
• Water not allowed to flow directly into any watercourse; and
• Each release recorded, including the pre-release test data and the estimated volume of
water released.
Contaminated water must not be released into the environment. It should be sent to an approved facility
for treatment and/or disposal or, if possible, treated on site and then released. The minimal parameters
listed above are intended as screening parameters for sites exhibiting good house-keeping practices. On
sites where spills or releases have occurred, the collected surface water should be tested for parameters
that would demonstrate that the water has not been affected. BlackPearl has chosen these criteria as
they directly apply to the release of water collected from a well pad, which will be returned to the
environment (ERCB Directive 55).”
52. b. Reconcile the above criteria with Surface Water Quality Guidelines provided the recent
guidelines published in December 2010 within 'Alberta Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater
Remediation Guidelines - Table C-11' and 'Alberta Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater
Remediation Guidelines - Table A-11'.
Response:
BlackPearl cannot reconcile the above mentioned pH criteria with Table C-11 from the “Alberta Tier 1 Soil
and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines” and Table A-11 from the “Alberta Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater
Remediation Guidelines” as pH is not listed in either of these tables. However, the criterion for chloride
concentration with respect to the protection of aquatic life is reported as 230 mg/L in both the Alberta Tier
1 and Tier 2 guidelines (AENV 2010a,b). The Surface Water Quality Guidelines short-term exposure
guideline established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) for chloride is 640
mg/L. BlackPearl chose to use the criteria listed in Directive 55 as it specifically outlines the criteria for
which water may be released from upstream petroleum sites to adjacent upland areas. The purpose of
Directive 55 is specifically to identify the requirements for the storage of materials produced, generated or
used by the upstream petroleum industry and as a result provides the applicable criteria for this surface
discharge.
52. c. What are the criteria for other parameters (e.g., hydrocarbons) that may exceed the
applicable guidelines?
Response:
As stated in Directive 55, prior to discharge, BlackPearl will collect and analyze the accumulated runoff
water. Due to site conditions, BlackPearl will implement the following monitoring program prior to release
of collected storm water:
• Sample collected storm water for pH and chloride concentrations using test strips.
• If the sample meets the requirements stated in Directive 55 (chloride <500 mg/L, pH 6.0 to 9.0)
analytical samples will be taken and sent to a Standards Council of Canada (SCC) approved
laboratory. The samples will be analyzed for extractable hydrocarbons, PAH and volatile organics
(please see Volume 3-Section 3.0, Table 3.3-1 of the Integrated Application or Table 56-1 of this
document for further details).
• Results will be compared to the same criteria as the watercourse monitoring program. Please see
Table 57-1 of this document for details.
Page 82
• Consent will be obtained from AESRD and the release will be documented, including test results,
date, and volume of the release. Water meeting the criteria will be pumped off lease to adjacent
upland areas and will be discharged without causing erosion and filtered to avoid siltation.
• If stormwater does not meet these guidelines the water will be taken to the CPF for recycling or
disposal.
BlackPearl states that The RSA includes the five drainages in the LSA plus portions of the
Athabasca River 2.5 km downstream of each drainage mouth.
The demarcation of the RSA (represented in the figure by the dark green line) is only shown as
an extended length along Athabasca River.
a. Clarify if the statement is correct and update Figure 3.3-2, if necessary, to show the
complete perimeter of the RSA encompassing the LSA as described in the above
statement.
Response:
The statement is correct. The figure has been updated. Please see Figure 53-1.
Page 83
Agnes Lake
Ho
Pel i c Rive rallel C reek
us
an Pa
e
r
Ri v
er
A1-1
basca R iv e r
ha
A
t
C1-1 B4-1 A2-1
A2-2
D2-1
D1-1
Duncan
Creek
63
k
ree
nC
nca
McMillan
Du
Lake
Project Area Water quality sampling locations FIGURE 53-1

Surface Water Quality Local Study Area Proposed future sampling locations SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
LOCATIONSFOR MONITORING PROGRAM
Surface Water Quality Regional Study Area Watercourse AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Highway 63 Waterbody BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Existing Blackrod Road COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
SCALE: 1: 200,000
UTM Zone 12N km
0 1 2 3 4 5
April 2013
BlackPearl states that The Baseline Report describes the current water quality conditions of
eight (8) streams (7 in the LSA and 1 outside the RSA) on a seasonal basis.
a. Provide the rationale for the selection of sampling points within the LSA.
Response:
Sampling points were selected based on the proposed Project Footprint and surrounding drainage
basins. Streams within each of the five basins were classified based on the Strahler 1952 stream
classification. Sampling points were chosen from streams classified as second order or higher and based
on other disciplines sampling locations to integrate data (e.g., groundwater data, flow data, fish data,
vegetation). In addition, a helicopter survey was conducted in July of 2010. Streams that had water
present, safe access in summer and winter and a defined channel were identified during the flight as
potential sampling sites.
54. b. Indicate why a stream was not selected within Basin E. If not, provide baseline data
representing surface water quality within Basin E.
Response:
Basin E is relatively small, and is not expected to be impacted by the Project. Two streams were identified
in Basin E but safe access in the summer and winter was not identified (please see response to AESRD
SIR 54a).
54. c. Indicate why samples were not collected at upgradient and downgradient locations to
the project within the Athabasca River, to assess the overall impact of the project on
the River. If not, provide baseline data representing the Athabasca River at the above
mentioned locations.
Response:
The Athabasca River is outside the LSA. This report represents surface water quality data for tributaries
within the LSA. Alberta Environment has been sampling the Athabasca River at numerous locations since
1955, including upgradient and downgradient to the Project Area. This data was reviewed and it was
determined that sufficient background data was available on the Athabasca River. BlackPearl will
incorporate sampling locations on the Athabasca River for the monitoring program (please see response
to AESRD SIR 56).
Page 85
Volume 3, Appendix 3A, Section 3A.5.3, Page 3A-17
BlackPearl states on Page 3-11 that Since aquatic systems and soils within the RSA have been
designated as "sensitive" in Alberta Acid Deposition Management Framework (AENV 2008),
water bodies and watercourses should not exceed a PAI monitoring load of 0.17 keq H+/ha/yr.
The characteristics of watercourses that are sensitive to acidification are provided on Page 3-
11. Based on a comparison of baseline data with these characteristics, the baseline data do not
fall within the criteria for watercourses that are sensitive to acidification.
BlackPearl states that The baseline data suggests that the surface waters in the LSA and RSA
have a high capacity for neutralizing acidifying compounds and will not be significantly
impacted by acid deposition as a result of the Project.
Given that BlackPearl is required to provide a revised air assessment:
a. Clarify the discrepancy between the data from the Alberta Acid Management
Framework (AENV 2008) and the conclusions presented.
Response:
According to Figure 2 of the Alberta Acid Deposition Management Framework (AENV 2008), the Project
Area is located within a “high” receptor sensitivity area. Therefore, the Project Area is assumed to be
subject to the Potential Acid Input (PAI) monitoring load level of 0.17 keq H+/ha/yr for sensitive grid cells.
55. b. Confirm the sensitivity level (high, moderate, low) and the PAI monitoring load that
BlackPearl will apply for the management of the site, in consideration of the results of
the air modelling revisions conducted for this Integrated Application.
Response:
BlackPearl will apply management for a high receptor sensitivity level as per Figure 2 of the Alberta Acid
Deposition Management Framework (AENV 2008).
55. c. Evaluate the results of the acid loading projection from the revised air model with
respect to the surface water quality results obtained in this study.
Response:
According to the revised air assessment, PAI loadings for the Project Area (0.0003-0.05 keq H+/ha/yr) do
not exceed the PAI monitoring load of 0.17 keq H+/ha/yr. Therefore, residual effects to surface water
quality are assessed to be not significant for the Application Case.
Page 86
BlackPearl indicates that a surface water quality monitoring program will be implemented at
surface water quality sampling sites in the LSA and RSA.
a. Provide details of the surface monitoring program to be implemented including the

parameters to be monitored, the monitoring frequency, and any other information that
BlackPearl intends to include in the monitoring program.
Response:
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program, Overview of Program and Goals
BlackPearl will implement a surface water quality monitoring program that will incorporate the same eight
sampling locations as the baseline study, plus two additional sampling locations (upgradient and
downgradient of the Project Area) along the Athabasca River, for a total of ten sampling locations
(Table 56-1 and Figure 53-1). The Athabasca River sampling locations will be selected at a later date.
Samples will be analyzed for the same parameters as in the baseline study (Table 56-2). BlackPearl will
sample all locations a minimum of five times a year. Sampling events will correspond with seasonal
changes: spring, summer, fall, winter and a heavy rain event.
TABLE 56-1
SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE MONITORING PROGRAM
Sample Location* Latitude Longitude Easting Northing

A1-1 55.713900 -112.613110 398656.8 6175417.0
A2-1 55.672020 -112.620020 398113.8 6170766.9
B7-1 55.672090 -112.685550 393993.1 6170872.9
C1-1 55.672260 -112.703740 392849.7 6170919.8
D1-1 55.531440 -112.709030 392131.3 6155258.6
D1-2 55.570030 -112.680050 394064.1 6159508.0
A2-2 55.642852 -112.613399 398454.7 6167511.5
Duncan Creek 55.475362 -112.547224 402204.2 6148779.3
Athabasca River Site 1 Location to be determined
Athabasca River Site 2 Location to be determined
Note: * Coordinates were obtained using a handheld GPS receiver accurate to ± 10m.
TABLE 56-2
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS TO BE

ANALYZED DURING THE MONITORING PROGRAM
Category Water Quality Parameter

In situ measurements Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total dissolved solids (TDS)
Routine Conductivity, pH, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved solids
(TDS), total suspended solids (TSS). Turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Major Ions Bicarbonate (HCO3), carbonate (CO3), hydroxide (OH), dissolved chloride (Cl), sulphide(S2-),
hydrogen sulphide (H2S), dissolved sulphate (SO4), hardness (as CaCO3), alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Nutrients Nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), nitrate + nitrite (NO2 + NO3), ammonia (NH3), total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P)
Page 87
TABLE 56-2 Cont'd

Category Water Quality Parameter
Dissolved and Total Elements Aluminum (Al), Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Beryllium, (Be), Boron (B), Cadmium (Cd),
Calcium (Ca), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Lithium (Li),
Magnesium (Mg), Manganese (Mn), Mercury (Hg), Methyl mercury (Me Hg), Molybdenum (Mo),
Nickel (Ni), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Selenium (Se), Silicon (Si), Silver (Ag), Sodium (Na),
Strontium (Sr), Sulphur (S), Thallium (Th), Tin (Sn), Titanium (Ti), Uranium (U), Vanadium (V), Zinc
(Zn)
Organics Naphthenic acids, phenolics
Extractable Hydrocarbons F2 (C10-C16), F3 (C16-C34), F4 (C34-C50)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1-methylnaphthalene, benzo[a]pyrene equivalency, acenaphthene, 2, 6-dimethylnaphthalene,
acenaphthylene, 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene, acridine. 2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene, anthracene,
benzo(a)anthracene, 1-methylphenanthrene, benzo(b&j)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, 9-
methylanthracene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(c)phenanthrene, 2,3-dimethylanthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo[e]pyrene, 9,10-dimethylanthracene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene,
fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene, methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, phenanthrene,
perylene, pyrene, quinoline
Volatile Organics Total trihalomethanes, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene, chlorodibromomethane, chloroethane, chloroform, chloromethane, 1,2-
dibromoethane, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
dichloromethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, trans-1,3-dichloropropene,
ethylbenzene, methyl methacrylate, methyl-tert-butylether (MTBE), styrene, 1,1,1,2-
tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene, toluene, 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene,
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene, trichlorofluoromethane, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, vinyl
chloride, total xylenes, m & p-xylene, o-xylene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, F1 (C6-C10) BTEX
Program Rationale
BlackPearl has identified key potential disturbances and impacts (Table 56-3). For complete details
please see Volume 3, Section 3.6.8 of the Integrated Application. Specific monitoring objectives and
targets have been identified and included in Table 56-4. Results of the monitoring program will help
shape operations and the development of the different phases of the Project. Quarterly monitoring will
identify any spikes, be it gradual or rapid. This will help to identify any concerns for future impacts but also
identify and minimize any current impacts.
TABLE 56-3
SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL DISTURBACES ON SURFACE WATER
Surface Water Quality Indicator / Likelihood of Potential Severity Sensitivity of Key Potential
Potential Residual Effect Potential Impact of Impact Watercourses Impact Specific Monitoring Objective
Acid deposition Low Negative High to low Unlikely Identify the potential acid input and
the effects on watercourses
Changes in flow rates High Negative High Yes Identify the effects of changes in
flow rates on watercourses
Spill releases Low Negative High to Low Unlikely Identify the effects of spills on
watercourses
Increase in suspended sediments Moderate Negative Low Yes Identify the effects of TDS and
TSS on watercourses
Changes in runoff and drainage Moderate Negative High to Low Yes Identify the effects of changes in
patterns runoff on watercourses
Changes in groundwater inputs to Moderate Neutral Low Yes Identify if GW withdrawals are
surface water affecting watercourses
Page 88
TABLE 56-4
SUMMARY OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Specific Monitoring Objective Metrics Target Potential Corrective Measures

Identify the potential acid input and PAI monitoring load Not more than 0.17 keq H+/ha/yr Use BMP’s to reduce the amount of output from the
the effects on watercourses site
Restore watercourses at closure
Identify the effects of changes in Flow rate ± 1 SE compared to background Install additional culverts
flow rates on watercourses levels Use BMP’s to minimize the effects of road and well
pad construction
Identify the effects of spills on Unregulated release No unregulated release of Use BMPs for best recovery of spilled substance
watercourses of substances substances Immediate restoration of watercourses that are
affected by a spill
Identify the effects of TDS and TSS TDS/TSS Levels not to increase more than Use BMPs to reduce sedimentation and erosion such
on watercourses Concentration 25 mg/L above background as Erosion control blankets, silt curtains, bio rolls etc.
Identify the effects of changes in Water level/ ± 1 SE compared to background Use BMP’s to minimize the effects of road and well
runoff on watercourses substance levels / concentrations not to pad construction
concentration exceed criteria or increase above On-site monitoring of runoff rates
background levels
Identify if GW withdrawals are Water level ± 1 SE compared to background Restore watercourses at closure
affecting watercourses levels
BlackPearl states that Should significant adverse effect on surface water quality be identified
during monitoring, BlackPearl will implement remedial measures that will effectively reduce or
eliminate effects.
a. BlackPearl does not provide a description of how it would determine there were
significant adverse effects on surface water quality. Provide the sampling design, and
the criteria and decision points BlackPearl will use to determine “significant adverse
effect”.
Response:
Please see response to AESRD SIR 56 for monitoring program details. A significant adverse effect will be
determined on a site by site basis. For parameters that were below applicable guidelines in the Baseline
Case, a substantial negative effect will be determined if the parameter is above applicable guidelines
during monitoring. For parameters that were above applicable guidelines during the Baseline Case, a
substantial negative effect will be determined if the parameter is above baseline levels or otherwise
specified in the applicable guidelines (e.g., In the Surface Water Quality Guidelines for use in Alberta, the
Alberta pH guideline is to be in the range of 6.5 to 8.5 but not altered by more than 0.5 pH units from
background levels). A detailed list of the guidelines is provided in Table 57-1.
Page 89
TABLE 57-1
SURFACE WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR THE MONITORING PROGRAM
AENV Water Quality Tier 1 Tier 2

Guidelines for the Soil and Groundwater Soil and Groundwater
Protection of CCME Water Quality Guidelines – Surface Water Guidelines – Surface Water
Freshwater Aquatic Guidelines for the Protection Quality Guidelines for Quality Guidelines for
Parameter Units Life+ of Freshwater Aquatic Life++ Aquatic Life+++ Aquatic Life++++
Routine and Nutrients
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L 5.0A/6.5C 5.5/9.5
(DO)
pH -- 6.5-8.5 6.5-9.0
-- --
Nitrate (NO3-N) mg/L -- 13
0.06 0.06
Nitrite(NO2-N) mg/L -- 0.06
Nitrate + Nitrite -- --
mg/L -- 13.06
(NO3+NO2-N)
* *
Total Ammonia (NH3-
mg/L -- 0.01727-189.97441
N)
Total Nitrogen
mg/L 1.0C --
(TKN+NO3+NO2)
Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/L 0.05 C --
Total Elements
Cadmium (Cd) µg/L -- 0.01-0.097 H * *
0.005/0.12 * *
Aluminum (Al) mg/L --
0.005 0.005
Arsenic (As) mg/L -- 0.005
* *
Chromium (Cr) mg/L -- 0.0013
Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.0007-0.0069AH/0.007C 0.002-0.004H * *

0.3 0.3
Iron (Fe) mg/L -- 0.3
Lead (Pb) mg/L -- 0.001-0.007 H * *

Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L -- 0.073 -- --
Nickel (Ni) mg/L -- 0.025-0.150H * *
Selenium (Se) mg/L -- 0.001 0.001 0.001
Silver (Ag) mg/L -- 0.0001 * *
Thallium (Tl) mg/L -- 0.0008 --
Uranium (U) mg/L -- 0.015 C -0.033 A -- --
Zinc (Zn) mg/L -- 0.030 0.03 0.03
Mercury (Hg) µg/L 0.005 C -0.013 A 0.026 * *
Methyl mercury (Me -- --
ng/L 1.0 C -2.0 A 4.0
Hg)
Organics
Phenolics mg/L 0.005C -- 0.004 0.004
Acenaphthene µg/L -- 5.8 5.8 5.8
Acridine µg/L -- 4.4 -- --
Anthracene µg/L -- 0.012 0.012 0.012
Benzo(a)anthracene µg/L -- 0.018 0.018 0.018
Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L -- 0.015 0.015 0.015
Fluoranthene µg/L -- 0.04 0.04 0.04
Fluorene µg/L -- 3 3.0 3.0
Naphthalene µg/L -- 1.1 1.1 1.1
Phenanthrene µg/L -- 0.4 0.4 0.4
Pyrene µg/L -- 0.025 0.025 0.025
Page 90
TABLE 57-1 Cont'd
AENV Water Quality Tier 1 Tier 2

Guidelines for the Soil and Groundwater Soil and Groundwater
Protection of CCME Water Quality Guidelines – Surface Water Guidelines – Surface Water
Freshwater Aquatic Guidelines for the Protection Quality Guidelines for Quality Guidelines for
Parameter Units Life+ of Freshwater Aquatic Life++ Aquatic Life+++ Aquatic Life++++
Quinoline µg/L -- 3.4 -- --
Carbon tetrachloride µg/L -- 13.3 13.3 13.3
Chlorobenzene µg/L -- 1.3 1.3 1.3
Chloroform µg/L -- 1.8 1.8 1.8
1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L -- 0.7 0.7 0.7
1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L -- 150 150 150
1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L -- 26 26 26
1,2-dichloroethane µg/L -- 100 100 100
Dichloromethane µg/L -- 98.1 98.1 98.1
Methyl-tert-butylether
µg/L -- 10000 10000 10000
(MTBE)
Styrene µg/L -- 72 72 72
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L -- 8 8 8
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L -- 24 24 24
Trichloroethene µg/L -- 21 21 21
Benzene µg/L -- 370 370 370
Toluene µg/L -- 2 2 2
Ethylbenzene µg/L -- 90 90 90
Xylenes µg/L -- -- 180 180
F1 µg/L -- -- 464** 464**
F2 µg/L -- -- 426** 426**
F3 µg/L -- -- 690** 690**
F4 µg/L -- -- 364** 364**
Notes:
-- - no guideline specified
+ - Alberta Environment Surface Water Quality Guidelines for Use in Alberta (AENV 1999b)
++ - Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2004)
+++ - Alberta Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines – Surface Water Quality Guidelines (AENV 2010a)
++++ - Alberta Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines – Surface Water Quality Guidelines (AENV 2010b)
A - acute guideline (see AENV 1999b for more detail)
C - chronic guideline (see AENV 1999b for more detail)
1 - guideline is dependent on pH and temperature; converted to NH4-N by multiplying guideline by 0.8224 (CCME 1999). pH and temperature of
each sample is applied in the calculation to render a sample-specific guideline.
2 - guideline is dependent on pH: 0.005 mg/L if pH<6.5, 0.1 mg/L if pH ≥ 6.5. pH of each sample is considered to render a sample-specific
guideline
3 - indicates guideline level for Cr(VI); guideline level for Cr(III) = 0.0089 mg/L
H - guideline is dependent on hardness value; range represents guideline applicable to all samples. Hardness (CaCO3) of each sample is applied
in the calculation to render a sample-specific guideline
* - Alberta Tier 1 and Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guideline refers to the Surface Water Quality Guideline for use in Alberta (AENV
2010a,b).
** - Wildlife Water guideline used as no guideline was available for Aquatic Life.
Page 91
57. b. Describe the remedial measures BlackPearl will implement in the event a significant
adverse effect is determined and describe the effectiveness of each remedial measure
described.
Response:
Please see response to AESRD SIRs 56 and 57a. Please see Volume 1, Section 11.4.2, Volume 1,
Appendix 9A and Volume 3, Section 2.12 of the Integrated Application for more information on mitigation
methods that will be implemented. BlackPearl will use Best Management Practices (BMP) and restoration
techniques for the best recovery of substances. BlackPearl will also conduct a review of operations and
procedures to determine what initiatives can be taken to minimize future impacts.
58. Volume 3, Appendix 3A, Section 3A.6, Page 3A-17
BlackPearl states that Common to all sites was that field measured pH values were
consistently out of the normal pH range for surface water and did not match with lab-generated
values. Therefore, the lab-measured pH values were used for guideline comparison and
generation of pH-specific guidelines (e.g. ammonia).
Field measured pH data in the Integrated Application document were dismissed because they
did not match with lab data.
a. Provide a scientifically documented discussion clarifying the reasons for differences

between field and lab measured pH values, and the reasons for BlackPearl to dismiss
all field measured pH values.
Response:
Field pH values were measured using a YSI 556 multiprobe system. According to the probes operational
manual, problems with inaccurate pH readings can occur. These inaccurate or unstable readings can
result from reference junction voltage anomalies. In addition, if conductivity is low (>500 µS/cm) it can
affect the accuracy of pH levels using the meter. A review of the field notes indicates that pH values were
unstable across multiple locations and events. BlackPearl chose the laboratory measured pH values to
ensure consistency across all sampling locations and sampling events.
59. Volume 3, Appendix 3A, Section 3A.8.1, Page 3A-75
It is unclear whether trip blanks were taken into the field during sampling.
a. Clarify whether the trip blanks moved around in the field during sampling. If not,
indicate how BlackPearl accounted for field handling impact on analytical data if the trip
blanks stayed in the lab.
Response
Trip blanks were taken into the field and were moved around in the field during sampling. They were
transported to and from the laboratory with the actual field samples to provide accurate results.
Page 92
3.5 Aquatics
60. EPEA Application, Section C.3.1.6, Page 19
EPEA Application, Section C.3.5, Page 25
BlackPearl indicates natural gas will be purchased from TransCanada and transferred to the
CPF by an underground pipeline. BlackPearl also indicates diluent-bitumen and diluent pipeline
infrastructure will be required and supplied by a third-party contractor.
a. Map the proposed pipeline routes and identify any watercourse crossings required.
Response:
At this time, several options are being considered and evaluated for future pipeline requirements,
therefore a map with identified watercourse crossings cannot be provided.
60. b. Will the pipelines be sized to accommodate the needs of all three phases? If not, why
not?
Response:
The fuel gas, diluent-bitumen and diluent pipelines will be sized to accommodate all three phases.
60. c. Was the pipeline disturbance considered in the impact assessment? If not, provide a
discussion.
Response:
Pipeline routes related to fuel gas, diluent-bitumen and diluent pipelines were not know as of February
2012 and, therefore, could not be included in the impact assessment. All regulatory permits and licenses
for the Project fueld gas, diluent and blend pipelines will be completed by the third party pipeline
company, who will own and operate these pipelines for BlackPearl.
EPEA Application, Section C.3.1.6, Page 23
BlackPearl indicates that sewage collection tanks will be located in accordance with the 2009
Alberta Private Sewage Systems Standard of Practice, and indicates it will meet minimum
distances of 10 metres from a water source and 10 metres from a watercourse.
a. Confirm that location of sewage collection tanks will meet a 100 metre setback from the
top of the escarpment of all watercourses and average annual high water mark for
waterbodies.
Response:
BlackPearl confirms that the underground sewage collection tanks as referenced in Volume1, Section 6.2,
6.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.5 located near the camp in the CPF will maintain a 100 m setback from the top of the
escarpment of all watercourses and the average annual high water mark for waterbodies.
Page 93
Volume 1, Section 10.1, Figure 10.1-1, Page 10-1
BlackPearl indicates all wellpads and corridors will have a setback of 100 metres from
watercourses.
a. It is recommended that setbacks be measured from the top of the escarpment to the
edge of the disturbance (generally clearing). Clarify the measurement points
BlackPearl will use in determining setbacks.
Response:
As indicated in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1, BlackPearl will implement a 100 m setback for well pads to a
watercourse with defined bed and banks, where feasible. Prior to well pad clearing and construction, a
pre-development site assessment will be completed. Setbacks will be measured from the normal high
water mark or the edge of a slope break of a watercourse with defined bed and banks to the edge of the
disturbance.
62. b. Does BlackPearl’s commitment to a 100 metre setback apply to all facilities (e.g.
borrow pits, CPF, roads, pipelines, transmission lines, etc.)? If not, please identify
where this setback would not be applied and provide a rationale for the encroachment
within it. Provide a map of all infrastructure that will encroach within a 100 metre
setback as measured from the edge of the disturbance to the top of the escarpment.
Response:
As noted in AESRD SIR 62a, BlackPearl will implement a 100 m setback for well pads to a watercourse
with defined bed and banks, where feasible. The CPF is not located within 100 m of a watercourse with
defined bed and banks and the proposed multi-use corridors will come within 100m, as well as cross
watercourses with defined bed and banks. Where it is not possible to maintain a 100 m setback, the
mitigative measures outlined in ERCB Directive 56 (2011) will be implemented (Volume 3, Section 4.7.1).
Figure 62-1 shows a 100m buffer on watercourses with defined bed and banks.
Page 94
¯
r RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M
Athabasca Ri ve
21 22 23 24 19 20 21
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
TWP.77
WC 1
(
9 10 11 12 7 8 9
DC 5
4 3 2
( 1 6 5 4
DC 6
(
WC 4
33 34 35 ( 36 31 32 33
28 27 26 25 30 29 28
TWP.76
DC 7
(
21 22 23
WC 3 24 19 20 21
DC 9
(
(
97: : 16/
6< 5 *- 9: ) 9-
.975
# ) *4-

16%74<5 -
"-+ ;176
<..- 9
16 15 14 13 18 17 16
5(*
97: : 16/
A#0- + 97: : 16/
0) :
*- - 6
- 415 16) ;- ,
>1;0;0- 9- =1: - , .77;8916;

97: : 16/

# 0-
: 7<;0- 96 *7<6, ) 9@ 7.;0-
0) :
*- - 6 5 7, 1.1- , ;7
)= 71,
;0-
, 9) 16) /
-
0) 6(
7<9: - ( >( - .16- , ( +
972- +
;
77;8916; &) ;- 9+ 7<9: -
>1;0 FIGURE 62-1
0) : -
"<5 8 "1;- - .16- , 0) 66- 4 ( &) ;- 9+7<9: - 97: : 16/ WATERCOURSES WITH DEFINED
0) : -
7/ - + 3 9) 16) / -
>1;07<;
0) : -

76: ;9<+ ;176 ) 5 8
"1;- - .16- , 0) 66- 4 ( 9) 16) /-97: : 16/ CHANNEL AND 100 M BUFFER
( &) ; - 9+
- 95 ) 6- 6;8- 9) ;176:

5*<..- 9
0) : -

)5 8 "1;- &) ;- 9*7, @ AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
!
7997>1; 9787: - , 4) +397,

!7) , ?1:;16/
4) +397,
!7) , PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT

!( "
"

( (
$# ' 76-

972- +
;9- )

4;<:- 75 ) ;1+
:

<9- (
@
, 97/
9) 80@

4;)
"
;,

5 1679
5 7, 1.1+
) ;176:
5 ), -*@79;0>- : ;@, 9) <41+
76: <4;) 6;:
;,

!7) , :

"

6+

35

8914

1/
(

44
7+
) ;176:
8897?
15 ) ;-

;
62. c. Volume 1, Section 10.1, Figure 10.1-1, Page 10-1, and Volume 3, Section 2.12.1, Page
2-26.
i. Based on the figure, it appears the CPF is located on a watercourse. Please
clarify and provide a rationale.
ii. In addition, the north-south oriented road in 18-77-17-W4 appears to be within
100 metres of the top of the escarpment of the adjacent watercourse. Provide
an alternate routing for this access road that does not parallel the watercourse
and that stays outside the 100 metre.
Response:
i. The southern boundary of the CPF has been modified to avoid drainage without defined bed and
banks, as shown in Figure 62-1. The final design of the CPF will be surveyed and designed to
maintain the riparian buffer around the headwaters of the drainage.
ii. The north-south orientated road in 18-77-17 W4M is an existing active winter road. As described
in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1 BlackPearl will use existing access where practical to reduce Project
effects on aquatic ecology.
63. Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.1, Figure 2.6-1, Page 2-45
The scales of the maps presented do not allow reviewers to clearly see the spatial relationship
between project infrastructure and watercourses and waterbodies. Several of the maps
presented seem to show project infrastructure located on top of, or very close to, creeks yet the
text indicates setback will be maintained.
a. Clarify what set-back from watercourses and waterbodies will be maintained from all
types of disturbance.
Response:
Figure 2.6-1 and other figures were not intended to show setbacks, nor did they differentiate between
drainages and watercourses with defined bed and banks. As noted in AESRD SIR 62a, BlackPearl will
implement a 100 m set-back for well pads to a watercourse with defined bed and banks, where feasible.
63. b. Provide a table of all project-related disturbances and the distance from each to the
nearest watercourse or waterbody. Include the names of watercourses and
waterbodies if known.
Response:
Given the limited number of locations where this occurs, a text description is provided below. Refer also
to Figure 62-1 provided in AESRD SIR 62b.
Based on the current Project Footprint, there are three well pads located in proximity to a watercourse
with defined bed and banks. These are: NE 35-76-18 W4M, SE 35-76-18 W4M and NW 24-76-18 W4M
(where the southern portion of the well pad is within 100 m of the transition from an unnamed
watercourse to a drainage). The well pads in NE 35-76-18 W4M and SE 35-76-18 W4M are on the edge
of the 100m buffer and are part of Phase 2 (i.e., constructed in 2016 pending regulatory approval). The
well pad in NW 24-76-18 W4M is part of Phase 3A (scheduled for activity in 2022). One borrow pit located
in Section 24-76-18 W4M is within 100 m of an unnamed watercourse with defined bed and banks and is
part of Phase 2. The proposed multi-use corridor crosses a watercourse with defined bed and banks in
three locations in SW 24-76-18 W4M, NE 35-76-18 W4M and NW 8-77-17 W4M.
Page 96
63. c. Provide maps at high resolution to illustrate any modifications that have been made
from the Integrated Application to ensure that set-backs are maintained.
Response:
The only modification based on the updated Project Footprint is that the previous watercourse crossing in
SW 19-76-17 W4M (i.e., Watercourse 2) has been eliminated, therefore a detailed map has not been
provided.
BlackPearl indicates any watercourse crossings will be designed to minimize environmental

disturbance.
a. Describe how BlackPearl will minimize environmental disturbance at watercourse

crossing sites.
Response:
The mitigation measures detailed in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1 outline the ways in which BlackPearl will
minimize environmental disturbance at watercourse crossings. A Qualified Aquatic Environmental
specialist (QAES) will assess all watercourse crossings, specifically proposed culvert crossings, to
determine fish presence and fish habitat potential. Where required, BlackPearl will request a case-specific
review by DFO for the proposed crossings unless other applicable regulations apply at the time of
construction. BlackPearl will also follow all conditions of any regulatory approvals.
64. b. Identify and map all proposed watercourse crossings.
Response:
Proposed watercourse crossings are shown in Figure 62-1 provided in AESRD SIR 62b.
64. c. Identify the proposed crossing method for each watercourse crossing, the
criteria/decision points used to determine the crossing type.
Response:
BlackPearl has described the proposed pipeline and vehicle/equipment crossing method for each
watercourse in Volume 3, Section 4.7.2, Table 4.7-1. The revised Project Footprint eliminated the
watercourse crossing in SW 19-76-17 W4M (i.e., Watercourse 2). As described in Volume 3, Section
4.7.2, crossing methods were selected based on sensitivity of the watercourses (including habitat
characteristics, fish species present, and restricted activity periods), the construction schedule, and
technical and economic feasibility of each crossing. In general, clear span bridges have been proposed
for watercourses that were categorized as having high quality habitat and culvert crossings were
proposed where watercourses and drainages were categorized as having low quality habitat (see
Volume 3 Section 4.6.1 for a description of high and low quality habitat).
Page 97
64. d. Provide conceptual design drawings for each watercourse crossing type planned.
Response:
All pipelines that cross watercourses and drainages will be aerial crossings located above the
watercourse or drainage and no instream activity will occur. Conceptual design drawings for the two
proposed vehicle crossings are provided. As stated in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1, guidelines for culvert
design and installation will be followed, as outlined in the Guide to the Code of Practice for Watercourse
Crossings (AENV 2000a) and Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for Watercourse
Crossings in Alberta (Alberta Transportation 2001). See Figures 64-1 to 64-3.
64. e. Identify fish passage considerations and species for which fish passage will be
provided.
Response:
As stated in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1, a fish habitat and fish inventory investigation will be conducted as
part of the pre-development site assessment by a QAES at each watercourse crossing to determine fish
presence and fish habitat potential. Fish passage will be provided for all species that potentially use
habitat at or near the crossing location. Fish passage considerations for design, installation and
monitoring were identified in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1 and will include considerations outlined in the
Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Manual (GOA 2012a). BlackPearl will follow the fish passage
requirements as listed in the Guide to the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2000a) and
Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and procedures for Watercourse Crossings in Alberta (Alberta
Transportation, 2001). Fish passage considerations are based on identifying the fish species known to be
present/migrating, timing of spawning/migration and swimming capability of the smallest size of mature
fish that would migrate (AENV 2000a). Given the habitat assessment results, fish passage considerations
include matching culvert velocities to channel velocities, proper culvert embedment, and potential
substrate and baffle addition (Alberta Transportation, 2001).
Page 98
Notes:
1. Install ramp and culverts to allow vehicles to cross relatively narrow watercourses
2. Design culverts to handle 150% of maximum anticipated flows or to a five year flood level and according to specific guidelines
where fish passage (i.e., migration) is required. Contact government authorities for minimum water depth specifications, and
maximum water velocities. Ensure dam is impermeable.
3. Place ends of culverts below the natural grade of watercourse at an angle that does not exceed normal watercourse gradient.
Depth of placement is dependent upon bed type, culvert size and expected flow conditions.
4. Design and install culvert crossings according to the guidelines outlined in the Guide to the Code of Practice for Watercourse
Crossings (AENV 2000b) and Fish Habitat Manual: Guidelines and Procedures for Watercourse Crossings in Alberta (Alberta
Transportation 2001) will be followed to prevent sediment and erosion and allow for fish passage.
Source: Adapted from CAPP et al. (2005) and BC MOF (1997).
VEHICLE CROSSING - TYPICAL RAMP AND CULVERT
AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES – BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.

6790_Ramp_and_Culvert.doc April 2013 Figure 64-1

Notes:
1. Install bridge (e.g., pre-fabricated span) to allow vehicles to cross watercourses that are sensitive or that have unstable bed
and banks. Bridges are also used where watercourses are too deep, wide or fast to permit an alternative crossing structure.
This method minimizes sedimentation of the watercourse, and bank and bed restoration work. It is generally limited to
watercourses less than 30 m in width.
2. Utilize approach fills rather than cuts in banks to minimize erosion potential. Do not constrict flow with approach fill or support
structures. Prevent fine material from entering watercourse.
3. Ensure adequate free-board to handle anticipated streamflows
4. Install curb stringers (e.g., logs or plywood) to ensure that fill material does not spill into the watercourse, where required.
5. Bridge must be designed for spring floods and ice jams.
6. Design bridge to include stable abutments that do not impact the bed and banks of the watercourse.
Source: Adapted from BC MOF (1998).
VEHICLE CROSSING - TYPICAL BRIDGE

6790_Bridge.doc April 2013 Figure 64-2

Notes:
1. Locate aerial watercourse crossings at straight sections perpendicular to banks.

2. Position the pipeline at an appropriate height above the watercourse to minimize the effect on water temperature.
Insulate the steam injection pipeline to reduce ambient heat at watercourse crossings.
3. Place abutments above the high water mark.
4. No instream work should be performed for aerial crossings.
AERIAL PIPELINE CROSSING

6790_Aerial_Pipeline_Crossing
April 2013 Figure 64-3
.doc
64. f. Identify BlackPearl’s monitoring and maintenance plan for crossings, clearly articulating
what parameters will be monitored, how often monitoring will occur, and how quickly
any necessary remedial measures will be undertaken to maintain the design function of
the crossing.
Response:
Monitoring and mitigation strategies during construction for all watercourse crossings are described in
Volume 3, Sections 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.13.5, 3.8, and 4.7.1. These include maintaining drainage patterns
through culverts, monitoring for TSS and turbidity, providing adequate erosion control and completing
clean-up immediately following construction prior to spring break-up. BlackPearl will also employ qualified
environmental inspectors and/or QAES to ensure that aquatic ecology is protected.
BlackPearl will implement a post-construction monitoring program to monitor Project effects on water
quality, hydrology and hydrogeology (Volume 3, Section 4.9). The program will incorporate a surface
water quality monitoring program (Volume 3, Section 3.6.5.2, Section 3.6.5.3 and 3.8), considerations
outlined in the Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Manual (GOA 2012a) and monitoring protocols
where required by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Alberta Environment and Water (AEW) (e.g.,
culvert installation or bridge stream crossings). Post-construction mitigation will include inspecting
approach slopes, banks and riparian zones, monitoring for chronic erosion and vegetation recovery, and
sediment and erosion at culvert crossings. As well, visual inspections will be carried out to ensure that the
access road drainage culverts are working as intended to maintain the natural surface drainage patterns.
As described in Guide to the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (AENV 2000a), at a minimum,
the crossing site will be inspected annually during the snow free season and more frequently on culvert
crossings located in areas of high beaver activity or until permanent erosion control measures are
established.
Remedial action will be undertaken as issues are identified during the construction and post construction
phase. Should significant adverse effects on surface water quality be identified during monitoring,
BlackPearl will implement remedial measures that will effectively reduce or eliminate effects. Remediation
measures include the identification of source pollutants and the implementation or removal of additional
mitigation measures (e.g., erosion and sediment control structures, berms) to prevent any additional
adverse changes to water quality (Volume 3.0, Section 3.6.4.2). Remedial measures will be undertaken
where warranted to ensure stability of all sites where bank disturbances occur during construction and
where bank erosion measures are required to prevent slumping and streambank erosion causing
sedimentation (Volume 3.0, Section 4.7.1). In the event that construction or maintenance activities result
in changes to surface water regimes, corrective action, in consultation with the appropriate regulatory
authorities, will be undertaken to resolve the issue.
64. g. Identify whether BlackPearl plans to implement inspection procedures described in the
Manual – Alberta Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Protocol for watercourse
crossing inspections. (ESRD 2012). Identify any of the inspection procedures which will
not be implemented and provide a rationale to explain why.
Response:
As stated in the Integrated Application, BlackPearl will implement a post-construction monitoring program
(Volume 3, Section 4.9) that will include culvert monitoring, as well as inspection and maintenance of
sediment and erosion construction structures. For road crossings of watercourses, BlackPearl will follow
the guidelines identified in the Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Manual (GOV 2012a). The
types of road crossings that require inspection include bridges, open or closed-bottom culverts, fords or
low-level crossings, temporary road crossings (e.g., ice or snow bridges), suspended crossings and
reclaimed crossings. Each roadway watercourse inspection will identify the type of crossing, assess
erosion and sedimentation (e.g., type, source, extent), and assess fish passage at culvert crossings.
Visual inspections will also be completed. BlackPearl will consider the inspection procedures identified in
Page 102
the Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Manual applicable to the Project. All applicable federal
and provincial regulations pertaining to watercourse crossings will be followed as they apply to the Project
(Volume 3, Section 4.7.1).
BlackPearl indicates that water collected in the down-gradient corner of a wellpad will be tested
and released and states Water will be released onto an adjacent upland environment. The
release area will have sufficient buffers to any watercourses (river or creek) or waterbodies.
a. Describe what BlackPearl means by “sufficient buffer”, and clearly list the criteria
BlackPearl will use to determine the width of this buffer?
Response:
BlackPearl’s riparian buffer was determined to be 50 m because the riparian area at the baseline sites
was found to be 50 m or less (Volume 3, Section 4.7.3). BlackPearl considers the riparian buffer a
‘sufficient buffer’ for dewatering activities if site-specific variables effectively minimize erosion, filter water
and reduce the amount of water entering a watercourse. Stepping Back from the Water: A Beneficial
Management Practices Guide for New Development Near Water Bodies in Alberta’s Settled Region
(AESRD 2012) recommends a riparian buffer, or ‘vegetated filter strip’ with a width of 50 m for permanent
waterbodies in Alberta’s White Region. However, BlackPearl will maintain a 100 m setback/buffer from
watercourses with defined bed and banks, where feasible.
65. b. Will the buffer be greater than 100 metres of vegetated habitat and be measured from
the release point to the top of the escarpment (for watercourses)?
Response:
In the event that BlackPearl will need to release tested water from the down-gradient corner of a well pad,
this water will not be released within 100 m of a watercourse. Water release sites will have a 100 m
vegetated buffer between the release site and the watercourse. The buffer will be measured from the high
water mark or edge of the break in slope.
Page 103
66. Volume 3, Executive summary, Page i
BlackPearl has determined that if an effect is reversible it is not significant.
Reversibility, in the context of biological function in the Integrated Application, seems to be

predicated on the notion that after reclamation all things will return to their pre-project values.
Ecological interactions are broad and complex. Impacts to biota may be magnified over the
course of project and/or transmitted to other biota via these complex interactions. Alternate
biological stable states may develop that differ significantly from the pre- development state
and require significant resources to reverse.
While it is recognized that predicting the outcomes of changes to biological receptors in the
context of the broader ecological system is challenging, the use of only reversibility potential to
conclude that a biological effect is not significant does not adequately describe the potential
that complex ecological systems may change. Nor does it adequately characterize the risk that
impact predictions may be wrong. The use of a more precautionary approach in potential
impact reporting is recommended.
a. Reconsider the reliance on reversibility in the assessment of significance for biological

factors to more appropriately describe potential project and cumulative effects. Provide
updated significance conclusions for all areas where the potential project or cumulative
impacts will or could interact with biological factors over the course of project
development, operations and closure. Consider biological complexity and potential
generational implications in your answer.
Response:
Refer to Volume 2, Section 1.2.3 of the Integrated Application for a full description of the effects
evaluation methods, and Volume 4, Sections 4.4 and 4.5 for a description of effects assessment methods
specific to Aquatic Resources. All significance assessment criteria (Volume 2, Section 1.2.3.5, Table 1.2-
2 and Volume 4, Section 4.4.1, Table 4.4-2 of the Integrated Application) were considered by the
assessment team for each potential residual environmental effectand within an ecological context. The
assessment criteria considered include reversibility, impact balance, spatial boundary, duration,
frequency, magnitude, probability of occurrence and confidence. As noted, the determination of
significance considers ecological context in addition to the assessment criteria. Where appropriate, the
key or most influential assessment criteria are noted in the effects assessment of each potential residual
effect. Given the effects pathways and anticipated ecological responses predicted for the assessment of
aquatic ecology and most other biological receptors, magnitude and reversibility are typically considered
the most influential assessment criteria in the evaluation of significance. However, the other assessment
criteria also contribute to the evaluation of significance. Further, the significance evaluation is applied to
residual environmental effects. The recommended mitigative measures will either lessen the effects or
completely mitigate the potential adverse effects. The goal of mitigation is to attempt to reduce adverse
effects to acceptable or non-significant levels. Mitigation measures are employed to reduce the impact of
any residual effects that may occur, including the reduction of the magnitude of the effect, the limitation of
the extent of the effect, and the shortening of the duration of the effect (i.e., time to alleviate the residual
effect). As a result, reversibility is indicative of the efficacy of the proposed mitigation and key to the
determination of significance for the residual effects being considered.
Page 104
66. b. Provide a more complete description of reversibility potential. Describe whether the
effect is likely to reverse itself or whether significant effort, resources, and time will be
required to return to pre-development ecological function.
Response:
Volume 2, Section 1.2.3.5, Table 1.2-2 of the Integrated Application explains that reversibility of the
residual effect was not necessarily considered to be a return to baseline conditions for all indicators
assessed. For aquatic ecology indicators, an effect was considered reversible if application of mitigation
measures is expected to restore ecological function and/or equivalent land capability to pre-existing
conditions (i.e., prior to development of the Project). As described in the effects assessment methodology
(Volume 2, Section 1.2.3 and Volume 3, Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the Integrated Application), the effects
assessment is based on residual effects (i.e., following application of mitigation measures). Refer to
Volume 3, Section 4.7.1 for a summary of BlackPearl’s proposed mitigation strategies to avoid and/or
reduce potential effects of the Project on aquatic ecology. The mitigation and monitoring measures
proposed will help to address potential Project effects. As noted in response to AESRD SIR 66a, while
some mitigation measures will completely mitigate the potential adverse effects, in other situations, the
mitigative measures will lessen the effects but not entirely eliminate them. In some scenarios, time is
required to achieve the full mitigative effects. For example, the goal of reclamation of disturbed riparian
vegetation is to establish successional trajectories that will achieve ecological functions similar to pre-
disturbance conditions in the absence of management intervention or natural disturbance, over the
medium to long-term. The duration of effects incorporates the time required for the effect to be considered
reversible (refer to Volume 2, Section 1.2.3 and Volume 4, Section 4.4.1, Table 4.4-2 of the Integrated
Application for an explanation of how duration was evaluated in the assessment criteria).
Volume 3, Sections 1.6.2.3 and 1.6.2.4, Page 1-31
BlackPearl indicates thermal plumes will occur. BlackPearl states The well pads will be located
at least 100 metres away from a watercourse and, therefore, thermal plumes should not
migrate to a watercourse.
a. To support this statement, provide maps that outline the expected thermal plume
extent and highlight any areas where this intersects with surface watercourses or
waterbodies.
Response:
Results from heat transport modeling simulation determined that thermal plumes may migrate up to 30 m
following 12 years of heating and 40 m following 40 years after the end of steam injection. However,
throughout this period the uppermost 5 m of the subsurface will remain constant (refer to AESRD SIR 39c
and 39d). As a result, surface water will not be impacted. Based on this, a map showing the expected
thermal plume extent and areas where this intersects with surface watercourses or waterbodies is not
provided.
Page 105
67. b. Provide a discussion/characterization of the aquatic habitat present at the intersection

points and downstream.
Response:
Refer to the responses for AESRD SIRs 39c and 39d. A discussion/characterization of the aquatic habitat
is not required. BlackPearl has determined there will not be any intersection points of thermal plumes and
aquatic habitat (refer to AESRD SIR 39c and 67c).
67. c. Identify any potential impacts to aquatic habitat. Specifically discuss lower order
organisms and interstitial ecology; however, do not limit the discussion to these.
Response:
BlackPearl has undertaken three dimensional heat transport modelling to determine the potential
maximum size of a thermal plume that will form in the clay till adjacent to a steam injection well (AESRD
SIR 39c). Based on these hydrogeology modelling results, thermal plumes should not migrate to a
watercourse or waterbody (AESRD SIR 39d, 67a and 67b); therefore there will be no change to surface
water quality and potential impacts to aquatic habitat are not expected.
BlackPearl identifies that visual inspections should be carried out to ensure access road
culverts are working as intended, and that sediment monitoring should be carried out during the
construction of stream channel crossings. The use of the word “should” implies that BlackPearl
may or may not incorporate these measures into its monitoring program. Further, road
crossings can be a significant source of sediment to watercourses if the crossing structure is
not adequately designed and maintained, and if the road is not graded to prevent ponding at
the crossing site.
a. Provide additional details on BlackPearl’s planned monitoring and maintenance

program for watercourse crossings, including, but not limited to:
i. Grading to maintain appropriate surface shape,
ii. Barriers along the road at watercourse crossings,
iii. Erosion control monitoring and maintenance at watercourse crossings,
iv. Erosion control monitoring and maintenance along ditches parallel to sloped
roads.
v. For areas where issues might be encountered, on what timeframe will they be
resolved? What are the operational considerations associated with this timeline
(e.g. season, budget cycle)?
vi. Discuss reporting and periodicity of monitoring.
Response:
BlackPearl's environmental monitor will be regularly inspecting all watercourse crossings and access road
ditches to ensure that all erosion and sediment control measures installed during the initial construction
are functioning properly and the road is sufficiently crowned to prevent pooling over the crossing. In the
event that any control measures identified by the monitor as needing repair or modification, the
environmental monitor shall inform BlackPearl's construction supervisor to ensure that the issue is
rectified as soon as ground conditions permit.
Page 106
All deficiencies identified by the environmental monitor and the remedial measures undertaken will be
documented and tracked as part of BlackPearl's monitoring program. Information to be obtained from the
monitoring activities for watercourse crossings shall include:
• extent of erosion present;
• source of the erosion (i.e. road, ditch, erosion fencing);
• location of watercourse and crossing type; and
• assessment of the road as well as the ground and vegetation at the crossing site.
The information provided in this tracking document will assist BlackPearl in identification of repetitive
issues and assist with the development of adaptive measures.
The timeline for the implementation of remedial measures will be determined on a site by site basis.
Factors to be considered for the scheduling of remedial or repairs will include, but to be limited to:
• severity of the issues identified;
• ground conditions;
• volume of water flow at the crossing; and
• measures required to rectify the deficiency.
All BlackPearl roads shall be graded regularly as part of operational maintenance of the facilities. The
grading of the access roads will minimize the amount of pooling and rutting that could potentially occur
after periods of high precipitation.
68. b. For crossings where maintenance of fish passage is required, identify parameters to be
measured to ensure fish passage is maintained.
Response:
BlackPearl will adhere to the Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Manual (GOV 2012a) for fish
passage considerations, design and maintenance. Refer to AESRD SIR 64e for the fish passage
considerations that will be applied. Measurable parameters to maintain fish passage through the culvert
will be assessed by evaluating the extent of erosion and sedimentation, debris blockage, amount of
substrate present, upstream extension of the outlet pool into the culvert, pool depth (including height of
outlet gap), culvert velocity and swimming capabilities of inhabitant fish (GOV 2012a).
68. c. Confirm that BlackPearl plans to implement inspection procedures outlined in the
Manual – Alberta Roadway Watercourse Crossing Inspection Protocol for watercourse
crossing inspections. (ESRD 2012).
Response:
BlackPearl will follow the inspections procedures outlined in the Manual - Alberta Roadway Watercourse
Crossing Inspection Protocol for Watercourse Crossing Inspections (ESRD 2012).
Page 107
69. Volume 3, Section 4.3.4, Page 4-6 and 4-7
BlackPearl lists issues related to aquatic ecology that were considered in the Integrated
Application. The potential for thermal plume development and interaction with surface
hydrology and fish habitat is not listed.
a. Please provide an assessment of how thermal plumes may affect fish and aquatic
ecology, any mitigation planned, and how the potential will be monitored. Consider,
but do not limit the discussion to, primary producers and interstitial organisms.
Response:
BlackPearl has determined that no interaction between thermal plumes, surface waters and the aquatic
habitat will occur and no residual effect has been identified (AESRD SIR 39 and 67). Mitigation includes
implementing a 100 m setback from the well pads to watercourses with defined bed and banks where
feasible and a monitoring program (Volume 3, Section 1.8.2 and 1.8.3) that will be implemented to identify
any changes in groundwater quality due to thermal effects. In the event groundwater quality changes are
detected, the need for mitigation measures will be discussed with AEW.
BlackPearl indicates If practical, embed the culvert in the waterbody bottom so that the culvert
bottom is covered with natural substrate.
a. Describe when it would not be practical to embed the culvert.
Response:
Embedding culverts would not be practical when bedrock is present.
BlackPearl indicates they will Conduct a fish salvage led by a QAES at the watercourse
crossings where fish were captured or previously documented at the proposed crossing if an
isolated method is employed. Fish use of smaller provincial watercourses can be episodic.
Consequently, waters are assumed to be fish-bearing unless proven otherwise.
a. Discuss whether BlackPearl intends to rely on baseline data collected in support of the
Integrated Application to determine fish presence at a crossing site.
Response:
BlackPearl will not rely solely on baseline data reported in the Integrated Application (Volume 3, Section
4.6) to determine fish presence at each watercourse crossing. BlackPearl has taken a conservative
approach and assumed all watercourses and waterbodies within the Aquatic Ecology RSA are fish
bearing. Ratings for high and low quality habitat were determined to represent tributaries within the LSA,
as shown in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1, Figure 4A-3. Detailed fish habitat and fish inventory investigations
will be conducted by a QAES at each watercourse crossing to determine fish presence and fish habitat
potential, as described in Volume 3, Section:4.7.1. Unless other applicable regulations apply at the time
of construction, BlackPearl will request a case-specific review by DFO for the proposed crossingswhere
required. The QAES assessment will follow the guidelines, measures and BMPs for aquatic and biological
Page 108
assessments stated in the Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossing and Code of Practice for Pipelines
and Telecommunication Lines Crossing a Water Body (AENV 2000b,c).
71. b. If yes, confirm fish-salvage will be undertaken for all crossings where an isolated
method is being proposed.
Response:
Prior to any instream work, a site-specific fish habitat and fish inventory investigation will be conducted by
a QAES at each proposed watercourse crossing. The site specific fish and fish habitat investigation will
determine if fish habitat potential is present and fish salvage is required. As stated in Volume 3, Section
4.7.1, fish salvages will be conducted at the watercourse crossings with fish potential within any isolated
areas prior to and during dewatering activities.
71. c. If additional data are to be collected to establish fish are not present, clearly describe
what data will be collected and how a watercourse will be determined to be non-fish-
bearing prior to undertaking crossing construction.
Response:
Fish habitat and fish inventory investigations will be conducted by a QAES at proposed watercourse
crossings. The presence of fish habitat will be determined by a number of physical channel
characteristics, including water quality parameters, condition of the channel (e.g., dry channel), stream
gradient, substrate size and type, channel geomorphic units and potential barriers to fish passage. Fish
inventories will also be conducted to assist in determining which species are present. Further details on
the methods used during aquatic habitat investigations are provided in Volume 3, Section 4A. 6. 1.2.
Table 4.7-1 lists six streams that are to be crossed using culverts. All of these are located in
drainages where fish are present.
a. Given the limited baseline fish data, describe what precautionary measures BlackPearl
will take in the design, construction and monitoring of each of these crossings including
how they will be designed to ensure fish passage is provided.
Response:
Note that the revised Project Footprint has eliminated the watercourse crossing in SW 19-76-17 W4M
(i.e., Watercourse 2). Therefore, of the five locations where culvert crossings are proposed, two are in
watercourses with defined bed and banks and three are in drainages without defined bed and banks
(Volume 3, Section 4.7.2 of the Integrated Application and Figure 62-1).
The baseline data determined that all culvert crossings are proposed at locations categorized as having
low quality habitat (see Volume 3, Section 4.6 for a description of high and low quality habitat) but are
presumed to be fish-bearing. The presence of fish habitat potential at each site will be determined
following fish habitat and fish inventory investigations conducted by a QAES. Crossings will be designed,
installed and monitored to ensure fish passage where fish habitat is present (AESRD SIR 71).
Page 109
BlackPearl will employ qualified environmental inspectors during the construction phase of the Project to
ensure that the aquatic ecology is protected and that culverts are properly installed. Measures described
in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1 of the Integrated Application will be implemented to ensure the proper design
and installation of culverts. Mitigation and reclamation measures described in the Conservation and
Reclamation Plan (Volume 1, Section 11) include culvert monitoring to ensure that fish passage is
maintained and that the crossings are successfully reclaimed.
BlackPearl indicates a DFO case-specific review will be requested in the event fish habitat is
present at the crossing site prior to culvert installation.
a. Describe how BlackPearl will determine if fish habitat is present or absent.
Response:
See AESRD SIR 71 for a description on how BlackPearl will determine the presence of fish habitat.
Where required, BlackPearl will request a case-specific review by DFO for the proposed culvert crossings
unless other applicable regulations apply at the time of construction. There are no pipeline crossings that
require instream activity.
BlackPearl indicates that the residual effect of instream habitat fragmentation is reversible once
culverts are removed and therefore the potential residual effect of aquatic fragmentation is not
significant.
a. Referencing the earlier question related to Volume 3, Executive Summary, Page i and
Section 4.4, Page 4-9, and given that the culverts will be in place for multiple
generations of local biota, provide a discussion of the potential fragmentation impacts
during Project operation.
Response:
As indicated in the response to AESRD SIR 66, reversibility was not solely used to determine the
significance of potential effects such as instream habitat fragmentation. As described in Volume 3,
Section 4.7.4 and in conjunction with the mitigation strategies provided in Volume 3, Section 4.7.1, the
potential residual effect of increased instream habitat fragmentation was predicted to be low in both
magnitude and probability.
A QAES will asses all watercourses involving culvert installation to determine fish presence and fish
habitat potential (Volume 3, Section 4.7.1). A case-specific review by DFO will be requested by
BlackPearl in the event fish habitat is present at the crossing site prior to culvert installation. Culverts will
be inspected during post-construction monitoring and any stream blockages or barriers to fish movement
will be identified. Mitigative measures to restore fish passage will be implemented as soon as feasible
after an issue is recognized (Volume 3, Section 4.7.1). Given these mitigative measures, culverts are
anticipated to have low potential to cause instream habitat fragmentation.
Page 110
BlackPearl describes the potential impacts of acidifying emissions based on the aquatics LSA
and RSA. However, the acidification impacts, particularly the cumulative impacts operate in
combination with other emission sources well beyond that area described by the aquatics LSA
and RSA.
a. Reassess the impacts of acidification on aquatic receptors using the air modelling
domain.
Response:
Following a revised Air Quality Assessment, PAI loading for the Project Area does not exceed the PAI
monitoring load and residual effects to surface water were assessed to be not significant for the
Integrated Application phase (refer to AESRD SIR 55). As described in Volume 3, Section 4.3.3, an
assessment is only completed for the PDC when the Application assessment indicates likely effect and
when there is a high probability the Project will interact with other developments to have a cumulative
effect.
BlackPearl concluded that the potential residual effect of increased fishing pressure on fish
mortality or injury as a result of the Project and existing activities is not significant for the
Application Case, and a PDC case was not assessed. Consider: in addition to BlackPearl’s
staff, timber will be salvaged by local and regional forest companies, aggregate will be sourced
from local aggregate operations and it is assumed that BlackPearl will employ the staff of other
local and regional service providers as part of the construction and operation of the project.
Locally and regionally-based staff, service providers (includes grocers, fuel station staff,
hospital staff, government employees, etc) and their families will require services to live and
work in the area. All of these factors will contribute to an expanded population, a proportional
increase in anglers, and consequently, an increase in angling pressure. Although it is ESRD’s
role to manage fisheries, the cumulative population increase as a result of expanded industrial
activity in the area may overwhelm the utility of the tools available to manage finite fisheries
resources. In order for ESRD to assess this, and plan for it, adequate information on the
potential impact is required. Provide an assessment of regional angling pressure increases and
potential impacts to fisheries resources. For guidance consider the following:
a. The geographic area should include both the major population centres where
resources and the associated population bases will be located, and the likely angled
waterbodies (e.g. Fort McMurray, Lac La Biche, Gregoire Lake)
Response:
Response is provided after AESRD SIR 76g.
76. b. The current proportion of the regional population engaged in angling. (Note:
provincially reported proportion is 9%).
76. c. The frequency with which regional anglers fish.
76. d. Where regional anglers fish.
Page 111
76. e. The preferred target species.
76. f. Expected catch rates.
76. g. Extrapolate/characterize expected increased regional fishing pressure and potential

impacts to fisheries resources. Support the assessment with references.
Response:
A qualitative evaluation of angling pressure can be extended to incorporate the greater socio-economic
RSA (Volume 5, Section 5.0, Figure 5.2-1) in the context of population growth associated with the
Project.The Socio-Economic RSA overlaps with portions of Lac La Biche and Athabasca Counties,
County of Thorhild and Edmonton CMA. Although, the socio-economic assessment states that these
counties will experience a sustainable population growth over a long period of time (Volume 5, Section
5.4.4), the evaluation will focus on the Project in combination with known and future developments
expected to add less than 1% to the RSA population (Volume 5, Section 5.6.2).
In regards to fish management watershed units in Alberta, the Socio-Economic RSA encompasses the
southeastern section of the Northern Boreal and the northwestern section of Parkland Prairie zones
(Zwickel 2012). The Socio-Economic RSA overlaps with watershed units NB4, NB1 and PP2. The Project
Area and the surrounding Aquatic RSA are located in watershed unit NB1, near the border of NB1 and
NB4, and in the Lac La Biche County. According to the Sport Fishing in Alberta Survey (Zwickel 2012),
37.8% of Alberta resident anglers live in PP2, 6.1% in NB1 and only 1.5% in NB4.The provincial angling
rate is officially reported to be 6.0% (DFO 2010). However, based on the estimated total active anglers in
2010 (Zwickel 2012) and total Alberta population in 2010 (GOA 2010), the provincial angling rate can
potentially be as high as 9.5%. Given the 6.0-9.5% range for provincial angling and the reported rates of
angling by watershed units, we may estimate that PP2 accounts for 2.3-3.6%, NB1 accounts for 0.37-
0.58% and NB4 for 0.09- 0.14% of the Alberta total. The distribution of fishing pressures (days fished) in
Alberta shows differences between the three watershed units of interest: 17.5% for PP2, 12% for NB1
and 3.4% for NB4 (Zwickel 2012). The increased fishing pressure in PP2 may be explained by the large
contribution from the Edmonton CMA. Fishing opportunities in Lac La Biche and Cold Lake may attribute
to the fishing pressures in watershed unit NB1. Watershed unit NB4 accounts for the lowest angling
pressure within the Socio-Economic RSA and the province; however, while the estimated total active
anglers (Zwickel 2012) includes anglers over the age of 65 and under the age of 16, it does not include
registered Indians under the Indian Act or Domestic Licenses (GOA 2013). The 2006 census estimates
that Aboriginals represent 21% of the population in Lac La Biche County (Statistics Canada 2007), which
would include part of watershed units NB4, NB1 and the location of the Aquatic RSA. Therefore, the
angling pressures estimated in both NB1 and NB4 may not be representative. As well, local Aboriginal
communities are known to fish in proximity to the Project Area, as described in Volume 5, Section 3.2.2.3.
It is expected that 85% of the construction and operation workers will be recruited from within the Socio-
Economic RSA (Volume 5, Section 5.5.2) and thus will likely represent the population pool used in the
fishing statistics for the watershed units of interest. With the projected population increase of less than 1%
due to Project development, it is anticipated that the effects on the present angling statistics and target
species will be considerable. In regards to the total Alberta population engaged in angling, we may
conservatively estimate that the projected 1% population increase in the Socio-Economic RSA may lead
to an increase in fishing pressures of 0.023-0.036% in PP2, 0.0037-0.0058% in NB1 and 0.0009-0.0014%
in NB4. In particular, this may result in the addition of 0.061% to the reported 6.1% of licensed Alberta
anglers already residing in the watershed unit NB1.
According to the Athabasca RIWG survey (2007) and as discussed in Volume 3, Section 4A.7.1.2, 80% of
mobile workers do not participate in backcountry activities and only 4.4% of the total number of workers
went fishing. Additionally, the survey shows that mobile workers that resided at work camps more than an
hour from major centers were less likely to travel to those centers than workers from camps in closer
proximity. It is likely that, due to the remote location of the BlackPearl camp, the workers onsite will exhibit
Page 112
similar tendencies in that traveling to major centers will likely be governed by shift rotations. This provides
further support to the qualitative assessment that the BlackPearl workers’ presence, mobility and fishing
tendencies will have low impact on fisheries in the populated areas of the region.
In 2010, walleye, pike and rainbow trout were the main species caught by anglers in Alberta (DFO 2010).
Northern pike, rainbow trout, walleye and yellow perch were the most common game fish in the Prairie
Parkland Zone and Arctic grayling, goldeye/mooneye, lake trout, lake whitefish, mountain whitefish,
northern pike, walleye and yellow perch were the most common game fish in the Northern Boreal Zone
(AESRD 2009, Zwickel 2012). The release rates for the dominant catches were 80-90% and 60% for
perch (Zwickel 2012).
BlackPearl will implement mitigative measures as listed in Volume 4, Section 4.7.1 of the Integrated
Application, aimed at deterring personnel from fishing. Measures include implementing a no fishing policy
within the Aquatic Ecology RSA, educating workers on the impacts of fishing and angling restrictions and
restricting access to and from the CPF (Volume 3, Section 4.7.1 of the Integrated Application).
Collectively with mitigation measures reducing impacts of fishing pressure from workers and the
population growth due to the Project, it is unlikely that the Project will have a considerable effect on
regional fishing pressure and fishing resources.
77. Volume 3, Appendix 2A, Figures 2.3-2 and 2.3-3, Pages 2A-3 and 2A-4
The figures characterize watercourses as with or without a defined channel.
a. Describe how a section of watercourse determined to have a defined or undefined

channel.
Response:
As stated in Volume 3, Section 2.6.1, Page 2-10, the stream network obtained from 1:50,000 scale NTS
maps provides a reasonable indication of where streams with defined channels occur. The watercourses
with defined channels shown in Volume 3, Appendix 2A, Figure 2.6-1 of the Integrated Application were
derived from these NTS maps, with some minor modifications to maintain consistency with aerial and
ground observations and with Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data obtained from the Geobase database
and LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data. Additional hydrography obtained from 1:20,000 scale
Alberta SDW maps are shown in Figure 2.6-1 as drainages without defined channels.
The RSA is not much larger than the LSA.
a. Provide a revised RSA which truly addresses the region and provides the scope
necessary to understand the Integrated Application and planned development cases
on regional aquatic systems. At minimum, consider the RSA as described in the
Biodiversity Assessment not as depicted in the figures (see question referenced to
Volume 4, Section 3.3.2.2, Page 3-5, and Section 3A.3.1.2, Page 3A-5).
Response:
As described in AESRD SIR 86, the description of the Aquatic Ecology RSA in Volume 4, Section 3.3.2.2
was erroneous. The description provided was meant to be consistent with the description of the Aquatic
Ecology RSA provided in Volume 3, Section 4.3.2 and 4A.3.1.
The size of the Aquatic Ecology RSA was selected as the area where the direct and indirect influence of
other land uses and activities could overlap with Project specific effects and result in cumulative effects
Page 113
on aquatic habitat and resources (Volume 3, Section 4A.3.1). The Aquatic Ecology RSA incorporated
components of hydrology, water quality and fisheries and aquatic resources to determine the Aquatic
Ecology RSA (Volume 3, Section 4.3.2). A larger RSA was used in the assessment of fishing pressure
and an additional qualitative study was conducted for regional fishing pressure as part of AESRD SIR 76
that uses the Socio-Economic RSA (Volume 5, Section 5.2). As such, the current RSA provides the scope
necessary to understand the Application and Planned Development Cases on regional aquatic
ecosystems.
BlackPearl indicates No sample sites were established within Basin E since the field
reconnaissance during spring 2011 determined that there was no fish habitat present in the
ephemeral drainages accessible west of the Project Area. Fish use of smaller provincial
watercourses can be episodic. Consequently, waters are assumed to be fish- bearing unless
proven otherwise.
a. How was it determined there was no fish habitat present? Note: beaver dams are not
considered complete or permanent barriers to fish.
Response:
It was not the intention to suggest there is no fish habitat present in Basin E. A spring 2011 field study
determined there was no connectivity between the headwater ephemeral drainages located in Basin E
and the Project Footprint. The distance between ephemeral drainages and the Project Footprint was
determined to be greater than 2 km and, therefore, it was determined that there would be no direct impact
to the drainages. See AESRD SIR 54.
79. b. If BlackPearl does not have information to empirically establish a

waterbody/watercourse is not fish-bearing, revise the assessment using a
precautionary approach that assumes all waters are fish-bearing.
Response:
BlackPearl followed a conservative approach and assumed all watercourses and waterbodies within the
Aquatic Ecology RSA were fish-bearing. Ratings for high and low quality habitat were determined to
represent tributaries within the LSA based on the aquatic habitat investigations conducted at selected
sites. The criteria used to determine high and low quality habitat can be found in Volume 3, Appendix 4A,
Section 4A.6.3.
BlackPearl indicates Sites were rated based on presence or absence of visible barriers.
a. Noting that beaver dams are not considered complete or permanent barriers, clarify
what was considered a barrier.
Response:
Beaver dams and impoundments are not absolute barriers to fish passage but they may limit fish
migration. Barriers to fish may be topographical, permanent and still function as barriers in high water
Page 114
periods, such as physical (weir) or hydraulic (waterfall) structures with stream gradient. Seasonal barriers
include dry channels or channels frozen to the bottom in winter.
80. b. For each site rated as non-fish bearing due to the presence or absence of barriers,
identify the specific barrier.
Response:
BlackPearl followed a conservative approach and assumed all watercourses and waterbodies within the
Aquatic Ecology RSA were fish-bearing. Ratings for high and low quality habitat were determined to
represent tributaries within the LSA based on the aquatic habitat investigations conducted at selected
sites shown in Volume 3, Section 4A.7.3.1, Figure 4A-3. The criteria used to determine high and low
quality habitat can be found in Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.6.3. Habitat potential was rated for five
fish species selected to reflect important spawning, rearing and feeding habitat used within the LSA. Sites
were rated for migration potential during open water and winter conditions. Although migration ratings
contribute to overall habitat potential they were not used in the high and low habitat quality determination.
Therefore, no sites were deemed non-fish bearing merely based on the presence or absence of a
particular barrier.
80. c. For any areas where beaver dams were considered a barrier, revise the assessment
accordingly. For areas where partial impairment is to be considered, provide supporting
evidence.
Response:
Beaver dams were considered to impede migration but were not considered barriers. All sites with beaver
dams and beaver impoundments were assumed to be fish-bearing (AESRD SIR 80a and 80b).
Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.7.3.2, Table 4A-5, Page 4A-30
Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.8, Page 4A-33
BlackPearl describes the sampling methods and effort, and summarizes the results in these
sections and table.
a. Provide a discussion of the sampling efficiency of the methods chosen.
Response:
Fish communities were sampled where water levels permitted using a Smith Root Model LR-24 backpack
electrofisher, baited Gee-type minnow traps, angling and/or kick nets (Volume 3, Section 4A.6.2). The
crew was composed of experienced QAES that are specifically trained in the use of all sampling
equipment and sampling techniques used during the fish habitat and fish inventory studies (Volume 3,
Glossary of terms). Crew composition and regular equipment inspections and maintenance provided
Page 115
increased sampling efficiency, particularly for active capture methods. The use of multiple sampling
methods also reduced sampling bias and limitations attributed to any one sampling method.
For the purposes of sampling fish populations in shallow streams with low velocities, backpack
electrofishing (BEF) is considered an effective and commonly used method with high active capture
efficiency (Poos et al., 2007). BEF has been shown to be effective for various size classes of fish but
settings used will determine actual efficiency for each size class. As with any method of capture, sampling
efficiency is dependent on many uncontrollable factors, such asthe biological characteristics of the fish
and the physical characteristics of the habitat (e.g., water temperature, water conductivity, water clarity,
surface visibility due to wind and water velocity, depth of stream, width of stream, vegetation, and
substrate) (Poos et al., 2007). In the Integrated Application, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for BEF (fish
captured for every 100 s of electrofishing) ranged from 0 to 4.6 (Volume 3, Section XX, Table 4A-5).
Angling was another active capture method used and is efficient for larger sport fish (MacPherson et al.,
2010); however, CPUE for all angling activities undertaken was zero (Volume 3, Table 4A-5). BEF was
successful in the same streams that angling was not successful in sampling Arctic greyling,
Minnow traps were also used as a a passive capture methodand is known to be efficient for the capture of
smaller species (Clavero et al., 2006) and occasionally for juvenile and young-of-the-year fish from larger
species (i.e., sport fish). Although minnow traps have a bias for small-bodied fish, sampling usually
occurred overnight and may account for diurnal activity. CPUE (fish captured for every hour of minnow
trapping) for minnow traps ranged from 0 to 0.33 (Volume 3, Table 4A-5).
Together, these three sampling methods provide a good balance of active and passive capture
techniques, a low probability of harm to the fish and are all considered non-lethal sampling techniques. As
well, they afford the ability to capture a variety of freshwater fish species (e.g., brook stickleback, Arctic
grayling, mountain whitefish, longnose sucker) and a wide range of fish sizes (e.g., fork lengths from 30
mm to 263 mm) (Volume 3, Section 4A.7.3.2, Table 4A-5). Despite high sampling effort, it is recognized
that some fish may have evaded capture and a conservative approach was taken that assumed fish
presence at all sites.
81. b. Discuss the likelihood that elusive species were present but not captured. Was any
effort made to target species (e.g., sculpin)?
Response:
Incorporating multiple sampling methods (both passive and active techniques) and sampling throughout
representative habitat (e.g., pool, riffle, run) and substrate types increased the likelihood that elusive
species, such as sculpin, were captured. All species that could potentially be in the LSA and RSA were
targeted, but no effort was made to preferentially target elusive species.
The experience of the QAES and the quality of the fish habitat encountered (majority was fine substrate)
suggest that no elusive species went un-captured. In the few sites where substrate was more conducive
to elusive species, Arctic grayling and mountain whitefish were both caught via electrofishing. Angling
was also used to preferentially target larger sport fish, such as Arctic grayling and northern pike (Volume
3, Section XX, Table 4A-5).
Within the LSA, fine or organic substrates were found at 15 of 18 sites, while cobble and boulder was the
dominant substrate at 3 of 18 sites. At these three sites, multiple seasons of sampling were conducted
using multiple sampling methods, therefore, it is unlikely that elusive species were present but not
captured. However, in the event that sculpin were present but evaded capture, their presence would not
alter the conclusions of the assessment or result in additional mitigation.
Page 116
81. c. The bulk of the sites were assessed using two sampling methods (minnow traps and
electro-fishing). However, five of the 18 sites sampled were only sampled using
minnow traps. Of these five sites, three were only sampled once. Provide a discussion
of the confidence BlackPearl attributes this assessment.
Response:
As provided in Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.7.3.2, Table 4A-5, only one site had one season of
minnow trap sampling (A1-5). Two sites were sampled using BEF over one season (A1-2 and A2-2),
while two sites were sampled using BEF over two seasons (C1-2 and C1a-1).
Only one sampling method (BEF) was used at A1-2. Minimal effort was required to capture Arctic grayling
in spring 2011 before electrofishing was stopped due to potential spawning of Arctic grayling. Fish
sampling was conducted in accordance with the Alberta Fisheries Management Division Electrofishing
Policy Respecting Injuries to Fish (ASRD 2004). Site A1-5 is located upstream from the Project Footprint
on a tributary not directly impacted by the Project, approximately 22 km upstream from the Athabasca
River. Sampling was not conducted at A1-5 over multiple seasons because of access issues during the
winter and fall. This site was included as a control for the benthic investigations. The QAES considered
BEF (AESRD SIR 81a) fish sampling effort to be sufficient at site A2-2, C1-2 and C1a-1 based on effort
spent and size, clarity and cover of the watercourses (Pusey et al., 1993). All sites were visited in two
seasons (no sampling for capture was conducted in the winter) with the exception of sites A1-5 and A2a-
2. A winter investigation was conducted at A2a-2 since the sampling location was disconnected from the
sampling location in the spring by beaver activity.
BlackPearl and the QAES crew are confident that the fish inventories, combined with the
desktop/literature review, provide a good summary of the fish community, including species diversity and
extent. Fish inventories included up to three methods: minnow traps, electrofishing, and angling. Sites
with one season of sampling were considered high quality habitat due to fish habitat potential ratings, fish
species present and good connectivity throughout the tributary. Fish habitat was rated as either low or
high quality for an entire tributary, as described in Volume 3, Section 4A.6.3.
81. d. Fish use of smaller provincial watercourses can be episodic. Consequently, waters are
assumed to be fish-bearing unless proven otherwise. Provide a table identifying all
areas where BlackPearl determined fish were not present, or unlikely to be present.
Provide empirical evidence for each instance where fish were determined not to be
present. For sites where BlackPearl does not have empirical evidence, revise the
assessment accordingly, using a precautionary approach and assuming the
waterbody/watercourse is fish-bearing.
Response:
BlackPearl has taken a conservative approach and assumed all watercourses and waterbodies within the
Aquatic Ecology RSA are fish-bearing. Ratings for high and low quality habitat were determined to
represent tributaries within the LSA shown in Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Figure 4A-3 of the Integrated
Application.
Fish capture did not determine fish habitat potential. High quality habitat ratings describe habitat
conditions considered optimal or suboptimal for any life stage of Arctic grayling, northern pike, mountain
whitefish or longnose sucker (Volume 4, Section 4A.6.3). Low quality habitat described sites that were
rated as low overall fish habitat quality, independent of fish capture. Thus, a conservative or
precautionary approach has already been implemented to assume watercourses are fish-bearing. The
only site that is considered low fish habitat quality and where no fish were captured is site B4-1. This site
was fished in two seasons using minnow traps and BEF (Volume 3, Table 4A-5).
Page 117
81. e. BlackPearl sampled 18 sites for fish. Sampling was undertaken in spring and fall for
half the sites, and for the other half, BlackPearl only sampled once. Provide a
discussion of the limitations of a single sampling event, in a single season, in a single
year.
Response:
The footprint was revised following the fall 2010 field season and additional sites were selected in winter
2011 to increase the LSA. All eight sites with a single open water fish inventory are within Basin A, as
shown in Volume 3, Section 4A, Figure 4.6.-1. Of these eight sites, five are located on A1, which is the
eastern extent of the LSA. Spring sampling determined that the lower reaches of this tributary may
provide potential spawning for Arctic grayling. This habitat was also determined to be high quality habitat
based on the description provided in Volume 3, Section 4.6.3. One site was established in the upstream
reach of A2 and, although habitat potential ratings were poor to unsuitable, a high quality habitat rating
was still extended along the entire tributary based on the ratings for the downstream site, A2-1, where no
fish were captured with multiple methods over two open water seasons. The remaining two sites were
located in the upland area between the two incised tributaries, A1 and A2, where habitat potential ratings
were poor to unsuitable. This tributary was considered low quality habitat based on ratings and lack of
connectivity with A2 and between sites. Site descriptions can be found in Volume 3, Section 4A.7.3.1
Results from a single sampling event in a single season in a single year are limited by seasonal sampling
of life stages, habitat use, cover and feeding habits (Lewis et al., 2004; Alberta Transportation 2001),
therefore, multiple sampling techniques were used over two seasons to address these limitations.
81. f. Provide a plan to augment these data.
Response:
The information collected is adequate for the purposes of the Integrated Application. Prior to any activity,
a pre-development site assessment will be conducted and include site specific fish habitat and fish
inventory investigations conducted by a QAES. Site specific protection measures can then be
implemented.
81. g. BlackPearl rated habitat for Arctic grayling, northern pike, mountain whitefish, and
longnose sucker. Discuss why only large-bodied species chosen. Discuss why habitat
rating for smaller-bodied forage fish were not assessed. Update the assessment to
consider smaller-bodied forage fish.
Response:
Both large and small-bodied fish species were rated for habitat potential during the field investigations,
however, only the large-bodied fish ratings were submitted. The large-bodied ratings were chosen since
they were representative of the resource indicators and reflect issues that affect aquatic productivity as
described in Volume 3, Section 4A.7.1. Ratings for the four species provided were used to determine high
and low overall fish habitat quality. Habitat conditions that were considered optimal or sub-optimal for any
life stage of those four species was considered high quality habitat as described in Volume 3, Section
4A.6.3. The habitat quality ratings do not correspond to fish presence. Species-specific fish habitat ratings
for small-bodied forage fish did not augment the overall fish habitat ratings, however, habitat quality
ratings are provided for brook stickleback (small-bodied fish) and pearl dace in Table 81-1.
Page 118
TABLE 81-1
SUMMARY OF FISH HABITAT POTENTIAL RATINGS FOR SITES WITHIN THE AQUATIC ECOLOGY LSA
Newer Name, Legal Location Fish Habitat Potential Ratings

Site No. (W4M) Fish Species Spawning Rearing Feeding Wintering 1 Migration
A1-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling suboptimal marginal marginal marginal suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable suboptimal
5-32-77-17
mountain whitefish marginal suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal
longnose sucker optimal optimal poor poor suboptimal
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
pearl dace marginal poor poor marginal suboptimal
A1-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling optimal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor unsuitable marginal suboptimal
7-21-77-17
mountain whitefish marginal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
longnose sucker optimal suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor poor poor
pearl dace marginal poor poor marginal suboptimal
A1-3 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling poor marginal marginal poor suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor poor suboptimal
16-10-77-17
Page 119
mountain whitefish poor marginal poor poor suboptimal

longnose sucker poor suboptimal marginal poor suboptimal
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor marginal optimal
pearl dace poor poor poor marginal suboptimal
A1-4 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling marginal marginal poor marginal marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable marginal poor marginal marginal
10-02-77-17 mountain whitefish marginal marginal poor marginal marginal
longnose sucker suboptimal suboptimal poor marginal marginal
brook stickleback marginal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
pearl dace marginal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
A1-5 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
15-13-76-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
brook stickleback suboptimal suboptimal suboptimal poor unsuitable
pearl dace unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
A1b-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal marginal poor unsuitable
16-9-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor poor unsuitable
brook stickleback suboptimal suboptimal suboptimal poor unsuitable
pearl dace unsuitable marginal marginal poor unsuitable
TABLE 81-1 Cont’d

A1c-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
8-11-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor unsuitable poor
pearl dace unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
A2-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling suboptimal marginal marginal poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
8-18-77-17 mountain whitefish marginal suboptimal poor poor marginal
longnose sucker suboptimal suboptimal poor poor marginal
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
pearl dace poor poor poor poor marginal
A2-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
12-5-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Page 120
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal

pearl dace poor poor poor unsuitable marginal
A2a-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
Athabasca River northern pike poor unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
11-20-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
longnose sucker unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable
brook stickleback unsuitable poor poor unsuitable poor
pearl dace unsuitable poor poor unsuitable unsuitable
A2a-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
9-17-77-17 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
longnose sucker unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor unsuitable
brook stickleback suboptimal optimal suboptimal marginal unsuitable
pearl dace marginal suboptimal suboptimal poor unsuitable
B4-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal poor unsuitable marginal
11-14-77-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable marginal poor unsuitable marginal
brook stickleback suboptimal suboptimal suboptimal unsuitable suboptimal
pearl dace unsuitable suboptimal suboptimal unsuitable marginal
TABLE 81-1 Cont’d

C1-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike poor poor poor unsuitable marginal
10-15-77-18
mountain whitefish poor marginal poor unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker poor suboptimal poor unsuitable marginal
brook stickleback suboptimal suboptimal suboptimal unsuitable marginal
pearl dace marginal optimal optimal unsuitable marginal
C1-2 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal marginal poor marginal
9-10-77-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
brook stickleback optimal optimal optimal poor marginal
pearl dace unsuitable optimal optimal poor marginal
C1-3 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal marginal marginal poor marginal
10-35-76-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor poor poor marginal
Page 121
brook stickleback optimal optimal optimal poor marginal

C1a-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
16-2-77-18
mountain whitefish unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable poor unsuitable unsuitable marginal
brook stickleback marginal marginal marginal unsuitable optimal
pearl dace unsuitable marginal marginal unsuitable marginal
D1-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling optimal suboptimal suboptimal marginal suboptimal
Athabasca River northern pike unsuitable poor poor marginal suboptimal
11-27-75-18
mountain whitefish suboptimal suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal
longnose sucker optimal optimal marginal marginal suboptimal
brook stickleback poor poor poor optimal suboptimal
pearl dace suboptimal marginal marginal suboptimal suboptimal
D2-1 Unnamed tributary to Arctic grayling unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor marginal
Athabasca River northern pike marginal suboptimal suboptimal poor marginal
7-11-76-18 mountain whitefish unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor marginal
longnose sucker unsuitable unsuitable unsuitable poor marginal
brook stickleback optimal optimal optimal suboptimal suboptimal
Notes: 1 Wintering habitat potential ratings from winter habitat investigations.
81. h. In the summary (Page 4A-33), BlackPearl indicates that The only high quality habitat
that intersects the Project Area was tributary A2, however, no fish were captured or
observed in this tributary. Given that, with the exception of one site, the A2 sample
sites were only sampled once what precautionary approaches will BlackPearl be
implementing in consideration of the limited data? How and when will BlackPearl
augment these data to provide better information in support of monitoring, mitigation
and design work?
Response:
As described in Volume 3, Section 4A.6.1.1, sites were selected to represent reaches with different
channel morphology, dimension and gradient. Only two sites were selected for tributary A2 and, as
discussed in AESRD SIR 81e. Site A2-2, was established in the upstream reach of A2 following the fall
field investigations. The habitat potential ratings for A2-2 were poor to unsuitable, yet a high quality
habitat rating was still extended along the entire tributary based on the ratings for site A2-1, where no fish
were captured with multiple sampling methods over two open water seasons. The two sites in A2a are
located in the upland area between the two incised tributaries, A1 and A2, where habitat potential ratings
were poor to unsuitable. This tributary was considered low quality habitat based on ratings and lack of
connectivity between A2 and between sampling sites.
As noted, BlackPearl has taken a conservative approach and tributary A2 has generally been rated as
high quality fish habitat. Tributary A2 is located in Phase 3B of the Project Footprint (scheduled for activity
in 2022) and additional fish habitat and fish inventory investigations will be conducted prior to any activity
in this area.
82. Volume 4, Page 3-5, Section 3.3.2.2, and Page 3A-5, Section 3A.3.1.2.
BlackPearl states that The Aquatic Ecology RSA is located east of the Athabasca River, north
of Wandering River and contains the Aquatic Ecology LSA, the Athabasca River, Mcmillan
Lake, its tributaries, and Duncan Creek (Figure 3A-2). BlackPearl also refers to the Aquatic
Ecology assessment in Volume 3 for additional information and considerations.
a. The RSA as described is not consistent with that provided in the Aquatic Ecology
section of the Integrated Application, or the referenced figure in the biodiversity section
(Figure 3.3-2) and biodiversity baseline (Figure 3A-2). Please clarify.
Response:
The description of the RSA boundaries provided for the assessment of aquatic resources (i.e., the
Aquatic Ecology RSA) within the Biodiversity section were erroneous. The description of the Aquatic
Ecology RSA was intended to be aligned with the description provided for the Aquatic Ecology section of
the Integrated Application (Volume 3, Section 4.3.2). Consequently, the text following the “Aquatic
Resources” subheading of Section 3.3.2.2 of the Biodiversity Assessment and Section 3A.3.1.2 of the
Biodiversity Baseline Report in Volume 4 of the Integrated Application should read (note: the “Aquatic
Resources” subheading was accidentally omitted from the Volume 4, Section 3.3.2.2).
Aquatic Resources
The RSA boundaries for aquatic resources (Aquatic Ecology RSA) considered for biodiversity were
determined by the area in which the Project has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on
aquatic ecology. The Aquatic Ecology RSA includes those portions of the Athabasca River immediately
downstream from the drainage basins within the Aquatic Ecology LSA (Figure 3.3-2). Refer to the Aquatic
Ecology Assessment (Volume 3, Section 4.3.2) for additional information and considerations in defining
the Aquatic Ecology RSA.
Page 122
4.0 TERRESTRIAL
4.1 Land Use and Land Management
83. Volume 1, Section 1.2, Figure 1.2-2
This figure shows substantial clearing from forestry.
a. Provide a figure illustrating the degree of overlap between the Blackrod development
footprint and existing disturbance.
Response:
The proposed Project Footprint and existing baseline disturbances are presented in Figure 83-1. Note
that the baseline disturbances (as shown in the Legend) are only displayed for the Land Use LSA.
83. b. Describe specifically how BlackPearl has planned the project minimizing additional
clearing. Use figures as needed to illustrate BlackPearl overlaying project infrastructure
on existing disturbances.
Response:
Based on a re-evaluation and optimization of several factors, including well drilling orientation, BlackPearl
has been able to reduce the number of well pads required by 14 well pads, over the three Phases of the
Project. By removing these well pads, in addition to other changes to the Project Area (refer to the Project
Update section for more details), BlackPearl has reduced the original area of disturbance (i.e., 966.4 ha in
the May 2012 Integrated Application) by 109.4 ha, to a current area of 857 ha. BlackPearl will continue to
re-evaluate and optimize well pad layout based on the performance of a 950 m second Pilot well pair and
new geologic information, as it is obtained, in an effort to reduce Project disturbance.
BlackPearl has sited Project infrastructure on previously disturbed areas (e.g., cutblocks, burns, oil sands
exploration [OSE] wells and other anthropogenic disturbance) to the extent practical. BlackPearl will use
existing linear corridors for access and installation of new infrastructure, to the extent feasible. Refer to
Figure 83-1 for an illustration of the degree of overlap of the Project Area with these existing
disturbances.
Project planning is ongoing and will continue to include consideration of measures to reduce new
clearing, including the following:
• The Project Area will be minimized to the extent practical. Existing linear corridors will be used for
access and installation of new infrastructure, where feasible. Project developments will be
integrated with other proposed land use activities to reduce the area of disturbance and new
clearings. BlackPearl will use existing cutlines that are starting to regenerate only when other
reasonable options do not exist. The use of directional drilling (i.e., multi-well pads) will reduce
the number of well pads required.
• Borrow area excavation shall only occur to the extent that the material is required for the facilities.
• BlackPearl will re-use borrow material as much as feasible as a means to reduce the size and
number of borrow pits required.
• BlackPearl intends to conduct progressive reclamation of well pads and associated facilities
(access roads, pipelines and transmission lines, borrow pits) that are not required for operation
upon completion of abandonment and decommissioning.
Page 123
¯

Athab a sc a R iver

TWP.77

TWP.76

Project Area
!

Anthropogenic Regenerating Burn
Existing Blackrod Road Disturbance (wildfire within last 30 years) #

"

!
t6790_Figure_AESRD_SiR_83_1_Landuse.mxd
Watercourse Cutblock (logged within Regenerating Cutblock

last 10 years or no trees (logged within last 30 years

$

!

Waterbody regenerating) but older than 10 years)

UTM Zone 12N:
Imagery: Date, July 2011. 2011 SPOT5 © 2013 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com
SCALE: 1: 60,000
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2013; Ecological Land Classification: TERA Environmental Consultants 2012; km
Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011. 0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
84. Volume 1, Section 1.2, Figure 1.2-2
It is unclear how the existing pilot plant footprint will be incorporated into the new facility
infrastructure.
a. Provide details on the expected decommissioning and eventual reclamation of the

existing unused corridors and well pads of the existing pilot plant facility.
Response:
Refer to ERCB SIR 25 for a discussion on the decommissioning and reclamation of facilities associated
with the Pilot plant facility.
85. Volume 1, Section 1, Figure 1.2-3, Page 1-5
Volume 1, Section 4.7.2, Figure 4.7-5, Page 4-27
The borrow pit and road appear to be very close to the drainage/creek in 17-77-17-W4 and 18-
77-17-W4 and several other creeks throughout the development area.
Proposed Phase 3A pads at approximately 13- & 14-24-76-18-W4 and 2-23-76-18-W4 are
located on a watercourse. Further, the Phase 2 pad at approximately 9-35-76-18-W4 appears
to closely encroach a watercourse.
a. Clearly state BlackPearl’s commitment to set-backs from waterbodies and

watercourses and ensure all maps provided reflect those set-backs. Please indicate
how this meets the stated goal of location infrastructure 100 metres away from
watercourses. Provide updated maps if necessary.
Response:
BlackPearl will maintain a 100 m setback from waterbodies and watercourses (AESRD SIR 62a). If there
is a unique circumstance where infrastructure needs to be located within 100 m of a waterbody or
watercourse, BlackPearl will present this to AESRD and AESRD can decide if it is acceptable or not.
85. b. Describe the conditions where BlackPearl may be unable to adhere to a set-back and
in those scenarios which codes of practice BlackPearl will follow.
Response:
BlackPearl will mitigate soil disturbance and use soil stabilization techniques (silt fences) in scenarios
where we are unable to adhere to set back requirements.
85. c. Are there alternate locations for these pads that would better meet this goal? If so,
please identify them and indicate whether BlackPearl will relocate these pads.
Response:
Pad placement was based on surface and drilling constraints while trying to maximize subsurface
resource coverage. As a result, the pad locations as provided are in the optimum position. As drilling
Page 125
design improves, it may be possible to drill longer wells that would reduce the overall number of pads
required to access the resource.
BlackPearl indicates the diluent-bitumen and diluent pipelines will be sized to meet the full
capacity of the project.
a. Discuss whether they also been sized to address the cumulative needs of the area. If
not, why not.
Response:
The diluent-bitumen and diluent pipelines will be sized to meet the needs of the Blackrod Project. There
are three other companies with oil sands ownership in the Project Area. All other companies are aware of
BlackPearl’s Project, however, they do not have current development plans or interest in obtaining
pipeline capacity in the area. BlackPearl will continue to monitor activity in the area to review
opportunities to reduce the cumulative footprint. The pipelines will be sized for all three phases of
production, which will result in excess capacity at certain points in the Blackrod Project’s production life.
86. b. Describe how the cumulative needs of the area have been considered in the design of
off-site infrastructure including pipelines and transmission lines.
Response:
As described in AESRD SIR 86a, the pipeline will be sized for all three phases, which should result in
excess capacity at certain points in the Blackrod Project’s production life.
BlackPearl is working with Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to bring the power infrastructure into
the Project Area. AESO is government regulated and the AESO will performelectric studies to determine
the required loading capacity of the power transmission system that will be brought into the Project Area.
A camp will be required for construction accommodation as well as for operator residences.
a. Provide additional details on the location and maximum capacity of the camp
proposed. Include a summary of discussions with ESRD staff pertaining to Bear Smart
plans and Wild Fire emergency evacuation plans for the camp.
Response:
Refer to Figure 1.1-1 of the Project Update for the locations of the construction and operation camps.
Refer to Tables 87-1 and 87-2 below for a summary of the number of people in the camps during the
construction and operations phases.
Page 126
TABLE 87-1
CONSTRUCTION CAMP POPULATION
Phase Construction Camp

1 450 peak
2 450 peak
3 450 peak
TABLE 87-2
OPERATION CAMP POPULATION
Phase Operations Camp (cumulative)

1 50 total
2 75 total
3 (to end of project) 120 total
Bear Smart plans would include utilizing the following: perimeter fencing around the camp and fencing
around the bottom of each camp building to prevent animals from getting under the buildings; security will
be Bear Smart-trained and do perimeter patrols on a regular basis and ensure any problem bears are
identified and reported to AESRD; and, with guidance from AESRD, we will ensure the proper training
and bear deterrents are provided when required.
Wild Fire evacuation plans will be designed and executed based on location and fire proximity. A constant
monitoring of the Fire Watch system will be performed and an evacuation plan will be developed and
implemented for the project. This plan will reflect the location of Project Site/Camp in relation to the
location of the fire, daily man counts to confirm the number of personnel, Alpha and Bravo evacuation
routes and delivery points, and confirmed transportation to accommodate the evacuation. This plan will
also include staging areas for personnel at the project and the evacuation point. An independent
communication system can be used during the evacuation if necessary. Evacuation drills will be held and
audited for effectiveness and time lines.
87. b. Provide an estimated life expectancy for the camp including the declining bed capacity
anticipated. Include the details on the expected number of beds available for plant
operators versus construction personnel.
Response:
The camp will be a significant asset for future shutdown work, as well as a base for any expansion work
that may occur. The size of the camp will reflect the possibility of crew increase based on schedule
performance and targets. There will be two camps at the project: a temporary construction camp and a
permanent operations camp. The operations staff camp will always have sufficient capacity for operations
staff and will be built to last the entire life of the project. The construction phases of the project will peak at
450 workers and the camp will be sized to accommodate this workforce.
Page 127
87. c. Detail the discussions with local municipalities for supplying the potable water and the
sewage disposal requirements for the camp. Discuss the arrangements made for
emergency services for the camp (i.e., Police, Ambulance, and Fire Department).
Response:
Due to the remote location of our project, we will have onsite security for the Project and camp, as well as
an onsite medical facility with two crews of the appropriate medical people providing medical services and
attention. There will be two ambulances on site to ensure that, in the event of an emergency, there is a
back up available on site with a full crew in the medical facility. We will have our own onsite firefighting
equipment based on changing needs throughout the project cycle (Cradle to Grave).
We have discussed the need for use of the Wandering River water supply and sewage lagoon, with the
municipality. BlackPearl is evaluating the economics of building sewage and water treatment facilities,
which will reduce the use of Wandering River infrastructure.
BlackPearl indicates that the camp will occupy 8.3 ha of land and that the camp will provide
housing for both construction and operations staff.
a. Will BlackPearl be using multi-story buildings at the camp in order to reduce the
footprint? If so, describe which buildings will be multi-story. If not, provide justification
for the decision.
Response:
Since the time of submission, BlackPearl has updated its plans to include a construction camp site and an
operations camp site. A new location for the permanent operations camps has been selected. BlackPearl
has allotted an area of 10.3 ha for this camp.
BlackPearl will endeavor to use a multi-story building for the living accommodations. The fitness facility,
common areas, and kitchen and dining areas will be located in single story structures. The operations
staff will be able to use the senior management lodgings (mobile home trailers) after construction, as they
can remain a part of the permanent facility.
88. b. Provide a description of all the design features that BlackPearl is incorporating into the
camp design to further reduce the amount of land required for this purpose.
Response:
BlackPearl will limit the number of vehicles on site, thus reducing the need for a large parking area. We
will build the camp vertical in as many aspects that are reasonable and practicable. As for the camp
design, this will be based on the requirements and availability of structures.
Page 128
BlackPearl states that Domestic waste generated during the construction, drilling and
operations of the Project will be stored in bear-resistant recycle and disposal bins onsite, and
hauled to an approved disposal facility on a regular basis. ESRD has found however that very
few disposal bins are truly bear-resistant and that prevention of access to garbage requires a
combination of mitigation measures including but not limited to fencing, careful orientation of
dumpsters, particular types of dumpsters and staff education.
BlackPearl furthermore states that Bear-Human Conflict Management Plan for Camps will be
implemented, but does not provide any specifications as to how this will be done. More
specifics are required to understand how this is being mitigated.
a. Will the camp or the garbage disposal areas be fenced to reduce the possibility that
bears will gain access to food at the site? If not, provide the rationale for this decision.
If so, explain what will be fenced.
Response:
Bear and raven proof garbage containers with spring loaded and locking lids, similar to the ones used in
Provincial and National parks, will be used and kept in a fenced area. Garbage will be removed on a
regular basis. Ample secured waste containers will be used throughout the entire site and drill pads.
Regular cleanup crews will be assigned to pick up any garbage that may be present.
89. b. Provide a detailed description as to how BlackPearl will prevent wildlife from becoming
attracted to the camp and how they will be prevented from gaining access to food.
Ensure the grease pit storage, dumpsters and garbage in vehicles are addressed in
this description.
Response:
Bear and raven proof garbage containers with spring loaded and locking lids, similar to the ones used in
Provincial and National parks, will be used and kept in a fenced area. Garbage will be removed on a
regular basis. Areas around the kitchen facilities will have additional fencing and securement. Ample
secured waste containers will be used throughout the entire site and drill pads. Regular cleanup crews
will be assigned to pick up any garbage that may be present. Segregated waste bins for cardboard,
metal, wood and household garbage will be used.
BlackPearl indicates that they will post low speed limits on the project roads and access road
however does not state what those speed limits will be.
a. What are the baseline, and application case maximum speed limits on project and
access roads? Will these speed limits be adjusted for evening and night driving? If
so, describe.
Response:
Maximum speed limits posted on the main access road (LOC 819) is currently 60 kilometers per hour for
the baseline case.
Page 129
Once Project construction and operations commence the speed limit for the main segment of LOC 819
will remain 60 kph until the main gate of the CPF site. All infield roads will be restricted to 40 kph and
speed limits will be 20 kph on all wellpads and the CPF site.
BlackPearl will not be adjusting speed limits for evening and night driving on the main and infield roads,
and facilities as sufficient signage will be in place for road hazards such as turns, pull-outs and bridge
crossings. The access roads and corridors shall provide adequate line of sight to provide vehicle
operators to avoid collisions with other vehicles or wildlife.
90. b. Clarify who controls the access road and the speed limits posted there.
Response:
BlackPearl controls and maintains the access road and posts speed limits.
91. Volume 3, Section 4
Discuss whether the plant site will be visible from the Athabasca River, McMillan Lake or other
recreationally used areas.
Response:
The CPF is located approximately 10 km from the Athabasca River and the Athabasca River itself is
bordered by elevated/incised banks.
The CPF is located approximately 16 km north from McMillan Lake. Recreationalists on both the
Athabasca River and at McMillan Lake will not have a view of the CPF, however, it is possible that the
light from the flare, which is the tallest facility structure on the CPF, may be visible at night.
The next two closest areas that potentially may be used for recreation or access are Highway 63 and the
settlement of Pelican Portage. The CPF is located approximately 21 km west of Highway 63 and 20 km
south of Pelican Portage. It is anticipated that it will not be visible from either the highway or the
settlement.
To our knowledge there are no other recreationally used areas located within the 20 km radius of the
plant site.
BlackPearl indicates that seismic disturbances created on the land as late as February 2012
were incorporated into the baseline case yet there seems to be no quantification of this.
a. What amount (area (ha) and length of linear features (km)) of exploration related
disturbance (OSE and seismic, etc.) that was conducted specifically in support of the
Blackrod commercial project existed at baseline (February 2012)?
Response:
All exploration-related disturbances (e.g., seismic lines, BlackPearl SAGD Pilot Project [Pilot Project],
OSE wells, access) completed or approved as of February 2012 were included in the quantification of
baseline disturbance (see Table 1.5-4 in Volume 5.0, Section 1.5.5 of the Integrated Application).
Table 92-1 provides the quantification of exploration-related disturbance conducted in support of the
Page 130
Project that was existing or approved at Baseline (i.e., February 2012). No new access was created for
the OSE wells. All OSE wells were constructed using existing secondary (year-round use) and tertiary
(seasonal use) roads. Access to the Pilot Project is via a previously existing all-weather access road
(LOC 819). An accessy road (graveled only half-way) was built to access the water disposal and
observation wells for the Pilot Project in 2-25-76-18 and 14-24-76-18 W4M.
TABLE 92-1
BASELINE EXPLORATION-RELATED DISTURBANCE CONDUCTED FOR THE PROJECT
Disturbance Type Length (km)1 Area (ha)2

Seismic Line (3D) 555.3 149.4
Oil and Gas Facility (Pilot Project) n/a 11.1
Pilot Water Disposal and Observation/Monitoring Well Site n/a 3.8
BlackPearl OSE Well Site n/a 25.2
Access Road to 2-25-76-18 and 14-24-76-18 W4M 34.2 86.3
Total 589.5 275.8
Notes: 1. The length of each disturbance type was calculated in isolation of other disturbance types and as such, may represent an overestimation of
length of linear disturbance in cases where several linear disturbances types parallel and/or overlap each other.
2 In cases where disturbance types overlap, the primary disturbance was calculated only once to avoid overestimating the disturbance area.
92. b. Provide a table that quantitatively describes the exploration disturbance within the LSA
and RSA. Include the existing BlackPearl pilot project and the proposed Blackrod
commercial project.
Response:
Refer to Table 92-1 for a quantification of all Project-related exploration disturbance, including the existing
Pilot Project.
Tables 1.5-5 and 1.5-6 in Volume 5, Section 1.5.5.2 of the Integrated Application provide the area of
existing disturbance by disturbance type in the LSA and RSA, respectively. Exploration disturbance (both
Project-related and other existing exploration disturbance) is accounted for under road, seismic line (2D
and 3D), well site (e.g., BlackPearl OSE wells) and oil and gas facility (i.e., BlackPearl Pilot Project)
disturbance types. The total area of disturbance for the updated Project Area (proposed Blackrod
Commercial Project) is 857 ha.
92. c. Provide detailed maps and descriptions as per TOR 3.7.1 [B] at a scale appropriate to
illustrate all existing disturbance including seismic and all OSE for the LSA and RSA.
Response:
A map of all existing disturbance, including seismic and OSE, for the Wildlife/Land Use RSA is provided
on Figure 1.5-3 in Volume 5, Section 1.5 of the Integrated Application. Refer to Figure 83-1 for all existing
disturbance at the Vegetation/Land Use LSA scale. Refer to AESRD SIR 92a above for a breakdown of
disturbances related to existing and approved Project operations at Baseline (i.e., February 2012).
A discussion of general and wildlife indicator species-specific habitat availability in the Wildlife LSA and
RSA is provided in Volume 4, Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.4 of the Integrated Application. Refer to Volume 4,
Section 2.6.3 for figures of habitat availability for wildlife indicator species for the Baseline Case. A
summary of the change to habitat suitability in the LSA for wildlife indicator species from the Integrated
Application is provided in Section 2.9 of the Project Update.
Page 131
93. Volume 4, Section 2.3.2; Figure 2.3-1, Page 2-6
It appears there is no separation between well pads and a borrow pit in 20-77-17-W4, and
17/16-77-17-W4 respectively, resulting in two very large clearings.
a. Clarify the dimensions of well pads and borrow pits in question including a measure of
the fully cleared areas respectively.
Response:
Well pads 3BGG and 3BHH in 20-77-17 W4 are approximately 300 m x 200 m and 200 m x 200 m,
respectively. Borrow pit B3B16 located in 20-77-17 W4 is approximately 228 m x 200 m (refer to
Figure 1.1-1 in the Project Update for the well pad and borrow pit naming convention). A treed buffer no
less than 20 m wide will remain between the well pads and borrow pit in order to separate the areas of
these clearings.
Since the filing of the Integrated Application, the Project Area has been revised. The well pad and portion
of the borrow pit originally within SW-16-77-17 W4 have been removed and reduces the area of clearing
that is required. Borrow pit B3B14 in 17-77-17 W4 is approximately 191 m x 367 m and well pad 3BEE in
17-77-17 W4 is approximately 300 m x 200 m.
Page 132
94. Volume 4, Section 2.4, Pages 2-17 to 2-24
Volume 4, Section 2.6, Pages 2-36 to 2-88
BlackPearl has incorporated the potential impacts of exploration activities on wildlife into the
application case assessment qualitatively. No quantitative information regarding exploration
activities was provided or incorporated into that assessment or the planned development case.
Understanding the quantity of exploration activity expected is critical to understanding its

relative impact on wildlife.
BlackPearl states that clearing of new linear features may indirectly affect caribou mortality risk
as a result of altered predator-prey dynamics in the region. BlackPearl also acknowledges that
Results of analysis of woodland caribou populations in Alberta and habitat characteristics
indicate that linear feature density and young forest (burns and cutblocks) have the greatest
influence on caribou population dynamics (Schaefer and Pruitt 1991, Boutin and Arienti 2008).
BlackPearl then justifies the lack of an assessment of future linear disturbance by stating that
There are no known future linear features identified for the PDC.
It is expected that BlackPearl assess future exploration disturbance resulting from the Blackrod
Project in this Integrated Application. The assessment may be based on a model developed
from known seismic footprints from other in-situ projects in the region.
a. Provide estimates of the expected exploration footprint in terms of total area (ha), and
2
density of linear disturbance (km/km ) by section for the application and planned
development cases. Describe how these estimates were derived.
Response:
BlackPearl has met the requirements of TOR 3.7.1[B] and 3.7.2[A](f) related to exploration activities,
which require BlackPearl to:
• describe existing and approved habitat disturbance (including exploration activities);
• identify habitat disturbance related to existing and approved Project operations; and
• describe and assess the potential impacts of the Project to wildlife and wildlife habitats, considering
potential effects on wildlife from proposed and planned exploration, seismic and core hole activities,
including monitoring/4D seismic.
The Alberta Environment (AENV) Guide to Preparing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports in
Alberta (AENV 2011) defines “planned” development as “any project or activity that has been publicly
disclosed up to six months prior to the submission of the Proponent’s Application and Integrated
Application report.” The Integrated Application defines the temporal scope of the Baseline Case as the
current conditions including existing anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., transportation, oil and gas
exploration and development, timber harvest) as of February 2012 (three months prior to submission of
the Integrated Application). Resource delineation disturbances for the Project (e.g., seismic lines,
BlackPearl SAGD Pilot Project [Pilot Project], oil sands exploration wells and access) completed or
approved as of February 2012 are included in the BBaseline Case. An inclusion list of the existing and
approved developments and activities considered in the Baseline Case is provided in Volume 2,
Appendix 1B. Future exploration and seismic activities were not known as of February 2012 and,
therefore, an assessment of the potential impacts of these activities on wildlife and wildlife habitat is not
required as part of the Integrated Application.
Page 133
BlackPearl has no immediate plans for future seismic programs for the Blackrod Project. Regulatory
requirements for oil sands exploration (e.g., seismic) programs are identified in the Alberta Regulation
284/2006 Exploration Regulation (GOA 2012b) and associated directives under the Alberta Mines and
Minerals Act. Should further seismic work be needed for the Blackrod Project in the future, BlackPearl will
apply for it under the appropriate permitting process. Seismic exploration programs require authorizations
administered by AESRD under the Alberta Mines and Minerals Act. Exploration activity related to oil sand
resource exploration for proposed in situ development is directed by the Code of Practice for Exploration
Operations pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). Schedule 2 of the
Code of Practice details the requirements of an Activities Plan, which must be completed by the
proponent prior to commencing exploration activity. Notice under the EPEA Code of Practice for
Exploration Operations must be filed prior to exploration operations associated with in situ bitumen
recovery operations. The Notification and surface access approval required on public land under the
Public Lands Act is administered by AESRD. In order to obtain authorization from AESRD to conduct a
future seismic program, BlackPearl will submit a Geophysical Field Report (GFR), which requires an
on-site evaluation to assess field conditions (GOA 2006). The GFR would include site-specific information
describing the seismic program and mitigation measures that BlackPearl would implement to avoid and/or
reduce potential environmental impacts of the seismic program. Once oil and gas exploration is
completed, the program licensee is required to file final geophysical program information to AESRD,
which includes detailed metrics of the program (e.g., seismic line length, width, linear density) (GOA
2012c). BlackPearl will comply with all terms and conditions of approvals and requirements of the
Exploration Regulation and GFR for any future seismic program.
BlackPearl will implement the following mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce potential impacts of
future seismic programs on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
• Habitat disturbance will be minimized by using low impact seismic techniques, including but not
limited to, the following:
− Lines will be cut to the narrowest width practical for the forest cover type and topography:
maximum width of 3.0 m for mulched source lines and 2.0 m for mulched receiver lines;
source and receiver lines will be hand cut to narrower widths for foot access, where
warranted, for example:
• 1.75 m width in steep terrain or sensitive soils;
• 0.5 m width within 10 m of watercourses or waterbodies; and
• 1.75 m in riparian areas more than 10 m from the edge of water.
• Large timber and intact habitat will be retained by using avoidance cutting.
• Rapid regeneration of native vegetation will be encouraged by minimizing surface and root
disturbance through the use of mulchers.
• Line-of-sight will be limited by cutting meandering lines, incorporating line-of-sight breaks every
200 m, and dog-legging lines where they cross existing clearings and openings.
• Riparian habitat disturbance will be reduced by:
− identifying watercourse crossings during the planning and scouting stage of future seismic
programs and evaluating the best crossing locations and methods that would minimize riparian
and instream disturbance;
− drilling shot holes a minimum of 45 m outside of the riparian edge;
− adhering to the Water Act Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada operational statements, where applicable; and
Page 134
− applying appropriate buffers at water crossings where a mechanical crossing method is not
approved.
• Existing cutlines will be used for access, and areas with substantial revegetation will be avoided to
the extent possible.
• BlackPearl will discuss site-specific considerations with AESRD at the planning and scouting stages
of future seismic programs to determine the best use of existing lines. Should regenerating lines be
reused, the new cut will be narrow and meander around patches where there is relatively more
vegetation regeneration.
• An inspection of all seismic areas will be completed the following spring and any identified issues will
be addressed (e.g., reclamation of any areas with surface disturbance; residual waste/debris will be
removed).
• BlackPearl will apply for a reclamation certificate following completion of the program, in accordance
with regulatory requirements at the time.
94. b. Provide figures to illustrate the total area affected (ha) and the density of linear
2
disturbance (km/km ) by section for the application and planned development cases.
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 94a.
94. c. Provide maps and a description (include bin size, width of linear features, and linear
density (km/km2)) of exploration activities planned for the winter of 2012/2013.
Response:
BlackPearl has no exploration activities planned for the winter of 2012/2013 for the Blackrod Project.
94. d. Provide the schedule, as it is currently envisioned, of exploration activities needed to

support project development throughout the life of the project. Include 4D or monitoring
seismic in this schedule if it has the potential to occur.
Response:
BlackPearl completed an exploration program (oil sands exploration wells) in winter 2012/2013. That
program was approved prior to February 2012 and was, therefore, assessed in the Integrated Application
under the Baseline Case (refer to AESRD SIR 94a and Volume 4, Section 2.3.3.1). BlackPearl does not
currently have plans for future exploration programs.
BlackPearl does not currently have plans for 4D monitoring seismic programs. BlackPearl does not
consider 4D seismic surveys a routine component of in situ developments, and would only consider such
a program in the future if a need is identified and value can be demonstrated. In circumstances where
poor SAGD well performance may warrant a 4D seismic survey to understand operational or reservoir
issues, the program would be conducted on a pad by pad basis, rather than Project-wide. Given the
uncertainty with need for 4D seismic programs, potential locations are unknown.
BlackPearl will employ several methods to monitor steam chamber development during operation of the
Project, including:
Page 135
• monitoring of daily production data, including down-hole pressures and temperatures from horizontal
wells on SAGD well pads;
• metering and analysis of injected and produced fluid volumes at individual SAGD well pairs; and
• monitoring of temperatures and pressures at observation wells.
Monitoring activities conducted on the SAGD well pads are considered in the Application Case for the
Integrated Application, as these activities are planned to occur on the proposed well pads for the Project.
Temperature and pressures from the bitumen reservoir will be monitored through observation wells.
BlackPearl may need only one observation well per drainage for Phase 1, and existing observation wells
will be used. Currently, there are ten OSE wells that can be converted to observation wells within the
development area (see ERCB SIR 18a). The location of any new observation wells are not currently
known, as this is typically determined during the detailed design phase of the Project. Existing
disturbance and infrastructure will be targeted as locations for observation wells to the extent possible.
Observation well pad construction and well drilling will occur during the winter. Sites will be accessed
using winter roads and wells will be drilled on ice pads to avoid the need for earthen fill and/or gravel and
avoid soil disturbance, which will encourage rapid regeneration of natural vegetation. Access to the sites
during operation will be minimal since they will be monitored remotely by Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition. Periodic access to the sites will be via all terrain vehicle or during frozen ground conditions.
Woody vegetation (trees and shrubs) will be allowed to regenerate on the observation well pads;
however, occasional clearing may be necessary should access with a service rig be needed to address
problems with the monitoring equipment.
In consideration of the use of existing OSE wells, the overall reduced Project Area and with application of
these measures and other appropriate mitigation proposed in the Integrated Application, the residual
effects of the observation well construction and operation are predicted to be of low magnitude and will
not change the conclusions of the Integrated Application.
94. e. Update the wildlife assessments as necessary to incorporate the estimated exploration
activity.
Response:
Refer to AESRD SIR 94a-e.
There was no mention of how roads will be maintained in the winter. Spreading of de- icing
agents may attract animals and damage adjacent vegetation and water.
a. How will BlackPearl maintain project and access roads in winter? Describe any
materials that will be spread on roads, which roads will receive these materials and
under what circumstances.
Response:
BlackPearl will not use chemicals as de-icing agents. BlackPearl will maintain access roads in the winter
with grading and gravel.
Page 136
96. Volume 4, Section 2.7.1, Page 2-85 and 2-88
BlackPearl states that an ILMP will be developed with the primary timber harvest company and
FMA holder in the RSA and that this will form the basis for direct and indirect management of
cumulative effects in the LSA and RSA.
a. Provide an explanation as to the level of participation or role of ESRD in the

development of this ILMP.
Response:
The goal of the Integrated Land Management Plan (ILMP) is to reduce the disturbance (footprint) within
the Project Area, from both the Project and other land users, through the use of integrative planning,
environmental management and innovative technologies. BlackPearl intends for AESRD to be involved in
the ILMP at all stages of development and implementation. AESRD has a dual role within the ILMP for
the Blackrod Project, as it is both a landowner and a regulatory body, and the development of the ILMP
will require input from AESRD on both of these levels.
96. b. How will other users of the LSA and RSA be included in the development of this plan?
Response:
Stakeholder engagement is one component of an effective ILMP. Other users of the LSA and RSA will be
consulted and included in the integrated planning, co-ordination of activities and access management,
and the reclamation of disturbances within the Project Area.In addition to known industry and public
stakeholders, BlackPearl will identify land users through consultation with AESRD.
4.2 Conservation and Reclamation

97. Volume 1, Concordance Tables, Table P-3, Page P-vii
The Terms of Reference states that BlackPearl is required to Provide maps/and or drawings of
the Project components and activities including:
i. sources of aggregate resources, borrow material and other construction

material and locations of any stockpiles that will be developed.
These figures have not been provided.
a. Update the C&R section to include figures which present the sources of aggregate
resources, borrow material and other construction material and locations of any
stockpiles that will be developed.
Response:
A diagram identifying sources of aggregate, borrow and other construction material as well as locations of
any soil stockpile locations is provided in Figure 97-1.
Page 137
¯
Riv er
22
B3B16
23 24 19 20 21
B3B15
B3B13
TWP.77
15 14 13 18 17 16
B3B12
B3B11 B3B14
10
11
B3B8 12 B3B10 7 8 9
B3B9
B3B7
3 2 1 6 5 4
B3B6
B3A1 B13
34
35 36
B3B1
31 32
B21 B11
33
B3B3 B12
TWP.76 27
B3B2
26 25 30
B22 29 28
B3B4
B3A2
B3B5
22 23 B3A3 24 19 20 21
Project Footprint Potential Aggregate Source FIGURE 97-1

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site (Rickard Excavation Ltd. -
Surface Material Exploration) AGGREGATE AND BORROW MATERIAL
Phase 2 Sump Site Permanent Operations SOURCES AND STOCKPILE LOCATIONS

Camp Site Soil Material Stockpile Host Site
Phase 3A Log Deck AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Proposed Blackrod Road (Pilot Location - Miscellaneous\ BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Phase 3B Mineral Surface Lease) PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012 & Feb 19, 2013, modified by TERA Environmental Feb 19, 2013;
SCALE: 1: 50,000
Stockpile Locations: AltaLIS. 2013. Alberta Digital Integrated Dispositions; Meters
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011. 0 500 1,000
April 2013
98. Volume 1, Concordance Tables, Table P-3, Page P-x
The Terms of Reference requires that the C&R Plan discuss uncertainties related to the
conceptual reclamation plan. Blackpearl did not clearly present the uncertainties related to the
C&R Plan (e.g., siting of facilities, locations of borrows located in deep organic areas, sources
of fill and aggregate, reclamation of deep organics and wetlands, achieving land reclamation
equivalent capability success, reclamation schedule, re-vegetation, etc.). The majority of the
development on the west side of the LSA is located on Organic or Gleysolic soils with minor
areas of sandy textured soils. The CPF and majority of the facilities on the east side of the LSA
are located outside the lease boundaries.
a. Provide details of the uncertainties related to the conceptual reclamation plan including
but not limited to:
i. Soil salvage,
ii. Borrow pit construction,
iii. Soil materials balance,
iv. Soil stockpiling,
v. Progressive reclamation,
vi. Erosion and sediment control,
vii. Weed management,
viii. Water management,
ix. Reclamation of deep organic sites,
x. Reclamation of shallow organic sites,
xi. Reclamation of borrow facilities, and
xii. Reclamation of road facilities.
Response:
Refer to Table 98-1.
TABLE 98-1
CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN UNCERTAINTIES
Subject Uncertainties Description

The topsoil thicknesses provided are based on data collected during the SIL2
Soil Salvage Available topsoil for salvage soil survey. Soil salvage thicknesses will be refined upon the completion of a
PDA (very detailed soil survey).
The volume of overburden cannot be accurately determined prior to a
geotechnical assessment for each proposed borrow area. It is assumed that
Volume of overburden lower subsoil material (overburden) will be present at all borrow areas and
shall be separated and stockpiled within the borrow area for use during re-
Borrow Pit Construction contouring of the pit upon decommissioning and reclamation.
Dewatering of the borrow pits will be required during the construction phase.
The volume of water that will be required to be removed from the active
Dewatering
borrow pits cannot be determined and will vary based on regional weather
conditions and season of construction.
Available topsoil and subsoil for The soil material balances provided for subsoil and topsoil are based on
Soil Material Balance
reclamation average depths derived from the baseline soils assessment (SIL2).
The long term storage of peat and topsoil material will have an impact on the
availability of live propagules within the stockpiled reclamation material. The
Soil Stockpiling Stockpile storage
results of research studies are expected to become available during the life of
the Project.
BlackPearl will progressively reclaim disturbances that are no longer in use
during the lifespan of the Project. The timelines for the reclamation of
wellpads can only be considered a conceptual based on current engineering
Progressive Reclamation Timelines for progressive reclamation
and operational practices. Improvements to operational procedures resulting
in increases in the operational lifespan of producing wellpads will result in
alterations of the proposed reclamation timelines.
Page 139
TABLE 98-1 Cont'd

Subject Uncertainties Description
An adaptive management process will be utilized for responding to erosion
and sedimentation issues. The measures proposed within the C&R may
Erosion and Sediment Control Success of current control methodologies require adaptation or use of a combination of control methods depending on
several factors such as: damage (human, wildlife, weather conditions and
severe weather events).
BlackPearl will introduce a weed management program for all of its
Control of weeds introduced by other land disturbances, however, an uncertainty exists on the management of weeds
Weed Management
users encroached from adjacent disturbances such as cut blocks. BlackPearl
cannot control weed infestations in these areas.
Weather variability will affect the volume of water required for dust control on
Dust control volumes
BlackPearl facilities.
Water Management Weather extremes cannot be predicted, therefore the amount of water
Availability of source water within existing
available within existing and future borrow pits cannot be accurately
surface disturbances
determined.
Research on reclamation in Boreal peatland is underway for alternate
reclamation methods. The results of these research projects are expected to
become available during the life of the project. The long term effectiveness of
Alternate reclamation strategy success. the alternate methodologies such as clay pad removal and peat inversion
have not been determined to date. Current reclamation criteria allows for the
utilization of BlackPearl’s preferred method of reclamation of deep peat sites,
however, future changes to reclamation requirements cannot be predicted.
Reclamation: Shallow and Deep There is uncertainty regarding the effects of long term storage of peat material
Organic Sites and the availability of live propagules within the stockpiled material. It is
assumed that a small percentage of live propagules will be present within the
material upon utilization for reclamation. BlackPearl will monitor the results of
Viability of long term stockpiled peat
industry research on the long term stockpiling of peat material and incorporate
material for reclamation
the resultsfor reclamation once available. Peat Material salvaged from Phase
3 deep peat padsites will be utilized for the reclamation programs of Phase 1
deep peat sites; this would likely resolve the issue of live propagule
availability.
A site specific reclamation plan for each identified borrow area cannot be
developed until a PDA and geotechnical assessment is performed. Therefore
Reclamation: Borrow Facilities
the percentage of the reclaimed borrow areas returned to open water and
wetland can only be estimated.
The reclamation scheduling for the access roads will be based upon the
Reclamation: Road Facilities Reclamation timeline operational lifespans of the producing wellpads. The long term storage of
topsoil along the ROW
Volume 1, Section 11.3.1, Pages 11-5 to 11-8
The Terms of Reference requires BlackPearl to provide anticipated timeframes for completion
of reclamation stages and release of lands back to the Crown including an outline of the key
milestone dates for reclamation and how progress to achieve these targets will be measured.
The reclamation schedule is not adequately discussed.
a. Provide the reclamation timeframe for the major facilities and three phases of
development. Show the progress in terms of schedule of soil stripping of the CPF for
the three phases of the project.
Response:
Refer to Table 99-1 for a breakdown of activities for major facilities for the Project.
Page 140
TABLE 99-1
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND RECLAMATION SCHEDULE
Year of Development
Development Number 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
CPF CPF
1A
1B
1C
1D
Phase 1 B11
B12
B13
S11
S12
1E
2A
2B
2C
Phase 2 2D
2E
2F
B21
B22
3AA
3AB
3AC
3AD
3AE
3AF
3AG
Phase 3A
3AH
3AI
B3A1
B3A2
B3A3
L3A1
L3A2
3BA
3BB
3BC
3BD
3BE
3BF
3BG
3BH
3BI
Phase 3B 3BJ
3BK
3BL
3BM
3BN
3BO
3BP
3BQ
3BR
3BS
Page 141
TABLE 99-1 Cont’d

Year of Development
Development Number 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
3BT
3BU
3BV
3BW
3BX
3BY
3BZ
3BAA
3BBB
3BCC
3BDD
3BEE
3BFF
3BGG
3BHH
B3B1
Phase 3B
B3B2
(cont’d)
B3B3
B3B4
B3B5
B3B6
B3B7
B3B8
B3B9
B3B10
B3B11
B3B12
B3B13
B3B14
B3B15
B3B16
S3B1
L3B2
Notes: 1. Red indicates construction commencement year. Green indicates reclamation commencement year.
Page 142
99. b. Describe how double handling the soil material will be avoided.
Response:
Soil will be excavated and stockpiled at the nearest suitable facility. Soils will be stockpiled and the
source location recorded for use during reclamation of the project development. The double handling of
soil material will be prevented through the following procedures:
1. Completion of a Pre-Development Assessment (PDA) of the development to be

constructed. The PDA will provide data on the soil types and volumes within the site to
assist with the salvage and stockpiling operations.
2. Pre-planning of soil stockpile sites to ensure that adequate area is available for proper
stockpiling of the salvaged material. Preference will be to place salvaged soil material at
the development site. In instances where organic soils or peat is present, the soil material
will be stockpiled at a designated soil stockpile facility.
3. Adequate design of the soil stockpiles to avoid soil movement due to slope instability or
erosion.
4. Soils will be salvaged and transported directly to the allocated soil storage area. Soils will
not be stockpiled at an interim site prior to final storage.
Volume 1, Sections 11.3.4.1 and 11.3.4.2, Table 11.3-5, Page 11-10
Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.3.3.1, Figure 4A-8, Page 4A-27
The Terms of Reference states that BlackPearl is required to describe and map current land
use and capability and proposed post-development land use and capability.
BlackPearl provides an overview of changes to land capability classification (LCCS) in the LSA
as a result of the project in Table 11.3-5.
BlackPearl presents baseline land capability classification in the LSA in Figure 4A-8, Page 4A-
27.
a. Update the C&R section to include figures which present baseline and post-
development land capability classification in the LSA.
Response:
Figure 100-1 provides the baseline land capability in the LSA and Figure 100-2 provides the post-
development land capability classification in the LSA.
Page 143
¯
Twp 77 Rge 17 W4M

Twp 77 Rge 18 W4M
Athabasca River
Twp 77 Rge 17 W4M

Twp 76 Rge 17 W4M
Legend FIGURE 100-1

Class 2 (Moderate Capability) Class 5 (Non-Productive) Project Area BASELINE LAND CAPABILITY
CLASSIFICATION IN THE LSA
Class 3 (Low Capability) Rough Broken Hydrography SCALE: 1: 40,000
km AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Class 4 (Conditionally Productive) Disturbed Land Soils Local Study Area 0 0.5 1 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N
Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus Geomatics (2013), Blackbridge Geomatics (2010),
Paragon (2013), TERA Environmental Consultants (2012)
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. April 2013
¯
Twp 77 Rge 17 W4M

Twp 77 Rge 18 W4M
Athabasca River
Twp 77 Rge 17 W4M

Twp 76 Rge 17 W4M
Legend
FIGURE 100-2
Class 2 (Moderate Capability) Class 5 (Non-Productive) Project Area POST CLOSURE LAND CAPABILITY
CLASSIFICATION IN THE LSA
Class 3 (Low Capability) Rough Broken Hydrography SCALE: 1: 40,000
Class 4 (Conditionally Productive) Disturbed Land Soils Local Study Area

km AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
0 0.5 1 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
(All Locations Approximate) PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N
Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus Geomatics (2013), Blackbridge Geomatics (2010),
Paragon (2013), TERA Environmental Consultants (2012)
Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. April 2013
Volume 1, Section 11.4, Figures 11.4-1, 11.4-2, 11.4-3, Pages 11-13 to 11-41
The Terms of Reference requires that the C&R Plan discuss and map the conceptual
construction and reclamation of various scenarios present in BlackPearl operations. BlackPearl
did provide figures of the conceptual well pad construction and reclamation for: upland mineral
soil (Figure 11.4-1); deep peat (Figure 11.4-1); and upland & wetlands soils (Figure 11.4-3).
However, maps of other major facilities developments are not included in the C&R Plan.
a. Provide figures for the following construction and reclamation scenarios:

i. Borrow pit (upland mineral soil),
ii. Borrow pit (upland and wetlands soils),
iii. Borrow pit (deep organic soil),
iv. Main access road (various soils), and
v. CPF.
Response:
Illustrations for the following construction and reclamation scenarios are provided below:
1. Upland Self Draining Borrow Pit (Figure 101-1);
2. Upland Internally Draining Borrow Pit (Figure 101-2);
3. Upland and Wetland Soils Borrow Pit (Figure 101-3);
4. Access Road Wetland Environment and Shallow Peat (Figure 101-4);
5. Access Road Upland Environment (Figure 101-5);
6. Access Road Deep Peat Environment (Figure 101-6); and
7. CPF (Figure 101-7).
BlackPearl does not foresee the construction of borrow pits within deep peat environments and shall
located alternate sources of borrow material when deep peat is encountered.
Page 146
FIGURE 101 - 1
Cross Sections
CONCEPTUAL BORROW PIT CONSTRUCTION AND
Pre-Development RECLAMATION: UPLAND SELF DRAINING BORROW PIT

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Topsoil COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Subsoil
April 2013
Overhead View
Pre-Development
A A1
Constructed A A1
Subsoil Topsoil
Topsoil
Subsoil
Overburden
Constructed Extent of Excavation
Undisturbed Buffer
A A1
1. Salvage topsoil and subsoil and stockpile along pit boundaries.
Overburden
2. Excavate borrow material and stockpile overburden materials in the non-operating area of the pit. A A1
Reclaimed
Extent of Excavation
Reclaimed
5:1
Recontoured Topsoil
Slope Subsoil
A A1
Replaced
Extent of Overburden
Excavation
A A1
1. Recontour borrow pit area using the stockpiled overburden material to restore connectivity with adjacent drainage.
2. Replace salvaged subsoil and topsoil over the recontoured pit area. 3. Revegetate the borrow area.
FIGURE 101 - 2
Cross Sections
Pre-Development RECLAMATION: INTERNALLY DRAINING BORROW PIT UPLAND ENVIRONMENT

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Topsoil
Subsoil
April 2013
Overhead View
Parent Material ‘C’ Pre-Development
A A1
Constructed A A1
Topsoil
Subsoil
Topsoil
Subsoil
Overburden
Constructed
Undisturbed Buffer
Parent Material ‘C’

Extent of
A 1. Salvage topsoil and subsoil and stockpile along pit boundaries. A1 Excavation
2. Excavate borrow material and stockpile overburden materials in the non-operating area of the pit.
A A1
Overburden
Reclaimed
5:1 Topsoil Reclaimed

Recontoured Subsoil Extent of
Slope Excavation
Water
Extent of A A1
Excavation Replaced
Parent Material ‘C’ Overburden Water
A 1. Recontour the borrow area using the stockpiled overburden material. A1

2. Replace salvaged subsoil and topsoil over the recontoured pit. Salvaged subsoil and topsoil will not be replaced where the pit
will be reclaimed to open water.
FIGURE 101 - 3
Cross Sections
RECLAMATION: UPLAND AND WETLAND SOILS BORROW PIT
Pre-Development
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Topsoil
Subsoil
April 2013
Peat
< 40cm
C Horizon
Overhead View
A A1
Pre-Development
A A1
Topsoil
Constructed Subsoil
Overburden
Constructed Extent of Excavation
Peat Undisturbed Buffer

< 40cm
C Horizon
A A1
1. Salvage topsoil and peat and stockpile in upland area of pit. Topsoil and peat will be segregated. 2. Salvage and stockpile subsoil in upland area of pit.
A A1
3. Excavate borrow material and stockpile all overburden material in the non-operating area of the pit.
Overburden
Reclaimed
5:1 Reclaimed
Recontoured
Slope Topsoil
Replaced Subsoil
Peat
Water
Peat
< 40cm Replaced A A1
Overburden
C Horizon Water
A A1
1. Recontour the borrow pit area using the stockpiled overburden material.
2. Replace salvaged topsoil, subsoil, and peat over pit area. Salvaged soils will not be replaced where the pit will be reclaimed to open water.
Cross Sections FIGURE 101 - 4
CONCEPTUAL ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND
Pre-Development RECLAMATION: WETLAND ENVIRONMENT AND SHALLOW PEAT ( < 40cm)

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Organic Soil (Peat) < 40cm Peat April 2013
Subsoil
Parent Material “C” Overhead View - Constructed
B B1
Constructed
Power Pole
Pipeline Rack
Culvert
Wetland
B B1
Culverts
Organic Soil (Peat)

Subsoil
Borrow material Geofabric

Parent Material “C” (and gravel)
B B1
Topsoil Stockpile
Access Road
1. Excavate topsoil and subsoil separately from road pad area and stockpile at the stockpile area. 2. Install geotextile at the base of the excavated road bed.
3. Construct road with borrow fill material. 4. Install culverts. 5. Cap with gravel.
Reclaimed
Replaced Topsoil
Organic Soil (Peat)
Topsoil Stockpile
Subsoil
Replaced Subsoil
Parent Material “C”
B B1
1. Remove gravel from access road and recycle for use on other developments. 2. Remove clay fill material, culverts and geotextile. 3. Replace stockpiled subsoil
and topsoil. 4. Revegetate reclaimed area.
Pipelines Power Poles

FIGURE 101 - 5
Cross Sections
Pre-Development CONCEPTUAL ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND
RECLAMATION: UPLAND ENVIRONMENT

PROPOSED BLACKROD
April 2013
Topsoil
Subsoil
Parent Material “C” Overhead View - Constructed
A A1
Constructed
Power Pole
Pipeline Rack
Topsoil
Wetland
Subsoil Stockpile Stockpile
Culverts
Topsoil Access Road

Subsoil
C Horizon
Topsoil Stockpile
Access Road
A A1
1. Topsoil salvaged from the access will be stockpiled along one side of the right-of-way where the transmission line will be placed.
2. Breaks will be constructed to allow wildlife access across the corridor. 3. Topsoil salvaged from wetlands shall be stockpiled at an upland site.
Reclaimed
Replaced Topsoil
Topsoil Stockpile
A A1
Topsoil
Subsoil
Replaced Subsoil
C Horizon
A 1. Remove gravel from access and recycle for use on other developments. 2. Remove any culverts and recontour the access road to restore the A1
drainage patterns. 3. Recompact the road area. 4. Replace the stockpiled subsoil and topsoil over the recontoured road. Pipelines Power Poles
Cross Sections FIGURE 101 - 6
Pre-Development CONCEPTUAL ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND

RECLAMATION: DEEP PEAT ENVIRONMENT

PROPOSED BLACKROD
Peat > 40cm

April 2013
Overhead View
A A1
Constructed Power Pole Constructed A

Pipeline Rack
Culverts
Peat > 40cm 40 cm <

Geotextile Access Road

A 1. Excavate 40cm peat material from access road and stockpile at stockpile site. 2. Install geotextile at base of excavated road bed. 3. Construct road with A1
borrow fill material. 4. Install culverts. 5. Cap with gravel.
Reclaimed
A1
Replaced Peat
A B
Reclaimed
Peat > 40cm
Geotextile & Fill Removed

A 1. Removed gravel, fill material and remove culverts. 2. Replace salvaged peat in excavated area. 3. Revegetate reclaimed area. A1
Replaced Peat
Low Ridges/Mounds
(Recontoured access pad)
Peat > 40cm

Fill and Geotextile Removed
A1 B1

B 1. Removed gravel, fill material and culverts. 2. Replace peat in excavated area. 3. Revegetate reclaimed area. B1
FIGURE 101-7
Cross Sections
CONCEPTUAL CPF CONSTRUCTION & RECLAMATION
Pre-Development AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES
PROPOSED BLACKROD
April 2013
Overhead View
Topsoil Pre-Development
Subsoil
A A1
A A1
Constructed
Salvage Soil Storage
Salvage Soil Storage
Cut & Fill CPF Padsite

Topsoil
Constructed
Clay Stockpile
A A1 Subsoil Subsoil
CPF Facility
1. Salvage topsoil and subsoil, stockpile at designated locations on-site. 2. Cut & fill site to create level area. Stockpile excess clay material at designated location
on-site. Material may be considered for use as borrow material for well pads or access roads.
A A1
Topsoil Topsoil
Reclaimed
Reclaimed
Topsoil
Subsoil
A A1
A A1
1. Remove gravel pad and facilities. 2. Remediate contaminated materials if present. 3. Decompact operating area of site. 4. Recontour to restore drainage patterns.
5. Replace salvaged topsoil and subsoil. 5. Revegetate the reclaimed area.
102. Volume 1, Section 11, Pages 11-1 to 11-43
EPEA Application, Section P.4.3.1, Page 148
EPEA Application, Section P.4.5.7, Figure P.4-4, Page 52
BlackPearl’s C&R Plan does not adequately discuss reclamation of roads or watercourse
crossings.
a. Provide a discussion and diagrams of BlackPearl’s planned reclamation strategy for

access roads and crossings.
Response:
The reclamation of access roads within upland environments was discussed within Section 11.4.3.1 of the
C&R (Volume 1, Section 11.0 of the Integrated Application).
Prior to the commencement of reclamation activities on access corridors, equipment will be removed from
the Right-Of-Way (ROW) and the gravel removed from the road for use on other development associated
with the Project. Power supply lines and poles will be removed. The base structures that support the
power poles and/or the guy wires will be removed to a depth of 1.2 meters, covered with subsoil and
reclamation material (peat or mineral topsoil) compatible with the surrounding area.
Road reclamation within upland environments will involve the removal of culverts and watercourse
crossings. Fill material and geotextile will be removed from the crossings and will be redistributed along
the recontoured road area. Decompaction measures, where required, will be performed during dry
conditions to ensure the effectiveness of ripping and to minimize soil restrictions that would negatively
affect vegetation growth. Topsoil and subsoil stockpiled along the ROW will be replaced within the
recontoured access road. Figure 101-4 and 101-5 illustrate typical reclamation of access roads within
upland and shallow wetland environments.
Reclamation strategy for access road within deep peat will be consistent with the approach for wellpads
within deep peat environments. The padded access roads in deep peatland areas will be reclaimed with
most of the roadbed left in place. All salvageable gravel and a portion of the fill material will be removed.
Culverts and minerals soils as well as the geotextile surrounding the culverts will be removed. These
excavated areas will be recontoured to avoid steep slopes. Salvaged peat will be replaced within these
areas to allow for water flow (Figure 101-6). In addition, the square linear edges of the access road would
be recontoured into irregular outlines, combined with low ridges, as can be found in mature forested
swamp systems.
102. b. Will road fill be removed from wetland areas and natural surface and shallow sub-
surface flow returned to the local area?
Response:
Access roads situated within shallow wetland areas will involve the removal of gravel and culverts as well
as the removal of the padded fill material (Figure 101-4). The area will be ripped, as required, to alleviate
compaction prior to the placement of topsoil or peat. The removal of the fill material and culverts will allow
for the natural flow of surface and subsurface of water.
Page 154
102. c. If not, provide a rationale for not removing the road bed and returning the local
landscape to its pre-disturbance topography and function.
Response:
As discussed in AESRD SIR 102b, all road bed material will be removed from shallow wetland areas,
returning the landscape to its pre-disturbance topography, function and hydrological connectivity.
Rationale for not removing the road bed for access roads within deep peat is provided in the responses to
AESRD SIRs 109a, 109c and 109d.
Volume 1, Section 11.4.1.9, Table 11.4-3, Pages 11-20 and 11-21
BlackPearl states that The peat will be salvaged along with an equivalent volume of underlying
mineral material to obtain sufficient material for reclamation of the development.
When shallow peat is encountered (up to 40 cm), the peat materials will be over-stripped with
equal amounts of underlying subsoil. The salvaged shallow peat shall be stockpiled separately
from salvaged mineral soils and subsoil.
3
BlackPearl states that there is a surface soil excess of 613,500 m due to this overstripping.
3
The well pads account 226,000 m of excess surface soil, the multi-use corridor accounts for
281,500 m3 of excess surface soil, and the borrow pits account for 106,000 m3 of excess
surface soil.
BlackPearl states that Reclamation suitability of materials may be reduced by admixing topsoil
and subsoil, or through accidental spills, or leaks. Admixing is caused through over-stripping
topsoil or through mishandling materials during construction and/or reclamation.
Topsoil as defined by EPEA Approvals and Guidelines includes O, LFH and A horizons.
Surface soil is a term used in open pit mines projects and is not correct when referring to in situ
oilsands projects.
Table 11.4-3 does not provide sufficient information.
a. Confirm whether surface soil refers to topsoil as defined by EPEA.
Response:
Yes, surface soil refers to topsoil as defined by EPEA. Topsoil includes:
i) all organic horizons (L,F,H and O) and A-horizons as defined in The Canadian System of Soil
Classification (Third Edition), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1646, 1998, as
amended
ii) A-horizons as defined in The Canadian System of Soil Classification (Third Edition),
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1646, 1998, as amended and rated as Good,
Fair or Poor as described in the Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and
Reclamation, Alberta Agriculture, 1987, as amended.
iii) The replaced topsoil layer in a reclaimed soil.
Page 155
103. b. Confirm that all topsoil will be salvaged separately from upper subsoil of shallow
organic soils and that no peat/mineral admixing will occur.
Response:
Topsoil will be salvaged separately from the upper subsoil of shallow organic soils. There will be no
admixing of peat and mineral subsoil.
103. c. Re-calculate topsoil balance for the project provided in Table 11.4-3 to eliminate the
organic/mineral admixed soils.
Response:
Please refer to the updated Table 103-1 for corrected topsoil thickness values for Ells River-pt and
Steepbank-pt soil series. Topsoil salvage from these soil series will consist of the shallow peat and will
not include any of the underlying mineral soil. The revised material balance is provided in Table 103-2.
Approximately 5% of the borrow pit to be returned to open water (marsh) shall not have topsoil or subsoil
replaced; however, excess peat material may be used in this area, if practicable. BlackPearl will consider
use of this excess soil in reclamation developments where fill material is left in place or to supplement
placement thickness of reclamation material if required.
TABLE 103-1
MINERAL SOIL AND ORGANIC PEAT TOPSOIL SALVAGE GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT
DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE LSA
Topsoil Thickness Peat Thickness Average

Soil Series Parent Material General Topsoil Salvage Average (Range) (cm) (Range) (cm)
Horse River Glacial Till Salvage all topsoil material 20 (10-44) N/A
Hazelmere Glacial Till (LFH/Shallow Peat plus all 21 (10-39) N/A
“A” horizon soil)
Hazelmere-pt Glacial Till 32 (22-49) N/A
Livock Glaciofluvial overlying 21 (18-25) N/A
Glacial Till
Ells River Glacial Till Salvage surface LFH, peat 16 (5-31) N/A
Steepbank Glacial Till and the underlying “A” 12 (4-26) N/A
horizon (where present)
Steepbank-zz Glacial Till 18 (9-25) N/A
Ells River-pt Glacial Till Salvage topsoil only 30 (15-55) N/A
Steepbank-pt Glacial Till (Of/Om/Oh and A, if 26 (15-50) N/A
present). No salvage of
mineral subsoil horizons.
Firebag-xt Glaciofluvial overlying Salvage all topsoil material 24 (13-33) N/A
Glacial Till (LFH/Shallow peat plus all
“A” horizon soil)
Hartley Organic/Glacial Till Salvage 40 cm of peat N/A 51 (40-70)
Hartley-zz Organic/Glacial Till N/A 82 (41-190)
McLelland Organic N/A 238 (160-390)
McLelland-xt Organic/Glacial Till N/A 86 (42-150)
McLelland-zz Organic N/A 209 (165-330)
Mariana Organic/Glacial Till N/A 82 (43-150)
Muskeg Organic N/A 222 (160-320)
Page 156
TABLE 103-2
TOPSOIL BALANCE FOR THE PROJECT
Average Topsoil Soil Material

Project Project LFH/Shallow O Average A Average Topsoil/Peat Volume Required for Soil
Component Component Area Horizon Depth Horizon Peat Salvage Depth Available a Reclamation Replacement Balance
Type Soil Series (ha) (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) (m) (m3) b,c,d (m3) Depth (m) (+/- m3)
Borrow Pits Totalf 151.4 - - - - 405,000 384,750 - 20,250
Totalf 2.3 - - - - 9,000 8,550 - 450
HZMaa 0.1 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 0 - 0.21 0
B11
MRN 2.2 - - 0.82 0.40 9,000 8,550 0.4 450
STPzz 0.0 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 0 - 0.18 0
Totalf 6.5 - - - - 13,000 12,350 - 650
B12 DL 0.4 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
HZMaa 6.1 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 13,000 12,350 0.21 650
Totalf 6.8 - - - - 14,000 13,300 - 700
DL 1.3 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
B13 HZMaa 0.4 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 1,000 950 0.21 50
MRN 2.4 - - 0.82 0.40 10,000 9,500 0.4 500
STP 2.7 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 3,000 2,850 0.12 150
Totalf 4.5 - - - - 18,000 17,100 - 900
Page 157
B21 DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0

MLD 4.5 - - 2.38 0.40 18,000 17,100 0.4 900
Totalf 7.0 23,000 21,850 - 1,150
DL 0.7 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
B22
HZMaa 0.9 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 2,000 1,900 0.21 100
Borrow Pit
MLD 5.3 - - 2.38 0.40 21,000 19,950 0.4 1,050
Totalf 5.9 - - - - 12,000 11,400 - 600
DL 0.1 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
B3A1
HZMaa 5.5 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 12,000 11,400 0.21 600
MLDxt 0.2 - - 0.85 0.40 1,000 950 0.4 50
Totalf 12.8 - - - - 49,000 46,550 - 2,450
HLY 11.4 - - 0.51 0.40 45,000 42,750 0.4 2,250
B3A2
HZMaa 0.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 0 - 0.21 0
STPpt 1.4 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 4,000 3,800 0.26 200
Totalf 6.4 - - - - 20,000 19,000 - 1,000
B3A3 HZMaapt 6.0 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 19,000 18,050 0.32 950
STPpt 0.4 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 1,000 950 0.26 50
Totalf 6.7 - - - - 14,000 13,300 - 700
DL 0.1 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
B3B1
HZMaa 6.6 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 14,000 13,300 0.21 700
STPpt 0.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 0 - - 0
Totalf 2.7 - - - - 6,000 5,700 - 300
B3B10 DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
HZMaa 1.2 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 3,000 2,850 0.21 150
TABLE 103-2 Cont’d
STPpt 1.5 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 4,000 3,800 0.26 200
Totalf 4.6 - - - - 11,000 10,450 - 550
B3B11 HZMaa 1.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 2,000 1,900 0.21 100
STPpt 3.6 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 9,000 8,550 0.26 450
Totalf 7.5 - - - - 30,000 28,500 - 1,500
B3B12
MUS 7.5 - - 2.22 0.40 30,000 28,500 0.4 1,500
Totalf 8.0 - - - - 17,000 16,150 - 850
B3B13 HZMaa 7.9 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 17,000 16,150 0.21 850
MRN 0.2 - - 0.82 0.40 1,000 950 0.4 50
Totalf 7.1 - - - - 10,000 9,500 - 500
B3B14 MLDxt 0.5 - - 0.85 0.40 2,000 1,900 0.4 100
STP 6.6 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 8,000 7,600 0.12 400
Totalf 8.3 - - - - 17,000 16,150 - 850
B3B15
HZMaa 8.3 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 17,000 16,150 0.21 850
Totalf 4.6 - - - - 12,000 11,400 - 600
Page 158
B3B16 ELSpt 2.5 0.27 0.03 - 0.30 7,000 6,650 0.3 350
HZMaa 2.2 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 5,000 4,750 0.21 250
Totalf 7.5 - - - - 14,000 13,300 - 700
DL 0.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
Borrow Pit
B3B2 MLDxt 1.7 - - 0.85 0.40 7,000 6,650 0.4 350
(cont’d)
MLDzz 0.1 - - 2.09 0.40 0 - - 0
STP 5.5 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 7,000 6,650 0.12 350
Total 10.4 - - - - 19,000 18,050 - 950
B3B3 MLDxt 0.0 - - 0.85 0.40 0 - - 0
STPzz 10.3 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 19,000 18,050 0.18 950
Totalf 3.3 - - - - 13,000 12,350 - 650
B3B4
MLDxt 3.3 - - 0.85 0.40 13,000 12,350 0.4 650
Totalf 5.2 - - - - 10,000 9,500 - 500
B3B5 MLDxt 1.3 - - 0.85 0.40 5,000 4,750 0.4 250
STP 3.9 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 5,000 4,750 0.12 250
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 24,000 22,800 - 1,200
B3B6
MLD 6.0 - - 2.38 0.40 24,000 22,800 0.4 1,200
Totalf 5.7 - - - - 22,000 20,900 - 1,100
B3B7 DL 0.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
MLD 5.5 - - 2.38 0.40 22,000 20,900 0.4 1,100
Totalf 7.2 - - - - 19,000 18,050 - 950
DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
B3B8
MLD 0.5 - - 2.38 0.40 2,000 1,900 0.4 100
STPpt 6.7 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 17,000 16,150 0.26 850
Totalf 4.6 - - - - 8,000 7,600 - 400
Borrow Pit
B3B9 DL 0.7 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
(cont’d)
HZMaa 3.8 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 7,600 0.21 400
Totalf 8.4 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
Construction Construction HRR 7.5 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 15,000 15,000 0.2 0
Camp Camp HZMaa 0.5 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 1,000 1,000 0.2 0
STP 0.4 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 0 - - 0
Totalf 122.9 253,000 253,000 - 0
DL 1.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
Central HRR 66.6 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 133,000 133,000 0.2 0
Processing CPF
Facility HZMaa 20.3 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 43,000 43,000 0.2 0
HZMaapt 18.0 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 57,000 57,000 0.32 0
STP 16.9 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 20,000 20,000 0.12 0
Totalf 0.8 - - - - 1,000 1,000 - 0
CPF Access CPF Access DL 0.4 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
Road Road
Page 159
HRR 0.2 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 0 - - 0

HZMaapt 0.3 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 1,000 1,000 0.32 0
Log Deckse Totalf 3.8 - - - - 0 - - 0
Totalf 2.0 - - - - 0 - - 0
HLY 0.7 - - 0.51 0.00 0 - - 0
L3A1
HZMaa 1.3 0.10 0.11 - 0.00 0 - - 0
STPpt 0.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.00 0 - - 0
Totalf 0.7 - - - - 0 - - 0
DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
L3A2
Log Decks MLD 0.7 - - 2.38 0.00 0 - - 0
STPpt 0.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.00 0 - - 0
Totalf 0.5 - - - - 0 - - 0
L3B1
MLD 0.5 - - 2.38 0.00 0 - - 0
Totalf 0.6 - - - - 0 - - 0
DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
L3B2
HZMaa 0.5 0.10 0.11 - 0.00 0 - - 0
MRN 0.1 - - 0.82 0.00 0 - - 0
Totalf 10.3 - - - - 30,000 30,000 - 0
Operations HRR 2.1 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 4,000 4,000 0.2 0
Operations Camp
Camp HZMaapt 7.4 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 24,000 24,000 0.32 0
STPpt 0.8 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 2,000 2,000 0.26 0
Phase 1 - Pads Totalf 22.2 - - - - 62,000 62,000 - 0
Totalf 4.0 8,000 8,000 - 0
1A
HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 6.3 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
1B 2G DL 0.1 - - - 0.00 - - 0
HZMaa 6.2 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 13,000 13,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 11,000 11,000 - 0
Phase 1 - Pads 1C MRN 1.7 - - 0.82 0.40 7,000 7,000 0.4 0
STPzz 2.3 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 4,000 4,000 0.18 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
MLD 2.4 - - 2.38 0.40 10,000 10,000 0.4 0
1D
MUS 0.7 - - 2.22 0.40 3,000 3,000 0.4 0
STP 0.9 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 1,000 1,000 0.12 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
1E
MLD 4.0 - - 2.38 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Page 160
Totalf 44.7 - - - - 79,000 79,000 - 0

DL 9.9 - - - 0.00 - - 0
HRR 4.1 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 8,000 8,000 0.2 0
HZMaa 21.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 44,000 44,000 0.21 0
MLD 1.8 - - 2.38 0.40 7,000 7,000 0.4 0
Phase 1 - RoW Phase 1 - RoW
MRN 0.1 - - 0.82 0.40 0 - - 0
MUS 2.1 - - 2.22 0.40 8,000 8,000 0.4 0
STP 1.3 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 2,000 2,000 0.12 0
STPpt 1.5 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 4,000 4,000 0.26 0
STPzz 3.0 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 5,000 5,000 0.18 0
Phase 2 - Pads Totalf 26.0 - - - - 84,000 84,000 - 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 10,000 10,000 - 0
HZMaa 0.3 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 1,000 1,000 0.21 0
2A
STP 4.2 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 5,000 5,000 0.12 0
STPpt 1.6 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 4,000 4,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 15,000 15,000 - 0
DL 0.2 - - - 0.00 - - 0
Phase 2 - Pads 2B
MLD 0.9 - - 2.38 0.40 3,000 3,000 0.4 0
MUS 2.9 - - 2.22 0.40 12,000 12,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
2C MLD 2.4 - - 2.38 0.40 10,000 10,000 0.4 0
MRN 1.6 - - 0.82 0.40 6,000 6,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
2D
MLD 4.0 - - 2.38 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 12,000 12,000 - 0
DL 0.3 - - - 0.00 - - 0
2E HLY 1.7 - - 0.51 0.40 7,000 7,000 0.4 0
HZMaa 1.4 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 3,000 3,000 0.21 0
Phase 2 – Pads
MLD 0.6 - - 2.38 0.40 2,000 2,000 0.4 0
(cont’d)
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 15,000 15,000 - 0
DL 0.3 - - - 0.00 - - 0
2F
MLD 0.4 - - 2.38 0.40 2,000 2,000 0.4 0
MLDzz 3.3 - - 2.09 0.40 13,000 13,000 0.4 0
Totalf 32.3 - - - - 110,000 110,000 - 0
DL 1.6 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
HLY 0.3 - - 0.51 0.40 1,000 1,000 0.4 0
HZMaa 4.6 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 10,000 10,000 0.21 0
MLD 19.6 - - 2.38 0.40 79,000 79,000 0.4 0
Phase 2 - RoW Phase 2 - RoW
MLDxt 0.5 - - 0.85 0.40 2,000 2,000 0.4 0
Page 161
MLDzz 2.4 - - 2.09 0.40 9,000 9,000 0.4 0

MUS 1.3 - - 2.22 0.40 5,000 5,000 0.4 0
STP 0.1 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 0 - - 0
STPzz 1.9 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 3,000 3,000 0.18 0
Phase 3A - Pads Totalf 38.0 - - - - 128,000 128,000 - 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 10,000 10,000 - 0
3AA HZMaa 0.8 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 2,000 2,000 0.21 0
STPpt 3.2 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 8,000 8,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 14,000 14,000 - 0
3AB HZMaa 0.8 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 2,000 2,000 0.21 0
MLDxt 3.2 - - 0.85 0.40 13,000 13,000 0.4 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 20,000 20,000 - 0
DL 0.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
3AC
MLD 3.8 - - 2.38 0.40 15,000 15,000 0.4 0
Phase 3A - Pads
STPpt 2.1 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 5,000 5,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 11,000 11,000 - 0
DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
3AD HLY 0.4 - - 0.51 0.40 2,000 2,000 0.4 0
HZMaa 0.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 0 - - 0
STPpt 3.6 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 9,000 9,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 11,000 11,000 - 0
DL 0.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
3AE
HZMaapt 2.2 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 7,000 7,000 0.32 0
STPpt 1.6 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 4,000 4,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
MLD 2.8 - - 2.38 0.40 11,000 11,000 0.4 0
3AF
MLDzz 1.2 - - 2.09 0.40 5,000 5,000 0.4 0
STPpt 0.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 0 - - 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3AG
Phase 3A – Pads MLD 4.0 - - 2.38 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
(cont’d) Totalf 4.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
ELS 1.2 0.09 0.07 - 0.16 2,000 2,000 0.16 0
3AH
HZMaapt 0.1 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 0 - - 0
MLD 2.7 - - 2.38 0.40 11,000 11,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3AI
MLDzz 4.0 - - 2.09 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Totalf 50.6 - - - - 143,000 143,000 - 0
DL 4.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
ELS 0.5 0.09 0.07 - 0.16 1,000 1,000 0.16 0
Page 162
HLY 2.5 - - 0.51 0.40 10,000 10,000 0.4 0

HZMaa 5.7 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 12,000 12,000 0.21 0
Phase 3A - RoW Phase 3A - RoW HZMaapt 4.1 0.22 0.10 - 0.32 13,000 13,000 0.32 0
MLD 11.4 - - 2.38 0.40 46,000 46,000 0.4 0
MLDxt 1.5 - - 0.85 0.40 6,000 6,000 0.4 0
MLDzz 5.7 - - 2.09 0.40 23,000 23,000 0.4 0
STP 4.8 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 6,000 6,000 0.12 0
STPpt 10.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 26,000 26,000 0.26 0
Phase 3B - Pads Totalf 146.0 - - - - 422,000 422,000 - 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
3BA HZMaa 1.5 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 3,000 3,000 0.21 0
MLDxt 2.5 - - 0.85 0.40 10,000 10,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 8,000 8,000 - 0
3BAA
HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BB
MLDxt 4.0 - - 0.85 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Phase 3B - Pads
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 8,000 8,000 - 0
3BBB
HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 5,000 5,000 - 0
3BC
STP 4.0 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 5,000 5,000 0.12 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 8,000 8,000 - 0
3BCC
HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 9,000 9,000 - 0
3BD
MLDxt 1.0 - - 0.85 0.40 4,000 4,000 0.4 0
STPzz 3.0 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 5,000 5,000 0.18 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 8,000 8,000 - 0
3BDD
HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BE MLDxt 3.8 - - 0.85 0.40 15,000 15,000 0.4 0
MLDzz 0.2 - - 2.09 0.40 1,000 1,000 0.4 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 20,000 20,000 - 0
MLDxt 1.7 - - 0.85 0.40 7,000 7,000 0.4 0
3BEE MRN 1.7 - - 0.82 0.40 7,000 7,000 0.4 0
STP 0.5 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 1,000 1,000 0.12 0
STPpt 2.1 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 5,000 5,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BF
MLDxt 4.0 - - 0.85 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 18,000 18,000 - 0
3BFF HZMaa 3.1 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 7,000 7,000 0.21 0
Page 163
MRN 2.9 - - 0.82 0.40 11,000 11,000 0.4 0

Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BG
MLDzz 4.0 - - 2.09 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
Phase 3B – Pads
DL 0.5 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
(cont’d) 3BGG
ELSpt 1.2 0.27 0.03 - 0.30 4,000 4,000 0.3 0
HZMaa 4.3 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 9,000 9,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 9,000 9,000 - 0
3BH MLDxt 1.4 - - 0.85 0.40 5,000 5,000 0.4 0
STP 2.6 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 3,000 3,000 0.12 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 9,000 9,000 - 0
3BHH ELSpt 0.3 0.27 0.03 - 0.30 1,000 1,000 0.3 0
HZMaa 3.7 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BI MLDxt 1.4 - - 0.85 0.40 6,000 6,000 0.4 0
MLDzz 2.6 - - 2.09 0.40 10,000 10,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 7,000 7,000 - 0
3BJ
STPzz 4.0 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 7,000 7,000 0.18 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 14,000 14,000 - 0
3BK DL 0.5 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
MUS 3.5 - - 2.22 0.40 14,000 14,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 11,000 11,000 - 0
3BL DL 1.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
MLD 2.8 - - 2.38 0.40 11,000 11,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BM MLD 4.0 - - 2.38 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
MLDxt 0.0 - - 0.85 0.40 0 - - 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BN MLD 2.2 - - 2.38 0.40 9,000 9,000 0.4 0
MLDxt 1.8 - - 0.85 0.40 7,000 7,000 0.4 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BO HZMaa 0.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 0 - - 0
STPpt 6.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 16,000 16,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 15,000 15,000 - 0
HZMaa 0.2 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 1,000 1,000 0.21 0
3BP
MLD 3.5 - - 2.38 0.40 14,000 14,000 0.4 0
STPpt 0.3 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 1,000 1,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
3BQ DL 0.8 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
Page 164
MLD 3.2 - - 2.38 0.40 13,000 13,000 0.4 0

Totalf 4.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
MLDxt 1.2 - - 0.85 0.40 5,000 5,000 0.4 0
3BR
MUS 0.3 - - 2.22 0.40 1,000 1,000 0.4 0
Phase 3B – Pads
STPpt 2.5 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 6,000 6,000 0.26 0
(cont’d)
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
HZMaa 1.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 2,000 2,000 0.21 0
3BS
MLDxt 2.1 - - 0.85 0.40 8,000 8,000 0.4 0
STPpt 0.9 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 2,000 2,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BT
MUS 4.0 - - 2.22 0.40 16,000 16,000 0.4 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 16,000 16,000 - 0
3BU MRN 3.7 - - 0.82 0.40 15,000 15,000 0.4 0
MUS 0.3 - - 2.22 0.40 1,000 1,000 0.4 0
Totalf 6.0 - - - - 13,000 13,000 - 0
3BV DL 0.0 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
HZMaa 6.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 13,000 13,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 9,000 9,000 - 0
3BW HZMaa 3.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 6,000 6,000 0.21 0
STPpt 1.0 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 2,000 2,000 0.26 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 8,000 8,000 - 0
3BX
HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
Totalf 4.0 - - - - 9,000 9,000 - 0
3BY
HZMaa 3.2 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 7,000 7,000 0.21 0
STPpt 0.8 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 2,000 2,000 0.26 0
Phase 3B – Pads Totalf 4.0 - - - - 9,000 9,000 - 0
(cont’d) 3BZ HZMaa 3.5 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 7,000 7,000 0.21 0
STPpt 0.5 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 1,000 1,000 0.26 0
Totalf 186.3 - - - - 546,000 546,000 - 0
DL 6.4 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
ELSpt 3.0 0.27 0.03 - 0.30 9,000 9,000 0.3 0
HZMaa 65.6 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 138,000 138,000 0.21 0
MLD 24.1 - - 2.38 0.40 97,000 97,000 0.4 0
MLDxt 45.2 - - 0.85 0.40 181,000 181,000 0.4 0
Phase 3B - RoW Phase 3B - RoW MLDzz 1.5 - - 2.09 0.40 6,000 6,000 0.4 0
MRN 4.4 - - 0.82 0.40 18,000 18,000 0.4 0
MUS 11.3 - - 2.22 0.40 45,000 45,000 0.4 0
RB 1.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
STP 5.5 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 7,000 7,000 0.12 0
Page 165
STPpt 18.1 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 47,000 47,000 0.26 0

STPzz 0.2 0.10 0.08 - 0.18 0 - - 0
Sumps Totalf 13.3 - - - - 27,000 27,000 - 0
Totalf 2.9 - - - - 6,000 6,000 - 0
DL 0.2 - - - 0.00 0 - - 0
S11
HZMaa 1.6 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 3,000 3,000 0.21 0
STPpt 1.1 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 3,000 3,000 0.26 0
Sumps Totalf 5.9 - - - - 12,000 12,000 - 0
S12 HRR 5.7 0.10 0.10 - 0.20 11,000 11,000 0.2 0
STP 0.2 0.09 0.03 - 0.12 0 - - 0
Totalf 4.5 - - - - 10,000 10,000 - 0
S3B1 HZMaa 4.0 0.10 0.11 - 0.21 8,000 8,000 0.21 0
STPpt 0.5 0.23 0.03 - 0.26 1,000 1,000 0.26 0
Grand Totalf 857.1 - - - - 2,306,000 2,285,750 - 20,250
Notes: (a) Available volumes rounded to the nearest 1000 m 3
(b) Replacement depths of upland mineral topsoill will be equivalent to the salvage depths encountered on each component of the Project.
(c) The return of a portion of borrow areas to open water will result in excess topsoil. Approximately 95% of topsoil salvaged will be replaced, with the remaining 5% returning to open water. Excess peat material may be
used in this area, if practicable. Excess soil will be considered for use in reclamation of developments where fill material is left in place or to supplement placement thicknesses of reclamation material if required.
(d) The entire volume of peat salvaged from well pads and road beds in deep peat areas is assumed to be replaced in these areas. Due to peat compaction (increase in bulk density) and decomposition over time, the final
replacement depth is anticipated to range between 20 - 40 cm
(e) No soil disturbance expected on log decks; no topsoil salvage.
(f) Individual values may not add to totals due to rounding.
103. d. Correctly balance the available and salvaged soil materials.
Response:
Please refer to Table 103-2 in AESRD SIR 103c.
103. e. Update Table 11.4-3 to provide a detailed soil material balance (pre-disturbance
availability and reclamation salvage), including average salvage depths of mineral
topsoil (A horizons) and organic topsoil (O and LFH horizons) for all Project
components labelled with unique identifiers (e.g., Well Pad 101, Borrow Pit 1, etc.).
Response:
Please refer to Table 103-2 in AESRD SIR 103c.
103. f. Update the C&R Plan accordingly.
Response:
BlackPearl will update the Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Plan and will provide to AESRD upon
completion of the SIR process.
BlackPearl states that all surface soil (LFH/shallow peat/Mineral “A” horizon) shall be salvaged
on along the access roads, pipeline/transmission line footings, and buried pipelines. Salvaged
soil shall be stored along the edges of the access roads and well pads (if required).
a. Confirm that soil salvaged from all project ROWs will be stored on the nearest project
component (i.e., well pad) and not windrowed along the ROWs’ road edge where it
would be more susceptible to road salt contamination and erosion.
Response:
Refer to Figure 101-5. Soils salvaged from Project multi-use corridors (i.e., rights-of-way) in upland
environments will be stockpiled along the boundary of the multi-use corridor furthest from the road.
Salvaged soils will not be windrowed or replaced along the access road edge. Soils salvaged from Project
multi-use corridors in wetland environments shall be stored at the designated soil stockpile facility at the
existing Pilot site.
Page 166
Volume 4, Section 4.6.1.1, Page 4-14 to 4-16
BlackPearl states that the exhausted borrow areas will be re-contoured and salvaged soil will
be replaced. BlackPearl makes no reference with regards to salvage and management of non-
specified materials (sand, gravel, stones, etc.).
BlackPearl also states that Poor construction material and subsoil stockpiled during the
development of the borrow pit will be utilized for re-contouring of the exhausted borrow pits.
a. Clarify whether all topsoil will be replaced in borrow areas.
Response:
Approximately 5% of the borrow areas shall be returned to open water with the exception of where a self
draining borrow pit can be constructed. The portion of the borrow area to be returned to open water shall
not have topsoil or subsoil replaced; however, excess peat material may be used in this area if
practicable. BlackPearl will consider use of this excess soil in reclamation developments where fill
material is left in place or to supplement placement thickness of reclamation material if required.
105. b. Provide estimated volumes of non-specified materials.
Response:
TABLE 105-1
ESTIMATES OF BORROW PIT OVERBURDEN MATERIAL

Borrow Pit Sum of Area (m2) Overburben Material (m3)
B11 22,805 22,805
B12 64,639 64,639
B13 67,631 67,631
B21 45,209 45,209
B22 69,589 69,589
B3A1 58,616 58,616
B3A2 127,597 127,597
B3A3 63,823 63,823
B3B1 66,847 66,847
B3B10 27,326 27,326
B3B11 46,030 46,030
B3B12 47,821 47,821
B3B13 80,119 80,119
B3B14 70,998 70,998
B3B15 83,084 83,084
B3B16 46,250 46,250
B3B2 75,319 75,319
B3B3 103,637 103,637
B3B4 33,246 33,246
B3B5 52,230 52,230
B3B6 60,332 60,332
B3B7 56,680 56,680
B3B8 71,858 71,858
B3B9 45,712 45,712
Notes: 1. Assumed 1 m of material to be unsuitable for construction purposes and will be retained for reclamation of the borrow pit.
Page 167
105. c. Provide details of stockpile locations of non-specified materials.
Response:
The non-specified spoil material will be stockpiled within the borrow area. Refer to Figures 101-1, 101-2
and 101-3 for a conceptual diagram of borrow site construction and reclamation.
105. d. Provide the reclamation plan for managing non-specified materials.
Response:
Non-specified materials (lower subsoil, sand, aggregate) will be stockpiled separately in the non-
operational area of the borrow pit during the excavation phase (Figures 101-1, 101-2 and 101-3). Upon
reclamation of the borrow area the material will be utilized to re-contour the slopes of the excavated area
to achieve the desired slope ratio.
BlackPearl states that subsoil will be salvaged from the multi-use corridor and borrow pits
(967,000 m3).
Table 11.4-4 does not provide sufficient information.
a. Confirm that upper subsoil does not have to be salvaged and replaced for multi-use
corridor and borrow pits.
Response:
According to A Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits (AENV 2004a), it is a recommended soil
conservation practice that subsoil (usually the B horizon) be salvaged from excavation areas after the
topsoil has been removed and that subsoil is replaced in the pit after operations have been completed.
BlackPearl intends on salvaging and replacing upper subsoil from borrow areas.
BlackPearl will salvage subsoil from access rights-of-way when encountered. Subsoil is not a suitable
material for the construction of road beds, therefore it wil be salvaged and stockpiled along the road edge
or the nearest suitable facility. Subsoil will be replaced upon reclamation.
3
106. b. Update Table 11.4-4 Subsoil Balance for the Project to remove the 967,000 m of
subsoil that is stripped and later replaced.
Response:
As noted in AESRD SIR 106a, BlackPearl intends on salvaging and replacing subsoil from borrow areas
and multi-use corridors to improve reclamation success. The general subsoil salvage and average subsoil
thickness by soil series is provided in Table 106-1. The revised subsoil material balance is provided in
Table 106-2.
Page 168
TABLE 106-1
SUBSOIL SALVAGE GUIDELINES FOR THE PROJECT DEVEOLPMENTS WITHIN THE LSA
Subsoil Thickness Average

Soil Series Parent Material General Subsoil Salvage (Range) (cm)
Horse River Glacial Till Salvage a maximum thickness of 30 34 (18-61)
Hazelmere Glacial Till cm within the CPF, Well Pads and 35 (9-66)
Borrow Areas. Subsoil salvage not
Hazelmere-pt Glacial Till 33 (17-50)
required elsewhere.
Livock Glaciofluvial overlying Glacial Till 44 (33-63)
Ells River Glacial Till 7 (0-48)
Steepbank Glacial Till 31 (10-60)
Steepbank-zz Glacial Till 32 (16-50)
Ells River-pt Glacial Till 10 (0-70)
Steepbank-pt Glacial Till 34 (7-85)
Firebag-xt Glaciofluvial overlying Glacial Till 32 (15-40)
Hartley Organic/Glacial Till No Subsoil Salvage N/A
Hartley-zz Organic/Glacial Till N/A
McLelland Organic N/A
McLelland-xt Organic/Glacial Till N/A
McLelland-zz Organic N/A
Mariana Organic/Glacial Till N/A
Muskeg Organic N/A
Page 169
TABLE 106-2
SUBSOIL BALANCE FOR THE PROJECT
Subsoil
Subsoil Subsoil Required for Subsoil
Project Project Salvage Depth Volume Reclamation b,c Replacement Balance (+/-
Component Type Component Soil Series Area (ha) (m) Available (m3)a (m3) Depth (m) m3)
Borrow Pits Totald 151.4 - 281,000 266,950 - 14,050
B11 Totald 2.3 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 0.1 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
MRN 2.2 - 0 0 - 0
STPzz 0.0 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
B12 Totald 6.5 - 18,000 17,100 - 900
DL 0.4 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 6.1 0.30 18,000 17,100 0.30 900
B13 Totald 6.8 - 9,000 8,550 - 450
DL 1.3 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 0.4 0.30 1,000 950 0.30 50
MRN 2.4 - 0 0 - 0
STP 2.7 0.30 8,000 7,600 0.30 400
Page 170
B21 Totald 4.5 - 0 0 - 0

DL 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 4.5 - 0 0 - 0
B22 Totald 7.0 - 3,000 2,850 - 150
DL 0.7 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 0.9 0.30 3,000 2,850 0.30 150
Borrow Pit
MLD 5.3 - 0 0 - 0
B3A1 Totald 5.9 - 17,000 16,150 - 850
DL 0.1 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 5.5 0.30 17,000 16,150 0.30 850
MLDxt 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
B3A2 Totald 12.8 - 4,000 3,800 - 200
HLY 11.4 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 0.0 0.30 0 0 0.3 0
STPpt 1.4 0.30 4,000 3,800 0.3 200
B3A3 Totald 6.4 - 19,000 18,050 - 950
HZMaapt 6.0 0.30 18,000 17,100 0.30 900
STPpt 0.4 0.30 1,000 950 0.30 50
B3B1 Totald 6.7 - 20,000 19,000 - 1,000
DL 0.1 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 6.6 0.30 20,000 19,000 0.30 1,000
STPpt 0.0 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
B3B10 Totald 2.7 - 8,000 7,600 - 400
DL 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 1.2 0.30 4,000 3,800 0.30 200
Subsoil
STPpt 1.5 0.30 4,000 3,800 0.30 200
B3B11 Totald 4.6 - 14,000 13,300 - 700
HZMaa 1.0 0.30 3,000 2,850 0.30 150
STPpt 3.6 0.30 11,000 10,450 0.30 550
B3B12 Totald 7.5 - 0 0 - 0
MUS 7.5 - 0 0 - 0
B3B13 Totald 8.0 - 24,000 22,800 - 1,200
HZMaa 7.9 0.30 24,000 22,800 0.30 1,200
MRN 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
B3B14 Totald 7.1 - 20,000 19,000 - 1,000
MLDxt 0.5 - 0 0 - 0
STP 6.6 0.30 20,000 19,000 0.30 1,000
B3B15 Totald 8.3 - 25,000 23,750 - 1,250
HZMaa 8.3 0.30 25,000 23,750 0.30 1,250
B3B16 Totald 4.6 - 9,000 8,550 - 450
Page 171
ELSpt 2.5 0.10 2,000 1,900 0.10 100

HZMaa 2.2 0.30 6,000 5,700 0.30 300
B3B2 Totald 7.5 - 17,000 16,150 - 850
DL 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
Borrow Pit
MLDxt 1.7 - 0 0 - 0
(cont’d)
MLDzz 0.1 - 0 0 - 0
STP 5.5 0.30 17,000 16,150 0.30 850
B3B3 Totald 10.4 - 31,000 29,450 - 1,550
MLDxt 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
STPzz 10.3 0.30 31,000 29,450 0.30 1,550
B3B4 Totald 3.3 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 3.3 - 0 0 - 0
B3B5 Totald 5.2 - 12,000 11,400 - 600
MLDxt 1.3 - 0 0 - 0
STP 3.9 0.30 12,000 11,400 0.30 600
B3B6 Totald 6.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 6.0 - 0 0 - 0
B3B7 Totald 5.7 - 0 0 - 0
DL 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 5.5 - 0 0 - 0
B3B8 Totald 7.2 - 20,000 19,000 - 1,000
DL 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 0.5 - 0 0 - 0
STPpt 6.7 0.30 20,000 19,000 0.30 1,000
Subsoil
B3B9 Totald 4.6 - 11,000 10,450 - 550
Borrow Pit
DL 0.7 - 0 0 - 0
(cont’d)
HZMaa 3.8 0.30 11,000 10,450 0.30 550
CPF Totald 122.9 - 365,000 365,000 - 0
DL 1.2 - 0 0 - 0
Central HRR 66.6 0.30 200,000 200,000 0.30 0
Processing
Facility HZMaa 20.3 0.30 61,000 61,000 0.30 0
HZMaapt 18.0 0.30 54,000 54,000 0.30 0
STP 16.9 0.30 51,000 51,000 0.30 0
Central CPF Access Totald 0.8 - 1,000 1,000 - 0
Processing Road DL 0.4 0 0 0 - 0
Facility – Access HRR 0.2 0.3 1,000 1,000 0.30 0
Road HZMaapt 0.3 0.3 1,000 1,000 0.30 0
Phase 1 - Pads Totald 22.2 - 40,000 40,000 - 0
1A Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
Page 172
HZMaa 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0

1B 2G Total 6.3 - 18,000 18,000 - 0
DL 0.1 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 6.2 0.30 18,000 18,000 0.30 0
1C Totald 4.0 - 7,000 7,000 - 0
Phase 1 - Pads MRN 1.7 - 0 0 - 0
STPzz 2.3 0.30 7,000 7,000 0.30 0
1D Totald 4.0 - 3,000 3,000 - 0
MLD 2.4 - 0 0 - 0
MUS 0.7 - 0 0 - 0
STP 0.9 0.30 3,000 3,000 0.30 0
1E Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
Phase 2 - Pads Totald 26.0 - 22,000 22,000 - 0
2A Totald 6.0 - 18,000 18,000 - 0
HZMaa 0.3 0.30 1,000 1,000 0.30 0
STP 4.2 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
STPpt 1.6 0.30 5,000 5,000 0.30 0
Phase 2 - Pads 2B Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
DL 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 0.9 - 0 0 - 0
MUS 2.9 - 0 0 - 0
2C Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 2.4 - 0 0 - 0
Subsoil
MRN 1.6 - 0 0 - 0
2D Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
2E Totald 4.0 - 4,000 4,000 - 0
DL 0.3 - 0 0 - 0
Phase 2 – Pads HLY 1.7 - 0 0 - 0
(cont’d) HZMaa 1.4 0.30 4,000 4,000 0.30 0
MLD 0.6 - 0 0 - 0
2F Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
DL 0.3 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 0.4 - 0 0 - 0
MLDzz 3.3 - 0 0 - 0
Phase 3A -
Totald 38.0 - 44,000 44,000 - 0
Pads
3AA Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
Page 173
HZMaa 0.8 0.30 2,000 2,000 0.30 0

STPpt 3.2 0.30 10,000 10,000 0.30 0
3AB Totald 4.0 - 2,000 2,000 - 0
HZMaa 0.8 0.30 2,000 2,000 0.30 0
MLDxt 3.2 - 0 0 - 0
3AC Totald 6.0 - 6,000 6,000 - 0
DL 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 3.8 - 0 0 - 0
STPpt 2.1 0.30 6,000 6,000 0.30 0
3AD Totald 4.0 - 11,000 11,000 - 0
Phase 3A - Pads DL 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
HLY 0.4 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaa 0.0 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
STPpt 3.6 0.30 11,000 11,000 0.30 0
3AE Totald 4.0 - 11,000 11,000 - 0
DL 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
HZMaapt 2.2 0.30 6,000 6,000 0.30 0
STPpt 1.6 0.30 5,000 5,000 0.30 0
3AF Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 2.8 - 0 0 - 0
MLDzz 1.2 - 0 0 - 0
STPpt 0.0 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
3AG Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
Subsoil
3AH Totald 4.0 - 1,000 1,000 - 0
ELS 1.2 0.07 1,000 1,000 0.07 0
Phase 3A – Pads HZMaapt 0.1 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
(cont’d) MLD 2.7 - 0 0 - 0
3AI Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDzz 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
Phase 3B -
Totald 146.0 - 234,000 234,000 - 0
Pads
3BA Totald 4.0 - 4,000 4,000 - 0
HZMaa 1.5 0.30 4,000 4,000 0.30 0
MLDxt 2.5 - 0 0 - 0
3BAA Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
HZMaa 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BB Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
Page 174
3BBB Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0

HZMaa 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BC Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
STP 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BCC Totald 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
HZMaa 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BD Totald 4.0 - 9,000 9,000 - 0
Phase 3B - Pads MLDxt 1.0 - 0 0 - 0
STPzz 3.0 0.30 9,000 9,000 0.30 0
3BDD Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
HZMaa 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BE Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 3.8 - 0 0 - 0
MLDzz 0.2 - 0 0 - 0
3BEE Totald 6.0 - 8,000 8,000 - 0
MLDxt 1.7 - 0 0 - 0
MRN 1.7 - 0 0 - 0
STP 0.5 0.30 1,000 1,000 0.30 0
STPpt 2.1 0.30 6,000 6,000 0.30 0
3BF Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
3BFF Totald 6.0 - 9,000 9,000 - 0
HZMaa 3.1 0.30 9,000 9,000 0.30 0
MRN 2.9 - 0 0 - 0
Subsoil
3BG Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDzz 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
3BGG Totald 6.0 - 14,000 14,000 - 0
DL 0.5 - 0 0 - 0
ELSpt 1.2 0.10 1,000 1,000 0.10 0
HZMaa 4.3 0.30 13,000 13,000 0.30 0
3BH Totald 4.0 - 8,000 8,000 - 0
MLDxt 1.4 - 0 0 - 0
STP 2.6 0.30 8,000 8,000 0.30 0
3BHH Totald 4.0 - 11,000 11,000 - 0
ELSpt 0.3 0.10 0 0 0.10 0
HZMaa 3.7 0.30 11,000 11,000 0.30 0
3BI Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 1.4 - 0 0 - 0
MLDzz 2.6 - 0 0 - 0
Page 175
3BJ Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0

STPzz 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BK Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
DL 0.5 - 0 0 - 0
Phase 3B – Pads
MUS 3.5 - 0 0 - 0
(cont’d)
3BL Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
DL 1.2 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 2.8 - 0 0 - 0
3BM Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
3BN Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 2.2 - 0 0 - 0
MLDxt 1.8 - 0 0 - 0
3BO Totald 6.0 - 18,000 18,000 - 0
HZMaa 0.0 0.30 0 0 0.30 0
STPpt 6.0 0.30 18,000 18,000 0.30 0
3BP Totald 4.0 - 2,000 2,000 - 0
HZMaa 0.2 0.30 1,000 1,000 0.30 0
MLD 3.5 - 0 0 - 0
STPpt 0.3 0.30 1,000 1,000 0.30 0
3BQ Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
DL 0.8 - 0 0 - 0
MLD 3.2 - 0 0 - 0
Subsoil
3BR Totald 4.0 - 7,000 7,000 - 0
MLDxt 1.2 - 0 0 - 0
MUS 0.3 - 0 0 - 0
STPpt 2.5 0.30 7,000 7,000 0.30 0
3BS Totald 4.0 - 6,000 6,000 - 0
HZMaa 1.0 0.30 3,000 3,000 0.30 0
MLDxt 2.1 - 0 0 - 0
STPpt 0.9 0.30 3,000 3,000 0.30 0
3BT Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MUS 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
3BU Totald 4.0 - 0 0 - 0
MRN 3.7 - 0 0 - 0
MUS 0.3 - 0 0 - 0
Phase 3B – Pads
3BV Totald 6.0 - 18,000 18,000 - 0
(cont’d)
DL 0.0 - 0 0 - 0
Page 176
HZMaa 6.0 0.30 18,000 18,000 0.30 0

3BW Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
HZMaa 3.0 0.30 9,000 9,000 0.30 0
STPpt 1.0 0.30 3,000 3,000 0.30 0
3BX Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
HZMaa 4.0 0.30 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
3BY Totald 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
HZMaa 3.2 0.30 10,000 10,000 0.30 0
STPpt 0.8 0.30 2,000 2,000 0.30 0
3BZ Total 4.0 - 12,000 12,000 - 0
HZMaa 3.5 0.30 10,000 10,000 0.30 0
STPpt 0.5 0.30 2,000 2,000 0.30 0
Phase 1 - ROW Totald 44.7 - 92,000 92,000 0
DL 9.9 0 - 0 - 0
HRR 4.1 0.3 12,000 12,000 0.30 0
HZMaa 21.0 0.3 63,000 63,000 0.30 0
Phase 1 – Multi- MLD 1.8 0 o 0 - 0
Use Corridor MRN 0.1 0 o 0 - 0
MUS 2.1 0 o 0 - 0
STP 1.3 0.3 4,000 4,000 0.30 0
STPpt 1.5 0.3 4,000 4,000 0.30 0
STPzz 3.0 0.3 9,000 9,000 0.30 0
Subsoil
Phase 2 - ROW Totald 32.3 - 20,000 20,000 0
DL 1.6 0 o 0 - 0
HLY 0.3 0 o 0 - 0
HZMaa 4.6 0.3 14,000 14,000 0.30 0
Phase 2 – Multi- MLD 19.6 0 o 0 - 0
Use Corridor MLDxt 0.5 0 o 0 - 0
MLDzz 2.4 0 o 0 - 0
MUS 1.3 0 o 0 - 0
STP 0.1 0.3 o 0 0.30 0
STPzz 1.9 0.3 6,000 6,000 0.30 0
Phase 3A - Totald 50.6 - 74,000 74,000 0
ROW DL 4.2 0 o 0 - 0
ELS 0.5 0.07 o 0 - 0
HLY 2.5 0 o 0 - 0
HZMaa 5.7 0.3 17,000 17,000 0.30 0
Phase 3A -
Page 177
HZMaapt 4.1 0.3 12,000 12,000 0.30 0

Corridor
MLD 11.4 0 o 0 - 0
MLDxt 1.5 0 o 0 - 0
MLDzz 5.7 0 o 0 - 0
STP 4.8 0.3 14,000 14,000 0.30 0
STPpt 10.0 0.3 30,000 30,000 0.30 0
Phase 3B - Totald 186.3 - 271,000 271,000 0
ROW DL 6.4 0 o 0 - 0
ELSpt 3.0 0.1 3,000 3,000 0.10 0
HZMaa 65.6 0.3 197,000 197,000 0.30 0
MLD 24.1 0 o 0 - 0
MLDxt 45.2 0 o 0 - 0
Phase 3B -
MLDzz 1.5 0 o 0 - 0
Corridor
MRN 4.4 0 o 0 - 0
MUS 11.3 0 o 0 - 0
RB 1.2 0 o 0 - 0
STP 5.5 0.3 16,000 16,000 0.30 0
STPpt 18.1 0.3 54,000 54,000 0.30 0
STPzz 0.2 0.3 o 0 - 0
Grand Totald 821.3 - 1,445,000 1,429,950 14,050
Notes: (a) Available volumes rounded to the nearest 1000 m3
(b) Replacement depths of upland mineral subsoil will be equivalent to the salvage depths encountered on each component of the Project.
(c) The return of a portion of borrow areas to open water will result in excess subsoil. Approximately 95% of soil salvaged will be replaced, with the remaining 5% returning to open water. Excess soil will be considered for
use in reclamation of developments where fill material is left in place or to supplement placement thicknesses of reclamation material if required.
(d) Individual values may not add to totals due to rounding.
106. c. Update Table 11.4-4 to provide a detailed soil material balance (pre-disturbance
availability and reclamation salvage) including average salvage depths of mineral
subsoil (B horizons) for all Project components labelled with unique identifiers (e.g.,
Well Pad 101).
Response:
See updated Table 106-1 in AESRD SIR 106b.
Borrow pit reclamation will result in approximately 5% of some borrow areas to be returned to open water.
The areas to be reclaimed to open water shall not have topsoil or subsoil replaced; however, excess peat
material may be used in this area if practicable. BlackPearl will consider use of this excess soil in
reclamation developments where fill material is left in place or to supplement placement thickness of
reclamation material if required.
106. d. Update the C&R Plan accordingly.
Response:
BlackPearl will update the C&R Plan and will provide to AESRD upon completion of the SIR process.
BlackPearl states that topsoil and subsoil materials salvaged from well pads will be stockpiled
separately on like materials with a minimum 1 m separation between piles;
soil material salvaged from borrow pit areas shall be stockpiled at the borrow site or at a
designated stockpile location until required for reclamation;…..average height of stockpiled
material will vary between 3-5 m with minimum slopes of 3:1.
a. Explain how the 1-m separation between stockpiles will not result in admixing of topsoil
and subsoil;
Response:
The Conservation and Reclamation plan states that there will be a minimum of 1 m of space separating
reclamation material stockpiles; this refers to the toe of each stockpile slope. If stockpiles are
geotechnically stable and monitored for erosion, the 1 m buffer between stockpiles can be maintained
and there will be little potential for admixing of different material types. The orientation and placement of
reclamation material stockpiles will not be finalized until well pad designs and the Pre-Disturbance
Assessments (AENV 2009c) are completed. The distance between stockpiles could potentially be greater
than 1 m at the time of construction, depending on actual salvaged volumes and space requirements. The
1 m separation has been shown to be sufficient at various operations when materials are properly
identified and monitored.
Page 178
107. b. Describe how equipment (that requires a minimum 3-m width) will travel between
stockpiles for operations like weed control, erosion monitoring and re-vegetation.
Response:
It is not necessary for vehicles to access the corridor between stockpiles. Equipment potentially required
for revegetation or weed control (e.g., hydroseeders, sprayers) can access the slopes of the stockpiles
from the top of the stockpile, or personnel can walk between stockpiles to either hand seed or to spray or
hand pick weeds. Erosion monitoring consists of visual inspections that can be completed on foot in areas
that equipment cannot access. Reducing vehicle traffic around stockpiles can also help to reduce weed
seed transfer. Reducing the distance between stockpiles to the minimum practicable extent is also
consistent with the objective of minimizing overall disturbance.
With respect to improving reclamation techniques through adaptive management, BlackPearl

indicates that additional knowledge will be gained from research initiatives and reclamation
strategies where available. An information gap exists as to how to restore disturbed areas to
viable boreal wetlands.
a. What research initiatives will BlackPearl engage in to address the need for knowledge
and technical experience in the reclamation of wetlands?
Response:
Research is required to further develop a successful reclamation practice for the reclamation of wetlands.
BlackPearl recognizes the benefits of the multi-stakeholder groups that are in place to ensure good
stewardship within the oilsands and is investigating alternative procedures that can be adopted to
enhance the proposed reclamation measures for the Project. BlackPearl is currently in the process of
becoming a member of the Cumulative Effects Management Association (CEMA) as well as becoming a
part of the Ecological Monitoring Committee for the Lower Athabasca (EMCLA) and will participate in
research studies where applicable, such as the Boreal Forest Research Centre operated by the Northern
Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT).
Page 179
The section on upland sites (Page 11-27) describes the general approach to reclamation of the
CPF, access roads, utility corridors and well pads. Removal of fill material prior to reclamation
on these upland sites was not mentioned other than salvaging gravel where feasible. Removal
of the well pad prior to reclamation is considered a best management practice by ESRD. For
deep peat sites, BlackPearl indicates that a portion of each well pad will have the fill and
geotextile removed and illustrates this method in Figure 11.4-2.
a. Provide BlackPearl’s justification for not following the best management practice of
removing fill prior to reclamation for the project footprint.
Response:
Upland Sites:
For well pads in upland areas, fill material is generally not required as the material underlying the subsoil
is typically suitable for construction. Where grading is required on a well pad within upland areas (i.e. cut
and fill), the material underlying the salvaged subsoil can be used for construction. During reclamation,
the well pad will be re-contoured to re-establish drainage and tie the reclaimed site into the surrounding
undisturbed area.
Peatlands:
For well pads in wetland areas, leaving fill in place at the time of reclamation is a common practice and is
permitted under numerous recently issued approvals (Osko and Glasgow 2010).
In addition to being a common and currently permitted practice, BlackPearl prefers leaving portions of the
fill in place to complete fill removal for the following reasons:
• The total removal of fill material from well pads located in deep peat will likely create a depressional
area which will fill with water and be much more difficult to revegetate.
• The water filled area may prevent the dominant species (i.e., black spruce) of the pre-disturbance
from establishing. The depressional area will likely become dominated by sedges and emergent
aquatics since soil moisture regimes and conditions are wetter than pre-disturbance conditions. Such
changes will not yield the same ecosite as present in the pre-disturbance state.
That said, BlackPearl will participate in the Wetland Reclamation Trial program, as required. The efficacy
and cost effectiveness of complete or partial removal of fill from well pads located in deep peat areas has
not been proven thus far, but should advances be made prior to reclamation, BlackPearl will reclaim well
pads in deep peat areas to the standards of the day.
109. b. Provide a table of project facilities (e.g. well pads, borrow pits, access roads, utility
corridor etc.) in upland or lowland habitats and the type of reclamation each will receive
(e.g., partial fill removal, full fill removal, no fill removal, geotextile removal etc.).
Response:
Page 180
TABLE 109-1
PROJECT FACILITIES IN UPLAND AND LOWLAND WITH

CORRESPONDING PROPOSED RECLAMATION TYPE
Reclamation Type on Upland Reclamation Type on Lowland

Full fill Partial fill No fill Full fill Partial fill No fill
Quantity Area Upland Upland Lowlands Lowlands removal removal removal Geotextile removal removal removal Geotextile
Project Facility (unit) (ha) (unit) (ha) (unit) (ha) (unit) (unit) (unit) removal (ha) (unit) (unit) (unit) removal (ha)
Central 1 124.3 1 124.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Processing
Facility
Camp 1 8.3 1 8.3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Well Pads 69 278.2 40 161.3 29 116.9 0 0 40 0 0 29 0 60.5
Sumps 3 13.4 3 13.4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Borrow Pits 24 179.6 18 0 6 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 6 0
Multi-use n/a 356.1 n/a 212.7 n/a 143.4 0 0 212.7 ha 0 71.7 ha 0 71.7 75.3
Corridors
Area of Direct Soil Disturbance 959.9
Notes: 1. Approximately 56% of each well pad located in deep peat areas will be reclaimed to wetland type reclaimed soils.
Approximately 44% will be reclaimed to transitional soils.
Approximately 27% will be reclaimed to upland mineral soil.
Page 181
109. c. Indicate what width of geotextile will be removed from the perimeter of well
pads/facilities and provide examples of where this has been done before and what the
outcome was in terms of habitat development.
Response:
The geotextile will be removed from all areas where the fill material is intended to be excavated as well as
around the edges of the well pads and associated facilities to create an irregular outline. BlackPearl will
be removing sufficient geotextile and well pad to achieve a minimum of 56% return to deep peat.
Remaining ridges create a gradually sloped transition zone, again with geotextile removed around the
perimeter of the landforms so as not to interfere with root growth of trees or other vegetation. The width
of the geotextile to be removed around the perimeter of the re-contoured land will be determined on a
case by case basis and will be approximately 44 m. Geotextile will remain in place in areas with more
than 75 cm of fill material on deep peat to avoid additional unnecessary disturbance. All species used for
reclamation planting in these areas, including tamarack and black spruce are shallow rooted species,
where the roots spread laterally. The planted species would not be limited by the geotextile at depth or
adequate water source (Riley 1989).
109. d. Provide further background information on the method of reclamation of well

pads/facilities within deep pit sites described by BlackPearl.
Response:
The creation of transitional upland islands as the preferred method for reclaiming well pads and facilities
within deep peat environments has many advantages over current reclamation practices. The current
practice of leaving the mineral cap in place will not restore the structure or the ecological function of the
peatland to pre-disturbance equivalence (Graf 2009).
The currently proposed reclamation plan (the creation of transitional upland islands within deep peat
areas) is based on modified “pit and mound topography” techniques commonly used in reforestation. The
methods proposed for the reclamation of access roads and well pads within deep peat wetlands will:
1. Preserve natural hydrology through the creation of cross drainages on access roads to maintain
natural and subsurface flows. This is achieved by the partial removal of pad material in deep peats
combined with the removal of all pad material at pre-selected locations along the access road as well
as the total removal of pad material within shallow peat environments and replacement of salvaged
peat material within the excavated areas. The hydrology would provide for subhydric to hydric soils
near the water table which in turn supports the same species assemblages as the surrounding
ecosite.
2. Restore the topography to baseline conditions wherever possible. The square linear edges of the
remaining well pad and access road would be recontoured into irregular outlines, combined with low
ridges, as can be found in mature forested swamp systems.
3. Restore, at minimum, 56% of the pad area to deep peat
4. Utilize natural revegetation through the salvage of the upper 40 cm of peat augmented with planting,
where required.
Pit and mound topography involves creating “pits” where the fill is completely removed and mounds
where the fill is re-contoured to transitional and upland areas. These mounds are predicted to be hygric
and support ecosystems such as a g or h, as normally seen along the edges of deep peat wetland
systems.
Page 182
109. e. Discuss how BlackPearl will pursue reclamation of natural wetland ecosites during
reclamation.
Response:
The reclamation approach is designed to restore an underlying physical structure, within a gradient that
can support the same dominant wetland vegetation species assemblages. This is a modified pit and
mound approach as developed and used in reforestation. It resembles topography throughout the boreal
(Walters, et al. 1998), including moats, ridges, hollows, hummocks, as well as flat lawns at or near the
water table. The primary consideration is water, at or near the soil surface, which creates soil conditions
suitable for the species assemblages found on the adjacent reference locations.
The natural mature community type for most northern bogs is dominated by black spruce (Lavoie, et
al. 2005). The present day vegetation groupings have not changed in centuries, and are in fact an
excellent reference point for what constitutes successful reclamation (i.e., the adjacent adjoining
undisturbed ecosite). Successful reclamation does not imply an identical replicate of what was there prior
to the disturbance activity, but it would mean recreating the physical conditions to support those
vegetation groupings which are naturally part of the ecosite.
BlackPearl will be following the current reclamation research in peatland reclamation and will incorporate
improved methodologies, where applicable and as they are developed, as a best management approach.
BlackPearl indicates it plans to reclaim deep peat sites to partial upland ecosites.
a. Discuss the long-term implications of this approach to surface hydrology and

consequent implications to the surrounding undisturbed ecosites.
Response:
There are no anticipated significant adverse effects to surface hydrology on the adjacent ecosites, as
there is no change in water inputs or withdrawals to the ecosites, nor are there changes in water flows or
obstructions. There is no net change in flux. In addition, the well sites are relatively small in comparison
to the adjacent undisturbed lands and do not affect the overall ecosite or hydrology of the surrounding
ecosite (Price, et al. 2003).
The proposed reclamation approach has no significant effects on surface hydrology. There are no
significant cumulative effects of the Project and known future disturbances on surface hydrology as
evaluated in the Hydrology Assessment (Volume 3, Section 2.11, of the Integrated Application). The
hydrology assessment came to similar significance conclusions for cumulative effects to surface water
quality.
110. b. How will BlackPearl monitor to track changes in the surrounding ecosites as a
consequence of local hydrological changes?
Response:
BlackPearl plans to conduct environmental monitoring during all stages of the Project. BlackPearl shall
utilize an Environmental Monitor(s) to identify potential areas of concern, including noting any changes to
adjacent ecosites. In addition, monitoring would be performed to:
Page 183
1. Confirm if any hydrological effects associated with the Project are within their anticipated ranges.
Indicators identified include runoff volumes and stream flows, water levels and surface areas, and
channel morphology and sediment concentrations.
2. Monitor vegetation to ascertain if vegetation stress in relation to hydrological effects associated with
the Project.
The environmental monitor(s) will ensure that mitigation measures are implemented during all phases of
the Project. When a deficiency or concern is identified by the environmental monitor, or BlackPearl
operations personnel, the environmental monitor will be responsible for co-ordinating the mitigation
measures with BlackPearl’s project managers. BlackPearl will track the deficiencies observed by the
environmental monitor(s) as well as the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The results of the
monitoring activities, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures as well as any adaptive measures
implemented will be included in the annual C&R report provided to regulators.
110. c. How does this meet the goal of returning the landscape to equivalent capability?
Response:
Equivalent land capability is defined in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act Conservation
and Reclamation Regulation as follows: “The ability of the land to support various land uses after
conservation and reclamation is similar to the ability that existed prior to an activity being conducted on
the land, but that the individual land uses will not necessarily be identical.”
While the individual land uses on a pad by pad basis will not be the same where portions of well pads
remain in place in wetland areas, the landscape of the reclaimed Project Footprint when viewed as part of
the larger landscape (i.e., LSA) will still support various land uses including wetlands, wildlife habitat, and
upland areas for forestry.
110. d. Discuss options for removing material and reclaiming the site to a wetland ecosite.
Response:
There are several additional approaches than provided in the original C&R for the reclamation of well
sites located in deep peat wetlands:
1. Full removal of fill material and geotextile and decompaction of compacted peat: The “fluffing” of the
peat to expose and decompact the peat layer that would be compressed under the clay pad is
intended to add volume to the surface peat. The removal of the entire well pad and geotextile would
effectively remove any barriers to hydrological function of the reclaimed area. However, there are
limitations to the use of this technique in that it is not very effective in areas with shallow underlying
peat and the fluffing of the peat may not be sufficient to meet the adjacent ground surface elevation,
thus establishing regions of open water.
2. Complete pad removal and peat inversion: The peat inversion approach has been successfully
demonstrated, and vegetation reestablishment has been successful on mined peatlands, which have
far more problems with hydrological and structural impacts than oil sands SAGD operations due to
being previously drained. So in addition to the customary approach which excavates the entire
amount of fill, using the best management practices, this approach as well as the inversion approach
represent other viable options for the reclamation of deep peat sites. These are simply different
designs, where the species assemblage on the adjacent reference communities can be successfully
established, and that the previous function and capabilities are restored or improved as a result.
Page 184
3. Partial pad removal and peat inversion: A variation of the complete pad removal and peat inversion
process involves the removal of the upper portion of the clay pad leaving the lower 20-30 cm on site.
The remaining pad material, geotextile and underlying peat is inverted. Initial trials of this process
indicated difficulties in avoidance of mixing clay with the peat material during removal of the geotextile
material. This option, however is the most viable option of the three alternate approaches to the
reclamation of a well pad within a deep peat environment.
Currently, the preferred reclamation approach presented in the C&R is a viable and beneficial strategy,
although BlackPearl recognizes that it is not necessary to use the preferred method on each site. Some
sites could in fact be completely excavated, using the normal best management practices. Research is
ongoing to determine a cost-effective reclamation method to achieve the restoration of peatlands.
BlackPearl will continue to investigate alternative methods for the reclamation of wellpads on peatlands
and will adapt our reclamation methodologies to meet the reclamation requirements of the day.
110. e. Describe construction options to remove borrow materials upon reclamation, and return
the site to a wetland ecosite. Discuss the feasibility of these options at the Blackrod
site.
Response:
As indicated in AESRD SIR 110d, there are a few strategies that may be employed by BlackPearl at the
Blackrod site, including partial and complete removal of pad materials:
Complete removal of the well pad and decompaction of the compacted peat
Remove all of the material from the well site, under existing best management practices. This process will
likely result in the creation of a depression or hollow in the underlying peat due to the compression of the
peat while under the weight of the wellpad depending on the success of the decompaction of the
underlying compacted peat. The decompaction of the peat would result in an increase in peat volume,
however, sufficient “fluffing” may not be achievable to match the surrounding terrain. This hollow or pool
would then fill with water, and be very difficult to reclaim to the original ecosite, unless additional peat was
brought in. Even with the addition of donor peat, the depressional area would be saturated and the peat
would be unconsolidated. The removal of the fill creates a contour which was not there previously. This
is not viewed as desirable in terms of creating an optimal environment for vegetation establishment. The
feasibility of this reclamation approach is still to be determined through studies being performed through
NAIT’s Boreal Research Institute peatland restoration research trails.
Clay Pad Removal and Inversion

Another method worth considering is the “Clay Pad Removal and Inversion” study being completed by the
NAIT Boreal Research Institute. The ongoing research trial is currently assessing the viability of pad
removal and inversion of the pad material, geotextile and underlying compacted peat. Currently
BlackPearl is not able to comment on the feasibility of this new research as the trials utilizing an inversion
of the pad material and the underlying peat is currently ongoing. It is assumed that the results of these
reclamation methods will be available by the time BlackPearl begins to reclaim the deep peat well pads
within Phase 1 of the Project.
Partial removal of the well pad

This construction option was previously described in the original submission. This included removing fill
and geotextile from the outer edges of the well pad, placing the salvaged fill at the center of the pad and
contouring the material which results in reclamation of peatlands at the same previous elevation and
hydrology, with a gradual slope of transition zone which would still be fairly moist due to proximity to the
water table. The entire pad would support the same type of wetland species, such as black spruce and
tamarack, characteristic of deep peat wetlands. Salvaged peat would be placed on contoured mineral
material to a thickness of approximately 20 cm throughout the area to be reclaimed to a deep peat
wetland. Salvaged peat would also be placed over the shallow peat transitional area to encourage the
development of a transitional wetland community adjacent to the reclaimed deep peat wetland. In addition
Page 185
to the above process, where available and practicable, upper subsoil salvaged as part of borrow area
construction could be placed over the fill prior to replacing the peat.
Further research into methods for reclaiming wetlands through partial removal of the well pad could be
beneficial. Various pad removal depths/water depth/peat replacement depth trials on well pads
decommissioned earlier in the Project life-cycle will be conducted. The outcome from these trials will be
used as part of adaptive management when developing and reclaiming the next phase of well pads on
the Blackrod lease. A potential design is briefly described below.
In order to determine the optimal or at the very least, suitable, conditions for peat creation and wetland re-
establishment, portions of the well pad can be removed in a wedge shape. At the bottom of the wedge,
the entire pad is removed while at the top of the wedge, the entire thickness of the pad remains. A water
depth gradient is now present on which to study various peat replacement depths. An additional factor to
consider is whether or not newly salvaged peat would perform better than older stockpiled peat. This
could be included as part of the trial. The results of the trial should provide some evidence as to what
level/depth of pad removal is required for successful peat establishment as well as whether deeper peat
replacement depths work any better than a thinner replacement depth and whether or not newly salvaged
peat establishes better than stockpiled peat.

BlackPearl states that The approach to reclamation of well pads within regions of deep peat
will be to reclaim the central portion of the pad site to an upland environment by leaving
geotextile/geogrid and borrow material in place and contouring the area to create a domed
upland. This approach is depicted in Figure 11.4-2.
BlackPearl states that Approximately 307 ha (or 32%) of the area of direct soil disturbance is
associated with Organic parent materials. As a result of Project construction, the terrain types
associated with the Project Area are considered permanently altered or lost….A portion of the
Organic terrain affected by the project (e.g., well pads and access roads constructed on deep
peat) will not be reclaimed to wetland or Organic types, but instead will be reclaimed to upland
islands containing a portion of upland, transitional and Organic soil types.
BlackPearl states that The residual effect of the Project on terrain diversity is that a loss of
terrain types will occur….Some Organic terrain will be reclaimed (geotextile and fill removed)
and is expected to return to an organic reclaimed soil, but the upland portion of the reclaimed
upland islands will be considered upland mineral.
BlackPearl also states that Well pads and access roads located within deep peat areas will
have portions of geotextile and fill removed, and will be re-contoured to appear as upland
islands….Well pads located predominantly in wetland areas will be reclaimed as follows:
• approximately 56% of each well pad located in deep peat areas will be reclaimed to wetland
type reclaimed soils (Class 5);
• approximately 17% will be reclaimed to transitional soils (Class 3); and
• approximately 27% will be reclaimed to upland mineral soils (Class 2)
…..Following decommissioning and reclamation, a net gain in Class 2 and 3 soils is anticipated
(87 ha and 61 ha, respectively), with a corresponding reduction in Class 4 and 5 soils (30 ha
and 103 ha, respectively).
a. Has BlackPearl considered removing the clay pad and re-establishing organic terrain
in some regions?
Page 186
Response:
This was considered and remains one of the reclamation options. In some locations, it may be the
preferred option depending on the outcome of currently ongoing research. See the response to AESRD
SIR 110d and e.
112. Volume 1, Section 11.4.3.3, Figure 11.4-3, Pages 11-31 and 11-32
BlackPearl states that Reclamation of a well pad with both upland and wetland environments is
illustrated in Figure 11.4-3.
BlackPearl does not provide a cross section for reclamation of a wetland only environment
where it has been previously stated that the area would be reclaimed to partial uplands
(domed) with fill material left in place.
a. Confirm that peat material will not be stored in wetland areas.
Response:
Peat material salvaged from wetland areas will not be stored in wetland areas. The salvaged material will
be stockpiled at the nearest suitable facility (e.g., well pad).
112. b. Provide a conceptual well pad construction and reclamation for wetland soils only
without the ‘doming’ effect.
Response:
Refer to Figure 112-1 for a conceptual well pad construction and reclamation diagram for wetland well
pads with clay pad removal.
Page 187
FIGURE 112 - 1
Cross Sections
CONCEPTUAL WELL PAD CONSTRUCTION AND
RECLAMATION: FLOATING PAD DESIGN - DEEP PEAT
Pre-Development
PROPOSED BLACKROD
April 2013
Peat > 40cm Overhead View
Pre-Development
C Horizon
A A1
A A1
Constructed
Fill/Borrow Material
Geotextile
Constructed
Peat > 40cm
Pad
A A1
C Horizon
A 1. Install geotextile over intact peat. 2. Construct pad with borrow fill material. 3. Cap with gravel. A1
Reclaimed
Reclaimed
Decompacted Peat
Compaction of original
Peat > 40cm peat surface
Wetland
A A1
C Horizon
A 1. Remove gravel. 2. Remove fill and geotextile. 3. Decompaction of peat. 4. Revegetation based on prescription based on site by site assessment. A1
112. c. Provide cross sections for reclamation of borrow pits, access roads and the CPF.
Response:
Cross sections for the reclamation of borrow pits and access roads are provided in AESRD SIR 101a.
BlackPearl states that on moderate level disturbance sites, such as borrow pits and buried
pipelines, the LFH amendments are expected to be stockpiled for less than 12 months.
a. Confirm that the operation stage of borrow pit construction and reclamation is in sync
with the estimated storage time of 12 months.
Response:
Borrow pits will be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the lease pads and associated
access roads requiring borrow material and is anticipated to require 12 months. Upon completion of
construction of the facilities, BlackPearl will commence with interim reclamation of these disturbances as
well as the recontouring and soils replacement within the borrow pits.
Volume 4, Section 4.6.1.2, Pages 4-16 to 4-21
Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.3.3.1, Table 4A-12, Page 4A-26
BlackPearl provided the LCCS in the LSA (Tables 4A-12 and 4.6-4). The LCCS calculations
for the representative profiles of the soil map units area provided in attachment 4A3. The
majority of the ratings for Gleysols, Brunisols and Organics (HLY series) have been incorrectly
calculated.
a. Re-calculate the LCC ratings for all Gleysols, Brunisols and the HLY soil series and
update the relevant tables.
Response:
The Land Capability Classification System (LCCS) calculation for the Firebag-xt (FIRxt) soil map unit was
reviewed and an error in moisture regime was identified and corrected. A mesic moisture regime was
incorrectly selected. The revised moisture regime is submesic, according to the available water holding
capacity. As a result, FIRxt soil map units have been reclassified as Class 3. The corrected values have
been incorporated into the land capability assessment in the Environmental Assessment update and in
Tables 114-1 and 114-2 below.
The LCCS calculations for the Gleysolic map units were also reviewed; however, based on professional
judgement and data and photos collected in the field, the LCCS calculation for Gleysolic soil map units
are considered to be accurate. Gleysolic soils can occupy a wide range of moisture and nutrient regimes
and can develop on subhygric and aerated hygric moisture regimes. Gleysolic soils that have a subhygric
or hygric (7a) soil moisture regime and lack any severe chemical or physical limitations are generally
classified as low productivity (Class 3). Gleysols with severe chemical and physical limitations or a hygric
(7b) moisture regime are generally classified as conditionally productive (Class 4). Field observations
Page 189
regarding the productivity of Gleysolic soils and the moisture regimes encountered support the majority of
the Gleysolic soil map units being classified as low productivity (Class 3).
The land capability classification for the Hartley (HLY) soil series was calculated as conditionally
productive (Class 4) using professional judgement, despite being classified as an Organic soil. The land
capability rating was upgraded to reflect observations made in the field that differentiated HLY soil units
from other Organic soil units within the LSA. Some of the differentiating attributes of the HLY soil units are
listed below:
1. Soils mapped as HLY in the LSA are primarily developed on forest peat deposits rather than
fen or bog peat deposits.
2. The trees found within mapped HLY soil units are usually much larger than those found within
McClelland (MLD) or Muskeg (MUS) soil units
3. The sites associated with the HLY map units are generally much more productive than the
other Organic soil units.
The soil moisture regimes used for the LCCS calculations for the HLY soil unit were selected to represent
this increase in productivity from other Organic soil units. An additional LCCS calculation for the HLY soil
map unit has been provided. Photographs illustrating the increased productivity of HLY map units are
provided below.
Plate 114-1 Photograph taken at inspection site LW17 classified as a HLY soil.
Page 190
Plate 114-2 Photograph taken at inspection site SM269 classified as a HLY soil.
Page 191
Plate 114-3 Photograph taken at inspection site LW27 classified as a HLY soil.
The updated extents for each LCCS class are provided in Table 114-1 (updated Table 4A-12) and
Table 114-2 (updated Table 4.6-4). The updated LCCS calculation for the FIRxt soil map unit is also
provided.
Updated LCCS calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix A.
TABLE 114-1
LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION RATINGS IN THE SOILS LSA
Land Capability Rating Area (ha) Proportion of Soils LSA (%)

2 2,397.4 39.1
3 1,425.4 23.2
4 92.4 1.5
5 1,985.0 32.4
Water (not rated) 6.5 0.1
Rough Broken (not rated) 62.5 1.0
Disturbed Land (not rated) 167.3 2.7
Total 6,136.4 100
Page 192
TABLE 114-2
LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN THE SOILS LSA

Change in Change in
Area Area
% of Area of Land % of Relative to % Change Area of Land % of Relative to % Change
Land Capability Area Soils Capability Soils Baseline Relative to Capability Soils Baseline Relative to
2 2,397.4 39.1 2,129.2 34.7 -268.2 -4.4 2,450.8 39.9 53.4 0.9
3 1,425.5 23.2 1,181.1 19.2 -244.4 -4.0 1,556.4 25.4 130.9 2.1
4 92.4 1.5 69.1 1.1 -23.3 -0.4 69.1 1.1 -23.3 -0.4
5 (Undisturbed 1,985.0 32.3 1,700.7 27.7 -284.3 -4.6 1,837.3 29.9 -147.7 -2.4
soil)
5 (Disturbed 167.2 2.7 988.6 16.1 821.41,3 13.4 153.8 2.5 -13.4 -0.2
Land)
Water (not rated) 6.5 0.1 6.5 0.1 0 0.0 6.5 0.1 0.0 0.0
Rough Broken 62.5 1.0 61.3 1.0 -1.2 < -0.1 62.5 1.0 0.0 0.0
(not rated)
Total4 6,136.4 100 6,136.4 100 0 0 6,136.4 100 0 0
Notes:
1 The change in area considers that 28.5 ha of previously disturbed land occur within the Project Area.
2 Disturbed land remaining in the Soils LSA includes previously disturbed areas outside of the Project Area (not attributed to the Project), as well
as previously disturbed access roads falling inside the Project Area which will not be reclaimed.
114. b. Update the C&R plan to incorporate the corrected LCC ratings.
Response:
BlackPearl will update the C&R Plan and will provide to AESRD upon completion of the SIR process.
Page 193
4.3 Terrain and Soils

115. Volume 1, Section 11.2.1, Figures 11.2-1, 11.2-2, Pages 11-2 to 11-4
BlackPearl states that Borrows located within transitional and deep peat areas are anticipated
to return to equivalent land capability. Final borrow locations will be selected based on further
engineering work; final borrow locations will not be located in deep peat areas.
BlackPearl does not provide the development footprint on the baseline soils figure (11.2-1).
The baseline ecological figure (11.2-2) shows borrows located on deep organic soil areas.
BlackPearl states that Borrow areas will be constructed as landscape borrows when feasible
and reclaimed to regulatory specifications. All slopes of the exhausted borrow areas shall be
re-contoured to a minimum of 3:1 slope .. It is expected that a portion of the borrow pits will
have an area that will initially fill with water and be reclaimed to as a wetland end land use.
BlackPearl also states that potential borrow areas have been located primarily on upland
mineral soils derived from glacial till parent material.
The Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits (AENV 2004) suggests the following sloping criteria
for pits reclaimed to surface water bodies: 5:1 for a vertical distance of one metre above and
one metre below the full supply level; 3:1 at any elevation below one metre below the full
supply level.
The Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits (AENV 2004) suggests the following design
characteristics for surface water bodies that will be used as wildlife habitat: Create variety in
water depths by developing a contoured base, including some areas above the waterline for
nesting and loafing; Create a varied shoreline with bays; Provide areas for different types and
heights of aquatic plants.
a. Provide a soils figure with the development footprint showing the location of the borrow
areas.
Response:
Please see AESRD SIR 193a. Figure 193-1 provides a 1:10,000 scale map showing the soil map units,
soil inspection sites, soil series and topsoil depth at each inspection site. The soil legend includes the
average topsoil depth and range of each soil map unit. The map is shown on a colour orthophoto
background and includes the Project Area.
115. b. Provide the rationale for siting borrows in deep organic areas.
Response:
Borrow pits will not be located in deep organic areas. Upon more detailed planning and mapping that will
occur during the pre-disturbance assessment phase, any borrow pit currently located in a deep organic
area will be relocated to a more suitable location.
Page 194
115. c. Explain the contradictory statements of reclaiming borrow pits on deep organic areas
and not siting borrow pits in deep organic areas.
Response:
See AESRD SIR 115b. Following detailed pre-disturbance assessments, any borrow pits actually located
in deep peat areas will be relocated. In order to complete the land capability assessment for the Project, a
theoretical plan of reclaiming borrow pits located in deep peat areas had to be put forward to account for
all Project Area features and map units.
115. d. Confirm that borrow pits will be reclaimed to have, at a minimum, 5:1 slopes for a
vertical distance of 1 m above and 1 m below the full supply level.
Response:
When reclaiming borrow pits to surface waterbodies, all slopes within one vertical metre above and below
the full supply level will be recontoured to a minimum of a 5:1 slope. Slopes less than 1 m below the full
supply level will be recontoured to a minimum of a 3:1 slope (AENV 2004b).
115. e. Provide figures presenting a conceptual reclaimed borrow pit in an upland setting.
Response:
A figure presenting the conceptual upland borrow pit reclamation is provided in AESRD SIR 101a.
115. f. Explain how wildlife habitat considerations have been incorporated into reclamation
planning for borrow pits.
Response:
For the wetland portions of reclaimed borrow pits, considerations will be given to providing wildlife habitat
for species such as waterbirds and amphibians (western toad). Varying water depths, areas for
nesting/loafing and suitable vegetation cover (aquatic and riparian) are examples that will be factored into
borrow pit reclamation. For those portions of the borrow pit that are reclaimed to upland, considerations
include planting a vegetative cover that matches the surrounding landscape (i.e., compatible with
surrounding ecosites), as well as avoiding plants that are highly palatable to species such as deer and
black bear. The sloping criteria referenced in The Guide to the Code of Practice for Pits (AENV 2004a)
will also be considered in the design.
Page 195
116. Volume 1, Section 11.4.2.1 and 11.4.2.2, Page 11-23
EPEA Application, Section P4.1.1.1, Page 133
A recent site visit (October 2012) identified extensive gully erosion on many slopes along the
main access road.
a. Provide more details on how BlackPearl will monitor and manage erosion and other
environmental problems (e.g., weeds) during the life of the project and what internal
company measures will be implemented to ensure prompt rectification of identified
problems.
Response:
BlackPearl plans to conduct environmental monitoring during all stages of the Project. BlackPearl shall
utilize an Environmental Monitor(s) to identify potential areas of concern and to ensure that mitigation
measures are implemented during all phases of the Project. When a deficiency is identified by the
environmental monitor, or BlackPearl operations personnel, the environmental monitor will be responsible
for co-ordinating the mitigation measures with BlackPearl’s project managers.
BlackPearl will implement a deficiency tracking system to ensure that prompt response to deficiencies are
undertaken. This tracking system will document the types of issues, locations, mitigation measures
implemented as well as closure dates. This information will assist BlackPearl in determining the
effectiveness of mitigation measures as well as construction and reclamation methodologies and
processes.
116. b. Discuss whether BlackPearl is currently utilizing the monitoring proposed in the
Integrated Application Report. Given the results of the recent site visit, the existing
process does not appear to be working. Comment on any changes that will be made to
the described process.
Response:
BlackPearl’s activities in the Project area has been limited to the operation of the Pilot facility, therefore
the level of monitoring proposed within the Integrated Application Report has not been conducted as
frequently. BlackPearl has increased the monitoring of the road by construction personnel to identify and
rectify environmental issues.
No changes are planned to the proposed environmental monitoring process for the Project at this time.
BlackPearl will adapt its erosion control and environmental monitoring programs if it is determined that the
measures implemented are in-effective.
Page 196
117. Volume 1, Appendix 6A, Page 6A-2
BlackPearl states that The maximum rate of PAI for the PDC within the Soils LSA and RSA is
0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr; this occurs directly on the CPF.
a. Based on the new air modeling information requested by ESRD, explain what
considerations were made regarding effects of PAI on the high volume of soil that will
be stored and therefore exposed to acidification at the CPF location.
Response:
The new air modeling PAI results (Appendix B of the Project Update) are similar to those presented in the
Integrated Application. The revised soil acidification assessment is provided in Section 2.11 of the Project
Update.
As in the Integrated Application, there are no areas within the Soils LSA or Soils RSA that receive PAI
emissions above the soil critical load for the Baseline Case. The new results for the Application Case
indicate that approximately 0.02 ha of soil within the LSA receive PAI emissions greater than the soil
critical load. Results from the Planned Development Case indicate that approximately 0.05 ha of the LSA
may have critical loads exceeded. For both the Application and Planned Development Cases, the
potential exceedance occurs on an area mapped as Steepbank, which has a critical load of 0.4
+
keq/H /ha/yr (presented in Figures 123-5 and 123-8 in AESRD SIR 123). A very small volume of soil
(approximately 60 m3) is at risk of acidification due to critical load exceedance given the 0.05 ha area and
an estimated average topsoil salvage depth of 12 cm.
The level of PAI falling on the CPF is less than the critical loads for the vast majority of soil in the area.
Once topsoil is salvaged and stockpiled, the soil should be further protected from the risk of acidification
due to the incorporation of organic matter (LFH and O layers), in addition to incorporating topsoil from soil
series that have critical loads greater than 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr. The soil stockpile locations will be situated to
avoid the area of most intense PAI deposition as modelled (between 0.4 and 0.5 keq/H+/ha/yr).
117. b. Based on the new air modeling information requested by ESRD, describe how soil
storage location will be impacted if further air modelling and monitoring determine that
PAI levels will be higher than 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr at the CPF location.
Response:
There is a very small area of the CPF where the PAI levels are predicted to be between 0.4 and
0.5 keq/H+/ha/yr (the Application Case is shown on Figure 123-5 and the Planned Development Case is
shown on Figure 123-8; these figures are provided in response to AESRD SIR 123). Between 0.4 and
0.5 keq/H+/ha/yr, the STP soil map unit is above the critical load. As mentioned in the response to
AESRD SIR 117a above, following soil salvage, the combined critical load of the soil in stockpile is
expected to be greater than 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr due to incorporation of LFH and O layers as well as
incorporating topsoil from other soil series with critical loads greater than 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr. In addition, the
soil stockpile locations will be situated to avoid the area of most intense PAI deposition as modelled
(between 0.4 and 0.5 keq/H+/ha/yr).
Page 197
BlackPearl indicates Sediment control will be used for construction activity where runoff may
potentially flow directly into streams with defined channels.
a. Does BlackPearl mean to imply that unless runoff may potentially flow directly into
streams with defined channels that sediment control measures will not be used?
Response:
No, the statement was made only to say that sediment control will definitely be used where runoff may
potentially flow directly into streams with defined channels. The statement was made to address
mitigation of construction activity near defined channels.
118. b. If that is not what BlackPearl intended, please refine or expand on the statement to
clarify.
Response:
See AESRD SIR 118a.
118. c. If that is what BlackPearl intended, provide a rationale for not using erosion control
measures for all drainages and areas where erodible materials have been exposed.
Response:
See AESRD SIR 118a.
BlackPearl provides Figure 4.3-1 depicting the Project Area and Soils LSA. The project
components and phases are difficult to differentiate due to the shades of color blocking chosen
(e.g., CPF is similar in color to Phase 2).
a. Revise Figure 4.3-1 to prevent color blocking similarities between project components
and phases.
Response:
Figure 119-1 has been revised to prevent colour blocking similarities between Project components and
phases.
Page 198
¯
Twp 77 - Rge 18 W4M

Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M
Atha basc a River
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M

Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
FIGURE 119-1
Legend PROJECT AREA AND SOILS LOCAL STUDY AREA
Pha se 1 Pha se 3B CPF and Access Ro ad Sumps Water
AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Pha se 2 Borrow Pit Constu ction Camp Access Roa d Soils Lo cal Study Area BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Pha se 3A Log Decks Opera tions Camp Hyd rography
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus G eomatics (2013), Blackbridge Geomatics (2010), Paragon (2013) km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
Volume 4, Section 4.6.1.1, Table 4.6-2, Pages 4-14 and 4-15
BlackPearl provides a LIDAR image showing slope changes and includes explanations as to
why the CPF was placed where proposed versus alternative locations. In Table 4.6-2,
BlackPearl shows that the LSA consists of 62% till (mineral soils and shallow organics). These
mineral soils generally occur on the east half of the LSA (within the BlackPearl lease
boundaries).
BlackPearl states that During Project construction, a number of terrain types in the Project Area
will be disturbed. Upon reclamation, pre-disturbance terrain types will be replaced by
reclaimed terrain….In addition, construction activities can be avoided or managed in areas of
potential slope instability through the use of geotechnical assessments as a best management
practice. Consequently, the effect of the Project on topography due to direct disturbance is not
carried forward in the assessment…..the potential environmental effects [of ground heave or
subsidence] are expected to be indiscernible since the actual changes will be indiscernible as
they occur. Consequently, the effect of the Project on topography due to ground heave or
subsidence is not carried forward in the assessment.
a. Provide LIDAR imagery for the entire LSA. Explain why the CPF was not sited within
the existing BlackPearl lease (on mineral upland sites).
Response:
Refer to Figure 120-1 for LIDAR imagery of the entire LSA.
The positioning of the CPF is the result of an exhaustive process to establish the optimum position based
on environmental and existing surface holdings. There are no other upland sites in the LSA that meet the
environmental requirements and have the needed surface area required for the CPF. Refer to Volume 4,
Appendix 1A, Figure 1A-4 for the land classification map. Additional details of the selection process are
provided in Volume 1, Section 10.1 (CPF Location Alternative) of the Integrated Application.
Page 200
¯
Riv er
22
23 24 19 20 21
TWP.77
15 14
13 18 17 16
10
11 12 7 8 9
3 2 1 6 5 4
34 35 36
732 m
31 32 33
700 m
TWP.76 27
650 m
26
25 30 29 28
600 m
22 23 24
550 m
19 20 21
520 m
Project Footprint FIGURE 120-1

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Construction Camp Site Existing Blackrod Road
Phase 2 Sump Site Permanent Operations Camp Site Waterbody LIDAR IMAGERY
Phase 3A Log Deck Proposed Blackrod Road
AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Phase 3B PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
SCALE: 1: 50,000
UTM Zone 12N Meters
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011. LiDAR: BlackPearl 2012.
0 500 1,000
April 2013
120. b. Explain how the use of geotechnical assessments is a best management practice with
respect to grading.
Response:
The Integrated Standards and Guidelines Enhanced Approval Process (GOA 2012d) states that activities
should be routed around sensitive terrain or soil conditions such as steep, erosive slopes, coulee
complexes and wet soils. Geotechnical assessments can be used to identify areas of instability or other
potential problems, therefore, the use of geotechnical assessments to identify and avoid areas of
potential instability and sensitive soil complexes can be considered a best management practice.
120. c. Provide a detailed description of the management of ground heave or subsidence in

the event that they occur during operations.
Response:
BlackPearl will accommodate for heave at our surface facilities, should it occur. Imperial Cold Lake has
five CPF’s located above high pressure cyclic steam stimulation wells. Imperial Oil has a pump alignment
monitoring program and equipment alignments are adjusted accordingly. BlackPearl will implement a
similar program to manage heave should it occur to the extent where equipment alignments are
impacted.
121. Volume 4, Section 4.4, Pages 4-10 to 4-12
Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.2.2.3, Page 4A-6
BlackPearl states that the Soils RSA survey work was carried out from August 24 to 25, 2011.
All fieldwork was completed by experienced soil specialists….An additional 163 inspections
were completed within the soils RSA; the resulting density of 1 inspection per 161 ha meets
SIL3 requirements.
a. Confirm whether all 163 RSA site inspections were conducted on the site in two days.
Response:
Not all of the 163 RSA site inspections were completed in two days. A total of 41 inspections were
completed during the work carried out from August 24 to 25, 2011. The remaining sites located within the
RSA were completed during the survey of the LSA. As a result of changes to the Project Footprint, and
subsequent changes to the boundary of the LSA (LSA boundary is based on a 450 m buffer of the Project
Footprint), a large number of sites now located within the RSA were originally located within the LSA. The
additional work completed during August of 2011 was undertaken to achieve the SIL3 inspection density
and to ground-truth Alberta Vegetation Index polygons and surficial geology polygons being used for
mapping the RSA.
Page 202
121. b. Provide justification for the location of the RSA soil survey sites given that the majority
of the site inspections are located immediately adjacent to the LSA boundary (Figure
4A-4; Page 4A-11).
Response:
The majority of RSA survey sites are located adjacent to the LSA for three main reasons:
1. Soil and air deposition related Project effects are more likely to occur closer to the Project
Area and LSA.
2. Field access was typically poor, even within the LSA, and the further out from the LSA, the
more difficult access became. There were numerous physical obstacles preventing field
crews from safely accessing the entire RSA, such as large areas of the RSA where few
cutlines existed and/or the cutlines were overgrown, preventing the use of all-terrain vehicles
(ATVs); the Athabasca River was impossible to cross from the ground; multi-use corridors
were often obstructed by streams or fallen trees that could not be safely crossed with ATVs;
and safe helicopter landing sites were limited within the RSA.
3. As noted in AESRD SIR 121a, as the Project Area decreased over the planning phase, the
LSA (based on a 450 m buffer around the Project Footprint) also decreased. A number of the
sites originally located within the earlier version of the LSA are now located within the RSA
boundary.
The data collected was used in concert with accepted principles of geomorphology and surficial geology
and soil formation processes and displayed on high resolution ortho photographs to map the remainder of
the RSA.
BlackPearl states that A total of 330 soil sites were inspected within the Soils LSA, resulting in
a sampling intensity of 1 inspection per 18.6 ha (Survey Intensity Level [SIL] 2).
a. Confirm whether the Project Area will be surveyed to soil intensity levels as outlined in
the Guidelines for Submission of a Pre-Disturbance Assessment and C&R Plan (AENV
2009) prior to construction.
Response:
In accordance with the Guidelines for Submission of a Pre-disturbance Assessment and C&R Plan
(AENV 2009c), additional soil surveys will be completed as part of a pre-disturbance assessment for each
Project component prior to construction. Soil inspection densities for each Project component will be
variable and determined in reference to Table 122-1 sourced from Alberta Environment (2009c).
Page 203
TABLE 122-1
REQUIRED SOIL INSPECTION DENSITIES FOR A PRE-DISTURBANCE ASSESSMENT
Size of Disturbance* (ha) Density (ha/inspection site) Total Inspections

1-2 0.10-0.14 7-20
3-6 0.15-0.24 13-40
7-11 0.25-0.34 21-44
12-16 0.35-0.44 27-46
17-23 0.45-0.54 31-51
24-35 0.55-0.64 38-64
36-45 0.65-0.74 49-69
>45 0.75-1.0 >45
Linear Disturbance 100 m/site
Source: AENV 2009c.
Note: * disturbance footprint sizes falling in between the presented hectare (ha) ranges should be rounded up to the nearest ha to determine the
required density category (e.g., a 2.5 ha disturbance would be rounded to 3 ha and the corresponding density requirement would be 0.15-0.24
ha/inspection site)
123. Volume 4, Section 4.6.1.4, Figures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2, Pages 4-24 and 4-25
BlackPearl provides mapping of critical load exceedance and Potential Acid Inputs (PAI) in the
LSA and Regional Study Area (RSA) for Baseline Case, Application Case, and Planned
Development Case.
a. Provide revised Figures 4.6-1, 4.6-2 and 4.7-1 showing critical load exceedance and
potential acid inputs in the LSA and RSA for the Baseline, Application and Planned
Development Cases displayed over the soil series mapping for the TLSA and TRSA as
overview figures, based on color orthophotos with no colour blocking. Provide figures
displaying the area of highest PAI loading (CPF and surrounding area for Baseline,
Application and Planned Development Cases at a larger scale, at which the soil
mapping is clearly discernible and the soil series affected by each isopleth can be
easily determined.
Response:
Please see Figures 123-1 to 123-8. There are no areas of critical load exceedance under the Baseline
Case. Both the Application Case and Future PDC have very small areas of critical load exceedance (0.02
and 0.05 ha, respectively). These areas are associated with the STP (Steepbank) soil map unit and are
most clearly seen on Figures 123-5 and 123.8, where the 0.4 keq/H+/ha/yr isopleth falls over the STP soil
unit.
Page 204
¯
Twp 78 - Rge 18 W4M

Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M
Athab asca Rive r
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M

Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M

Twp 75 - Rge 17 W4M
Legend FIGURE 123-1

Potential Acid Input Isopleth CRITICAL LOAD EXCEEDANCE AND POTENTIAL
Disturbed Land Soils Local Study Area ACID INPUT IN THE LSA AND RSA FOR
(keq H+/ha/yr)
THE BASELINE CASE
Critical Load Exceeded Project Area Soils Regional Study A rea
Critical Load Not E xceeded Hydrography AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Rough B roken Water PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N
Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus G eomatics (2013), Blackbridge Geomatics (2010),
SCALE: 1: 100,000
Microsoft Corporation (2010), Paragon (2013), Stantec (2013) km
0 0.5 1 1.5 April 2013
0.1
¯
PAGE 2 PAGE 3 Ri
v er PAGE 4 PAGE 5
c a
as
ab
h
At
0.05
0.05
0.
50
PAGE 7
PAGE 6 PAGE 8 PAGE 9 PAGE 10
50
0.
0.05
0.05
0.05
PAGE 11 PAGE 12 PAGE 13 PAGE 14 PAGE 15

0.15
0.0 5
0.0 5
FIGURE 123-2 PAGE 1 OF 19

Legend
Potential Acid Input Isopleth POTENTIAL ACID INPUT AND
(keg H+/ha/yr) SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE LSA AND
Page Extent RSA FOR THE BASELINE CASE
Soils Local Study Area SCALE: 1: 85,000 AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -

m BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC
Soils Regional Study Area 0 950 1,900
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Hydrology (All Locations Approximate) COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N

Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus Geomatics (2013), Valtus Imagery Services (2013),
Blackbridge Geomatics (2010), Paragon (2013), TERA Environmental Consultants (2013) April 2013
¯
Twp-078 Rge-18 Mer-4

5
0.0
er
iv
R
ca
s
a
b
a
0.05
th
A
Index Map: FIGURE 123-2 PAGE 2 OF 19

Legend
POTENTIAL ACID INPUT AND
Potential Acid Input Isopleth Hydrography SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE LSA AND
RSA FOR THE BASELINE CASE
(keq H+/ha/yr) Water
Disturbed Land Soils Local Study Area SCALE: 1: 20,000 AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Project Footprint Soils Regional Study Area 0 250 500
PROPOSED BLACKROD
(All Locations Approximate) COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N

¯

Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4 Twp-078 Rge-17 Mer-4
5
0.0

5
0.0
Athabasca River
0.05

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.1
0.05
Athabasca River

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

0.1


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.05
0.05
5
0.0
5
0.0


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
Athabasca River
er
iv
R
a
sc
a
b
0.05
a
th
A
0.05


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
Athabasca River
05
0.



Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.05


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯

0.
05

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
5

0.0
5
0.0
05
0.
0.05
r
ve
Ri
a
0.05
sc
a
ab
th
A

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.05

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯

0.1
0.0
5

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.1

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯



Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

r
ve
Ri
ca
as
b
a
th
A


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.0
5


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯

0.05


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯

0.0
5

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
Twp 78 - Rge 18 W4M

Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M
Athab asca Rive r
Area of Interest
0.25
0.1
0.2 Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M

0.15 Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.4
0.35
Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
0.3
Twp 75 - Rge 17 W4M
Legend FIGURE 123-3

Rough B roken Project Area ACID INPUT IN THE LSA AND RSA FOR
(keq H+/ha/yr)
THE APPLICATION CASE
Inset Map - A rea of Interest Disturbed Land Soils Local Study Area
Critical Load Exceeded Hydrography AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Soils Regional Study A rea BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Critical Load Not E xceeded Water PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 100,000
Microsoft Corporation (2010), Paragon (2013), Stantec (2013) km
0 0.5 1 1.5 April 2013
0.1
¯
PAGE 2 PAGE 3 ive
r PAGE 4 PAGE 5
R
ca
s
ba
ha
At

er
iv
R
ca
b as
ha
At
0.
1
PAGE 14
PAGE 11 PAGE 12 PAGE 13 0.2
PAGE 15
0.1 5
0.3
0.2
0.1

Legend
RSA FOR THE APPLICATION CASE
Page Extent
Soils Regional Study Area 0 950 1,900
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Hydrology (All Locations Approximate) COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N

¯

MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa
RB
er
iv
R
a
c
s
a
b
a
th
RB
A
MLD HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD STP
HRR
Index Map:
Legend
(keq H+/ha/yr) RSA FOR THE APPLICATION CASE
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯

HRR
FIR
MLD
MLD
BMT
FIR
HZMaa
MLD
HZMaa RB
MLD
HZMaa RB
HZMaa RB
MLD
HZMaa
MLD HRR
HZMaa
RB
HRR
MLD
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
HRR HRR
RB HZMaa HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
HRR
Athabasca River
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
RB MRN
HZMaa MRN
STP STP
HZMaa MRN
HZMaa STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa MRN
HRR STP HZMaa
STP STP MRN
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
0.1
BMT STP
HRR FIR
RB
HRR
FIR HRR HRR
BMT
HZMaa
STP
MLD MLD HRR HRR
FIR MLD
MMW
STP MLD
BMT MLD
HRR
FIR
MLD HZMaa
HRR STP HZMaa
BMT STP MLD
HZMaa STP
HZMaa STP
HZMaa MLD
HRR
HRR
HZMaa STP
RB STP
HRR STP
RB RB
HRR
STP STP HZMaa
HRR
RB Athabasc a River
HZMaa
STP
RB RB Twp-078 Rge-17 Mer-4
RB Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP
HZMaa
HRR
MMW MLD
MMW STP
STP
MMW
RB RB HZMaa
RB HRR STP
RB
HZMaa
HRR
HRR HZMaa STP
HZMaa
RB
RB RB
HRR STP
HRR HRR
RB HRR
HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HRR
HRR MLD MLD
HZMaa
RB
RB
HZMaa HZMaa HRR HRR

HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR MLD
STP
HZMaa HRR
HRR
HRR HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
STP
HRR MLD
HRR
HZMaa STP
STP
HRR HRR RB STP MLD
HZMaa HZMaa
STP HRR
HRR HZMaa
HRR STP
STP
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa
STP HRR
ELS
HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa STP
HRR HRR STP
STP STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
STP HRR
HRR HRR
STP
HRR
MRN STP
MRN
HRR
RB HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa RB
MRN HZMaa MRN
ELSpt HRR
HRR STP
HLY
STP
MRN HZMaa HZMaa
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

0.1
¯
HZMaa
MLD
STP
STP MLD
HZMaa
MLD STP MLD
STP STP
MLD
STP
STP STP
STP
MLD
STP STP
MLD
HZMaa
STP
STP HZMaa
STP STP
HZMaa Twp-078 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP HZMaa
MLD
MLD HZMaa STP
STP
MLD
HZMaa HZMaa
STP
STP
MLD STP STP
HZMaa MLD
MLD MLD
STP HZMaa
MLD STP MLD

MLD STP
STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa MLD
STP
HZMaa
HRR
MLD STP
MLD MLD
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD HRR HZMaa

MLD
STP HRR
MLD STP
STP
HZMaa
STP
MLD
HZMaa
MLD
HZMaa
MLD HZMaa HRR
STP MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa MLD STP
STP HZMaa HRR HZMaa
HRR
HRR
STP HRR
HRR STP HZMaa STP
HZMaa MLD HZMaa
STP
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HRR STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa
STP STP STP

HRR HZMaa
MLD HRR
HZMaa
STP HRR
STP HZMaa
MLD STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

MLD
MLD
¯
MLD
HZMaa
HRR
RB
HRR
DOVxtgl
HRR
STP
DOVxtgl
HRR HRR
STP
DOVxtgl
DOVxtgl
STP
RB STP
HRR
MLD
STP DOVxtgl
STP
HRR
MLD
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
STP HRR
0.0
5
STP STP
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP
5
0.0
STP
HRR
HRR
STP
5 MLD
0.0 STP
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
STP MLD
Twp-077 Rge-19 Mer-4 STP

Twp-076 Rge-19 Mer-4 RB 5 Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4
RB 0.0
HZMaa MMW DOVxtgl
0.0 HRR MLD
5 STP
HRR MLD
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
MLD Athabasca River
er
HZMaa iv
R
a
c
s HZMaa
a
RB
b
a
th
RB
A
STP
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
RB
STP
HRR
HZMaa
MLDxt
HRR
STP
HRR HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
HRR STP
STP
STP HRR
HRR MLDxt
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
HRR MLDxt
HRR HZMaa MLDxt
STP HZMaa
MLD
HRR
MLD
STP HZMaa
HRR HRR HZMaa
STP MLDxt MLDxt
STP
HRR HZMaa MRN
HRR
STP HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
HRR HZMaa
DOVxtgl MLDxt MRN
STPpt
HRR HZMaa
MRN
STP
STP
HRR
MUS
HRR DOVxtgl HRR STPpt
DOVxtgl MLD
STP MUS
STP
HRR
HRR MLD
STP MLD MLD
STP
DOVxtgl STP
HRR MLDxt
STP
MLDxt
DOVxtgl
HZMaa
DOVxtgl STP STP STPpt STPpt
STP STP STPpt
HZMaa MLDxt
HRR STP MLD
DOVxtgl STP MLD STPpt
HRR HZMaa
HRR STPpt
MLD
MLD HZMaa
MLD HRR STP STPpt
STP STP MLD
STP DOVxtgl
STP HRR DOVxt HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR STP
MLD
HRR HRR
STP
STP
DOVxtgl STP MLD

STP STP MLD MLD
MLD
HRR
STP
STP HRR
MLDxt
STP
STP FIRxt
MLD
MLD HRR MLD MLDxt
STP
MLD
MLD
MLD
HRR
STP
HRR STP STP
STP STP
HRR HRR HZMaa
MRN
STP FIRxt HZMaa

MLD
STP MLD
STP ELS
STP
HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP MLD MLDxt STP

MLD
ELS HZMaa
HZMaa
STP MLD
ELSpt MUS
ELSpt
Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4 STPpt
DOVxtgl Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 FIRxt HZMaa
MLD MLDxt
STP STP STP HZMaa HZMaa
STPzz Water
MUS
STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
STP HZMaa
HRR HRR
Athabasca River HZMaa
STP ELS
HZMaa
STP
RB
HZMaa
HZMaa RB HRR
RB
HRR
HZMaa MRN
HRR
STP STP
HZMaa MRN HZMaa

HZMaa STP RB
HZMaa
HRR ELSpt
HZMaa
MRN HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
STP HRR
STP
ELS
HRR ELSpt
MRN MRN
HZMaa HRR
STP HZMaa
Water
HZMaa
MRN
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
MRN STPpt
STP
MLDxt
MLDxt
HZMaa MRN
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa STP Water
MLDxt
HZMaa MRN
HZMaa RB
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
MLDxt
ELSpt ELSpt
HZMaa STP
HZMaa
MLDxt STP MRN MRN
MRN
MLDxt
MUS HZMaa STP ELSpt
HZMaa MLDxt
MLDxt MLDxt
STP MRN
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa RB
MLDxt HZMaa MLDxt MLDxt
HZMaa
MRN MRN
HZMaa
RB HLY
HZMaa STP
MRN
MLDxt
MRN MLDxt STP MLDxt

STPpt
STPpt
STPpt
HZMaa STPpt
STPpt
MUS
MUS
MUS
MRN
MLD
MLD
HZMaa
MLDxt
STPpt
HZMaa
MLDxt
HZMaa MRN STPpt

STPpt
HZMaa HZMaa
MLDxt STPpt HZMaa
STP
STPpt MRN HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa STPpt RB
HZMaa
STPpt
MLD
MRN
HZMaa HZMaa MUS
HZMaa LVK RB
HZMaa
HZMaa STPpt HZMaa MRN HZMaa
MLD STPpt
RB
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
HZMaa
MUS
STPpt LVK
STPpt
MLDxt HRR
MLD
LVK
MLD
HZMaa MLD
STPpt MLD MUS
HRR MUS MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD
STPpt MLD
STPpt RB
HZMaa
HRR
MLD MLD
MLD STPpt HZMaa
MLDxt
STPpt MLD
HZMaa MUS
STPpt
STP HRR
MRN MLD
RB
HZMaa MLD
HRR HRR
MUS HRR
STP HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
STP HZMaa HZMaa
Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa STPpt Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
HZMaa STP HRR
MUS MRN Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HRR STP HRR HZMaa
HZMaa MLD
HRR STP HZMaa
STP HZMaa
STP MLD
ELS HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HRR STP HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HRR
STP STP
MLD
HRR HRR
RB
RB MRN
HZMaa ELSpt HRR
RB STP
HLY HRR
STP
HZMaa MLD HRR
STP HRR
HRR
ELSpt HRR STP
HRR
HRR STP MLD
Water RB STP
STP HRR
STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa STP
Water HZMaa HZMaa
HRR HRR
RB Water
HRR
HLYzz
STPpt HRR
RB
ELSpt
HZMaa HRR
HRR
ELSpt ELSpt HRR

HZMaa
HZMaa
MRN STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa HRR
Water
RB HRR HRR
HLY HZMaa HZMaa
ELS
STP HRR
MLDxt HRR HRR HRR
HZMaa
STPpt
STP HZMaa
MUS HRR
HRR
ELS STP
MRN HZMaa
ELS
HRR HZMaa MLD
ELS HZMaa
STP
STPpt MLD STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
ELS
ELS
MRN MLD MRN HRR STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa HZMaa
MLD ELS HRR
STPpt ELS HZMaa
MRN MRN STP STP
HZMaa
MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa ELS MLDxt MRN MLD
ELS STP HRR HRR HRR
MRN MRN HZMaa
RB HZMaa
MLD STP
MLD MLDxt HRR HZMaa
MRN MRN HRR HRR
HZMaa HZMaa MUS MUS
HZMaa MLDxt HRR HRR
RB MUS HZMaa MLD
STP
MLD HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
ELS MRN
MUS HZMaa HRR HRR
MLD HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
MRN MUS
HZMaa MUS ELS ELS

MUS HZMaa HZMaa
RB
HRR HRR
STP HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HRR
MUS
HRR
MLD
MUS ELS
MUS
MLD
MLD
MUS HZMaa HRR
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
MUS
RB HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
MUS
STP
HZMaa MUS MUS
MLD
HRR
MLD
RB
MLD STP
HRR HRR HZMaa HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR
MUS
Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4 STP HZMaa
Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4 HRR
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HZMaa HZMaa MLD HZMaa HRR STP
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa STP
MLD HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HZMaa HRR

HZMaa STP
HZMaa
STP STP
MLD
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
HRR HZMaa
MLD
STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR STP STP
HZMaa
MLD
HRR STP
HRR STP
STP HRR
STP HZMaa
STP
HRR HRR
HRR
STP
HRR HRR
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HRR
HRR HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR HZMaa
HRR
STP
HRR HRR
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
RB STP
HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HRR
HRR
HRR
MLD

HRR HZMaa
HRR HRR
STP
MLD
HZMaa STP
HRR STP MLD
HZMaa
STP
HZMaa MLD
HZMaa STP STP
HRR
STP HZMaa STP
STP
HRR
STP HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HRR STP STP
HRR
HZMaa STP HRR
HRR HRR HRR

HZMaa
HZMaa STP MLD
MUS HRR
HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR HRR
STP HZMaa STP
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa STP
STP STP
HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR STP HZMaa

STP HZMaa
HRR
HRR STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HRR
HRR
STP STP
HRR
HZMaa
Index Map:
FIGURE 123-4 PAGE10 OF 19
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
5
0.0 STP STP
STP MLD
DOVxtgl
STP MLD
STP
Twp-07 6 Rge-19 Mer-4 5 Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4
RB 0.0 DOVxtgl
HZMaa
0.0
5
MLD
RB STP
MMW
MLD
DOVxtgl
MLD
HRR MLD
0.0
5
DOVxtgl
HZMaa STP
STP
HRR MLD
DOVxtgl
MLD
DOVxtgl
r
ve
STP STP
Ri
ca
HRR STP
STP
as
RB
ab
th
A
HZMaa MLD
STP STP
RB MLD
DOVxtgl
STP MLD
DOVxt
MLD
HRR
STP
MLD
DOVxtgl STP
DOVxt
MUS
HRR
STP
Twp-0 76 Rge-19 Mer-4
DOVxtgl HRR
MLD
RB
DOVxt
HRR STP
MLD
STP
STP
STP STP
STP MLD
0.0 5
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP
STP
DOVxt
STP STP
HRR
MLD
50
0.
50
STP
0.
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
DOVxt DOVxtgl
DOVxt HRR
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
MLD
DOVxtgl
STP STP
HRR
DOVxtgl MLD
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
HRR DOVxtgl MLD

STP
STP
RB
STP
STP
STP
HRR
STP
STP
HRR STP
HRR 0 5
0.
STP
HRR STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HZMaa
MLD
MLD MRN
STP
MLD HZMaa
STP STP
STP
FIRxt MLD
ELS STP
HZMaa
DOVxtgl STP STP
STP
STP MLD MLDxt STP
MLD
ELS HZMaa
HZMaa MLD
STP MLD
ELSpt
STP DOVxtgl ELSpt
Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa
MLD FIRxt
STP HZMaa Water
STP HZMaa
STP MUS
MLD MLDxt
DOVxtgl STP
HRR
STPzz
MLD HZMaa
MLD HRR
STPpt MUS
HRR HRR STP
STPpt HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
STP
MLD
MLD DOVxtgl HRR STPpt HZMaa
MLD MUS
STPzz HZMaa STPpt
STP STP
MRN
STP
MUS MUS
STPpt
HRR HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP HRR STPpt MLDxt
MLDxt
MLD MLD
MUS
STP STP
HRR HZMaa
STP
MLD
MLD
DOVxtgl STP
STP
STP MLD
MLD STP
DOVxt STP STP

MLD
STPzz
MLD
MLDxt
STP MLD
STP
DOVxtgl MLDxt
MLD
DOVxt
MUS
STP MLDzz
MLD
MLD
STP MLDxt
STP STP STPpt MLDxt

MLDzz
MLD MLDxt
MLD MLD
STP STPpt
STP MLDxt
STP
MLD MLDxt
MLDzz
STP
STP STP
STP
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP STP
STP DOVxtgl HZMaa
MLD HZMaa
HZMaapt
MLDxt
STPzz
STP MUS MUS
MLD MLDxt MLDxt
DOVxtgl MLDzz
DOVxtgl STP STP STPzz
MLDxt
MLD
DOVxtgl
MRN MLDzz
STP MLDxt
STP
DOVxtgl STP STPzz
MLDxt
MLD
DOVxtgl MLD MLDzz
MLD STPzz MLDxt MLDzz
MLD STPzz
MRN MRN
STP
STP
STP
DOVxtgl STP MRN
STP MRN
STP STP MLD
HZMaa
MLD HZMaa
STP DOVxtgl
MRN
STP MLDxt
HZMaa
DOVxtgl MLD
STP HZMaa
RB STP HZMaa
MLD
STP MLD
DOVxtgl STP
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
MLD MLD HZMaa STPpt MLD HRR HRR
STPpt MLD MUS
STPpt HZMaa
HZMaa
STPpt

MLDxt
STP HRR MLD
MRN
HZMaa
HRR
MUS HRR
STP
HZMaa
MLDxt RB
MLD HZMaa STP
Water STPpt Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
HZMaa HZMaa MRN
MUS MRN STP

MRN STP HZMaa
HRR
MLD HZMaa HZMaa
STP STP MUS
MUS STP
MUS HZMaa
STP
STP
MUS
STPpt STPzz HRR

MLD HZMaa
MRN
STPzz
HZMaa HRR
HRR HRR
MRN
MRN HRR
HZMaa HRR
MRN HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
0.1
HRR
HZMaa MRN
STP HZMaa
HRR
MLD HRR
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
MUS
HRR
HRR HZMaa
STPpt
HRR
MLD HZMaa
MLDzz
0.1
0.15
0.2
HZMaa STPpt HRR
HRR
HRR
MLDzz STP
HZMaa
HLY HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP HZMaa
HLY
HZMaa
HRR HRR
STPpt STPpt
0.1
STP
HZMaa HLY
5
HZMaapt STP 0.2
MLDzz 0.3
STPpt STP HZMaa

HZMaapt
STPpt
HZMaapt
HZMaapt HRR
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
STPpt
STP
STPpt
STPpt STPpt
MLDzz HZMaa STP HRR

HZMaapt HZMaa STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
ELS HZMaapt
STP HZMaa HRR

STP
ELS STP HZMaa
STPpt HZMaa
HZMaapt HZMaapt
HZMaa HRR STP
MLDzz MLD HRR HZMaapt HZMaa
ELS STP STP HZMaa
STPpt HZMaa STP
STPpt HRR
ELS HRR HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HRR HRR
STP
ELS HZMaa
HZMaa
STP STP
HRR
STP
STP STP
MLD HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
STP HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
MLD HRR HRR MUS HZMaa HZMaa HRR HRR
STP
HZMaa MUS MUS
MLD
MLD STP
MLD
HRR
HZMaa HRR
RB HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa MUS
HRR
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HRR
HRR
HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR STP

HRR
STP
HRR HRR STP
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa STP STP
HRR MLD
HRR STP
HRR MLD
HZMaa STP
MLD
MLD MLD
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
STP STP
HRR
MLD
HRR
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
0.1 STP
5 HRR
0.2
HRR STP
HRR MLD
HRR
STP
STP HRR
HRR
STP MLD
STP
0.1
STP MLD
STP
HRR
STP HRR MLD
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HRR
STP
STP
STP
STP STP
STP STP
0.25
MLD
0.3 STP
HZMaa HRR
0.2
MLD
STP MLD
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
0.1 5 HRR
HZMaapt HRR STP
MLD
STP
STPpt
HRR MLD
STPpt STP STP

HRR
STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HZMaa MLD
HRR STP STP STP
STP
HZMaa MLD
HRR HZMaa HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
STP STP
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa HZMaa STP HRR
HZMaa
MLD
HRR HRR
HZMaa
HRR STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
HRR HZMaa HZMaa HRR
HRR
HZMaa
STP STP
STP
HRR HRR
HRR STP STP
HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa
HRR
HRR STP HRR STP STP
HRR STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HRR HRR STP
STP HRR HZMaa
STP
STP HZMaa
HRR
HRR STP HZMaa

STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP STP
HRR STP

HRR Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
HRR
HRR HRR
STP
STP
HRR STP
STP
HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
STP
STP STP
MLD
HRR
STP
STP
MLD
MLD HZMaa
MLD
STP
MLD
MLD MLD
HZMaa HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HZMaa

MLD
STP
MLD
MLD
STP
STP
MLD
STP
STP
STP
STP MLD
HZMaa
STP
STP
STP STP STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
STP DOVxtgl STP MLD
HRR STP STP
MLD HZMaa
HRR
STP
STP
HZMaa
HRR
STP DOVxtgl
DOVxtgl STP
5 STP HZMaa
0 DOVxtgl
0.
HRR
HRR
STP
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
STP
RB
HRR
STP
STP
RB STP
HRR
MUS
STP
STP
r
ve
MUS
Ri
ca STP
as
DOVxtgl
b
STP
a
MUS
th
50
MUS
A
0.
MUS
STP STP
STP
DOVxt
DOVxt
0.0
5
HZMaa
STP STP
DOVxtgl
STP
HRR
STP
STP
Twp-075 Rge-18 Mer-4 MUS
HRR
MUS
MLD
5
0.0
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
DOVxtgl MLD STP MLD STP STP ELS
STP MRN
MRN HZMaa MLD ELS
MLD HZMaa
MRN MLDxt
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD
STP MLD
HZMaa
DOVxtgl DOVxtgl STP

HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP
STP STP STP STP

HZMaa STP
STP
DOVxtgl HZMaa HZMaa
MLD HZMaa
STP DOVxtgl DOVxtgl
STP
STP STP
MLD
STP MLD
HZMaa STP
DOVxtgl STP
STP
MUS MLD
DOVxtgl HZMaa STP
STP
STP
STP
STP STP STP MUS MUS
STP
MLD HZMaa HZMaa STP
STP HZMaa
MUS STP
DOVxtgl STP MLD
HZMaa
STP STP
STP
STP
MUS
DOVxtgl
STP HZMaa
STP
STP
HZMaa
MUS STP
MLD
STP STP
MUS
STP
MUS STP
DOVxt
STP
STP
HZMaa
DOVxtgl STP
STP
DOVxtgl STP
STP
STP
STP STP
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
HRR STP
MLD
STP
MLD HZMaa
STP
HRR
MLD HRR
STP
MLD Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa
MUS STP MLD Twp-075 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa
STP
HRR MLD
MUS
MLD
STP STP
MLD STP HZMaa
MUS STP
STP HZMaa
MLD STP STP
MLD STP MLD HRR
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
ELS STP STPpt HRR STP HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa STP
ELS HRR
STP HZMaa STP HRR
HRR
STP HZMaa
STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP HRR HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
STP STP HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP STP
HRR
HRR
STP
HRR STP
HRR
STP HRR
HRR
STP HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
STP HRR STP
STP HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP
HZMaa STP STP STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
STP
STP STP HZMaa
STP HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa MUS
MUS STP
STP STP HRR HZMaa STP
HRR
HZMaa
STP HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
STP
MLD HRR
HZMaa STP
MLD STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HRR
HRR HRR
STP STP HRR
STP
HRR MUS
HRR
STP
STP STP
STP
STP HRR HRR
HZMaa HRR HZMaa STP
STP HZMaa
STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
STP
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa STP
STP
STP
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
HZMaa STP
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HRR HZMaa Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4
HRR
HZMaa STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
MLD STP HRR STP STP HRR STP HRR STP
Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR MLD STP
HRR
HRR STP
STP
HZMaa STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
STP
HRR
STP
HRR HRR
STP STP HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
HRR
HRR
STP HRR HZMaa
STP STP
STP
STP HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
STP HZMaa
HRR
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa STP STP
HZMaa
STP
MUS HRR HZMaa
STP HRR HZMaa STP
STP
STP STP STP HRR
HRR
HRR STP
HZMaa HRR HRR
STP
HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
HRR
HZMaa
MUS
HRR STP
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP
HRR
MUS HZMaa
HRR
STP
HZMaa STP
STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa STP
HZMaa STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
HZMaa

Index Map:
Legend
Water
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa
0.25
HRR
HRR
0.2
HRR
Constuction Camp Sump

HRR
HRR 0.15
S12
HRR
STP
0.1 HRR
STP
STP STP
HRR STP
STP
HRR
HRR
HZMaa
STP
HRR
CPF
HRR
HRR
0.15
STP
0.3
STP
0.4
HZMaapt HZMaapt
HZMaa
0.35
0.25
0.2 HZMaapt
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
STP HZMaapt
HZMaa HRR
Legend FIGURE 123-5

Potential Acid Input Isopleth Project Area HIGHEST POTENTIAL ACID INPUT LEVELS
(keq H+/ha/yr) AND SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE LSA AND
Hydrography RSA FOR THE APPLICATION CASE
Disturbed Land
Soils Map Unit BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
m
Microsoft Corporation (2010), Paragon (2013), Stantec (2013)
0 50 100 150
April 2013
¯
Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M

Twp 78 - Rge 18 W4M
Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M
Area of Interest
0. 2 5
0.
2
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M

0.1 5
Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.15
Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
0.35
0.4 Twp 75 - Rge 17 W4M

0.3
Legend FIGURE 123-6

Rough B roken Project Area ACID INPUT IN THE LSA AND RSA FOR THE
(keq H+/ha/yr)
Inset Map - A rea of Interest Disturbed Land Soils Local Study Area PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE
Critical Load Exceeded Hydrography Soils Regional Study A rea AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Critical Load Not E xceeded Water PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 100,000
Microsoft Corporation (2010), Paragon (2013), Stantec (2013) km April 2013
0 0.5 1 2 3
0.1 ¯
r

ve
Ri
s ca
ba
ha
At
0.1

0.25
0.2
0.1

Legend
RSA FOR THE PLANNED
Page Extent DEVELOPMENT CASE
Soils Regional Study Area 0 950
m
1,900
BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Hydrology (All Locations Approximate)
UTM Zone 12N

¯

MLD
HZMaa
RB
er
iv
R
HZMaa a
c
s
a
b
a
th
RB
A
MLD HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD STP
HRR

Legend
Hydrography SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE LSA AND
Potential Acid Input Isopleth RSA FOR THE PLANNED
(keq H+/ha/yr) Water DEVELOPMENT CASE
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯

HRR
FIR
MLD
MLD
BMT
FIR
HZMaa
MLD
HZMaa RB
MLD
HZMaa RB
HZMaa RB
MLD
HZMaa
MLD HRR
HZMaa
RB
HRR
MLD
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
HRR HRR
RB HZMaa HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
HRR
Athabasca River
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
RB MRN
HZMaa MRN
STP STP
HZMaa MRN
HZMaa STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa MRN
HRR STP HZMaa
STP STP MRN

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯ 0.
1
BMT STP
HRR FIR
RB
HRR
FIR HRR HRR
BMT
HZMaa
STP
MLD MLD HRR HRR
FIR MLD
MMW
STP MLD
BMT MLD
HRR
FIR
MLD HZMaa
HRR STP HZMaa
BMT STP MLD
HZMaa STP
HZMaa STP
HZMaa MLD
HRR
HRR
HZMaa STP
RB STP
HRR STP
RB RB
HRR
STP STP HZMaa
HRR
RB Athabasc a River
HZMaa
STP
RB RB Twp-078 Rge-17 Mer-4
RB Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP
HZMaa
HRR
MMW MLD
MMW STP
STP
MMW
RB RB HZMaa
RB HRR STP
RB
HZMaa
HRR
HRR HZMaa STP
HZMaa
RB
RB RB
HRR STP
HRR HRR
RB HRR
HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HRR
HRR MLD MLD
HZMaa
RB
RB
HZMaa HZMaa HRR HRR

HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR MLD
STP
HZMaa HRR
HRR
HRR HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
STP
HRR MLD
HRR
HZMaa STP
STP
HRR HRR RB STP MLD
HZMaa HZMaa
STP HRR
HRR HZMaa
HRR STP
STP
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa
STP HRR
ELS
HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa STP
HRR HRR STP
STP STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
STP HRR
HRR HRR
STP
HRR
MRN STP
MRN
HRR
RB HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa RB
MRN HZMaa MRN
ELSpt HRR
HRR STP
HLY
STP
MRN HZMaa HZMaa

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

0.1
¯
HZMaa
MLD
STP
STP MLD
HZMaa
MLD STP MLD
STP STP
MLD
STP
STP STP
STP
MLD
STP STP
MLD
HZMaa
STP
STP HZMaa
STP STP
HZMaa Twp-078 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP HZMaa
MLD
MLD HZMaa STP
STP
MLD
HZMaa HZMaa
STP
STP
MLD STP STP
HZMaa MLD
MLD MLD
STP HZMaa
MLD STP MLD

MLD STP
STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa MLD
STP
HZMaa
HRR
MLD STP
MLD MLD
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD HRR HZMaa

MLD
STP HRR
MLD STP
STP
HZMaa
STP
MLD
HZMaa
MLD
HZMaa
MLD HZMaa HRR
STP MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa MLD STP
STP HZMaa HRR HZMaa
HRR
HRR
STP HRR
HRR STP HZMaa STP
HZMaa MLD HZMaa
STP
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HRR
STP HZMaa STP
HZMaa
STP STP STP

HRR HZMaa
MLD HRR
HZMaa
STP HRR
STP HZMaa
MLD STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

MLD
¯
MLD
HZMaa
MLD
HRR
RB
HRR
DOVxtgl
HRR
STP
DOVxtgl
HRR HRR
STP
DOVxtgl
DOVxtgl
STP
RB STP
HRR
MLD
STP DOVxtgl
STP
HRR
MLD
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
STP HRR
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP
STP
HRR
HRR
STP
MLD
STP
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP
Twp-076 Rge-19 Mer-4 RB Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4
RB
HZMaa MMW DOVxtgl
HRR MLD
MLD STP
HRR

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
MLD Athabasca River
er
iv
HZMaa R
a
c
s HZMaa
a
RB
b
a
th
RB
A
STP
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
RB
STP
HRR
HZMaa
MLDxt
HRR
STP
HRR HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
HRR STP
STP
STP HRR
HRR MLDxt
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
HRR MLDxt
HRR HZMaa MLDxt
STP HZMaa
MLD
HRR
MLD
STP HZMaa
HRR HRR HZMaa
STP MLDxt MLDxt
STP
HRR HZMaa MRN
HRR
STP HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
HRR HZMaa
DOVxtgl MLDxt MRN
STPpt
HRR HZMaa
MRN
STP
STP
HRR
MUS
HRR DOVxtgl HRR STPpt
DOVxtgl MLD
STP MUS
STP
HRR
HRR MLD
STP MLD MLD
STP
DOVxtgl STP
HRR MLDxt
STP
MLDxt
DOVxtgl
HZMaa
DOVxtgl STP STP STPpt STPpt
STP STP STPpt
HZMaa MLDxt
HRR STP MLD
DOVxtgl STP MLD STPpt
HRR HZMaa
HRR STPpt
MLD
MLD HZMaa
MLD HRR STP STPpt
STP STP MLD
STP DOVxtgl
STP HRR DOVxt HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR STP
MLD
HRR HRR
STP
STP
DOVxtgl STP STP MLD STP MLD MLD

MLD
HRR
STP
STP
STP MLDxt
HRR STP FIRxt
MLD
MLD HRR MLD MLDxt
STP
MLD
MLD
MLD
HRR
STP
HRR STP STP
STP STP
HRR HRR HZMaa
MRN
STP FIRxt HZMaa

MLD
STP MLD
STP ELS
STP
HZMaa
DOVxtgl STP
STP MLD MLDxt MLD
ELS HZMaa
HZMaa
STP MLD
ELSpt MUS
ELSpt
Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4 STPpt
DOVxtgl Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 FIRxt HZMaa
MLD MLDxt
STP STP STP HZMaa HZMaa
STPzz Water
MUS
STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
STP HZMaa
HRR HRR
Athabasca River HZMaa
STP ELS
HZMaa
STP
RB
HZMaa
HZMaa RB HRR
RB
HRR
HZMaa MRN
HRR
STP STP
HZMaa MRN HZMaa

HZMaa STP RB
HZMaa
HRR ELSpt
HZMaa
MRN HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
STP HRR
STP
ELS
HRR ELSpt
MRN MRN
HZMaa HRR
STP HZMaa
Water
HZMaa
MRN
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
MRN STPpt
STP
MLDxt
MLDxt
HZMaa MRN
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa STP Water
MLDxt
HZMaa MRN
HZMaa RB
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
MLDxt
ELSpt ELSpt
HZMaa STP
HZMaa
MLDxt STP MRN MRN
MRN
MLDxt HZMaa
MUS HZMaa STP ELSpt
HZMaa MLDxt
MLDxt MLDxt
STP MRN
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa RB
MLDxt HZMaa MLDxt MLDxt
MRN MRN
HZMaa
RB HLY
HZMaa STP
MRN
MLDxt
MRN MLDxt STP MLDxt

STPpt
STPpt
STPpt
HZMaa STPpt
STPpt
MUS
MUS
MUS
MRN
HZMaa
MLD
MLD
MLDxt
STPpt
HZMaa
MLDxt
HZMaa MRN STPpt

STPpt
HZMaa HZMaa
MLDxt STPpt HZMaa
STP
STPpt MRN HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa STPpt RB
HZMaa
STPpt
MLD
MRN
HZMaa HZMaa MUS
HZMaa LVK RB
HZMaa
HZMaa STPpt HZMaa MRN HZMaa
MLD STPpt
RB
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
HZMaa
MUS
STPpt LVK
STPpt
MLDxt HRR
MLD
LVK
MLD
HZMaa MLD
STPpt MLD MUS
HRR MUS MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD
STPpt MLD
STPpt RB
HZMaa
HRR
MLD MLD
MLD STPpt
MLDxt
HZMaa MLD
STPpt HZMaa MUS
STPpt
STP HRR
MRN MLD
RB
HZMaa MLD
HRR HRR
MUS HRR
STP HZMaa
HZMaa MLDxt
STP HZMaa HZMaa
Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa STPpt Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
HZMaa STP HRR
MUS MRN Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4
STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HRR STP HRR HZMaa
HZMaa MLD
HRR STP HZMaa
STP HZMaa
STP MLD
ELS HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HRR STP HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HRR
STP STP
MLD
HRR HRR
RB
RB MRN
HZMaa ELSpt HRR
RB STP
HLY HRR
STP
HZMaa MLD HRR
STP HRR
HRR
ELSpt HRR STP
HRR
HRR STP MLD
Water RB STP
HZMaa HRR
STP
STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa STP
Water HZMaa
HRR HRR
RB Water
HRR
HLYzz
STPpt HRR
RB
ELSpt
HZMaa HRR
HRR
ELSpt ELSpt HRR

HZMaa
HZMaa
MRN STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa HRR
Water
RB HRR HRR
HLY HZMaa HZMaa
ELS
STP HRR
MLDxt HRR HRR HRR
HZMaa
STPpt
STP HZMaa
MUS HRR
HRR
ELS STP
MRN HZMaa
ELS
HRR HZMaa MLD
ELS HZMaa
STP
STPpt MLD STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
ELS
ELS
MLD MRN HRR STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa HZMaa
MLD ELS MRN HRR
MRN ELS
STPpt MRN HZMaa STP STP
HZMaa
MLD
HZMaa
HZMaa ELS MLDxt MRN MLD
ELS STP HRR HRR HRR
MRN MRN HZMaa
RB HZMaa
MLD STP
MLD MLDxt HRR HZMaa
MRN MRN HRR HRR
HZMaa HZMaa MUS MUS
HZMaa MLDxt HRR HRR
RB MUS HZMaa MLD
STP
MLD HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
ELS MRN
MUS HZMaa HRR HRR
MLD HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
MRN MUS
HZMaa MUS ELS ELS

MUS HZMaa HZMaa
RB
HRR HRR
STP HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HRR
MUS
HRR
MLD
MUS ELS
MUS
MLD
MLD
MUS HZMaa HRR
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
MUS
RB HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
MUS
STP
HZMaa MUS MUS
MLD
HRR
MLD
RB
MLD STP
HRR HRR HZMaa HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR
MUS

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HZMaa HZMaa MLD HZMaa HRR STP
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa STP
MLD HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HZMaa HRR

HZMaa STP
HZMaa
STP STP
MLD
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR STP
HRR HZMaa
MLD
STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR STP STP
HZMaa
MLD
HRR STP
HRR STP
STP HRR
STP HZMaa
STP
HRR HRR
HRR
STP
HRR HRR
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HRR
HRR HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR HZMaa
HRR
STP
HRR HRR
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
RB STP
HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HRR
HRR
HRR
MLD

HRR HZMaa
HRR HRR
STP
MLD
HZMaa STP
HRR STP MLD
HZMaa
STP
HZMaa MLD
HZMaa STP STP
HRR
STP HZMaa STP
STP
HRR
STP HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HRR STP STP
HRR
HZMaa STP HRR
HRR HRR HRR

HZMaa
HZMaa STP MLD
MUS HRR
HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR HRR
STP HZMaa STP
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa STP
STP STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR HRR STP HZMaa

STP HZMaa
HRR
HRR STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HRR
HRR
STP STP
HRR
HZMaa

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
STP STP
STP MLD
DOVxtgl
DOVxtgl MLD
STP
STP
Twp-07 6 Rge-19 Mer-4 Twp-077 Rge-18 Mer-4
RB DOVxtgl
HZMaa
MLD
RB STP
MMW
MLD
DOVxtgl
MLD
HRR MLD
DOVxtgl
HZMaa STP
STP
HRR MLD
DOVxtgl
MLD
DOVxtgl
r
ve
STP STP
Ri
ca
HRR STP
STP
as
RB
ab
th
A
HZMaa MLD
STP STP
RB MLD
DOVxtgl
STP MLD
DOVxt
MLD
HRR
STP
DOVxtgl STP
MLD DOVxt
MUS
HRR
STP
DOVxtgl HRR
MLD
RB
DOVxt
HRR STP
MLD
STP
STP
STP STP
STP MLD
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP
STP
DOVxt
STP STP
HRR
MLD
STP
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
DOVxt DOVxtgl
DOVxt HRR
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
MLD
DOVxtgl
STP STP
HRR
DOVxtgl MLD
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
HRR DOVxtgl MLD

STP STP
RB
STP
STP
STP
HRR
STP
STP
HRR STP
HRR
STP
HRR STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HZMaa
MLD
MLD MRN
STP
MLD HZMaa
STP STP
STP
FIRxt MLD
ELS STP
HZMaa
DOVxtgl STP STP
DOVxtgl STP
MLD MLDxt STP
STP MLD
ELS HZMaa
HZMaa MLD
STP MLD
ELSpt
STP DOVxtgl ELSpt
MLD FIRxt
STP HZMaa Water
STP HZMaa
STP MUS
MLD MLDxt
DOVxtgl STP
HRR
STPzz
MLD HZMaa
MLD HRR
STPpt MUS
HRR HRR STP
STPpt HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
STP
MLD
MLD DOVxtgl HRR STPpt HZMaa
MLD MUS
STPzz HZMaa STPpt
STP STP
MRN
STP
MUS MUS
STPpt
HRR HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP HRR STPpt MLDxt
MLDxt
MLD MLD
MUS
STP STP
HRR HZMaa
STP
MLD
MLD
DOVxtgl STP
STP
STP MLD
MLD STP
DOVxt STP STP

MLD
STPzz
MLD
MLDxt
STP MLD
STP
DOVxtgl MLDxt
MLD MLD
DOVxt
MUS
STP MLDzz
MLD
MLD
STP MLDxt
STP STP STPpt MLDxt

MLDzz
MLD MLDxt
MLD MLD
STP STPpt
STP MLDxt
STP
MLD MLDxt
MLDzz
STP
STP STP
STP
DOVxtgl
MLD
STP STP
STP DOVxtgl HZMaa
MLD HZMaa
HZMaapt
MLDxt
STPzz
STP MUS MUS
MLD MLDxt MLDxt
DOVxtgl MLDzz
DOVxtgl STP STP STPzz
MLDxt
MLD
DOVxtgl
MRN MLDzz
STP MLDxt
STP
DOVxtgl STP STPzz
MLDxt
MLD
DOVxtgl MLD MLDzz
MLD STPzz MLDxt MLDzz
MLD STPzz
MRN MRN
STP
STP
STP
DOVxtgl STP MRN
STP MRN
STP STP MLD
HZMaa
MLD HZMaa
STP
MRN
STP MLDxt
DOVxtgl
HZMaa
DOVxtgl MLD
STP HZMaa
RB STP HZMaa
STP MLD
MLD
DOVxtgl STP
STP
HZMaa HZMaa

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
MLD MLD STPpt MLD HRR HRR
HZMaa MLD MUS
STPpt STPpt HZMaa
HZMaa
STPpt

MLDxt
STP HRR MLD
MRN
HZMaa
HRR
MUS HRR
STP
HZMaa
MLDxt RB
MLD HZMaa STP
Water STPpt Twp-077 Rge-17 Mer-4
HZMaa HZMaa MRN
MUS MRN STP

MRN STP HZMaa
HRR
MLD HZMaa HZMaa
STP STP MUS
MUS STP
MUS HZMaa
STP
STP
MUS
STPpt STPzz HRR

MLD
MRN
HZMaa
STPzz
HZMaa HRR
HRR HRR
MRN
MRN HRR
HZMaa HRR
MRN HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HRR
0.1
HZMaa MRN
STP HZMaa
HRR
MLD HRR
HRR
HZMaa HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
MUS
HRR
HRR HZMaa
STPpt
HRR 0.1
MLD HZMaa
MLDzz
0.
1
0.2
STPpt
5
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HRR
MLDzz STP
HZMaa
HLY HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP HZMaa
HLY
HZMaa
HRR HRR
STPpt STPpt
STP
HZMaa HLY
HZMaapt STP
0.25
MLDzz 0.3
STPpt STP HZMaa

0.2
HZMaapt
STPpt
HZMaapt
HZMaapt 0.1 5
HRR
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
STPpt
STP
STPpt
STPpt STPpt
MLDzz HZMaa STP HRR

HZMaapt HZMaa STP
HZMaa
STP HZMaa
ELS HZMaapt
0.1
STP HZMaa HRR

STP
ELS STP HZMaa
STPpt HZMaa
HZMaapt HZMaapt
HZMaa HRR STP
MLDzz MLD HRR HZMaapt HZMaa
ELS STP STP HZMaa
STPpt HZMaa STP
STPpt HRR
ELS HRR HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HRR HRR
STP
ELS HZMaa
HZMaa
STP STP
HRR
STP
STP STP
MLD HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HRR STP
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
STP HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
MLD HRR HRR MUS HZMaa HZMaa HRR HRR
STP
HZMaa MUS MUS
MLD
MLD STP
MLD
HRR
HZMaa HRR
RB
HRR
HZMaa MUS
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HRR
HRR
HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR STP

HRR
STP
HRR HRR STP
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR
HRR HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa STP STP
HRR MLD
HRR STP
HRR MLD
HZMaa STP
MLD
MLD MLD
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
STP STP
HRR
MLD
0.
HRR
1
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
0.1 STP
5 HRR
0.2
HRR STP
HRR MLD
HRR
STP
STP
HRR
STP MLD
HRR
STP
STP MLD
STP
HRR
STP HRR MLD
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HRR
STP
STP
STP
STP STP
STP STP
0.25
MLD
0.3 STP
HZMaa HRR
0.2 MLD
STP MLD
STP
HZMaa HZMaa
0.1 5 HRR
HZMaapt HRR STP
MLD
STP
STPpt
HRR MLD
0.1
STPpt STP STP
HRR
STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HZMaa MLD
HRR STP STP STP
STP
HZMaa MLD
HRR HZMaa HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
STP STP
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa HZMaa STP HRR
HZMaa STP
MLD
HRR HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP
STP
STP
STP
HRR HZMaa HZMaa HRR
HRR
HZMaa
STP STP
STP
HRR HRR
HRR STP STP
HZMaa HRR HRR
HZMaa
HRR
HRR STP HRR STP STP
HRR STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR HRR HRR STP
STP HRR HZMaa
STP
STP HZMaa
HRR
HRR STP HZMaa

STP
HRR HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP STP
HRR STP

HRR Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
HRR
HRR HRR
STP
STP
HRR STP
STP
HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
STP
STP STP
MLD
HRR
STP
STP
MLD
MLD HZMaa
MLD
STP
MLD
MLD MLD
HZMaa HZMaa
STP
HZMaa HZMaa

MLD
STP
MLD
MLD
STP
STP
MLD
STP
STP
STP
STP MLD
HZMaa
STP
STP
STP STP STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
STP DOVxtgl STP MLD
HRR STP STP
MLD HZMaa
HRR
STP
STP
HZMaa
HRR
STP DOVxtgl
DOVxtgl STP
STP HZMaa
DOVxtgl
HRR
HRR
STP
STP STP
DOVxtgl
STP
RB
HRR
STP
STP
RB STP
HRR
MUS
STP
STP
r
ve
MUS
Ri
ca STP
as
DOVxtgl
b
STP
a
MUS
th
MUS
A
STP
MUS
STP
STP
DOVxt
DOVxt
HZMaa
STP
DOVxtgl
STP
HRR
STP
STP
Twp-075 Rge-18 Mer-4 MUS
HRR
MUS
MLD

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
DOVxtgl MLD STP MLD STP STP ELS
STP MRN
MRN HZMaa MLD ELS
MLD HZMaa
MRN MLDxt
STP
HZMaa
DOVxtgl HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa
MLD
STP MLD
HZMaa
DOVxtgl DOVxtgl STP

HZMaa
DOVxtgl
STP
STP STP STP

HZMaa STP
STP
STP
DOVxtgl HZMaa HZMaa
MLD HZMaa
STP DOVxtgl DOVxtgl
STP
STP STP
MLD
STP MLD
HZMaa STP
DOVxtgl STP
STP
MUS MLD
DOVxtgl HZMaa STP
STP
STP
STP
STP STP STP MUS MUS
STP
STP
MLD HZMaa STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
MUS STP
DOVxtgl STP MLD
HZMaa
STP STP
STP
STP
MUS
DOVxtgl
STP HZMaa
STP
STP
HZMaa
MUS STP
MLD
STP STP
STP MUS
MUS STP
DOVxt
STP
STP
DOVxtgl HZMaa
STP
STP
DOVxtgl STP
STP
STP
STP STP
DOVxtgl
STP
STP
DOVxtgl
HRR STP
MLD
STP
MLD HZMaa
STP
HRR
MLD HRR
STP
MLD Twp-076 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa
MUS STP MLD Twp-075 Rge-18 Mer-4 HZMaa
STP
HRR MLD
MUS
MLD
STP STP
MLD STP HZMaa
MUS STP
STP HZMaa
MLD STP STP
MLD STP MLD HRR

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
ELS STP STPpt HRR STP HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
HZMaa STP
ELS HRR
STP HZMaa STP HRR
HRR
STP HZMaa
STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP HRR HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
STP STP HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP STP
HRR
HRR
STP
HRR STP
HRR
STP HRR
HRR
STP HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa

STP HRR STP
STP HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP
HZMaa STP STP STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
STP
STP STP STP HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa
HZMaa MUS HZMaa MUS
STP STP HRR HZMaa STP
HRR
HZMaa
STP HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
STP
MLD HZMaa HRR
STP
MLD STP HZMaa
STP
HZMaa
HRR
HRR
STP STP HRR
STP HRR
HRR MUS
HRR
STP
STP STP
STP
STP HRR HRR
HZMaa HRR HZMaa STP
STP HZMaa
STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
STP
HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa STP
STP
STP
HZMaa STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR STP
STP HZMaa
HZMaa STP
HRR
HZMaa HRR
HRR HZMaa Twp-076 Rge-17 Mer-4
HRR
HZMaa STP
HRR HRR
HZMaa
STP STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa
MLD STP HRR STP STP HRR STP HRR STP

Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HRR MLD STP
HRR
HRR STP
STP
HZMaa STP
HZMaa
HZMaa HRR
STP
HRR
STP
HRR HRR
STP STP HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
HRR
HRR
STP HRR HZMaa
STP STP
STP
STP HZMaa
HRR HZMaa
STP
HRR
HZMaa
HRR HRR
HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
STP HRR
STP HZMaa
HRR
HRR
HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa STP STP
HZMaa
STP
HRR HZMaa
MUS HRR HZMaa STP
STP STP
STP STP STP HRR
HRR
HRR STP
HZMaa HRR HRR
STP
HZMaa
STP
HRR
STP
HRR
HZMaa
MUS
HRR STP
HRR
HZMaa
HRR
STP
HRR
MUS HZMaa
HRR
STP
HZMaa STP
STP HZMaa
STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa STP
HZMaa STP
STP
HZMaa STP HZMaa
HZMaa
HZMaa
STP
HZMaa


Legend
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

¯
HZMaa
HRR
HZMaa HRR
0.15
HRR
HZMaa
0.25
HRR
HRR
0.2
HRR
HRR
HRR Constuction Camp HRR Sump STP
S12
STP
STP STP
HRR
HRR
STP
STP
HRR
HRR
STP
CPF HZMaa
HRR 0.15 HRR
HRR
STP
STP 0.35
HZMaapt
HZMaa HZMaapt
0.4
0.15
0.3
0.25
HRR
HZMaapt HRR
HZMaapt HRR
0.2
HZMaapt
HZMaapt
HZMaa STP HZMaapt
Legend FIGURE 123-8

Potential Acid Input Isopleth Project Area HIGHEST POTENTIAL ACID INPUT LEVELS
(keq H+/ha/yr) AND SOIL MAP UNITS IN THE LSA AND
Hydrography RSA FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE
Disturbed Land
Soils Map Unit BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
m
Microsoft Corporation (2010), Paragon (2013), Stantec (2013)
0 50 100 150
April 2013
BlackPearl states that Pre-selected soil inspection sites were mapped into GIS systems which
generated UTMs for selected sites.
a. Provide clarification for what is meant by generated UTMs for selected sites.
Response:
Pre-selected soil inspection sites were chosen based on survey intensity levels (Volume 4, Section 4.4 of
the Integrated Application) and identifiable topographical and vegetation differences using aerial
photography. These points were then digitized into ArcGIS software, geo-referenced and mapped. UTM
coordinates were subsequently generated for the inspection site locations. Inspections were completed
as close as reasonably possible to the sites selected prior to being in the field, with field discretion used to
move sites as necessary to capture representative data. Additional site inspections not plotted using GIS
were also completed to capture landscape, soil and vegetation features that were not identifiable on aerial
photography.
BlackPearl states that Deep organic accumulations were generally inspected up to a maximum
depth of 320 cm or until 30 cm into mineral soil contact, whichever was shallower.
Characteristics of underlying mineral material may be useful when determining anticipated
peat-mineral mix quality for use during reclamation.
a. Provide clarification as to when peat-mineral mixes will be used during reclamation of

SAGD well pads and associated facilities.
Response:
Peat-mineral mixes will not be used during soil placement. As noted in AESRD SIR 103b, peat will be
salvaged separately from all mineral subsoil.
125. b. Describe the stripping methods that will be used for construction of well pads on
Organic soils.
Response:
Organic soils will be salvaged to a minimum depth of 40 cm and expected practicably achievable salvage
depths will range from 40 cm to 60 cm to account for equipment stripping limitations. An excavator will be
used on competent ground in frozen conditions to salvage the peat. Management practices, such as the
use of rig mats or freeze down mechanisms in winter, can be applied to allow heavy equipment to work in
areas that would otherwise be too wet. A soil salvage monitor will supervise the salvage work and
conduct depth checks to ensure that a minimum of 40 cm of peat is salvaged.
Page 267
125. c. Confirm that admixing of mineral subsoil and organic soils will not occur and that
mineral subsoil and organic soils will be stored in separate stockpiles.
Response:
Admixing of mineral subsoil and organic soil will not occur and mineral subsoil and organic soil will be
stored in separate stockpiles.
126. Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.2.2.3, Figure 4A-3, Page 4A-10
Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.2.2.3, Table 4A1-2, Page 4A-48 to 4A-56
BlackPearl provides maps of the soil inspection locations in the LSA in Figure 4A-3 and soil
units in the LSA in Figure 4A-7. This information presented separately cannot be correlated
with Table 4A1-2.
a. Provide 1:10,000 hard copy and electronic color orthophoto soil maps (with no colour
blocking) of the Terrestrial LSA, including labelled soil map units and site inspection
points that correspond to the site inspection list in Table 4A1-2.
Response:
Please AESRD SIR 193a. Figure 193-1 provides a 1:10,000 scale map showing the soil map units
without colour blocking, soil inspection sites, soil series and topsoil depth at each inspection site. The soil
legend includes the average topsoil depth and range of each soil map unit. The map is shown on a colour
orthophoto background and includes the proposed Project Area.
BlackPearl states that Polygons were delineated based on surficial material, surface
expression, slope and drainage, with minimum mappable polygon size of approximately 0.5 ha.
However, the soil map (Figure 4A-7) is presented at a scale of 1:45,000. At this scale of
mapping, the minimum size polygon will be too small to see on the map (as presented).
a. Provide the soil map on a scale which the minimum size polygon will be visible
(1:10,000).
Response:
background and includes the proposed Project Area.
Page 268
127. b. Define the scale that the soils were mapped (both for the LSA and RSA).
Response:
The LSA was mapped at a scale of 1:20,000. The mapping was completed using 1:20,000 scale stereo
pair aerial photographs (1999) and 1:20,000 scale ortho photographs. The RSA was mapped and
developed at a scale of 1:20,000 to 1:100,000 using the 1:20,000 scale ortho photos, the 1:100,000
surficial geology map (Campbell et al. 2001). and 1:20,000 scale Alberta Vegetation Index (AVI) maps
that are valid to that level of detail (AESRD 2013).
127. c. Provide the larger scale (1:10,000 scale soil maps in the Integrated Application report
(Volume 1, C&R section; Volume 4; Soils/Terrain section).
Response:
background and includes the proposed Project Area.
128. Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.3.1.4, Figure 4A-5, Page 4A-20
BlackPearl provided a map of Surficial Geology of the Soils LSA and RSA. However the colors
distinguishing the glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine as well as drumlinoid and glacial deposits
are too close to each other such are difficult to interpret.
a. Provide a revised map that has colors that are easily distinguishable for all deposits.
Response:
Figure 4A-5 in Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.3.1.4 has been revised (Figure 128-1) to include
colours that are easily distinguishable for all deposits.
Page 269
Twp 78 - Rge 18 W4M
Twp 77 - Rge 18 W4M Twp 78 - Rge 17 W4M
¯
Twp 77 - Rge 17 W4M
Athabas c a Rive r
Twp 77 - Rge 18 W4M

Twp 76 - Rge 17 W4M
Twp 76 - Rge 18 W4M

Twp 75 - Rge 17 W4M
Legend FIGURE 128-1

Alluvial de posits Gla ciofluvial deposits Hydrography
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF THE SOILS LSA AND RSA
Bedrock Gla ciofluvial deposits: Proximal (ice-con tact) Wa terbo dies
Co llu via l deposits Gla ciolacustrin e deposits: Off-shore (distal) Soils Lo cal Study Area AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Drumlinoid morain e Organic deposits Soils Regional Study A rea
PROPOSED BLACKROD
Gla cial depo sit s: Moraine Stagnant ice mora ine COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N
Data Sources: Alberta G eological Survey (2002), AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus Geomatics (2013), SCALE: 1: 100,000
Blackbridge Geomatics (2010), Microsoft Corporation (2010), Paragon (2013) km
0 0.5 1 1.5
April 2013
129. Volume 4, Attachment 4A1, Table 4A1-2, Pages 4A-48 to 4A-59
BlackPearl provided a summary of soils field inspections. In the Soil Series column there are
series that are listed but not defined in the remainder of the document. For example, MRN1,
MLD4, ABN5, GGG5, MRN1cuxcyt, MUS2zz, GGG4, MUS4 and so on.
a. Provide either a corrected Table 4A1-2 or provide definition for the above listed (or
other similar) soil series in the table.
Response:
Table 4A1-1 in Volume 4, Attachment 4A1 has been revised (Table 129-1) to include the requested
definitions. The numerical series modifiers are used to indicate the depth of the peat deposits at a given
location.
TABLE 129-1
REVISED KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLES 4A1-2 TO 4A1-35
Parent Material Gleysols Consistence Surface Expression

M – Morainal (till) R.G – Rego Gleysol Dry (D) b – Blanket
F - Fluvial O.G – Orthic Gleysol L – Loose f - Fan
GF – Glaciofluvial O.HG – Orthic Humic Gleysol SO – Soft h – Hummocky
O – Organic R.HG – Rego Humic Gleysol SLH – Slightly Hard l – Level
L - Lacustrine O.LG – Orthic Luvic Gleysol H – Hard m – rolling
GL –Glaciolacustrine VH – Very Hard r – ridged
Marl – Marl Luvisols EH – Extremely Hard s – steep
D.GL – Dark Gray Luvisol R – Rigid t - terraced
Soil Series GL.GL – Gleyed Gray Luvisol u - undulating
ABN - Albian GLD.GL – Gleyed Dark Gray Luvisol Moist (M) v - veneer
ALG – Algar Lake O.GL – Orthic Gray Luvisol L – Loose
BMT–Bitumont VFR – Very Friable Slope Position
DL – Disturbed Land Organics FR – Friable C - Crest
DOV- Dover ME.F – Mesic Fibrisol F – Firm U - Upper
ELS – Ells River T.F – Terric Fibrisol VF – Very Firm M - Mid
FIR – Firebag TY.F – Typic Fibrisol EF – Extremely Firm L - Lower
GGG – Gregg TME.F – Terric Mesic Fibrisol D – Depression
HLY – Hartley THU.F – Terric Humic Fibrisol Wet (W) Level
HRR – Horse River CU.M – Cumulic Mesisol N – Nonsticky Drainage
HZM – Hazelmere FI.M – Fibric Mesisol SLS – Slightly Sticky R - Rapid
LVK – Livock HU.M – Humic Mesisol S – Sticky W - Well
MLD – McLelland T.M – Terric Mesisol VS – Very Sticky MW – Moderately Well
MMW - Mamawi TFI.M – Terric Fibric Mesisol I - Imperfect
MRN – Mariana THU.M – Terric Humic Mesisol P - Poor
MUS – Muskeg TY.M – Typic Mesisol VP – Very Poor
NAM - Namur LM.H – Limnic Humisol
NS – New Symbol ME.H – Mesic Humisol
STP – Steepbank T.H – Terric Humisol
SUT – Sutherland TY.H – Typic Humisol
WNF – Winfred
ZUN - Miscellaneous
Page 271
Soil Phase Codes Texture Structure Mottles

aa – Not Modal SCA C – Clay Grade (first letter) Abundance (first letter)
ab – Brunisolic SiC – Silty Clay W – Weak F – Few
cu – Cumulic SiCL – Silty Clay Loam M - Moderate C – Common
cy - Cryic CL - Clay Loam S – Strong M – Many
dk – Dark Gray Varient SC – Sandy Clay
gl - Gleyed SL- Silty Loam Class (second letter) Size (second letter)
pt – Peaty Si - Silt F –Fine F –Fine
st – Stony L - Loam M - Medium M – Medium
t - Terric SCL – Sandy Clay Loam C – Coarse C – Coarse
xc – Clay at 30-99cm SL – Sandy Loam
xs – Sand at 30-99 cm LS – Loamy Sand Kind (third position) Contrast (third letter)
xt – Till at 30-99cm S - Sand Gr – Granular F – Faint
ys – Sand at 100-200 cm f – Fine PL – Platy D – Distinct
yt – Till at 100-200 cm vf – Very Fine SBK – Subangular Blocky P - Prominent
zh - Humic c – Coarse SG – Single Grain
zl -Luvisolic gr - gravelly Ma - Massive
zr - Rego
zz – Atypical Subgroup
1 - Mineral contact within 40 to 100 cm
2 - Mineral contact within 101 to 200 cm
3 – Mineral contact within 201 to 300 cm
130. Volume 4, Attachment 4A1, Table 4A1-2, Page 4A-49
BlackPearl provides a summary of soils field inspections. In the Easting and Northing columns,
the coordinates are missing for the LW002 to LW006 soil inspections.
a. Provide the missing coordinates for the above mentioned sites.
Response:
The missing coordinates cannot be provided for LW002 to LW006, as the GPS unit was unable to locate
enough satellites to provide UTM coordinates, as can happen under certain field conditions (e.g., when a
clear view of the sky is not possible). The data collected from inspection sites LW002 to LW006 were
used to supplement data collected from the other inspection sites.
131. Volume 4, Attachment 4A1, Table 4A1-2, Page 4A-53
BlackPearl provides inspection site and profile information in Table 4A1-2. The data is missing
for the BC/C horizon depth for the SM205 soil inspection.
a. Provide the missing data for this site.
Response:
Auger refusal occurred at 39 cm due to high coarse fragment content in the subsoil and it was not
possible to inspect the soil profile to 100 cm. There is no further data available for this site. The site
description has been modified from the original Table 4A1-2 in Volume 4, Attachment 4A1 and is
presented below in Table 131-1.
Page 272
TABLE 131-1
INSPECTION SITE AND PROFILE INFORMATION
Soil Sub Parent Slope Slope Surface Water Table depth LFH/O Depth A Horizon A Horizon B Horizon B Horizon BC/C Horizon
Site ID Easting Northing Soil Series Group Material (%) Position Drainage Aspect Expression (cm) (cm) Depth (cm) Texture1 Depth (cm) Texture1 Depth (cm) BC/C Horizon Texture1 Peat Depth (cm)
DT001 397759 6169451 ELSpt ptR.G M 0.5 L P 50 u 55 - - - - - 35/90 C 32
DT002 396707 6169894 DL DL M <1 M P 260 u 20 8 20 L 50 SCL 90 CL -
DT003 395881 6169884 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l 30 18 - - 34 CL 90 CL -
DT004 395270 6165422 MRN1 T.M O/M - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 100 C 45
DT005 394625 6165683 MLD4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - 400 C 370
DT006 393606 6165838 BMTzz R.G GF - D P - r 10 9 - - - - 100 LcS -
DT007 393126 6166048 LVKgldk GLD.GL GF/M <1 U I 120 r >100 12 6/12 L/L-CL 37 CL 64/100 SCL -
DT008 393691 6164117 HLYxszz T.F O/GF - Level VP - l 30 - - - - - 140+ LcS 95
DT009 394114 6163820 ABN5 TY.F O - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - - - 420+
DT010 394111 6162874 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l 30 - - - - - 420+ HC 390
DT011 392771 6161819 STPzz O.LG GF/M <1 M P 210 u >100 11 4/14 SL 16/44 L/CL 100 SCL -
DT012 393470 6161888 MLDyszz T.F O/GF - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - 210+ cSL 150
DT013 393956 6161975 GGG5 TY.F O - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - - - 420+
DT014 395424 6163176 WNFglpt ptGL.GL GF/M 1 M I 245 u >100 17 24 cSL 63 C 100 C -
DT015 395927 6162986 STPpt ptO.G M 1 M P 310 u >100 21 5/9 SiL 48 CL 100 CL -
DT016 396620 6162762 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M 4 U I 110 u >100 8 16/21 CL/SiL 65 C-CL 100 C -
DT017 397009 6162957 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 260 u >100 12 6 SiL 45 SiCL 100 C -
DT018 396300 6162427 HZMaa GL.GL M 1 M I 200 u >100 11 19 SiL 61 SCL 100 C -
DT019 396808 6161914 ELSpt ptR.G M 1.5 M P 275 u 0 35 - - - - 80 C -
DT020 396019 6161935 HZMaapt ptGL.GL M 1 M I 260 u >100 16 16 SiL 65 CL-C 100 CL -
DT021 395709 6162062 HZMaapt ptGL.GL M 2 L I 290 u >100 32 8 SiL 33 fSCL 90 CL -
DT022 395723 6162259 STPptzz ptO.LG M 2 M P 250 u >100 23/15 4/8 SiL 45 SCL 90 CL -
DT023 394788 6161998 MRN2 T.M O/M <1 D VP - u 10 - - - - - 170 CL 130
DT024 395723 6162768 HZMaapt ptGL.GL M 1 M I 120 u >100 31/19 18 SiL 45 CL-C 100 CL-SCL -
DT025 395751 6164080 HRR O.GL M 2 U MW 234 u >100 12 5 CL 35 C 100 C -
DT026 398239 6166076 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 330 u >100 9 4/9 L/SiL 90 SiCL 100 C -
DT027 397098 6165287 HZMaadkpt ptGLD.GL M 1.5 M I 340 u >100 20 5/10 L/SiL 35 CL 90 C -
DT028 397216 6165960 LVKpt ptO.GL GF/M 2 M MW 280 u >100 15 9 L 38 C 100 C -
DT029 396935 6165682 HZMaadkpt GLD.GL M 1 M I 300 u >100 13 8/12 L/SiL-SiCL 49 C 67/100 C -
DT030 396610 6166635 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l >70 - - - 7 CL 70 C 39
DT031 396741 6166853 MRN2 T.M O/M 1 M VP 270 u 50 - - - - - 170 C 140
DT032 396388 6167286 STP O.G M - Level P - l 90 10 7 L 50 SiCL 100 SiCL -
DT033 396669 6167298 MRN1cuxcyt CU.M O/L/O/M <1 L VP 260 u 50 - - - - - 105/200 SiC/CL 85
DT034 397254 6167523 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level P - l 0 20 - - - - 0+ - -
DT035 397270 6167570 MUSxs T.M O/GF - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - 100 LcS 50
DT036 397602 6167542 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 120 C 75
DT037 396637 6166100 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M 1 M I 220 u >100 8 6 CL 37 C 100 C -
DT038 396628 6165363 LVKdk D.GL GF/M 8 M MW 360 u >100 6 5/12 L-CL/L 45 C 100 C -
DT039 396090 6165932 MUS2zz ME.F O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 200 C 170
DT040 395855 6166110 MUS3 TY.M O - Level VP - l 50 - - - - - 270+ C 240
DT041 395802 6166587 MRN2 T.M O/M - Level P - l 50 - - - - - 190 C 150
DT042 396089 6166855 MLDxt T.M O/M <2 D P - u 20 - - - - - 100 CL 85
DT043 395779 6166868 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - - - 320+
DT044 395693 6167034 MUS4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 40 - - - - - - - 320+
DT045 396167 6167247 STPpt ptO.G L/O/M - Level P - l 0 - - - 8 CL 40/200 C/C 36
DT046 395804 6167384 STPpt ptO.G L/O/M - Level P - l 0 - - - 55 C 90/190 CL/C 16
DT047 395062 6167433 MLD2zz TY.H O - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 320 marl 200
DT048 395372 6167589 MUS2zz LM.H O/Marl <1 M VP 280 l 60 - - - - - 210 marl 110
DT049 396090 6167522 STP O.G M <1 M P 140 u >100 11 - - 42 CL 100 CL -
DT050 397266 6167150 FIRst E.DYB GF 2 M W 350 u >100 8 12 L 60+ SiL-CL - - -
DT051 397157 6167784 FIRxt E.DYB GF/M 1 M W 240 u >65 7 9 LcS-cSL 46 S 65+ CL -
DT052 396899 6168208 BMTptxtzz ptO.LG GF/M 1 L P 240 u 10 24 9 LS 47 CL 60+ SCL -
Page 273
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
DT053 398588 6167915 - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - - - -
DT054 398468 6167881 <1 M W 340 u - - - - - - - - -
DT055 397500 6168718 FIRxt E.DYB GF/M 3 M MW 250 u >100 11 21 cSL 50 LcS 70/100 SCL/SiCL -
DT056 396616 6168390 STP O.G M 2 L P 125 u 50 13 7 L 55 SCL 90 CL -
DT057 396802 6168454 STP O.G M - Level P - l 0 - 8 SiL 55 SCL 100 CL-C -
DT058 395914 6168594 STP O.G M <1 L P 220 u 40 15 - - 28 CL-C 90/100 C/C -
DT059 395884 6168005 HLYzz FI.M O - Level p - l 40 - - - - - 210 C 190
DT060 396091 6167810 STPzz O.G L/O/M - Level P - l >100 10 7 C 40 HC 60 HC 210+
DT061 396590 6161976 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 280 u >100 9 10 L 48 SCL-CL 100 C -
DT062 395214 6163648 HLY T.M O/M <1 Level VP - l 20 - - - - - 100 CL 60
DT063 395753 6164071 HRR O.GL M 3 M MW 334 u >100 12 12 L 41 CL 55/100 C -
DT064 396442 6164433 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 270 u >100 12 7 L 19 CL-C 100 C -
DT065 396615 6164754 HRRdk D.GL M 15 U MW 200 u >100 11 7 L 25 CL-C 100 C -
DT066 395802 6164815 HRRdk D.GL M 3 M MW 80 u >100 13 10 L 29 C 100 C -
DT067 395558 6164834 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 L I 270 u >100 15 9 cSCL 32 SiCL 100 C -
DT068 397046 6164869 HZMaa GL.GL M 1 M I 270 u >100 14 11 L 42 CL 100 C -
DT069 394131 6166364 STPzz O.LG M - Level P - l >100 10 10 L 30 CL 100 C -
DT070 407805 6138941 STPpt ptO.G M 1.5 L P 225 u 30 20 - - 30 SCL 100 C -
DT071 407511 6139117 STP O.G M <1 Level P - l 50 13 - - 17 SiCL 100 CL -
DT072 407168 6139319 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l 0 18 - - 10 L-SiL 100 CL -
DT073 406802 6139441 HZMaaxs GL.GL M 1 M I 270 l >100 12 11 L 36 CL 100 SCL-CL -
DT074 406526 6139711 STP O.G M 0.5 L VP 180 u 20 10 - - 35 L-CL 100 C -
DT075 406265 6139888 FIRxt E.DYB GF/M <1 Level MW 270 l >100 12 12 L 52 SL 100 C -
DT076 406149 6139993 STPpt ptO.G M - D P - u 0 30 - - 20 L 90 C -
DT077 405854 6140030 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M 1 M I 160 u >100 10 29 SiL 50 SiCL 100 SCL -
DT078 405542 6140103 FIRglxt GLE.DYB GF/M 4 Level I - l >100 14 15 SL 47 LfS 100 SCL -
DT079 405284 6140242 ZUNxt O.G GF/M 0.5 L P 270 u 80 2 - - 39 SL 49/100 SL/CL -
DT080 405017 6140480 HRRdkxs D.GL M 1.5 U MW 315 u >100 13 10/22 L/SiL 55 SiCL 90/100 vfSL-vfSCL -
DT081 404996 6140824 STPpt ptO.G M 2 L P 150 u >80 - - - 15 SiC 65 SiCL 38
DT082 405041 6141009 HZMaadkxs GLD.GL M 0.5 M I 360 u >100 13 9/25 L/vfSL 40 CL 100 vfSCL -
DT083 405195 6141372 NAMabzzxt GLE.DYB F/M 1 L MW 324 u >100 14 20 vfSL 50 fSL 90/100 fSL/vfSCL -
DT084 405200 6141797 FIRglxt GLE.DYB GF/M 1 M I 250 u >100 9 15 fSL 30 LfS 48/100 fSL/vfSCL -
DT085 404898 6142015 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - l >100 17 16 L 58 SCL 100 fSCL -
DT086 404711 6142215 FIRglxt GLE.DYB GF/M - Level I - l >100 10 7/19 SiCL/S 50 S 100 C -
DT087 404373 6142766 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l 50 19 - - 12 L 100 CL -
LW001 397245 6169976 HZMaa GL.GL M 1 M I 340 l >100 5 9 CL 30 CL 100 SCL -
LW002 WNFgldk GLD.GL GF/M 1 Level I 15 l >100 11/7/4 9/16 SL/LS 61 SL 100 CL -
LW003 LVKgldk GLD.GL GF/M <1 Level I - l >100 7/4 8/18 L/SiL 39 SiC 100 C -
LW004 ELSpt ptR.G M <1 Level P - l >100 15 - - - - 31/100 SiCL/C -
LW005 HRR O.GL M <1 Level MW - l >100 13/11/6 9 SiL 36 C 100 C -
LW006 MLD2 TY.M O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 180+ C 180
LW007 394998 6165425 MLD4zz FI.M O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - - - 330+
LW008 394487 6165877 MUS2zz ME.H O <1 Level VP - l 50 - - - - - - - 160+
LW009 394244 6166053 STPpt ptO.G M <1 Level P - l 40 19 - - 18 SiCL 100 C -
LW010 393760 6163840 GGG5 TY.F O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - - - 430+
LW011 393745 6163172 GGG4 TY.F O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 340+ SiL 340
LW012 393720 6162840 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 350 - 330
LW015 393738 6161724 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - - - 330+
LW016 394075 6162115 GGG5 TY.F O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - - - 430+
LW017 395233 6163653 HLYzz T.H O/M <1 Level VP - l 70 - - - - - 100 SiC 70
LW018 396225 6163025 HZMaapt ptGL.GL M 2 M I 260 u >100 31/6 2 SL 19 CL 100 CL -
LW019 396710 6163010 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 U I 260 u >100 13/9/4 13 SiL 35 SiCL 100 C -
Page 274
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
LW020 397267 6163101 HLYzz T.H O/M <1 Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 100 C 61
LW021 397019 6162242 STPpt ptO.G M 1 M I-P 270 u >100 27/16 - - 21 L 70/100 SCL/CL -
LW022 396504 6162099 HRRpt ptO.GL M 4 M MW 260 u >100 19/16/3 10 SiL 31 L 100 CL -
LW023 396307 6161502 MLDxtzz T.H O/M <1 Level P - l 90 - - - - - 90/100 CL/SCL 42
LW024 395652 6161742 STPzz O.LG M 2 M I-P 256 l >100 12 3 SiL 36 SiCL 100 SiCL -
LW025 395138 6161920 ELSpt ptR.G M <1 Level P - l 70 19/15 - - 9 SL 100 SiCL -
LW026 394889 6161845 ELSpt ptR.G M <1 Level P - l 80 20/9 - - - - 100 CL -
LW027 395703 6163389 HLYzz T.H O/M <1 Level I-P - l >100 - - - - - 71/100 SiCL/CL 41
LW028 395740 6163672 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level P - l 100 29 - - - - 100 SCL -
LW029 395773 6164390 STP O.G M 2 L I-P 280 u >100 11 - - 30 CL 100 C -
LW030 395469 6164381 STPpt ptO.G M <1 Level I-P - l >100 21/19/15 - - 24 CL 100 C -
LW031 395027 6164353 MRN1zz T.H O/M - Level VP - l 60 - - - - - 80 CL 50
LW032 394999 6164159 MLDxtzz T.H O/M <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 100 grCL 65
LW033 396324 6163506 ELSpt ptR.G M 1 M I 285 u >100 - - - - - 47/100 SiCL/SiC 51
LW034 396296 6163912 STPpt ptO.G M 1 M I-P 340 u >100 27/21 - - 28 CL 100 C -
LW035 396579 6163398 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 322 u >100 10/8/3 7 SL 13/36 L/SiCL 100 C -
LW036 396966 6163685 HZMaapt ptGL.GL M 2 M I 308 u >100 17/13/7 5 SiL 34 CL 100 C -
LW037 397167 6163843 STPpt ptO.G M 1 M I 350 u >100 28/16 - - 17 SiL 100 SiC -
LW038 396860 6163969 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 U I 94 u >100 23/20 4 fSL 14/40 fSL/SiCL 100 SiC -
LW039 396933 6164353 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 280 u >100 14/11/4 5 fSL 31 CL 100 C -
LW040 396577 6164054 STPzz O.LG M 1 L I 310 l >100 13 8 Fsl 29 C 100 C -
LW041 395521 6165780 STPzz O.LG M 1 M P 280 u >100 5 4 SiL 33 CL 100 C -
LW042 395846 6165899 MRN1 T.M O/M <1 Level VP - l 60 - - - - - 100 C 52
LW043 395424 6166270 STP O.G M <1 Level I-P - l >100 4 - - 34 SCL 100 SCL -
LW044 395282 6166385 ELSpt ptR.G M <1 Level P - l 90 - - - - - 100 SCL 38
LW045 395072 6166087 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - - - 42+
LW046 395029 6166603 MLDytzz THU.M O/M <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 130+ - 130
LW047 394574 6166317 MUS4zz FI.M O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - - - 330+
LW048 394480 6166961 MLD4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 350+ SiC 350
LW049 395053 6166964 MUS2 TY.M O <1 Level VP - l 90 - - - - - 190+ SCL 190
LW050 394247 6167366 MLDxtzz T.H O/M <1 Level VP - l 20 - - - - - 100 SCL 60
LW051 394469 6167443 MUS1 TY.M O - Level VP - l 25 - - - - - - 220+
LW052 394190 6166424 STPzz O.LG M - Level I - l >100 7 6 SiL 36 SiCL 100 SiCL -
LW053 394489 6167855 MLD3zz ME.H O <1 Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 220+ CL 220
LW054 394266 6168085 MLDxsxt T.M O/GF/M <1 Level VP - l 20 - - - - - 90/120 LfS/CL 60
LW055 393824 6168084 MLDys T.M O/GF <1 Level VP - l +10 - - - - - 122+ SL 122
LW056 393750 6168413 MLD3 TY.M O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 210 C 180
LW057 394503 6168222 MLDxtzz T.H O/M <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 130 SCL 75
LW058 395061 6168172 MLD3 TY.M O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 205+ - 205
LW059 394298 6168609 MLD2zz TY.H O <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 180+ - 180
LW060 394513 6168617 MLDxszz T.H O/GF <1 Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 130+ LS 85
LW061 394932 6169013 STPpt ptO.G M <1 Level P - l 60 30 - - 29 CL 100 C -
LW062 395225 6168986 BMTpt ptO.G GF - Level P - l 70 16 12 S 35 S 80+ S -
LW063 395830 6163951 FIRyt E.DYB GF/M 15 U MW 20 u >100 14 19 LS 45 LfS 105/120 LS/CL -
SM001 397216 6169298 MRN1zz TME.F O/M - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 100 C 80
SM002 396962 6169270 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l 30 15 - - 35 cSL 100 C -
SM003 396674 6169291 ELS R.G M 1 C P 172 l >100 9 - - - - 100 C -
SM004 396426 6169061 ELSptxszz ptR.HG M/GF 2 M P 335 u >100 15 10 L - - 45/100 L/cS -
SM005 395855 6169277 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 250 u >100 8 8 SiL 17 CL 100 CL -
SM006 395091 6169306 STP O.G M 2 M P 150 u >100 14 - - 12 CL 45/100 SL/C -
SM007 395785 6165319 STP O.G M 8 M P 270 u >100 12 6 CL 19/28 SL 100 C -
SM008 394309 6165651 MUSys T.M O/GF - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 140+ SL 140
SM009 393857 6165771 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 100+ SCL 80
SM010 394187 6165431 MLD3 TY.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 250+ SiC 250
Page 275
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
SM011 393908 6165285 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 100 CL 60
SM012 393722 6164963 STP O.G M 3 M P 290 u >100 11 - - 23 grL 100 CL -
SM013 393874 6164880 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 100 - - - - - 100 cSL 65+
SM014 393747 6164540 STP O.G M 2 L P 250 u 60 10 - - 26 SiL 75/100 CL/SCL -
SM015 393964 6164496 MLD4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - - - 320+
SM016 394162 6164876 MLD4zz FI.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - - - 320+
SM019 394419 6165342 MLD4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 390+ SiC 390
SM020 394518 6170364 MRN1zz T.H O/M - Level P - l 60 - - - - - 100 CL 60
SM021 394550 6170087 MUS3 TY.M O - Level P - l 0 - - - - - 230+ CL 230
SM022 394538 6169779 MLDxtzz TME.F O/M - Level P - l 5 - - - - - 100 CL 90
SM023 393956 6170380 FIRxt E.DYB GF/M 6 M W 90 u >100 7 7 SL 48 LS 100 SCL -
SM024 393979 6170060 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 270 u >100 5 13 L 40 C 100 C -
SM025 393902 6170027 MLD3zz FI.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 280+ SiCL 280
SM026 394276 6169852 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level P - l 5 - - - - - 100+ SCL 60
SM027 394152 6169635 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 100+ CL 70
SM028 393811 6169334 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 100 SiC 45
SM029 394272 6169297 STPpt ptO.G M 3 M P 45 u 50 19 - - 50 SCL 100 C -
SM030 395120 6169992 MUS4zz FI.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - - - 320+
SM031 394500 6169147 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 15 u >100 8 8 CL 54 CL 100 C -
SM032 394165 6169160 STP O.G M 2 L P 50 u 80 8 7 CL 24 CL 100 C -
SM033 395892 6164955 HZMaa GL.GL M 4 U I 110 u >100 9 8 SiL 52 C 100 C -
SM034 395859 6164770 STP O.G M - Level P - l 20 7 - 40 CL 100 C -
SM035 397487 6163991 STPpt ptO.G M 3 M P 240 u >100 28 8 L 32 CL 100 CL -
SM036 397863 6163974 HRR O.GL M 4 M W 185 u >100 7 8 SiL 46 CL 100 CL -
SM037 398234 6163980 STPpt ptO.G M 4 M P 40 u 80 22 - - 33 CL 100 C -
SM038 398635 6163910 ELSzz R.HG M 6 M P 40 u >100 11 20 L - - 100 CL -
SM039 398769 6163586 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 335 u >100 10 12 SiL 28 CL 70/100 C/fSL -
SM040 398934 6163137 STPzz O.LG M 3 M P 45 u >100 6 15 L 48 CL 100 C -
SM041 398979 6162730 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 40 u >100 7 9 SiL 40 CL 100 C -
SM042 399083 6162409 STP O.G M 2 M P 195 u >100 6 5 SiCL 29 LS 100 C -
SM043 399187 6162145 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 240 u >100 6 5 SiL 32 LS 100 C -
SM044 399392 6161779 STP O.G M 3 M P 165 u >100 6 5 CL 42 CL 100 CL -
SM045 399486 6161360 STP O.G M 2 M P 120 u >100 8 - - 40 CL 100 C -
SM046 399562 6160982 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 45 u >100 5 5 L 52 SiCL 100 C -
SM047 399842 6160726 HRR O.GL M 5 U W 340 u >100 6 9 SiL 45 CL 70/100 CL/SL -
SM048 399963 6160333 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 165 u >100 8 5 L 36 CL 100 C -
SM049 400136 6159976 HRR O.GL M 3 M MW 170 u >100 9 12 SiL 55 CL 100 CL -
SM050 400287 6159643 HRR O.GL M 8 M MW 120 u >100 5 9 fSL 45 CL 100 CL -
SM051 400497 6159323 MLDxt T.M O/M 6 D VP 120 u 40 - - - - - 100 LS 60
SM052 400685 6159082 STP O.G M 2 M P 220 u >100 6 8/20 L/SiL 36 SiL 100 C -
SM053 400601 6158691 HRR O.GL M 5 M MW 30 u >100 5 11 L 36 CL 55/100 CL -
SM054 400479 6158525 STP O.G M 3 M P 170 u >100 9 - - 10/18 L 100 CL -
SM055 400536 6158151 STPpt ptO.G M 4 M P 195 u >100 19 - - 49 SiL 100 C -
SM056 400400 6157803 STP O.G M 2 M P 60 u >100 9 8 LS 28 LS 40/100 S/SCL -
SM057 400501 6157356 STP O.G M 2 M P 180 u >100 6 11 CL 29 SiL 100 CL -
SM058 400553 6156945 STP O.G M 2 M P 185 u >100 9 4 fSL 25 fSL 100 CL -
SM059 400593 6156613 STP O.G M 2 M P 160 u >100 6 15 SiL 38 SiCL 100 C -
SM060 400543 6156183 HRR O.GL M 4 M MW 245 u >100 8 6 SiL 44 SiL 100 SCL -
SM061 400577 6155880 STP O.G M 2 D P 240 u 80 4 - - 39 SiCL 100 L -
SM062 400627 6155528 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 220 u >100 10 4 L 24/40 SiL/CL 100 SCL -
SM063 400976 6154239 STP O.G M 3 M P 95 u >100 9 - - 50 SiL 100 SiL -
SM064 401185 6154039 STP O.G M 2 L P 145 u >100 9 - - 15 SiL 100 SiCL -
Page 276
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
SM065 401218 6153696 STP O.G M 2 M P 40 u >100 8 4 SiL 40 SiCL 70 CL -
SM067 401452 6153351 ELSpt ptR.G M 2 L P 325 u 35 26 - - - - 100 L -
SM068 401698 6153172 STP O.G M 2 M P 58 u >100 9 12 SiL 30 SiL 100 CL -
SM069 401864 6152900 MLD2zz FI.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - 170+ CL 170
SM070 401923 6152600 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 300 u >100 5 11 L 37 L 100 CL -
SM071 400686 6155166 HRR O.GL M 3 U MW 320 u >100 6 4 SiL 18/45 SiL/CL 100 SCL -
SM072 400747 6154810 STPpt ptO.G M 2 L P 180 u 50 17 - - 36 SiL 100 SCL -
SM073 400893 6154548 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 L MW 40 u >100 10 6 L 35 SCL 100 SCL -
SM074 401983 6152331 MRN TFI.M O/M - Level VP - l 60 - - - - - 90+ CL 90
SM075 402112 6151978 STP O.G M 2 M P 90 u >100 9 13 SiL 35 CL 100 CL -
SM076 402055 6151628 STPpt ptO.G M 3 M P 160 u 80 15 - - 48 SiL 100 SL -
SM077 402033 6151305 STPpt ptO.G M 2 M P 150 u >100 16 10 SL 42 L 70/100 SCL/CL -
SM078 401999 6151014 STP O.G M 1 M P 275 l >100 8 7 SiL 32 SiL 100 CL -
SM079 402089 6150674 STP O.G M - Level P - l >100 8 8 SiL 35 SCL 100 SCL -
SM080 402224 6150346 STP O.G M 2 M P 290 u >100 9 - - 43 SiL 100 CL -
SM081 402222 6149977 STP O.G M 2 M P 200 u >100 7 7 SiL 35 L 100 SCL -
SM082 402246 6149647 STP O.G M 1 L P 120 l >100 4 - - 12/38 SiL/CL 100 CL -
SM083a 402428 6148566 ELSptzz ptR.HG M - Level P - l >100 25 20 CL - - 100 C -
SM083b 394981 6162783 STP O.G M 3 M P 350 u >100 8 - - 35 CL 100 CL -
SM084 394331 6163862 GGG5 TY.F O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - - - 420+
SM085 394458 6163615 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - - - 320+
SM086 394834 6163410 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - - - 320+
SM087 394672 6163189 MLD3zz FI.M O - Level VP - l 5 - - - - - - - 250+
SM089 393750 6161901 GGG4 TY.F O - Level VP - l 25 - - - - - - - 320+
SM091 394868 6162116 HZMaaxs GL.GL M/GF 2 M I 320 u >100 13 6 L 45 SCL 100 cS -
SM092 402138 6149195 STP O.G M - Level P - l >100 9 - - 30 SiL 100 CL -
SM093 402635 6148307 STP O.G M - Level VP - l 70 8 - - 60 L 100 SL -
SM094 402734 6147840 STP O.G M - Level P - l >100 10 - - 38 CL 100 CL -
SM095 403008 6147455 STP O.G M 2 M P 260 u >100 14 - - 32 SiL 100 CL -
SM096 403257 6147085 STPpt ptO.G M 2 L P 340 u >100 20 - - 30 CL 100 CL -
SM097 403410 6146648 STPpt ptO.G M 2 M P 50 u >100 20 - - 32 SiL 100 CL -
SM098 403574 6146297 STP O.G M 2 M P 160 u >100 12 - - 35 CL 100 CL -
SM099 403678 6145727 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 75 u >100 12 5 SiCL 40 SiL 100 SCL -
SM100 403680 6145280 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 190 u >100 14 4 L 45 CL 100 CL -
SM101 403830 6144938 STPpt ptO.G M 2 M P 260 u >100 18 - - 41 CL 100 CL -
SM102 403911 6144548 STP O.G M 2 M P 295 u >100 12 - - 35 CL 100 CL -
SM103 404032 6144158 STPzz O.HG M 3 M P 190 u >100 11 13 SiCL 46 CL 100 CL -
SM104 404263 6143734 STPptzz ptO.HG M 2 M P 240 u >100 25 25 SiCL 55 CL 100 C -
SM105 404315 6143431 STP O.G M 1 M P 65 u >100 12 - - 22 SCL 32/100 S/CL -
SM106 404347 6142931 ELSzz R.HG M - Level P - l 15 12 18 CL - - 100 CL -
KV201 397925 6173269 STP O.LG 12 14 SCL 36 SiCL 15 SiCL -
KV202 398075 6173188 HRR O.GL M 2 U MW - u >100 9 12 SiL 33 SiCL 15/40 SiCL/CL -
KV203 397989 6172746 HRR O.GL M 1 M MW 230 u >100 11 12/18 SL/SCL 40 SiCL 30 CL -
KV204 396727 6172748 STPptzz ptO.G M 4 L I - u seepage @ 20 23 - - 35 SiCL 65 CL -
KV205 396760 6172646 STPptzz ptO.G M - D/Level I - l seepage @ 0 25 - - 35 SiCL 65 C -
KV206 396813 6172379 HRR O.GL M 5 M W 365 u >100 10 11 SiL 44 SiCL 45 CL -
KV207 396564 6172775 STPptzz ptO.G M - D P - u 20 10 - - 30 SiCL 70 SiC -
KV208 396259 6172380 STPptzz ptO.G M 2 U I 276 u 80 30 - - 60 SCL 20 CL -
KV209 398300 6172784 HRR O.GL M 5 U W 90 u >100 15 11 SiL 44 SiCL 45 CL -
KV210 398060 6172239 HRR O.GL M - Level MW - l >100 21 23 SiL 22 SiCL 50 CL -
KV211 397612 6172537 STPptzz ptO.G M 2 M I 281 u 40 15 4 SiCL 31 CL 65 SCL -
KV212 397444 6172613 MRN T.M O/M - Level VP - u 10 75 - - - - 25 SiCL 75
Page 277
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
KV213 397586 6172206 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 280 u >100 10 12 SiL 38 SiCL 25/25 CL/SL -
KV214 397789 6172070 STPzz O.LG M - Level I - u >100 14 - - 41 SiC 59 C -
KV215 398012 6170978 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M - U I - u >100 15 8 SiCL 42 SiCL 50 C -
KV216 397749 6170770 LVK O.GL GF/M 1 M MW 340 u >100 14 11 L 44 SCL 45 C -
KV217 397528 6170878 HZMaa GL.GL M - M I - u >100 14 5 SL 52 SCL 43 SCL -
KV218 396820 6170781 MRN T.M O/M - Level P - l >100 - - - 47 SL 10 SCL 43
KV219 397139 6172430 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 200 u >100 10 7 L 38 SiCL 55 C -
KV220 397889 6171362 HZMptaa ptGL.GL M 2 Level I 282 u >100 16 6 SiCL 28 CL 66 C -
KV221 397680 6170545 HZMdkaa GL.DCL M 2 L I 15 u >100 9 7 SL 43 CSCL 50 CL -
KV222 398060 6170526 STPptzz ptO.G M - Level P - l 20 - - - 10 SiCL 90 CL 35
KV223 397241 6170636 HZMaa GL.GL M - L I - u >100 8 6 SCL 49 C 45 C -
KV224 396678 6170470 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - l >100 6 10 SL 36 SCL 54 C -
KV225 396968 6170149 WNFgl GL.GL GF/M - D I - u 65 6 7 LcS 53 LcS 40 CL -
KV226 397154 6169725 LVK O.GL GF/M 2 L MW 98 u seepage at 40 13 11 L 39 SiCL 45 CL -
KV227 397732 6170040 HRRdk O.DGL M 2 M MW 17 u >100 12 11 SCL 39 CL 50 C -
KV228 397597 6169703 HZMaa GL.GL M 1 M I 120 u seepage at 45 10 9 cSL 30 cSCL 69 SCL -
KV229 398420 6169668 HZMaa GL.GL M - L I - u 80 8 7 SCL 50 SiL 43 CL -
KV230 393411 6169320 STPptzz ptO.G M - Level I - l 30 - - - 40 SiCL 60 SiCL 35
KV231 393166 6169382 MLD3 HU.M O - D VP - l 0 - - - - - 30 SiCL 290
KV232 398129 6167106 HRRdkpt ptD.GL M 2 M MW 250 u 70 17 14 L 21 SiL 65 SiL -
KV233 397610 6167329 HRRdkpt ptD.GL M 2 M MW 354 u >100 17 9 CL 36 SiCL 55 SiC -
KV234 397876 6167403 HRR O.GL GF/M 3 M W 305 u >100 10 14 L 31 L 55 SiCL -
KV235 397452 6167995 LVK O.GL GF/M 4 M W 260 u >100 9 10 SL 40 SL 50 SCL -
KV236 397854 6168848 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 U I 355 u seepage at 34 7 20 SiL 18 SiCL 62 SiCL -
KV237 398382 6169184 SUT E.DYB GF/M 2 U W 85 u >100 6 10 L 29 cSL 61 C -
KV238 398574 6167606 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 165 u >100 8 22 SiCL 28 CL 50 C -
KV239 398435 6168335 HZMaa GL.GL M - M I - u >100 11 12 L 26 SCL 62 C -
KV240 398844 6168737 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - l 50 6 15 L 24 SiL 61 SiCL -
KV241 399108 6169168 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 L I 205 u >100 12 12 L 43 L 45 C -
KV242 399472 6169459 MRN T.M O/M - Level P - l 35 - - - - - 115 SCL 105
KV243 399884 6169608 MLD3 TY.M O - D P - b/f 10 - - - - - 30 C 250
KV244 399578 6168850 MUS4 TY.M O - Level P - l 20 - - - - - 30 SiCL 315
KV245 392828 6162196 MRNzz T.F O/M - Level P - l 55 - - - - - 32 SiCL 68
KV246 393222 6162126 STPptzz ptO.LG M 2 L P 90 u 80 25 8 SiCL 22 CL 70 C -
KV247 392346 6162100 ELSpt ptR.HG M - Level I - l 40 34 21 SL - - 79 SiCL -
KV248 392001 6161861 STPptzz ptO.G M 5 M I 350 u 20 17 - - 35 SCL 65 CL -
KV249 391751 6162031 MRN T.M O/M - Level P - l 10 - - - - - 40 SiCL 60
KV250 391357 6161970 HRRdk O.DGL M 2 M MW 310 u 50 15 10 SiL 40 CL 50 CL -
KV251 391306 6162316 MRN T.M O/M 2 D VP 345 u 10 - - - - - 45 L 65
KV252 391416 6162697 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 240 u 30 10 10 L 33 L 37/40 CL/SCL -
KV253 391615 6162463 MUS3 TY.M O - Level VP - l 55 - - - - - 15/30 CL/SCL 255
KV254 391939 6162701 HRR O.GL M 3 M W 85 u >120 8 9 SL 46/15 SCL/SL 25/25 C/SL -
KV255 391943 6162729 FIR E.DYB GF 3 U W 85 u >100 8 10 LS 65 SL 25 SL -
KV256 392426 6162889 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M MW 355 u seepage at 90 12 16 SCL 19 SCL 25/40 CL/C -
KV257 397786 6165423 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 395 u >100 6 12 L 23 SiCL 65 C -
KV258 397595 6165394 HRR O.GL M 4 M MW 350 u >100 12 7 L 38 C 55 C -
KV259 397408 6165411 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 250 u >100 9 19 SiL 23 C 58 C -
KV260 397214 6165404 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 310 u 50 9 12 L 38 CL 50 CL -
KV261 396948 6165408 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 350 u 40 14 8 SiCL 32 CL 60 C -
KV262 396728 6165508 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 315 u >100 12 6 L 37 SiCL 57 C -
KV263 396535 6165500 HZMaa GL.GL M 5 L I 290 u seepage at 40 9 17 SiL 30 CL 53 C -
KV264 396350 6165441 HLY T.M O/M - L P - u 40 - - - - - 35/25 C 40
KV265 396134 6165429 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 U I 280 u >100 8 12 SCL 38 SCL 25/25 C -
KV266 395995 6165389 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 280 u 35 12 12 SL 38 C 40/10 SC/SCL -
Page 278
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
KV267 395809 6165024 WNF O.GL GF/M 1 U MW 355 u >100 8 11 cSL 26 cSL 63 C -
KV268 395805 6164846 HRR O.GL M 3 M MW 90 u >100 4 13 L 32 CL 55 C -
KV269 395780 6164655 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M 2 D I 170 u 30 9 12 SiL 23 SiCL 65 SiCL -
KV270 398623 6164059 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 260 u >100 12 5 L 33 CL 62 CL -
KV271 398450 6164240 HRRdk D.GL M 5 M MW 76 u >100 6 6 SiL 33 L 61 C -
KV272 398340 6164417 HRR O.GL M 3 L MW 90 u >100 6 7 L 30 SiCL 63 C -
KV273 398302 6164606 HRRdk D.GL M 3 M MW 45 u >100 8 7/5 L/SiL 30 SL 58 C -
KV274 398178 6164769 LVKdk D.GL GF/M 2 U MW 85 u >100 5 6/11 L 13 SL 20/45 L/C -
KV275 398210 6164989 HZMaa GL.GL M 4 M I 70 u >100 10 9 L 31 SCL 60 C -
KV276 398213 6165176 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 L I 40 u >100 7 9 SiCL 34 CL 77 C -
KV277 398181 6165416 HRRdk D.GL M 5 L MW 85 u >100 9 5 L 36 SiL 10/49 SL/C -
KV278 398004 6165421 HRRdk D.GL M 2 M MW 355 u >100 8 9 L 26 CL 65 C -
SM202 398374 6172056 HRR O.GL M 4 M MW 160 u/r >100 8 10 SiCL 25 CL 15/30 CL/SCL -
SM203 398029 6171594 ELSpt ptR.HG M <1 Level P - l 30 15 20 L - - 80 CL -
SM204 398463 6170027 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 290 u >100 11 12 L 48 SiCL 40 SiCL -
SM205 398886 6169624 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 300 u >100 8 15 SiL 14 SiL - - -
SM206 398446 6170360 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 350 u >100 6 7 L 39 CL 54 SCL -
SM207 398475 6170682 HLY T.M O/M - Level VP - l 30 - - - - - 58 CL 42
SM208 398798 6170727 ELS R.HG M 1 M P 300 u >100 6 16 SiL - - 84 CL -
SM209 398839 6171237 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level P - l 18 20 - - - - 100 CL -
SM210 399059 6171625 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level P - l 0 20 - - - - 100 L -
SM211 399027 6171686 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 100 L 40
SM213 398791 6171949 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 280 u >100 8 8 SiL 37 CL 55 SL -
SM214 398624 6172065 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 60 u >100 5 10 L 35 SiCL 55 CL -
SM215 398944 6173171 ALG O.LG GL 1 M I 270 u >100 5 14 CL 41 CL 45 C -
SM216 398957 6173322 ALGptzz R.G GL - Level P - l 0 - - - - - 100 C 50
SM217 399094 6172712 HZMaadk GLD.GL M 1 M I 290 u >100 4 15 L 35 SiCL 50 CL -
SM218 399135 6172294 HZMaa GL.GL M 1 L I 90 u >100 8 11 L 44 CL 45 C -
SM219 399191 6172170 ELS R.G M - Level P - l 0 5 - - - - 100 SiC -
SM220 400050 6170678 ELS R.G M - Level I - l 30 5 - - - - 100 C -
SM221 400352 6170248 ELSpt ptR.G M 2 L I 300 u - 20 - - - - 100 C -
SM222 400458 6169861 STP O.G M 2 M I 350 u >100 7 - - 35 SiL 65 CL -
SM223 400410 6169512 FIRglxt GLE.EB GF/M 2 M I 310 u >100 5 8 vfSL 37 vfSL 30/25 S/SCL -
SM224 400295 6168660 ELSpt ptR.G M 2 M P 290 u >100 20 - - - - 100 CL -
SM225 399953 6168987 MLD2 TY.M O - Level VP - l 30 - - - - - 40 SCL 160
SM226 399440 6169384 HLY T.M O/M - Level VP - l 40 - - - - - 30 C 70
SM228 399332 6172024 STP O.G M - L P - l 20 5 - - 20 SiL 80 CL -
SM229 399538 6172376 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M 1 M I 90 u 71 9 11 SiL 44 CL 45 SCL -
SM230 399600 6172597 HLY T.M O/M 2 U VP 10 u 50 - - - - - 55 SiCL 45
SM231 399744 6172765 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 250 u - 8 21 Si 31 SiL 48/10 SiL/SL -
SM232 399501 6172975 STP O.G M 2 M P 310 u >100 5 - - 40 CL 60 SiCL -
SM233 399820 6173333 HRR O.GL M 4 U MW 50 u >100 10 9 L 54 CL 47 CL -
SM234 399861 6173185 HRR O.GL M 2 M W 220 u >100 9 10 L 35 SiCL 55 CL -
SM235 399835 6173050 HRR O.GL M 2 U W 40 u >100 9 6 L 38 SiCL 66 CL -
SM236 399962 6172356 DL DL M 2 M I 30 u >100 4/5 10 SiL 18/7 SL/CL 60 SiCL -
SM237 400231 6172103 HZMaa GL.GL M 4 U I 90 u/r >100 6 14 SiL 32 SiCL 54 SiCL -
SM238 400264 6171882 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 45 u >100 7 12 SiL 58 L 30 CL -
SM239 400221 6171645 STPptzz ptO.G M 2 L P 20 u >100 15 - - 70 CL 40 SCL -
SM240 400024 6171713 HLYzz T.M O/M - Level VP - l 30 - - - - - 45 cS 55
SM241 399906 6171749 STP O.G M 4 M P 270 u 20 10 - - 40 SL 60 CL -
SM242 399700 6171744 STP O.G M 2 M P 25 u 30 8 8 L 47 CL 45 CL -
SM243 399439 6170285 STPptzz ptO.G M - Level P - l 0 20 - - 40 SCL 60 SiCL -
Page 279
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
SM244 399553 6170599 STP O.G M - Level P - l 10 10 - - 35 SiCL 65 CL -
SM245 399583 6170816 ELS R.G M - Level P - l 0 - 5 SiL - - 95 SiCL -
SM246 399328 6170722 SUT E.EB GF 2 M W 10 u >50 9 10 cS 40 cS - - -
SM247 398957 6169974 STP O.G M 2 L I 340 u 28 8 - - 27 SiL 65 cS -
SM248 399695 6168475 ABN TY.M O - Level VP - l 30 - - - - - - - 420
SM249 399438 6168274 MUS4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - - - 320
SM250 399096 6168372 MRNzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - - - 90
SM251 399129 6168161 MLD3 TY.M O - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 30 CL 270
SM252 393065 6163479 MRNzz THU.F O/M - Level VP - l 75 - - - - - (100+) C 100
SM253 393340 6163466 MRNzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 50 LS 50
SM254 392836 6162910 MRNzz TME.F O/M - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - (130+) SCL 130
SM255 393161 6162934 MRNzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l 60 - - - - - 50 CL 50
SM256 393232 6163104 MRNzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - (120+) CL 120
SM257 392288 6163072 STP O.G M 2 M I 24 u 30 7 - - 33 SiL 35/32 LS/SL -
SM258 392134 6163053 STP O.G M 3 M I 320 u 20 10 4 L 41 SiL 55 C -
SM259 392021 6163053 MLDxtzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - (100+) SCL 100
SM260 391715 6163633 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level P - l 25 - - - - - 100 CL 35
SM261 391524 6163641 MLDytzz FI.M O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (170+) SiC 170
SM262 391154 6163355 STPptzz ptO.G M 3 M I 210 u 30 22 6 SiC 24 C 70 SL -
SM263 391030 6163759 STP O.G M 2 M I 280 u 10 14 4 L 36 SiCL 60 C -
SM264 391035 6164609 ALGzz O.G GL 2 M P 280 u 0 12 - - 40 C 60 C -
SM265 391338 6164738 STPzz O.LG M 2 L I 70 u 50 8 7 SiL 36 SiCL 57 SiCL -
SM266 391439 6164680 MUSytzz FI.M O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - (170+) SCL 170
SM267 391606 6164667 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 200 u 20 16 6 SL 24 CL 35/35 SCL/SL -
SM268 391765 6164627 ELSpt ptR.G M - Level VP - l 50 - - - - - 100 C 45
SM269 391494 6164365 HLYzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l 90 - - - - - 15/(100+) C 65
SM270 391484 6164093 MLDxczz T.F O/GL - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 20 C 80
SM271 391178 6164249 ELS R.G M - Level I - l 5 12 - - 48 SCL 52 C -
SM272 391389 6163626 FIRgl GLE.EB GL 4 M MW 45 u >100 11 8 SiL 30 SiL 62 SiL -
SM273 392370 6163442 HLY T.M O/M - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 15/40 S/CL 45
BA201 396516 6171517 STPptzz ptO.LG M 1 Level I - u seepage at 42 15 15 L 50 SiCL 35 SCL -
BA2002 396594 6171885 MUSxc T.M O/GL - Level P - l 20 - - - - - 10 SiCL 100
BA2003 396493 6172051 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - u 80 11 5 SiL 47 SiCL 45 L/CL -
BA2004 396525 6172177 STPptzz pt O.G M - Level I - l 50 - - - (55+) CL 45 CL 40
BA2005 397006 6172108 ELSpt pt.R.G M - Level I - l 10 30 - - - - 100 CL -
BA2006 396938 6172073 MRN T.M O/M - Level l - l 0 - - - - - 55 CL 45
BA2007 396912 6171904 HZMaapt ptGL.GL M - Level I - l >100 20 7 L 45 CL 48 CL -
BA2008 397140 6172093 WNFdkgl GLD.GL GF/M 2 U I 300 u >100 7 7 L 63 SiL 20/10 LS/CL -
BA2009 396242 6171881 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - l >100 12 10 L 42 SCL 48 SCL -
BA2010 397216 6171754 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 170 u >100 13 10 LS 45 SL 40/(95+) SCL -
BA2011 397460 6171619 ELSpt pt.R.G M - Level P - l 50 20 - - 32 CL 68 C -
BA2012 397164 6171207 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 200 u >100 7 7 SL 53 SCL 25/15 CL -
BA2013 396418 6171526 HRR O.GL M 2 M MW 300 u >100 8 8 L 43 CL 50 CL -
BA2014 396632 6171263 STPptzz ptO.LG M - Level I - l 30 15 - - 50 L 50 CL -
BA2015 396477 6171225 HZMdkaa GLD.GL M - Level I - l 30 17 6 L 28 L 17/49 SL/SCL -
BA2016 396514 6170902 STPzz O.LG M - Level I - l >100 10 7 L 42 SCL 51 CL -
BA2017 396354 6170759 STPzz O.LG M 2 L I 310 u 30 14 9 L 16 L 10/63 CL -
BA2018 396021 6170845 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - l >100 10 7 SiL 52 SCL 41 C -
BA2019 395997 6171028 STPptzz ptO.G M - Level P - l 44 30 9 L 40 SL 51 SCL -
BA2020 395848 6170785 MUS3 TY.M O - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - (220+) SiCL 220
BA2021 395711 6170791 MLDyt T.M O/GL - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (120+) SiCL 120
BA2022 392931 6170869 LVK O.GL GF/M 2 M W 260 u >100 4 17 L 63 SL 10/(90+) LS/SCL -
BA2023 393113 6171215 MLDxlzz TFI.M O/GL - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - (130+) CL 130
BA2024 393266 6170859 HRR O.GL M 3 M W 270 u >100 11 9 SL 36 L 55 SCL -
Page 280
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
BA2025 393637 6170903 HZMaa GL.GL M 5 M I 90 u >100 9 15 L 30 SiCL 55 CL -
BA2026 394074 6170696 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 58 CL 42
BA2027 394268 6170558 ALGzz O.G GL 2 M VP 290 u 13 10 - - 50 CL 50 CL -
BA2028 394572 6170776 MLD TY.M O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - 230+ SiCL 230
BA2029 394573 6171054 MLDxc T.M O/GL - Level P - l 20 - - - - - (120+) SiL 120
BA2030 395092 6170794 MLD3 TY.M O - Level VP - l 120 - - - - - - - 320+
BA2031 395230 6171095 MLDxczz TME.F O/GL - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - 20 SiCL 80
BA2032 395633 6170342 MLDxczz T.F O/GL - Level P - l >100 - - - - - (110+) SiCL 110
BA2033 395804 6170366 MUSxczz T.F O/GL - Level P - l >100 - - - - - (90+) L 90
BA2034 396071 6169629 HZMptaa ptGL.GL M - Level I - l 0 25 15 L 50 SCL 15/20 LS/SCL -
BA2035 393088 6169712 MLDxc T.M O/GL - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (60+) CL 60
BA2036 393449 6170054 MLD2 TY.M O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (180+) SiCL 180
BA2037 393168 6170134 MLD2 TY.M O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (190+) CL 190
BA2038 393576 6169967 MLD4 TY.M O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (310+) CL 310
BA2039 392922 6169410 MLD2zz TY.H O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (170+) SiCL 170
BA2040 392798 6169389 HZM GL.GL M - Level I - l 30 16 6 SiL 46 SiCL 48 fSCL -
BA2041 392798 6168996 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 L I 360 u >100 10 3 L 66 SiL 31 CL -
BA2042 392927 6169184 MLD2zz FI.M O - Level VP - l -30 - - - - - (165+) SiCL 165
BA2043 392800 6168161 STPzz O.LG M 2 M P 20 u 35 9 9 L 23 SCL 15/(47+) LS/SCL -
BA2044 393292 6168464 MLDxc T.M O/GL - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (100+) C 100
BA2045 393174 6168062 MLDxczz T.F O/M - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (80+) CL 80
BA2046 393140 6167592 MRNzz T.F O/M - Level VP - l 20 - - - - - (90+) SCL 90
BA2047 393123 6167126 STPptzz ptO.LG M - Level P - l 30 16 6 L 34 SCL 10/(50+) LS/SCL -
BA2048 393056 6166466 HZMaa GL.GL M - Level I - l 60 14 9 LS 48 SL (57+) SCL -
BA2049 394193 6167232 MLD2zz ME.H O - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (165+) SiCL 165
BA2050 392752 6166019 MUSxc TME.F O/GL - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (90+) CL 90
BA2051 392493 6166076 STPptzz ptO.LG M 1 U I 243 u 40 20 6 SiL 46 SL 23/(75+) SCL/CL -
BA2052 391975 6165942 STPptzz ptO.LG M - Level P - l 0 30 6 LS 64 SCL 40 LS -
BA2053 391368 6165993 HRR O.GL M 5 M MW 300 u >100 22 12 L 48 SCL 45/(95+) CL -
BA2054 391172 6166360 HZMdkaa GL.DGL M - Level I - l >100 24 7 L 47 SCL 46 SCL -
BA2055 391717 6166285 MLDxc T.M O/GL - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (50+) SCL 50
BA2056 391492 6166844 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 0 - - - - - (45+) SCL 45
BA2057 391773 6166910 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l seepage at 20 - - - 40 CL 20/(60+) LS/C 40
BA2058 392231 6166902 SUT O.DYB GF/M 1 M W 90 u 60 7 - - 95 LcS (95+) SCL -
BA2059 392482 6166911 ELSpt ptR.HG M - Level I - l 10 30 10 L 70 SL (80+) CL -
BA2060 392437 6166726 HLY T.M O/M - Level I - l 30 - - - 40 cS (95+) SCL 55
BA2061 392984 6165613 WNF E.EB GF/M - Level MW - l >100 12 7 LS 39 SL 27/27 LS/SCL -
BA2062 392933 6165105 MLDxc T.M O/GL - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - (65+) SiCL 65
BA2063 393408 6165418 HZMaa GL.GL M 4 U I 270 u >100 6 5 SL 36 SL 22/37 SL/SCL -
BA2064 393427 6164786 HRRpt ptO.GL M 3 U MW 290 u >100 23 14 L 43 CL 43 CL -
BA2065 393092 6164714 MUSxczz T.F O/GL - Level VP - l >100 - - - - - 10 vfSCL 90
BA2066 392488 6164925 SUTglxc GLE.DYB F/GL 4 M MW 280 u seepage at 30 12 12 LS 28 LcS 15/(55+) SiL/SiCL -
BA2067 392090 6165133 STP O.G M 1 M P 300 u >100 12 - - 52 SiCL 43/(95+) LS/CL -
BA2068 391611 6165146 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 95 u 45 7 8 SiL 44 SiCL (52+) CL -
BA2069 391411 6165202 MLDxc T.M O/GL - Level VP - l 40 - - - - - (100+) SiCL 100
BA2070 391171 6165142 STPpt ptO.G M - Level P - l 0 15 - - 85 SiCL (85+) SCL -
BA2071 393276 6164118 MUSxczz T.F O/GL - Level P - l 90 - - - - - (95+) CL 95
BA2072 393113 6163858 MLDxt T.M O/M - Level VP - l 10 - - - - - (80+) SCL 80
BA2073 392647 6163602 MUSxczz T.F O/GL - Level VP - l - - - - - - (65+) SiL 65
BA2074 392285 6163791 MUSxc T.M O/GL - Level VP - l - - - - - - (65+) CL 65
BA2075 392199 6163965 BMTptxczz O.LG GF/GL - Level I - l 40 16 5 LS 50 LS (55+) SiCL -
BA2076 392353 6164121 ALGpt ptO.LG GL 2 M I 250 u 17 30 7 SiL 35 LS 12/(54+) L/SiCL -
BA2077 392054 6164514 ALGpt ptO.LG GL 2 L P 50 u 20 33 10 SiL 43 SiCL (53+) C -
BA2078 392295 6164662 STPzz O.LG M 2 L P 300 u 25 15 7 LS 39 SiCL (46+) CL -
Page 281
TABLE 131-1 Cont'd
BA2079 392664 6164545 STPzz O.LG M 2 U P 70 u >100 12 5 SiL 50 SiCL 45 CL -
BA2080 392894 6164110 MUS2zz TME.F O/M - Level P - l 30 - - - - - (170+) SiCL 170
SM301 393658 6160658 MLDxs TFI.M O/GF <1 Level VP NA l 50 - - - - - 90-120 LS 90
SM302 393632 6159341 MLDxc TFI.M O/GL <1 Level VP NA l - - - - - - 80-120 SCL 80
SM303 396283 6160705 STPpt O.Gpt M 2 M I 280 u >100 27-0 - - 0-33 SL 33-100 C -
SM304 396267 6160155 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 180 u >100 6-0 0-12 SL 12-50 SiCL 50-65/65-100 SCL/CL -
SM305 396795 6158962 HRR O.GL M 3 M MW 240 u >100 6-0 0-24 SL 24-52 CL 52-100 CL -
SM306 396036 6159417 STP O.G M 2 M I 280 u - 19-0 - - 0-20 SL 20-80 CL -
SM307 397517 6159367 DOVxt O.GL GL/M 3 M W 90 u >100 4-0 0-9 SiCL 9-38 CL 38-100 CL -
SM308 398798 6159370 ELSpt R.Gpt M 2 M I 240 u >100 - - - - - 0-100 C 35
SM309 399242 6160817 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 220 u >100 6-0 0-13 SiCL 13-52 SiCL 52-100 CL -
SM310 400345 6160762 MLDyt TFI.M O/M <1 Level VP NA l - - - - - - 140+ CL 140
SM311 400345 6160762 MLDyt THU.F O/M <1 Level VP Na l 5 - - - - - 130+ CL 130
SM312 400643 6161448 STPzz O.LG M <1 Level I Na l 70 7-0 0-9 L 9-46 SiCL 46-100 C -
SM313 400638 6162027 MLD2 TY.M O <1 Level VP Na l 5 - - - - - 180+ SiC 180
SM314 399757 6161998 DOVglxt GL.GL GL/M 2 M I 260 u >100 6-0 0-14 SiL 14-42 SiCL 42-100 CL -
SM315 398146 6162003 DOVglxt GL.GL GL/M 3 U I 280 u >100 6-0 0-13 SiL 13-54 CL 54-100 C -
SM316 399343 6164582 HRR O.GL M 5 M MW 270 r >100 6-0 0-10 SiL 10-53 SiCL 53-100 CL -
SM317 398985 6165505 ALGzz R.G GL 10 L I 60 r >100 12-0 - - 0-31 CL 31-100 C -
SM318 398901 6165789 DOVglxt GL.GL GL/M 3 U I 40 r >100 9-0 0-14 SiCL 14-45 SiCL 45-100 C -
SM319 400972 6171835 FIR E.EB GF 2 U W 170 r/u >100 4-0 0-10 vfLS 10-52 vfSL 52-100 S -
SM320 400900 6170719 STP O.G M 2 M P 240 u 60 8-0 - - 0-29 SL 29-70/ 70+ SiCL/S -
SM321 400916 6169237 MUSyc TME.F O/GL <1 Level VP na l - - - - - - 110+ CL 110
SM322 402048 6169183 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 60 u >100 7-0 0-8 SiL 8-39 SiCL 39-100 CL -
SM323 403905 6167398 ALGzz R.G GL 2 M I 355 u >100 8-0 - - 0-35 SiCL 35-100 SiCL -
SM324 401998 6167439 HZMaa GL.GL M 2 M I 260 u >100 8-0 0-16 L 16-64 SiCL 64-100 CL -
SM325 403256 6167612 MLD4zz ME.H O <1 Level VP na l >100 - - - - - 330+ CL 330
IL301 391569 6157358 STPzzpt O.LGpt M - Level P Na l >100 15-0 0-8 SCL 8-52 CL 52-105/ 105+ SCL/SCL -
IL302 391657 6158808 ALG O.LG M/GL 1 L P 155 u 85 25-0 0-12 SiL 12-64 L 64+ SiCL -
IL303 391327 6159823 ALGzz O.G GL - Level P NA Level >100 8-0 0-14 SiL 14-66 SiL 66-100 CL -
IL304 390861 6161256 MLDxc T.M O/GL 0 Level VP NA Level >100 - - - - - 70-100 SCL 70
IL305 390141 6162188 DOV O.GL GL 2 U W 270 u >100 6-0 0-12 SiL 12-52 CL 52-70/70-100 CL/SiC -
IL306 388169 6162490 DOVxt O.GL GL 4 U W 270 r >100 9-0 0-15 SiL 15-60 CL 60-100 SiCL -
IL307 389848 6162807 ALGpt O.LGpt GL 0 Level P na l 75 15-0 0-12 SiCL 12-60 SiCL 60-100 SiCL -
IL308 389926 6163904 ALG O.LG GF/GL - - P - - 55 14-0 0-11 SiL 11-55 SL 55-85/85-100 LS/SiCL -
IL309 389945 6166066 LVKgl GL.GL GF/M 1 - W - - - 10-0 0-15 L 15-44 LS 44-76/76-100 SCL/SCL -
IL310 398259 6167549 HZMaa GL.GL M 3 M I 20 u >100 6-0 0-19 L 19-44 CL 44-75/75-100 CL/CL -
IL311 398926 6167186 MLD T.M O/GL 0 Level VP NA l 85 - - - - - 75-100 SiCL 75
IL312 398980 6166232 ALG O.LG GL 4 L P 50 u >100 14-0 0-11 L 11-65 CL 65-100 CL -
IL313 399643 6166089 HRR O.GL M 2 U W 300 u >100 10-0 0-7 L 7-22/22-45 L/CL 45-72/72-100 CL/CL -
IL314 399463 6167666 MLD3 TY.M O 0 Level VP na l - - - - - - - - 250+
IL315 400698 6167472 HRR O.GL M 2 C W 20 u >100 6-0 0-26 L 26-56 SCL 56-100/100-110 SCL/SCL -
IL316 399474 6168526 MLD TY.M O - Level VP Na l 50 - - - - - - - 220+
Notes: 1 Hand textured
Page 282
132. Volume 4, Attachment 4A1, Table 4A1-2, Page 4A-47 and 4A-57
BlackPearl lists a series named ‘NS – New Symbol’ and ‘NS2gl’.
a. Provide a definition for ‘NS’ and ‘NS2gl’ or change the ‘NS’ to a recognized series as
defined in the Alberta Soil Names file.
Response:
New Symbol 2 (NS2) and Gleyed New Symbol 2 (NS2gl) are soil series proposed for SCA 20 for which
series names have not been determined. Winefred (WNF) and Gleyed Winefred (WNFgl) can be used in
place of NS2 and NS2gl, respectively. The series differ slightly in the texture of the glaciofluvial veneer
characteristics. The only instance NS2 was used was for inspection site KV225, the profile for which is
more characteristic of the WNF soil series. This inspection site data has been updated in Table 131-1 in
AESRD SIR 131.
4.4 Vegetation
BlackPearl states It is reasonably foreseeable that an additional rotation of logging could occur
during the lifetime of the Project, but due to the uncertainty of when and where this activity
would take place within the LSA it has not been included in the predictions of the closure
vegetation communities. Due to the lack of available information regarding unknown or
unpredictable future disturbances (e.g., as-yet unplanned future developments, wildfires, forest
pest outbreaks, etc.), the results of the closure phase vegetation community predictions are to
be treated as conceptual.
ESRD agrees that another rotation of logging is likely to occur during the lifetime of the project,
and also that wildfires are likely to occur. These likely and reasonably foreseeable
occurrences should be included in the assessment.
a. Update the assessments to incorporate estimates, derived from the best available
information and modeling techniques, of the impact of fire and logging on vegetation
communities.
Response:
The Vegetation Assessment was conducted according to the final Terms of Reference (TOR) issued by
AEW (AEW 2012a). A combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment methods were used in the
Vegetation Assessment in order to provide the greatest degree of confidence in the assessment. Future
forestry activity (beyond the known future cutblocks incorporated in the quantitative assessment) and
future wildfires were incorporated into the Vegetation Assessment in a qualitative manner. Furthermore,
the definitions of the assessment criteria (used to evaluate significance) are not defined quantitatively,
therefore, quantitative metrics often inform the assessment but these numbers are enhanced by the
application of professional judgement and additional qualitative factors to reach conclusions on individual
significance criteria. A qualitative understanding of natural disturbance patterns and forest harvest beyond
the five year plan (i.e. known future cutblocks) is appropriate to inform the assessment of impacts
regarding the project's contribution to vegetation disturbance.
Several qualitative factors were considered in the assessment to ensure the impacts due to forest harvest
were considered throughout the life span of the Project. Impacts to vegetation resources resulting from
wildfires were considered qualitatively as well. These qualitative considerations included:
Page 283
• the maximum disturbance scenario assumes the entire project area is cleared at operation phase,
which provides a conservative estimate of the Project's contribution to vegetation disturbance (the
only disturbance that can be directly controlled by BlackPearl);
• the Forest Management Agreement (FMA) Area Forest Management Plan (FMP) (Alberta-Pacific
Forest Products Limited [Al-Pac] 2007a), the old-forest retention strategy and the annual allowable
cut will be adaptive based on both natural and development related disturbances;
• BlackPearl has initiated development of an ILMP with the primary timber harvest company (Millar
Western) and FMA holder (Al-Pac) in the RSA to limit combined vegetation disturbance; and
• the abundance of old growth forest is expected to be lower than the predicted (i.e., quantified)
abundance of forest stands with the potential to support old growth because: an additional rotation of
timber harvesting and other unplanned developments are likely to occur over the assessment period;
and natural disturbances such as fire and forest pests are likely to occur over the assessment period.
Forest Harvest within the Blackrod Study Area

FMPs are reviewed every five years (Al-Pac 2007a). In the past, new FMPs have included changes to
ground rules relating to stand structure and landscape management. These rules and objectives allow for
a conceptual understanding of future forest management but lack a spatial or quantifiable aspect. In some
areas longer term harvest mapping is available. For example, in the mineable oil sands (i.e. within Forest
Management Unit [FMU] A15) harvest mapping is available for a 20 year period and no growing stock
replacement will occur within the 200 year horizon set in the Timber Supply Analysis (TSA) (Al-Pac
2007b). This type of data and planning is specific to the minable oil sands area and is not available for the
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Area. Therefore, in order to spatially quantify the forestry activity
beyond the five year plan, modeling would need to incorporate many assumptions about where and when
harvest, natural disturbance, and other land use disturbances occur. Future scenario modeling
incorporating these unpredictable events has been completed for regional land use planning and
resource management purposes (e.g., Athabasca Landscape Management modeling for caribou
management), but these scenarios represent examples of what might occur with a given set of
assumptions, rather than what will occur in future. For this reason, the level of accuracy implied by the
results of future landscape simulation modeling are misleading and these results must be considered in
the context for which they were developed, (i.e., they demonstrate that ongoing disturbance of the boreal
forest will continue, benefiting some species and negatively impacting others).
The Al-Pac FMA Area TSA describes the models used to determine annual allowable cut estimates in
each FMU so as to allow forest harvest to be sustainable, maintain stand age classes, landscape
structure and composition (Al-Pac 2007b). The TSA notes that natural range of variation should be
modelled at the larger landscape or FMA scale and should not be modelled at smaller scales such as the
FMU, because natural disturbance radically alters age-class diversity in smaller areas (Andison 2003).
The Vegetation RSA for the Blackrod Project is almost completely contained within one FMU (L3). A small
portion of the Vegetation RSA (southern tip south of McMillan Lake) is within an adjacent FMU (L8).
Therefore, results of landscape or FMA-scale modeling completed by others are more applicable and
defensible than modeling stand age classes, landscape structure and composition at the Vegetation RSA
scale.
Further, the quality and accuracy of a predictive future forest harvest model to determine impacts to
vegetation indicators would be affected by the adaptive nature of the old-forest retention strategy and the
TSA. When areas as small as 2.5% of the land base are changed, the TSA will be recalculated.
Therefore, any changes within the Vegetation RSA, regardless if they are the result of industrial
development, forest harvest or wildfires, would be considered in the updates to the annual allowable cut.
This regular adjustment makes future forest harvest modeling even more conceptual and far less able to
make accurate predictions.
For these reasons, a qualitative approach was determined to be the most appropriate method to evaluate
the effects of forest harvest beyond the known future cutblocks into the assessment.
Page 284
Wildfire Modelling
Wildfire models require numerous simplifying assumptions to be made (e.g. succession will not occur
over the course of the model; forests with a variety of cover classes have the same potential to burn;
assumptions about what percentage of the area will burn each year; and fires will always be circular in
extent) (Andison 2003, Teck Resources Limited 2011). Some assumptions are based on professional
experience/judgement informed by scientific literature (similar to qualitative assessment) and some
assumptions are necessary to simplify a complex natural system. As noted above, these simplifying
assumptions mean that results are not realistic and need to be considered in the context for which they
were developed. Due to these wildfire modeling limitations, a qualitative approach was determined to be
more appropriate to inform the assessment of impacts to vegetation.
Qualitative assumptions of the combined effects of wildfire and the Project were provided throughout the
Vegetation Assessment. As stated in section 1.3.5.3, “forest fires are common in the boreal forest and
interrupt the successional sequences that produce old growth forests (Johnson et al. 1995). Due to the
historical prevalence of forest fires in the boreal forest, old growth forests are infrequently encountered
and may be limited in extent or distribution”. In sections 1.6.1.4 and 1.7.1.3 it is noted that the interaction
of future natural disturbances (including fire) with the Project will most likely result in less potential old
growth forest than predicted at closure phase. Despite predicted increases in potential old growth forest
area at closure phase, the assessment considers the impact balance of a loss or alteration of potential old
growth forest to be negative due to the likelihood of unknown future disturbances (including wildfire)
within the LSA and RSA.
A qualitative approach to incorporate the effects of future forest harvest and wildfire into the assessment
is consistent with the assessment approach utilized for other recent in situ oil sands projects (e.g., Kirby
In Situ Oil Sands Expansion Project; Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project; Surmont Project; Advanced
TriStar Project; Pike 1 Project).
BlackPearl is confident that the combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment techniques
provided an accurate and robust assessment of the project's contribution to vegetation impacts in the LSA
and RSA. Based on the limitations of the data available, the inherent limitations of future scenario
modelling and the adaptive approach to forest management in the study area, additional quantitative data
or predictive disturbance modeling would not change the vegetation assessment conclusions, or provide
additional confidence in those conclusions.
133. b. Update any other assessments (e.g. wildlife) that are affected by the updated
predications made here.
Response:
Future harvest and fire are likely to occur over the life of the Project, which could increase the area of
disturbance estimated in the Wildlife RSA for the PDC and reduce the predicted area of mature and old
forests. In order to address this, the assessment of changes to wildlife habitat incorporated a conservative
approach when developing thresholds by which to quantify change and rate the magnitude of effects. The
magnitude of effects on wildlife habitat availability and effectiveness is predicted to be low to medium at
the regional scale for both the Application Case and PDC for species that rely on mature and old conifer,
mixedwood and deciduous forests and treed wetlands. The estimated change in availability of suitable
habitat in the Wildlife RSA is less than 10% for all indicators. The factors described in response to
AESRD SIR 133a may moderate the potential differences between the estimated and actual future
disturbance and availability of mature/old forests in the RSA. Future fire and harvest are not expected to
alter the availability of habitat at the regional scale to a degree that would exceed the conservative
thresholds of regional habitat change (20-30%) adopted for this Project. Additional modeling to predict
future fire and harvest would not change the conclusions of the assessment for wildlife habitat.
Page 285
Old growth forests were identified as biologically diverse ecosystems and an indicator for
vegetation, yet were not mapped at the RSA scale. Old growth forests are declining in
availability throughout the northeastern Alberta and therefore they are of particular concern at
the regional scale.
In addition, BlackPearl did not incorporate forestry activity into their vegetation assessment
beyond the 5 year plan, therefore, grossly underestimating the amount of clearing of old growth
forest that is likely to occur.
a. Map the vegetation at the RSA scale incorporating all available information, including
AVI for all polygons where it is available. Incorporate this updated vegetation
information into all assessments and discuss any changes in the predictions made.
Response:
The Vegetation Assessment was conducted according to the final TOR issued by AEW (AEW 2012a). For
the assessment of impacts, it is not specified in the TOR for any indicator whether a qualitative or
quantitative approach should be utilized. A combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment
methods were used in the Vegetation Assessment in order to provide the greatest degree of confidence
in the assessment. Furthermore, the definitions of the assessment criteria (used to evaluate significance)
are not defined quantitatively, therefore, quantitative metrics often inform the assessment but these
numbers are enhanced by the application of readily available scientific studies and professional
judgement to evaluate the significance of potential effects.
Land cover classifications (LCC) at the RSA scale were assigned based on Alberta Ground Cover
Characterization (AGCC) strata (Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2004) and derived from Landsat5 TM Level 1T
reflectance data (United States Geological Survey 2011). Landsat5 TM Level 1T reflectance data does
not include age. Vegetation communities were mapped using the ecological land classification (ELC)
system outlined in the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) at
the LSA scale using AVI data (Al-Pac 2010). In addition to the AVI data used to classify vegetation
communities at the LSA scale, 259 vegetation survey plots were used to increase the overall accuracy of
the vegetation community classifications. The combination of AVI data and field data at the LSA scale
provided accurate and reliable information to evaluate the loss or alteration of potential old growth forests
as a result of the interaction between existing disturbance, the Project and known future cutblocks in a
quantitative manner. These quantitative results were used to inform a qualitative assessment of the loss
or alteration of old growth forest at the RSA scale.
In addition to the quantitative predictions incorporated into the assessment of effects on old growth in the
RSA, several qualitative factors were also considered. The following qualitative factors were considered
in addition to quantification of known future cutblocks in the assessment of the potential impacts to old
growth:
• the maximum disturbance scenario assumes the entire Project Area is cleared at operation phase,
which provides a conservative estimate of the Project's contribution to vegetation disturbance (the
only disturbance that can be directly controlled by BlackPearl);
• the Forest Management Agreement (FMA) Area FMP (Al-Pac 2007a), the old-forest retention strategy
and the annual allowable cut will be adaptive based on both natural and development related
disturbances thereby reducing future loss of old forest (Refer to response to AESRD SIR 133a for
more detail about the FMP, old-forest retention strategy and the annual allowable cut);
• BlackPearl has initiated development of an ILMP with the primary timber harvest company (Millar
Western) and FMA holder (Al-Pac) in the RSA to limit combined vegetation disturbance; and
• the abundance of old growth forest is expected to be lower than the predicted abundance of forest
stands with the potential to support old growth within the LSA at closure phase of the PDC because:
Page 286
− an additional rotation of timber harvesting and other unplanned developments are likely to occur
over the assessment period; and
− natural disturbances such as fire and forest pests are likely to occur over the assessment period.
Information Request number 134 states that “BlackPearl did not incorporate forestry activity into their
vegetation assessment beyond the 5 year plan”. Forestry activity beyond the five year plan was
incorporated into the assessment of old growth forests in a qualitative manner. A qualitative
understanding of forest harvest beyond the five year plan (i.e. known future cutblocks) used accurate and
reliable information and is appropriate to inform the assessment of impacts to old growth.
BlackPearl is confident that the combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment of this indicator
provided an accurate and robust assessment. A qualitative understanding of natural disturbance patterns
and forest harvest beyond the five year plan (i.e. known future cutblocks) is appropriate to inform the
assessment of impacts regarding the Project's contribution to vegetation disturbance in the RSA.
Additional quantitative data on the abundance of old growth in the RSA would not change assessment
conclusions or provide additional confidence in those conclusions. Assessment conclusions were based
on integration of assessment criteria as outlined in section 1.3.7 of the Vegetation Assessment. Of all of
the assessment criteria evaluated, magnitude is the only one with the potential to be modified with the
use of additional quantitative data on the abundance of old growth in the RSA. In section 1.7.1.3 of the
Vegetation Assessment the magnitude of the combined effects of the Project, existing disturbance and
known future cutblocks was considered low due to the FMP (Al-Pac 2007a) since the FMA holder takes
cumulative effects to old growth forest into account when calculating their annual allowable cut. The loss
of old growth forest at closure phase was predicted to occur at a level that meets or exceeds the FMA
holder’s regulatory standards. Old growth forest is managed at a regional scale by the FMA holder and
through working with the FMA holder, BlackPearl is confident that effects to old growth as a result of the
interaction of the Project with existing disturbance, known future disturbance and likely future forest
harvest and wildfire are not significant.
In reference to the PDC, BlackPearl states that the largest proportional habitat loss will occur in
the mixedwood and coniferous forests which are not limited habitat types in the LSA.
a. Provide further explanation as to what is meant by ‘limited habitat type’ in this context
and throughout the Integrated Application.
Response:
The reference to limited habitat types refers to the relative abundance of the broad habitat type within the
LSA. Although common habitat classes may be important for maintaining populations of wildlife species,
rarer ecosystem classes were deemed to be of greater conservation value because these sites are often
associated with unique biodiversity, and their small area makes it more likely that biodiversity could be
affected due to small landscape disturbances. In reference to the PDC, coniferous forest and mixedwood
forest represented approximately 31% of the 1 km LSA at Baseline Case, which was deemed to be
relatively common. In contrast, habitat types that are less common in the LSA (e.g., open wetlands,
meadows) were assumed to be of greater importance for mitigation due to the unique biodiversity
potential, and in some cases, these sites may represent an important life requisite for some species (such
as breeding ponds for toads).
Page 287
135. b. If the planned development case predicted abundance of these habitats was compared
to their pre-disturbance abundance, would they fit the definition of ‘limited? Explain.
Response:
See AESRD SIR 135a.
Volume 4, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.2.3.2, Page 1A-13
Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.2.1, Page 2C-4
The wildlife models used the Land Cover Classification for the RSA rather than using the AVI,
presumably because AVI was not available for the entire RSA.
a. For what portion of the RSA was AVI data available?
Response:
AVI was available for 93% of the Wildlife RSA and 95% of the Vegetation RSA.
136. b. Provide a figure illustrating the availability of AVI data in the RSA
Response:
The availability of AVI data in both the Wildlife and Vegetation RSAs is illustrated in Figure 136-1.
137. Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.9.3, Table 2C-19, Page 2C-37
LCC 55 and 58 were classified as moderate in the RSA.
a. Given that mixedwood forests are known to be excellent habitat for old growth forest
birds, why were LCC 55 and 58 classified as moderate in the RSA rather than high?
Provide explanation for this classification.
Response:
Based on available data, LCC 55 and 58 were more likely to correspond to younger forest than LCC
classes rated High. Both qualitative and statistical validations for the old-forest bird model at the LSA
scale showed a high degree of model fit with available field data. As described in Volume 4, Appendix 2C,
Section 2C.9.1, optimal habitat for old-forest bird species occurs in old stands, however, mature forests
also provide habitat value for many of the bird species in the old-forest bird community. In general,
mature or old coniferous and conifer-dominated mixedwood stands provide optimal habitat for the old-
forest bird community, although some of the old-forest bird species also utilize deciduous and deciduous-
dominant mixedwood stands (Semenchuk 2007, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2011). Both Moderate and
High suitability habitat were considered to be important habitat for old-forest birds in the assessment of
Project and cumulative effects.
Page 288
¯
RGE.18 RGE.17 RGE.16 RGE.15 RGE.14 W4M
TWP.79
P elican R v e r
i
Crow
Agnes Lake
Lake
TWP.78
Hous
e River
r
ve 63
TWP.77 V
U
i
aR
sc
ha
ba
t
A
TWP.76
eek
l Cr
all e
Pa r
TWP.75
McMillan
Lake
TWP.74
Wander i n
Amadou
Lake
g
ek
Ri
ver
Cre
E ri c
k
r ee
TWP.73 an
nc
C
Du
FIGURE 136-1
AVI Coverage Vegetation RSA V
U 63 Road
AVI AVAILABLE WITHIN WILDLIFE RSA
Hydrography AND VEGETATION RSA
t6790_AVI_COVERAGE_FIGURE_136_1.mxd
Wildlife RSA
Waterbody AESRD SIR1 RESPONSES - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
UTM Zone 12N
SCALE: 1: 275,000
km
0 2 4 6
April 2013
4.5 Wildlife
There will be process affected water stored on site in open ponds. No description of how the
proponent will prevent wildlife from coming into contact with this water was presented.
a. Provide a description of how BlackPearl will prevent wildlife from coming into contact
with process-affected water stored on site. Ensure all sources of process water are
included in the description.
Response:
Process ponds are small, lack vegetation, and are near other structures, noise, light and human activity
associated with the CPF. Therefore, most wildlife species are anticipated to avoid these features. The
process ponds and storm water ponds are within the fenced confines of the CPF, which will prevent
access by medium and large mammals. Additional fencing or other barriers will be installed, where
appropriate, to prevent access to the process ponds or storm water ponds by smaller wildlife (e.g.,
amphibians). Process ponds will be visually monitored by on-site staff daily during the spring, summer,
and fall when waterfowl and other wildlife are most likely to be in the area. If during these monitoring
activities, wildlife are deemed to be at risk of coming in contact with process ponds, appropriate remedial
actions will be taken. This may include the installation of additional wildlife deterrents and/or barriers (e.g.,
bird deterrents such as mylar streamers, human/predator effigies, netting, floating balls, audio bird alarm
calls or scare canons; silt fencing or other barrier). BlackPearl employees will be made aware of the
appropriate contacts (e.g., AESRD) in the unlikely event of an incident involving wildlife contact with
process affected water. Additional mitigation for the stormwater pond can be found in Volume 4,
Section 2.6.1, Page 2-37.
138. b. Provide a general description of the wildlife monitoring plan for the process-ponds.
Response:
Process ponds will be within the boundary of the CPF and will be regularly observed by on-site staff.
Walk-bys of the process ponds by on-site personnel will occur daily during the spring, summer, and fall
when contact by wildlife with the process ponds is most likely. BlackPearl employees will be made aware
of the importance of reporting wildlife observations near the process ponds, including: contact by wildlife
with process affected water; waterfowl or other wildlife approaching or remaining near process ponds;
and inadequate barriers or deterrents that may allow wildlife to access the process ponds. The
importance of monitoring will be emphasised during times when contact with the ponds is most likely,
such as during spring and fall migration when open water may attract wildlife.
Page 290
BlackPearl describes a series of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of their use of the
access road on wildlife however there does not seem to be any mitigation proposed to reduce
the effects of this access on woodland caribou, despite the fact that the access road bisects a
caribou range.
a. What is the length of the access road and what length is within caribou range? What is
the average width of the access road?
Response:
The access road is 32.5 km from the intersection with Highway 63 in NW 6-74-18 W4M to the CPF in 20-
76-17 W4M. Approximately 23.6 km of the access road, between 12-12-74-17 W4M and 3 16 76 17 W4M
are within the Wandering caribou herd boundaries of the ESAR caribou range. The average width of the
road is approximately 25 m.
139. b. Describe any upgrading of the access road that will be conducted in the application
and planned development cases.
Response:
Major upgrades to the existing access road are not anticipated at this time. Additional pullouts will be
constructed at various points along the road during the Project construction phase to allow safe passing
of vehicles. These pullouts are expected to comprise minor widening of short segments at intermittent
intervals along the existing road. BlackPearl will continue to maintain the existing access road
(e.g., grading, adding additional gravel, plowing) as necessary to maintain a safe driving surface during all
phases of the Project. Refer to the response to AESRD SIR 8 for additional information.
139. c. Provide estimates of the daily volumes of traffic on the access road for the application
(construction, operations, decommissioning) and planned development cases.
Response:
Refer to the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) in Volume 5, Appendix 5A of the Integrated
Application for daily volumes of traffic. Decommissioning occurs in stages throughout the life of the
Project and average predicted traffic volumes are incorporated into the operation phase. The volume of
traffic on the access road is not anticipated to increase measurably above baseline levels as a result of
other activities in the RSA for the PDC. The traffic volumes in the TIA were provided under the
assumption that each worker would drive to and from site. To reduce the number of personal vehicles
travelling to and from the work site, BlackPearl is considering providing busing for workers to the work
site.
Page 291
139. d. Provide a complete list of all mitigation measures to be exercised by Black Pearl within
caribou ranges/caribou habitat to minimize effects on woodland caribou.
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 151 and Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.10.
139. e. Provide an assessment of the increased use of this road in the application and planned
development cases on caribou and caribou habitat
Response:
The increased use of the road was considered in the assessment of effects on caribou (Volume 4,
Sections 2.3.4.4 and 2.6.3.10). With the posting of low traffic speeds, signage and education of
construction and operation contractors and employees, risk of caribou injury or mortality associated with
traffic on the access road is not expected to increase measurably as a result of the Project.
139. f. Describe how BlackPearl will work with other operators and government to assist in the
implementation of the federal woodland caribou recovery strategy. Refer specifically to
actions to be taken with respect to the ESAR.
Response:
BlackPearl has initiated development of an ILMP with the primary timber harvest company (Millar
Western) and FMA holder (Al-Pac) in the RSA. This ILMP will form the basis for cooperative restoration
efforts and management of direct and indirect effects of habitat loss for wildlife in the LSA and RSA. The
ILMP will include strategies such as cooperative restoration efforts (e.g., reclaiming intersections of
existing linear features) that are expected to reduce indirect effects of altered predator-prey dynamics in
the ESAR caribou range. BlackPearl will consult with trappers and other industrial operators (e.g., forestry
and oil and gas) in the LSA to maintain necessary existing access but limit creation of new off-road
access.
BlackPearl intends to participate in regional monitoring initiatives and adopt standardized monitoring
protocols as they are developed by the EMCLA. BlackPearl has initiated communications with both
AESRD and EMCLA regarding monitoring protocols and participation in current regional studies. Survey
plans for wildlife, including species with special conservation status, will be provided as part of
BlackPearl’s Wildlife Monitoring Program. BlackPearl anticipates that the EMCLA will facilitate sharing of
project-specific wildlife monitoring information amongst in-situ operators in the region and coordinate
regional wildlife monitoring efforts, as well as inform regional management decisions and actions for
conservation and recovery of the ESAR caribou. BlackPearl is also committed to joining the Oil Sands
Developers Group (OSDG), which is an industry association representing companies actively engaged in
the development of Canada’s Athabasca oil sands region. BlackPearl will participate on the
environmental committee, which is supportive of the regional biodiversity monitoring initiative.
Page 292
140. Volume 1, Section 10.1, Page 10-1 and Figure 10.1-1, Page 10-2
The Project Alternatives Considered section describes existing drainages as a key

consideration when siting the CPF; however, the CPF footprint includes a drainage. This
drainage was identified as riparian habitat favoured by beavers, a CEMA priority 2 species.
a. Clarify how the drainage and adjacent preferred habitat for beaver will be addressed
during the development of the CPF.
Response:
The boundary of the CPF has been revised since the Integrated Application was submitted.
Environmental information, specifically the drainage and terrain at the southern boundary of the CPF,
were incorporated into the Project design to reduce potential effects of the Project on the environment. A
100 m fire buffer extending into the CPF from the boundary will be cleared using minimal disturbance
methods to avoid surface disturbance. Low shrubs will be allowed to regenerate within the fire buffer. The
retention of this natural vegetation adjacent to the edge of the CPF will reduce potential effects on water
flow and quality within the drainage at the southern boundary of the CPF. The boundary of the CPF will
be fenced.
The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce potential impacts on the drainage and
adjacent potential beaver habitat:
• Riparian vegetation within the fire buffer will be cleared by hand, if practical. BlackPearl will avoid
grubbing and use vegetative maintenance and removal techniques such as pruning, mowing, girdling,
topping and select tree removal that allow the root system to remain. If machinery must be used, it
will be operated above the high watermark and in a manner that minimizes disturbance. Disturbance
to all low growing shrubs or grass species will be minimized.
• Low growing native vegetation (e.g., grasses, forbs, shrubs) will not be controlled during operation in
riparian areas, unless absolutely necessary. If vegetation control is necessary, BlackPearl will abide
by the guidelines set out in DFO's Alberta Operational Statement for Maintenance of Riparian
Vegetation in Existing Rights-of-Ways (DFO 2008). If riparian vegetation control in riparian areas is
required during operation, methods that allow the root systems to remain intact to help bind the soil
and encourage rapid colonization of low-growing plant species will be applied.
• BlackPearl will implement best management practices to prevent the release of silt and sediment into
receiving waters during all phases of the Project. The Project will be designed to control sediment and
erosion so that any inputs of sediment to watercourses will be avoided and/or minimized.
• Soil handling measures outlined in Volume 1, Section 11.4.1.3 and Volume 4, Section 4.0 of the
Integrated Application will be implemented to minimize the potential for sedimentation of nearby
surface water. Sediment control will be utilised during construction activity in proximity to drainages.
• Runoff from the CPF will be controlled using perimeter berms that will prevent off-site discharge of
runoff. Storm water runoff will be collected by a surface drainage system from the entire CPF site and
discharged to the storm water pond. Design details on the storm water retention pond are found in the
Facilities component of the Integrated Application (Volume 1, Section 6.0).
• Collected runoff will be tested for compliance with water quality guidelines prior to controlled release.
The water gathered in the storm water pond will be released to the environment after checking its
quality. In the rare case of having any contamination, the water will be sent to the process pond by
using the storm water pond sump pump.
• The CPF site will be designed to contain spills on-site. Mitigation measures will be in place during the
operational phase of the Project developments to reduce surface run-off from well pads, the CPF and
access roads. Runoff will be controlled and will not be directed toward streams.
Page 293
• An Emergency Response Plan, which will include prevention, containment and clean-up measures,
will be implemented in the event of accidental spills, and is expected to alleviate any potential effects
on wildlife health and mortality risk associated with exposure to contaminants resulting from a spill or
chemical release. The Spill Response Plan outlines the necessary actions to take in case of an
accidental spill. Mitigation and preventive measures for spills include: the construction of berms, and
the containment and removal of deleterious substances. Environmental consequences of spills will be
reduced by restricting fuel storage/filling to designated areas located at least 100 m from waterbodies
and watercourses.
• Mitigative measures outlined in ERCB Directive 56 (2011) will be applied to protect water bodies with
defined bed and banks that are within 100 m of facility sites, and mitigate the consequences in the
event of a spill. Measures will include one or more of the following: berms constructed using
impermeable materials; synthetic liner; vacuum truck; absorption material; enclosed systems with
tankage; and textile mat.
• The use of refined oil for dust control on roads during operation will be prohibited. Solutions
consisting of organic/non-toxic ingredients or water will be used to control dust on roadways. Dust
control activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable provincial and municipal regulations
and guidelines.
• Process water (e.g., boiler blowdown water, de-oiled produced water, and utility water) will be
recovered and reused for generating new steam. Process water will be stored in the Process Pond.
Design details on the process pond can be found in the Facilities (Volume 1, Section 6.0) component
of the Integrated Application. Septic wastes will be held in underground septic tanks, pumped out in
vacuum trucks, and disposed offsite at a municipal sewage treatment plant.
140. b. Clarify why existing dispositions were used as a constraint in siting the CPF. Explain
who is licenced with those dispositions and why the dispositions in question could not
be modified to include the CPF.
Response:
Existing dispositions include those for well sites (active and inactive), access roads, pipelines and
Permanent Sample Plots (PSPs), among others. Refer to Table 1.5-3 in Volume 5, Section 1.5.4 of the
Integrated Application for a full list of disposition types and holders in the Land Use LSA. The CPF could
not be sited on existing dispositions because they are not owned by BlackPearl and cannot be physically
modified (e.g., wellsites cannot be moved; restrictions regarding disturbance to PSPs). Prior to filing the
Integrated Application, BlackPearl reviewed several CPF location options with AESRD. The location of
the CPF represents the best option available.
Page 294
140. c. Explain the trade-offs considered when selecting the CPF location, configuration, and
dimensions in terms of environmental effects on wildlife.
Response:
The CPF is sized to accommodate all three phases of the Project, rather than having three individual CPF
sites for each Phase. This results in a reduction in the overall area of disturbance required for a CPF
(e.g., there are efficiencies with having one primary location). In consideration of the various constraints,
BlackPearl took into account environmental effects on wildlife. Note that the boundary of the CPF has
been revised since the Integrated Application was submitted to avoid the drainage on the southern
boundary (refer to AESRD SIR 140a).
This figure illustrates the degree of overlap between project infrastructure and moderate and
high beaver habitat. Beaver are identified as a CEMA priority 2 species in the area.
a. Provide justification for, or adjust, the road location within moderate and high beaver
habitat 18-77-17-W4 and 20-77-17-W4.
Response:
Avoidance of watercourses, riparian areas and wetlands to the extent practical was a key criteria for
preliminary siting of the Project Area. As such, high quality beaver habitat was avoided to the extent
practical. The road in 18-77-17 W4M follows an existing tertiary access road and it was selected to avoid
additional clearing. The Project Area in Sections 17- and 20-77-17 W4M has been adjusted since the
submission of the Integrated Application (refer to Project Update), to reduce the length of multi-use
corridor, overall area of disturbance, and area of disturbance near/within riparian areas. Approximately
1 ha of high suitability habitat for beaver is anticipated to be affected as a result of the Project in Sections
17-, 18- and 20-77-17 W4M. Most of the affected habitat in the northern sections of the Project is
sufficiently far from a watercourse or waterbody that beaver occupancy may still occur. The reduction in
habitat is primarily from a loss in foraging habitat; however, foraging habitat is still available closer to the
water’s edge.
The nearest known beaver locations based on the baseline studies are 361 m east of the road in 18-77-
17 W4M and 206 m to the north of the road in 20-77-17 W4M. This portion of the Project Area is planned
as part of the final development phase of the Project (Phase 3B). Beaver activity creates dynamic
changes in boreal systems. Pre-disturbance site assessments will be conducted prior to development of
Phase 3B, and adjustments and/or mitigation measures will be applied to address site-specific features,
where warranted.
141. b. Indicate whether this road infringes on a riparian area or watercourse set-back and by
how much.
Response:
A small section of the road (0.05 ha) in 18-77-17-W4 is considered riparian based on a 50 m riparian
buffer (Volume 3, Section 4.8.1, Page 4-36). The maximum encroachment into the 50 m riparian buffer is
8.7 m. However, the 50 m buffer is conservative and field observations indicate that the infringing area is
upland habitat outside the extent of the riparian area (see Volume 3, Appendix 4A, Table 4A-4, Page 4A
27, record A2-1). The road does not infringe upon the 10-20 m riparian width determined during field
surveys. A portion of the road is within 100 m of the watercourse, as described in the response to
AESRD SIR 62. The road follows an existing tertiary access road and it was selected to avoid additional
clearing. The road in 20-77-17-W4 does not infringe on a riparian area. Mitigation will be applied, where
Page 295
appropriate, as described in Volume 4, Section 1.6.1.1, Page 1-23 and Volume 3 and Section 4.7.1,
Page 4-15.
Other than a partial assessment of effects for woodland caribou, western toad and indirectly
some old-forest bird species, BlackPearl did not assess the effects of the project on species at
risk (e.g. little brown myotis, northern myotis, wolverine, common nighthawk, horned grebe,
barn swallow, barred owl, and olive-sided flycatcher). These species are listed in Table 2.5-3.
The use of indicators to assess the effects on species at risk is insufficient because species at
risk are typically habitat specialists. Their occurrence is seldom well-represented by common
species. For this reason, individual assessments of effects are required for species at risk.
a. Provide an assessment of impacts for all provincially and federally listed species that
have ranges and suitable habitat overlapping the study area, including those listed
under the Alberta Wildlife Act as endangered, threatened or special concern, and listed
in schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act, and those designated as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern by COSEWIC.
NOTE: it is not necessary to address all species listed as Sensitive in the Status of
Alberta Species Report (GOA 2010).
Response:
TOR 3.7.1 requires BlackPearl to describe and map the wildlife resources and their potential use of
habitats, and identify any species that are listed as At Risk, May Be At Risk and Sensitive in the General
Status of Alberta Wild Species, listed in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act, listed as At Risk by the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and traditionally used species.
In compliance with TOR 3.7.1, field surveys and baseline information collection were designed and
conducted to cover the species with special conservation status that may occur in the RSA, and results
are provided in Volume 4, Appendix 2B. The results of field surveys and baseline literature review were
incorporated into the assessment and mitigation measures for the Project.
TOR 3.7.2[B] requires BlackPearl to identify the key wildlife and habitat indicators used to assess Project
impacts. The use of indicators is an accepted approach used to focus impact assessments on issues that
are non-trivial (Hegmann et al. 1999, Hegmann et al. 2002, Finely and Revel 2002, Antoniuk 2000,
Antoniuk 2002). Conservation status was one of the key criteria for indicator selection (refer to Volume 4,
Section 2.3.5). Species with special conservation status are often environmental indicators (i.e., provide
an indication of ecological change due to their sensitivity to habitat changes); therefore, these species are
often selected as indicators since they provide a conservative estimate of potential effects. The wildlife
indicators selected represent a broad suite of habitat types occurring with the LSA, and wildlife species
that rely on these habitats.
Wildlife species with special conservation status were defined in the Integrated Application to include
those listed:
a) as At Risk, May Be At Risk and Sensitive in The Status of Alberta Species (ASRD 2011);
b) under the Alberta Wildlife Act as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern;
c) under Schedule 1 of the federal Species At Risk Act; or
Page 296
d) as being ‘at risk’ (i.e., species designated Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern) by
COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2012a).
Species with special conservation status that have potential to be affected by the Project, based on the
LSA overlapping the species range, availability of potentially suitable habitat within the LSA, and field
data collected for the Project (e.g., vegetation communities, disturbance types, structural stages,
hydrography, soil characteristics, presence of species) include: northern myotis, little brown myotis,
wolverine, barn swallow, barred owl, black-throated green warbler, Canada warbler, Cape May warbler,
common nighthawk, horned grebe, olive-sided flycatcher, rusty blackbird, yellow rail, Canada toad and
western toad. Woodland caribou (transient) may occur infrequently in the LSA, although this is outside of
designated caribou range.
The magnitude of effects on wildlife habitat availability and effectiveness is predicted to be low to medium
at the regional scale for both the Application Case and PDC for species that rely on mature and old
conifer, mixedwood and deciduous forests and treed wetlands, such as fisher, northern goshawk,
woodland caribou, northern and little brown myotis, and old-forest birds including barred owl, olive-sided
flycatcher, rusty blackbird and wood warblers (e.g., black-throated green, Canada and Cape May
warblers). Changes in habitat availability and effectiveness for wide-ranging species that use a variety of
habitat types such as upland forests, forest openings, peatlands, early seral stands (e.g., are not
dependent on old forest), and tend to avoid human disturbance (e.g., moose, fisher and wolverine), are
predicted to be low in magnitude at the regional scale. Wetland reliant species such as Canada and
western toad, sandhill crane and horned grebe are predicted to experience low magnitude effects related
to changes in habitat availability and effectiveness at the regional scale. The effects on wildlife habitat
availability and effectiveness, including habitats for species with special conservation status, are expected
to be long-term in duration and continuous over the life of the Project, but reversible following reclamation
and predicted to be not significant. At closure phase for the Application Case and PDC the Project Area
and existing cutblocks will be reclaimed/replanted and are expected to be restored to natural vegetation
communities. Overall, decreases in natural and anthropogenic disturbance may occur in the RSA at
closure phase, depending on possible future timber harvest and wildfire. Reclamation of the Project Area
is predicted to result in increases in native vegetation communities as anthropogenic disturbance
decreases. The largest proportional increases at closure phase predicted as a result of reclamation of the
Project Area are in forested uplands (e.g., white and black spruce forests and mixedwood forests). As
existing burned areas regenerate, shrubby poor fens and shrubby bogs are predicted to increase in the
LSA at closure phase, compared to Baseline Case. Treed bogs and fens (i1, j1, k1 ELCs) are predicted to
decrease at closure phase within the LSA. However, an increase in shrubby bogs and fens (i2, j2, k2
ELCs) at closure phase is predicted, which are expected to succeed to the later seral treed wetland
counterparts of these ELCs over time. Over the long-term, the increased area of these habitat types could
potentially benefit species with special conservation status such as fisher, northern goshawk, woodland
caribou, northern and little brown myotis, old-forest birds (including barred owl, olive-sided flycatcher and
wood warblers), sandhill crane, horned grebe, yellow rail, and Canadian and western toads. Given that
forest harvest operations and natural disturbance (e.g., wildfire) are expected to occur in the RSA
extending into and beyond closure phase, the predicted increases in habitat types could be substantially
altered (i.e., given the uncertainty related to temporal and spatial occurrence of future natural and
anthropogenic disturbance events), and are likely lower than predicted. However, the conclusions of the
effects assessment regarding BlackPearl's contribution to habitat loss and alteration for species of
management concern are not affected by such unpredictable events at the closure phase.
Common nighthawk and short-eared owl use a variety of habitat types, but nesting habitat is often
associated with open or disturbed habitats (e.g., open forests, recently logged or burned areas, forest
clearings, peatlands and marshes, rock outcrops, anthropogenic disturbances). The Project and other
developments in the RSA (e.g., forest harvest) will potentially increase nesting habitat availability for
species that utilize open and/or disturbed habitats, such as common nighthawk and short-eared owl.
Similarly, olive-sided flycatcher is often associated with forest openings and edges, although a mature
forest component is typically required as well. At Application Case and PDC, BlackPearl's contribution to
change in habitat availability and effectiveness for open/disturbed habitat species such as common
nighthawk and short-eared owl are predicted to be neutral to positive, of low magnitude and not
significant. At closure phase, openings created by the Project are predicted to regenerate to native
vegetation communities following reclamation, and be less suitable for common nighthawk or short-eared
owl nesting as structural stages advance, but may be suitable for olive-sided flycatcher where early seral
Page 297
forests are adjacent to mature stands. However, this trend is expected to be tempered, given that forest
harvest operations and natural disturbance (e.g., wildfire) are expected to occur in the RSA extending into
and beyond closure phase. Changes in habitat at closure phase do not affect the conclusions of the
effects assessment regarding BlackPearl's contribution to habitat loss and alteration for common
nighthawk, short-eared owl and olive-sided flycatcher.
Barn swallow was observed once during field studies for the Project, suggesting a low density or possibly
transient occurrence. Given the species’ ability to adapt to nesting in a variety of artificial structures (e.g.,
buildings, bridges) and to exploit foraging opportunities in open, human-modified landscapes, changes in
habitat availability and effectiveness are expected to be neutral to positive, of low magnitude and not
significant for barn swallow.
Effects resulting from changes in movement patterns (e.g., barriers/filters to movement) are expected to
be of negligible to low magnitude for wildlife, including species with special conservation status, for the
Application Case and PDC. Reduced permeability of the LSA and resultant changes in movement due to
the Project are particularly relevant to large mammals (e.g., moose) that do not cross easily under above-
ground pipelines (AGP) without sufficient clearance or crossing structures, and less mobile species such
as Canadian or western toads, which may be trapped in vehicle ruts on access roads or well pads. Most
species with special conservation status that potentially occur in the LSA are winged (i.e., bats and birds)
and highly mobile, and as a result, are predicted to experience low magnitude effects to movement
resulting from the Project. Reluctance to cross multi-use corridors with higher levels of human
activity/traffic may create a filter to movement for some species at risk (e.g., wolverine). The
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to maintain permeability of the LSA during
construction and operation of the Project (e.g., sufficiently elevated AGP, AGP crossing structures,
maintenance of openings in snow berms on plowed roads, road/well pad maintenance to avoid ruts that
could trap wildlife) are anticipated to effectively mitigate Project effects on movement of wildlife, including
species at risk, to low magnitude.
Mortality risk for species with special conservation status is not expected to exceed that of any of the
indicators explicitly assessed in the Integrated Application. The relative risks of wildlife mortality are
expected to be similar within species guilds for an in-situ oil sands development. The effects mechanisms
and conclusions for the mammal, bird and amphibian indicators assessed reflect the mammal, bird and
amphibian species with special conservation status that potentially occur in the LSA, with the exception of
northern and little brown myotis. These myotis species are more likely to be affected by mortality risk in a
similar fashion as old-forest birds, which are predicted to experience low magnitude effects from mortality
risk associated with the Blackrod Project that are not significant at the Application Case and PDC.
142. b. For those species where existing data are inadequate to complete an assessment of
impacts, provide a survey plan to supplement the Integrated Application with the
necessary data to conduct an assessment of effects.
Response:
The assessment provides sufficient information to adequately evaluate the potential effects of the Project
on wildlife species with special conservation status. Additional baseline surveys are not warranted.
BlackPearl is committed to developing and implementing a Wildlife Monitoring Program in collaboration
with AESRD, the EMCLA and interested stakeholders. BlackPearl has initiated communications with both
AESRD and EMCLA regarding monitoring protocols and participation in current regional studies, in
particular, EMCLA’s rare species (owls, amphibians, rails and bats) and caribou monitoring programs.
Survey plans for wildlife, including species with special conservation status, will be provided as part of
BlackPearl’s Wildlife Monitoring Program.
Page 298
BlackPearl indicates that the magnitude of impacts on wildlife was based on established or
accepted thresholds and regulatory standards; however there are very few (if any) established
or accepted thresholds or regulatory standards for the VECs selected.
a. Is BlackPearl referring to the ‘30% loss of moderate and high quality habitat threshold’
adopted in this Integrated Application with the term ‘established or accepted
threshold’? If not, provide an explanation as to the difference between the two terms.
Response:
The characterization of magnitude of residual effects considered established or accepted thresholds,

and/or environmental or regulatory standards. Although very few thresholds/standards are explicitly
identified by regulators or others as accepted or established, the thresholds adopted for the assessment
are based on current literature and previous environmental assessments reviewed and approved under
provincial and federal environmental regulatory processes. They are therefore considered accepted by
the assessment team for the purposes of characterizing the magnitude of residual effects.
143. b. Provide a table containing all of the “established or accepted thresholds and regulatory
standards” for the VECS with information about the source.
Response:
The thresholds used to assess potential residual effects on the selected indicators are described in
Volume 4, Section 2.3.6.1, which includes reference to the sources used to determine thresholds, and a
table of thresholds adopted for change in habitat.
143. c. For those VECs without established thresholds or regulatory standards, clarify how the
various levels of magnitude (negligible, low medium, high), were determined.
Response:
The criteria used to assess residual effects on wildlife reflect the issues and effects assessment methods
specific to wildlife. Residual effects were assessed quantitatively wherever feasible (e.g., change in area
of available habitat). Qualitative assessments and professional judgment were incorporated where
appropriate in the criteria ratings. Use of professional judgment in significance determinations provides
relevant conclusions that are sensitive to context and facilitate decision-making (Lawrence 2007).
Residual effects that do not exceed established guidelines, thresholds or criteria, or that are predicted to
result in effects to an indicator population such that the integrity of the regional population is not
threatened, are rated as having negligible to moderate magnitude, depending on the predicted severity of
the effect. Residual effects that are predicted to be not detectable are rated as having negligible
magnitude. Residual effects that are predicted to be detectable, but are anticipated to be of relatively low
severity such that effects would not cause changes that could threaten the integrity of the indicator’s
regional population are rated low magnitude. Residual effects that are predicted to be detectable and are
anticipated to have a higher level of severity than low magnitude effects, but still are not anticipated to
cause changes that could threaten the integrity of the indicator’s regional population are rated as having
medium magnitude. The sensitivity of the species (e.g., indicated by conservation status, population trend
and sensitivity to disturbance) were considered in the determination of magnitude when it was not
reasonable to use thresholds, such as in the assessment of movement and mortality risk for most
Page 299
indicators. In the absence of any regulatory thresholds/standards, the magnitude evaluation also
considered relevant land use planning objectives and strategies and previous environmental
assessments reviewed and approved under provincial and federal environmental regulatory processes,
where appropriate. These sources provide useful information on social values and risk tolerance, which
are an essential component of significance determinations.
BlackPearl has provided permeability ratings for various types of disturbance features relative
to moose movement. Linear corridors that contain above ground pipelines and linear corridors
that contain both roads and above ground pipe were not included.
a. Provide the permeability rating for right-of-ways with above ground pipe.
Response
AGP rights-of-way are rated as having moderate permeability (rating = 1) to moose movement, assuming
mitigation is applied.
144. b. Provide the permeability rating for right-of-ways with both a road and above ground
pipe.
Response:
Multi-use corridors (i.e., combined road/AGP rights-of-way) are rated as having moderate permeability
(rating = 1) for moose, assuming mitigation is applied.
144. c. Provide an explanation as to why the values above were chosen.
Response:
There are no AGP rights-of-way within the RSA at Baseline Case. AGP at Application Case and PDC is
related exclusively to the proposed multi-use corridors for the Blackrod Project, which have both AGP and
access roads combined within the corridors. Since BlackPearl is committed to implementing mitigation to
reduce barriers to movement and maintain permeability, the multi-use corridors are rated as having
moderate permeability (rating = 1) to moose. This rating implies that some movement may be affected
and the feature is likely to create a filter to movement to some degree, but not a complete barrier to
movement. Recent monitoring of AGP at in situ projects has indicated that mitigation measures to
maintain permeability are effective (refer to Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.5 for a discussion of recent studies
pertaining to maintaining movement across AGP/roads at in situ developments). With a combination of
elevated AGP segments, over-pipe crossing structures, managing snow berms on plowed roads,
monitoring and adaptive management, moderate permeability to moose movement is expected to be
maintained during operation of the Project. In addition, BlackPearl is committed to minimizing potential
environmental effects of the Project, including reduced permeability of the study area to wildlife such as
moose, by designing the Project to have the least amount of disturbance and new linear corridor as
practical. Since the Integrated Application was filed, BlackPearl has modified the Project Area to reduce
the length of multi-use corridors by approximately 42.2 km.
Page 300
144. d. Provide an updated assessment for moose movement incorporating the new
permeability ratings.
Response:
Exclusion of multi-use corridors in Volume 4, Section 2.4.5, Table 2.4-1 was an oversight. The
assessment provided in the Integrated Application incorporated consideration of multi-use corridors for
the Project. Permeability at the local scale was reviewed using the HSI model completed for moose in the
LSA (refer to responses to AESRD SIRs 159 and 164). Moderate and high suitability moose habitat is
distributed throughout most of the LSA, with the exception of the open and low-lying habitats (e.g., bogs,
fens) in the southwestern portion of the study area. The largest areas of moderate and high suitability
moose habitat are primarily in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the LSA. Moose movement
at the local scale is likely to be affected by the CPF and camp in the southeast portion of the LSA, since
these features are considered impermeable to moose movement, and moose will likely avoid habitat in
proximity to these areas given the high level of activity at these sites. Habitat avoidance is incorporated in
the habitat model through application of a suitability reduction factor associated with the zone of
influence. Potential changes in moose movement associated with the proposed multi-use corridors in the
LSA are expected to be reduced with application of the proposed mitigation (refer to response to
AESRD SIR 144c), however, the multi-use corridors may cause a filter to moose movement. There is no
change in the evaluation of moose movement at the RSA scale provided in the Integrated Application.
Volume 4, Appendix 2B, Section 2B.3.4.1, Page 2B-40
BlackPearl provides their estimate of moose density within the LSA and RSA, but does not
provide the density estimates or population trends for the larger WMU. Furthermore, no attempt
was made to quantify the impacts of the application and planned development cases on moose
abundance. In fact, the conclusion that there will be no measurable effect on moose
abundance seems to be based on little more than a brief summary of other effects.
a. Explain how the assessment on moose abundance was made.
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 146a for additional explanation of methods for assessing wildlife
abundance. The three effect pathways considered in the assessment of moose (i.e., habitat, movement,
health and mortality risk) contribute to potential changes in moose abundance associated with the Project
and other disturbance. Potential adverse effects of the Project associated with sensory disturbance during
winter (i.e., reduced habitat effectiveness) are expected to be mitigated by separation of the Project from
the Key Wildlife and Biodiversity Zone associated with the Athabasca River, limiting clearing and
construction activities during late winter, prohibiting recreational use of ATVs and snowmobiles by
employees and contractors within the LSA and discouraging additional human access to the site (e.g.,
hunters) by designating Project access as ‘dead-end’ routes and requiring safety orientation from all
persons entering the site. Effects associated with barriers to movement are expected to be adequately
mitigated by implementing measures to maintain permeability of the site to wildlife movement. Increased
mortality risk potentially resulting from the Project is primarily associated with hunting and predation risk
caused by increased access. Several mitigation measures will be implemented to address this risk (refer
to Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.5) and the resulting residual effect is expected to be of low magnitude.
These effects pathways (e.g., reduced habitat effectiveness from sensory disturbance, barriers/filters to
movement from reduced habitat permeability, increased mortality risk from hunting/predation) may all
contribute to effects on moose abundance, however, change in habitat resulting from the Project and
other natural and anthropogenic disturbance in the region is likely the most influential effect pathway for
Page 301
moose abundance. Natural and anthropogenic disturbance that results in regeneration of early seral
forest stands can result in an increase in moose density and abundance at the landscape scale as forage
increases. The prevalence of regenerating burns and cutblocks within the region is likely a key factor in
the relatively high moose density observed in the study area. A minimal reduction in moderate and high
suitability habitat within the RSA for the Application Case (approximately 2%) and PDC (approximately
7%) is predicted in the Integrated Application at the operation phase (i.e., maximum disturbance
scenario). This level of habitat change at the regional scale is not expected to have a measurable effect
on moose density.
Overall, the relatively small contribution of the Project to habitat change in the RSA is likely the most
influential pathway for changes in moose abundance; however, effects from indirect habitat change,
movement and health/mortality risk can combine with direct habitat effects to magnify overall effects on
abundance. The Project mitigation is expected to reduce the residual effects such that these effects
pathways contribute very little to changes in moose abundance at the regional scale. The conclusion that
moose abundance at the regional scale is unlikely to be affected incorporates consideration of
BlackPearl's contribution to all three effects pathways.
145. b. What is the current moose density estimate for the Wildlife Management Unit 512 Crow
Lake? How does this compare with the density estimates for the LSA and RSA?
Provide an explanation for any differences.
Response:
BlackPearl provided an estimate of moose density within the LSA (0.48 moose/km²) and slightly larger
aerial survey area (0.49 moose/km²), which extended beyond the LSA but did not cover the entire RSA.
BlackPearl noted that “the surveyed area is relatively small and, therefore, results are not necessarily
indicative of regional moose populations” (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 2B, Section 2B3.4.1). An estimate
of the density of moose at the regional scale was not provided in the Integrated Application.
AESRD conducted aerial surveys for moose in WMU 512 in January 2013 (Chapman pers. comm.). The
randomized selection of survey blocks resulted in five intensive survey blocks located within the
BlackPearl RSA, of which three intensive survey blocks wholly or partially overlapped the BlackPearl LSA.
Preliminary results of that survey estimate the average density of moose in WMU 512 is 0.30 moose/km².
However, a higher density of moose was observed in survey blocks over the BlackPearl study areas,
suggesting the estimated density of 0.48 moose/km² is likely reasonably accurate (Chapman pers.
comm.).
145. c. What is the temporal trend for the moose population in Wildlife Management Unit 512
Crow Lake? How will this trend be affected by the predictions made in this Integrated
Application?
Response:
ASRD estimated the average density of moose in WMU 512 was 0.19 moose/km² in 2005 (Found 2005).
Preliminary results of the aerial survey AESRD conducted in January 2013 estimate the average density
of moose in WMU 512 is 0.30 moose/km² (Chapman pers. comm.). There was an increase in moose
density observed in all of the four WMUs surveyed by AESRD (WMUs 512, 517 and 518) and the Alberta
Conservation Association (ACA) (WMU 506) in 2013. Several factors were suggested by AESRD as
potentially contributing to the increased density of moose observed in WMU 512, including: the
regenerating vegetation within cutblocks and the House River fire area (burned in 2002) likely provide an
abundance of forage; the upland deciduous forests and Key Wildlife Biodiversity Zones associated with
the river features in the region provide good quality habitat; and local trappers in the area actively trap
and harvest relatively high numbers of wolves. When all Project effects pathways that could potentially
Page 302
alter moose abundance are considered (refer to AESRD SIR 145a response), the residual effects of the
Project are not predicted to have a substantial effect on moose abundance at the regional scale, and no
measurable change in the population trend within WMU 512 is expected to occur as a result of the
Project.
145. d. Describe the effects of the Application and Planned Development Cases on moose
abundance using scientifically defensible techniques. Provide the model(s) used to
conduct this assessment.
Response:
Refer to AESRD SIR 145a and 146a. The conclusions are based on best available scientific studies and
literature, and apply a standard approach in environmental assessment. Population modeling is not
necessary to improve confidence in Integrated Application conclusions, given the comparatively small
contribution of the Blackrod Project to pathways affecting regional moose abundance.
Volume 4, Section 2.6.3 all Summaries, Pages 2-42 to 2-88
Volume 4, Section 2.7.3, all Summaries, Pages 2-90 to 2-123
BlackPearl states Change in wildlife abundance resulting from the Project is difficult to quantify
and was, therefore, discussed qualitatively. Wildlife abundance is most likely to be affected by
direct habitat loss, but may also be affected by reduced habitat effectiveness, changes in
movement (e.g., barriers to movement prevent wildlife access to suitable habitat), and health
and mortality. The potential effects on wildlife abundance were discussed in the context of
regional populations. In most summaries of effects for wildlife indicators, the assessment on
abundance seems to be little more than a concluding sentence after all the other effects are
listed. It is not clear how the current status or abundance trends for the regional populations
were incorporated.
a. Provide further detail regarding how the potential impacts of the project on wildlife
abundance were determined.
Response:
The summary at the end of the assessment for each indicator was intended to provide a brief, high-level
review of the conclusions. A thorough explanation of how wildlife abundance may be affected by the
Project and other disturbances is provided in Volume 4, Sections 2.4 through 2.6.
As described in the assessment methods (refer to Volume 4, Section 2.4), three main effects mechanisms
or “pathways” were considered to contribute to wildlife abundance. These are habitat availability and
effectiveness, movement, and health/mortality risk. Over the long-term, possible changes in wildlife
abundance associated with the Project is assumed to be linked to changes in habitat availability (i.e.,
direct habitat loss/alteration), but may also be affected by reduced habitat effectiveness, changes in
movement (e.g., barriers to movement prevent wildlife access to suitable habitat), and health and
mortality risk.
Where available, existing literature pertaining to how the abundance of an indicator population may be
affected was reviewed and summarized to inform the assessment and provide context to the conclusions.
Refer to Volume 4, Section 2.3.6.1 for a discussion of how habitat loss or alteration potentially affects
wildlife abundance, and literature sources used to inform the assessment of habitat loss.
Page 303
The potential effects on wildlife abundance were discussed in the context of regional populations. Species
at risk typically include species that are sensitive to habitat change, may have high mortality rates, and
may be experiencing population declines. As a result, thresholds adopted for species at risk are more
conservative (refer to Volume 4, Section 2.3.6.1 and Table 2.3-4), which reflects higher potential for the
Project and other disturbance to have a measurable effect on regional abundance that is outside the
range of natural variation or could impact the viability of the regional population.
The conclusions about abundance for each wildlife indicator incorporated full consideration of combined
effects from each of the effects pathways assessed for the indicator, species sensitivity to change,
population trends, and other risk factors or pressures contributing to regional population abundance.
146. b. How was the compounding of several related effects considered in the assessments of
abundance? For example when there was a low yet negative effect on habitat
availability and effectiveness, plus a low yet negative effect on movement, plus a low
yet negative effect on health and mortality Black Pearl seems to have universally
concluded that would result in no effect on abundance. How were the cumulative
effects considered?
Response:
BlackPearl did not assess the baseline or application cases on caribou at the LSA scale stating
that the LSA is not officially within a caribou range and therefore it was unnecessary.
BlackPearl indicates however that woodland caribou were observed 3 times in the LSA and
that the LSA contains suitable caribou habitat. By definition, if caribou are there, it is caribou
habitat and an assessment should be provided.
Furthermore, caribou are managed at the level of the range, not herd in Alberta. BlackPearl
used a Caribou RSA that included only two small portions of the ESAR range that are closest
to the project (i.e. Wandering and Agnes herds). Although these areas certainly contain the
individual caribou that are most likely to be directly affected by the project, the caribou
population affected extends well beyond those boundaries. Therefore, the caribou RSA should
be expanded to also include the rest of the ESAR.
a. Provide an assessment for woodland caribou at the scale of the LSA.
Response:
Focusing caribou management and recovery within the identified caribou ranges is supported by the
provincial Woodland Caribou Policy for Alberta (GOA 2011a), which states “planning will focus at the
caribou range level.” It is also consistent with the federal Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (Environment Canada 2012), which states
“Critical habitat for boreal caribou is identified as: i) the area within the boundary of each boreal caribou
range...” and identifies the ESAR caribou range as a “local population unit,” meaning the range is
delineated with a high degree of certainty. Therefore, it is reasonable to focus assessment of effects on
woodland caribou within the identified range boundaries.
The LSA is delineated to include the surrounding area where there is a reasonable potential for Project-
specific effects to occur, including sensory effects, zones of influence and changes in habitat suitability or
Page 304
effectiveness. The Project is anticipated to have low potential to cause measurable effects on transient
wildlife species. Since the identified woodland caribou range boundaries are more than 1 km outside of
the Project Area, measurable direct effects of the Project on woodland caribou are not anticipated.
Possible indirect effects of the Project on woodland caribou are associated with predator and primary
prey numbers and interactions, and are considered a cumulative issue resulting from landscape level
disturbance. Therefore, the potential indirect effects of the Project are most appropriately assessed at the
regional scale, and caribou are not assessed at the local scale.
147. b. Provide a revised assessment for woodland caribou at the scale of the ESAR range
and ensure that all linkages, including habitat availability and effectiveness and
movement are addressed.
Response:
Caribou ranges and caribou herds are typically synonymous in Alberta (i.e., the ESAR caribou herd refers
to the caribou that occupy the ESAR caribou range). However, sub-populations within a caribou herd are
often also referred to as herds. Currently, boreal woodland caribou are managed primarily at the range
level. However, as recently as 2011, ASRD (currently AESRD) stated that “caribou exist in herds and are
also managed and assessed at the herd level” and have requested proponents provide cumulative effects
assessment at the herd (i.e., sub-population) level (Connacher Oil and Gas Limited 2011).
BlackPearl recognizes the management concern related to woodland caribou. Considering the
inconsistent approaches to assessing caribou in previous federal and provincial impact assessments,
BlackPearl consulted with AESRD prior to completion of the Integrated Application to obtain comments
and feedback on the assessment protocols. No issues with the proposed assessment approach were
identified at that time.
The Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010 (ASRD and
ACA 2010) states that the ESAR caribou range is “now known to contain seven small populations of
caribou that are largely independent from each other.” The status report further notes that female caribou
show high fidelity to individual caribou range areas, and of the collared female caribou within the ESAR
range (Egg-Pony, Christina and Bohn herds or sub-populations), no movements more than 1 km into
other caribou ranges were observed during telemetry studies in 2008 and 2009 (ASRD and ACA 2010).
Less is known about the movements of male caribou. However, given the information available, it is
reasonable to assume that most incremental effects of the Project on woodland caribou are captured in
the cumulative effects assessment at the Wandering and Agnes caribou herd (sub-population) scale.
Broadening the caribou RSA to include the entire ESAR range would merely reduce the predicted effect
of the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects at the ESAR range scale.
Although the cumulative effects assessment focused on the Wandering and Agnes caribou herds,
discussion of cumulative effects and management strategies at the ESAR range and the ESAR – West
planning area (identified by the Athabasca Landscape Team 2009) scale was incorporated for context in
the Integrated Application (refer to Volume 4, Sections 2.4.5.10, 2.6.3.10 and 2.7.3.11).
Page 305
BlackPearl indicates that black bear are a species of management concern due to their
predator prey interactions yet there was little information provided as to how BlackPearl will
mitigate the potential for the project to influence that predator-prey dynamic, particularly with
respect to woodland caribou.
a. How will BlackPearl ensure the vegetation management plan does not lead to an
increase in forage for black bears?
Response:
BlackPearl will not plant species known to be highly palatable to black bear, including legumes and other
agronomic species (e.g., clover, alfalfa). A weed management program will be in place, which will include
prevention and control measures for the introduction of palatable weed species (Volume 1, Section
11.4.2.3, Page 11-24).
148. b. Provide additional mitigation that BlackPearl will implement to reduce the potential of
the project to influence the predator-prey dynamics with respect to bears and woodland
caribou.
Response:
Sight-line and access control measures will be implemented on linear corridors in the LSA to reduce
predator mobility and efficiency (e.g., installing berms, mounding, transplanting larger trees/shrubs,
rollback, reclaiming seismic lines at intersections with other linear corridors). Appropriate locations for this
reclamation will be selected in consultation with traditional land users and other companies operating in
the LSA (e.g., Millar Western). Refer to Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.10, Page 2-82 for additional information.
A Waste Management Program will be implemented to reduce the attraction of bears and other predators
to the area. BlackPearl will implement the measures outlined in the EAP Operating Conditions Bear-
Human Conflict Management Plan for Camps (GOA 2011b) and the Alberta BearSmart Program Manual
(GOA 2011c) to prevent bear-human conflicts associated with the Project.
BlackPearl is committed to an adaptive management approach for wildlife and their habitat. If black bear
are frequently found to be attracted to forage within the Project Area, appropriate remedial actions will be
developed in consultation with AESRD and implemented where warranted.
Page 306
BlackPearl states This proportion of habitat disturbance in the RSA is well below the level of
regional suitable habitat loss (i.e., 70%) at which point habitat arrangement (i.e., fragmentation)
effects become substantive (see Section 2.4.4.2). This suggests that at Baseline Case,
fragmentation effects are not a factor for old-forest birds.
Therefore, the 70% threshold is not a minimum threshold for cumulative effects risk, but rather
the lower limit perhaps for the highest levels of cumulative effects risk. However, BlackPearl
seems to be using the 70% value as a threshold to determine whether fragmentation effects
exist at all.
a. Clarify what is meant by the term ‘substantive’. Is it the same thing as ‘high’ on a scale
of nil to high potential for fragmentation effects?
Response:
Numerous scientific studies suggest that habitat availability is the primary habitat variable determining
species occurrence, distribution and abundance, and spatial arrangement of habitat (e.g., fragmentation
metrics such as patch size, edge) has comparatively very little effect on population variables unless the
level of habitat loss is very high (Andrén 1994, Rich et al. 1994, Fahrig 1997, Forman and Collinge 1997,
Trzcinski et al. 1999, Flather and Bevers 2002, Lichstein et al. 2002, Schmiegelow and Mönkkönen 2002,
Swift and Hannon 2010, Cunningham and Johnson 2011). Refer to Volume 4, Section 2.4.4.2 for a
thorough review and explanation of fragmentation/habitat loss literature.
In landscapes with more than 30% of suitable habitat remaining (i.e., less than 70% of suitable habitat is
disturbed), the total area of suitable habitat is of greater importance than its spatial arrangement (e.g.,
patch size, isolation) (Andrén 1994). Flather and Bevers (2002) modeled habitat and fragmentation
effects over a broad range of habitat types and arrangements, and concluded that the amount of habitat
accounted for more than 96% of total variation in abundance compared to less than 1% for arrangement
of habitat. That study also concluded that in landscapes where the total habitat loss was less than 50-
70%, the effects were simply habitat loss effects, but habitat arrangement effects (i.e., fragmentation)
became more important at higher levels of total habitat loss.
“Substantive” was not used in this context in a quantitative manner, and is not equivalent to high potential
for fragmentation effects. Although fragmentation effects may be occurring at levels of habitat loss below
70%, the evidence suggests that habitat loss is the primary effects mechanism. Fragmentation effects are
essentially not apparent, or are so low as to be inconsequential to population variables, below a high level
of habitat loss.
149. b. If a 70% habitat loss is required to indicate a substantive fragmentation effect, what
value of habitat loss is required to indicate a moderate fragmentation effect? What
value is required to indicate a low fragmentation effect? Did these values vary by
species?
Response:
Page 307
149. c. Provide a thorough explanation as to how a substantive versus non-substantive effects

were determined.
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 149a and Volume 4, Section 2.4.4.2 of the Integrated Application.
149. d. Clarify what is meant by the term ‘factor’ in this context. Is it the same thing as
‘substantive’?
Response:
Although fragmentation effects may be occurring at levels of habitat loss below 70%, the evidence
suggests that habitat loss is the primary effects mechanism (refer to response to AESRD SIR 149a and
Volume 4, Section 2.4.4.2). Fragmentation effects are essentially not apparent, or are so low as to be
inconsequential to population variables, below a high level of habitat loss. Therefore, fragmentation
effects are not considered a consequential factor in the assessment of potential change in habitat
availability and effectiveness for old-forest birds as a result of the Project. Change in habitat availability
was, therefore, the primary focus of potential effects to old-forest birds resulting from habitat change.
149. e. Were fragmentation effects only considered to be ‘a factor’ when habitat loss was
greater than 70% within the RSA for those species where fragmentation was
assessed? Provide further explanation as to how the effects of fragmentation were
determined.
Response:
As habitat loss increases, the remaining habitat becomes increasingly fragmented or the habitat patches
are increasingly isolated, which may compound the effects of habitat loss (Swift and Hannon 2010).
Based on the scientific literature, the influence of fragmentation (e.g., patch size and spatial arrangement
of habitat) become apparent only when suitable habitat loss measured at the landscape (i.e., regional)
scale is high (>70%). Therefore, potential for habitat fragmentation to affect northern goshawk and old-
forest birds was assessed by determining the proportion of moderate and high suitability habitat that is
disturbed at Baseline, Application and Planned Development cases relative to estimated pre-development
(i.e., no anthropogenic disturbance) habitat availability in the RSA. The proportions of disturbance at all
three scenarios (Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC) were evaluated relative to the levels
identified in the above literature sources at which fragmentation effects become substantive (i.e., >70%
suitable habitat loss).
Page 308
Volume 4, Appendix 2B, Section 2B3.2.2, Page 2B-35
Woodland caribou were observed within the LSA both during field surveys and through radio
telemetry, yet BlackPearl states that existing data support the range maps, which exclude the
LSA. Furthermore, when referring to caribou observations within the LSA, BlackPearl uses the
word ‘wander’ to describe the caribou movement in the area. This implies that the caribou are
lost, or are away from where they should be.
a. Describe how the caribou location data support or do not support the current range
maps in the vicinity of the LSA.
Response:
The ESAR caribou range is identified as a “local population unit” within the federal Recovery Strategy for
the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (Environment Canada
2012), meaning the range is delineated with a high degree of certainty. The wildlife layers, such as
caribou range boundaries, provided by AESRD are derived from aerial surveys, historical information,
movements of collared animals (telemetry) and habitat types, and that range delineations are based on all
available scientifically-derived information.
BlackPearl obtained telemetry data for the Wandering and Agnes herds from the Alberta Caribou
Committee (ACC) to inform the Integrated Application. Telemetry points were collected between 1992
and 2011. The majority of the telemetry points collected for the Agnes herd are located within the
currently delineated range boundaries. Telemetry points from 2000 to 2005 indicate most collared caribou
were located within the Agnes range north of Agnes Creek, with a small subset of points located
southwest of Agnes Lake. Telemetry points collected from 2006 to 2011 showed collared caribou were all
located within the Agnes range north of Agnes Creek. Telemetry data collected from 2006 to 2011 for the
Wandering herd show that all points were located within the currently delineated range boundary.
The data show that less than 10 telemetry points of over 1,100 points collected for the Agnes herd were
located outside of the currently delineated range boundary south of Agnes Creek. Only four telemetry
points were located within the Project LSA. The points located within the Project LSA were recorded in
1999/2000.
A distinction can be made between areas that are used extensively to meet life requisites, and areas that
do not. The distribution of telemetry locations within and adjacent to the Project LSA, suggest the area is
rarely used by caribou.
Given that the available telemetry data show most caribou locations for the Agnes herd and all locations
for the Wandering herd are within the delineated range boundaries, and only a few widely interspersed
telemetry points and observations from the Project are located outside the ranges, the data appear to
support the delineated range boundaries.
150. b. Given that by definition caribou habitat is the area inhabitated by caribou, provide an
explanation as to why caribou occupying the LSA are repeatedly referred to as having
‘wandered’ there?
Response:
Woodland caribou are a mobile species and will select different habitats during different seasons/life
stages to meet life requisites. The majority of the caribou telemetry points obtained from the ACC are
located within the provincially delineated range boundaries, only four telemetry points (over 10 years old)
were located in the Project LSA, and relatively intensive surveys were conducted within the LSA for the
Project over the 2011 field season, but found only three locations with caribou tracks. This suggests that
Page 309
caribou do not “occupy” or extensively use the area. It is more likely that some individuals may
periodically investigate and travel through the area. Mitigation measures will be implemented during
Project construction and operation to maintain permeability of the LSA for wildlife.
Caribou have been documented within the LSA on several occasions and therefore it is clearly
caribou habitat, yet no timing restrictions to protect pregnant and calving caribou were listed.
ESRD recommends that clearing and new construction activities are ceased by February 15th
each year to prevent disruption of pregnant and calving caribou (GOA 2012).
a. Provide appropriate mitigation, including timing restrictions on clearing and new

construction, for woodland caribou.
Response:
BlackPearl is cognizant of the sensitivity of woodland caribou and intends to apply appropriate measures
to avoid and/or reduce potential indirect effects of the Project on caribou, and support recovery actions for
the ESAR range. Mitigation measures that BlackPearl is committed to include the following:
• Minimizing the Project Area has been a primary consideration in the Project design. Since the filing of
the Integrated Application, the Project Area and the length of the multi-use corridors have been
reduced by109.4 ha and 6.3 km, respectively (refer to Project Update for more information).
• Existing linear corridors will be used for access and installation of new infrastructure, where feasible.
Project developments will be integrated with other proposed land use activities to reduce new
disturbance, increased linear feature density, industrial noise and cumulative habitat loss. The use of
directional drilling (i.e., multi-well pads) will reduce the number of well pads required.
• Site preparation and construction activities will be timed for fall and early winter to the extent feasible,
which will reduce disturbance to wildlife. Potential for disturbance of wildlife during sensitive late
winter periods will be reduced by limiting late winter clearing.
• Maintaining permeability of the Project Area to wildlife by ensuring under pipe and over pipe wildlife
crossings are designed and placed in accordance with regulatory standards and best practices.
• Sight-line and access control measures will be implemented on linear corridors in the LSA to reduce
predator and human mobility and efficiency (e.g., installing earth berms, mounding, transplanting
larger trees/shrubs, rollback, reclaiming seismic lines at intersections with other linear corridors).
Appropriate locations for this reclamation will be selected in consultation with traditional land users
and other companies operating in the LSA (e.g., Millar Western).
• Natural woody vegetation will be allowed to grow back along the edge of cleared multi-use corridors
during the operation phase to the extent practical (e.g., safety and pipeline monitoring concerns must
be accommodated). Reclamation of disturbed sites will be initiated as soon as the work areas are no
longer required and will be carried out progressively over the life of the Project. Progressive
reclamation will be conducted throughout the Project phases.
• Low speed limits will be posted to reduce potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions, and vehicles will yield
to all wildlife crossing access roads. BlackPearl’s environmental education program for all site
personnel and contractors will include expectations that speed limits be adhered to, and for all drivers
to be aware and yield to wildlife crossing access roads.
• BlackPearl will monitor access on the multi-use corridors created by the Project. Hunting, poaching,
disturbance to wildlife, and the creation of packed snowmobile trails in winter will be reduced by
operational practices employed by BlackPearl, including, but not limited to, the following:
Page 310
− Project access will be designated as ‘dead-end’ routes to discourage hunters and other public
use;
− recreational use of snowmobiles and ATVs by employees and contractors will be prohibited in the
LSA;
− off-road access will be limited by rolling back debris and/or reclaiming intersections with existing
linear disturbances;
− a zero tolerance policy on the feeding and harassment of wildlife by employees and contractors
will be enforced in the LSA, and the presence of employee-owned dogs will be prohibited;
− employees and contractors will be strictly prohibited from carrying firearms on the Project site,
and from hunting in proximity to the Project Area while working on site or staying in camp; and
− new access associated with multi-use corridors will be decommissioned and reclaimed in phases
as the Project progresses.
• BlackPearl will develop a Wildlife Monitoring Program in collaboration with AESRD, regional working
groups and stakeholders. Adaptive management will be implemented, if necessary, to mitigate
negative effects on wildlife.
• BlackPearl intends to participate in regional monitoring initiatives and adopt standardized monitoring
protocols as they are developed by the EMCLA. BlackPearl anticipates that the EMCLA will facilitate
sharing of project-specific wildlife monitoring information amongst in-situ operators in the region and
coordinate regional wildlife monitoring efforts. BlackPearl is also committed to joining the OSDG,
which is an industry association representing companies actively engaged in the development of
Canada’s Athabasca oil sands region. BlackPearl will participate on the environmental committee
which is supportive of the regional biodiversity monitoring initiative.
BlackPearl has indicated they will avoid disturbance of the animal lick identified by TEK
participants at the well site in 14-30-76-17-W4.
a. How will BlackPearl ensure the accessibility of this site to wildlife from construction
through to decommissioning?
Response:
BlackPearl plans to access the well pad in NW 30-76-17 W4M by way of an access road to the west of
the well pad. Access to the north and southeast of the pre-existing well site are no longer planned,
thereby providing relatively unhindered access to the animal lick from the east of the Project area. In
addition, BlackPearl plans to construct elevated pipelines and crossing structures (over the pipelines) to
facilitate movement of wildlife. Placement of wildlife crossings will consider locations of known animal
licks (Volume 4, Section 2.6.1, Page 2-38).
Page 311
152. b. What buffer will remain around this lick to preserve its value to wildlife during project
operations (see Integrated Standards and Guidelines Standard 100.9.1, July 16,
2012)?
Response:
BlackPearl plans to maintain a 100 m minimum buffer around this lick. The nearest disturbance currently
planned is approximately 256 m from the animal lick.
BlackPearl indicates that ESRD will be consulted if a hibernating black bear is disturbed over
the course of winter clearing. ESRD appreciates the commitment to consultation, however
BlackPearl should also indicate what will be done to prevent disruption of a hibernating bear
and that the ESRD standards and guidelines will be followed, including the following:
Locate activities away from important wildlife features including mineral licks, raptor
nests, active den sites, and hibernacula by a minimum buffer distance of 100 metres.
Buffer distances will be greater for identified sensitive species and features
(Subsection 100.9.1.). -Integrated Standards and Guidelines.
a. How will BlackPearl attempt to avoid disrupting hibernating bears during the winter
clearing and construction period?
Response:
No bear dens were located during baseline surveys. Pre-disturbance assessments will be conducted prior
to clearing for Project activities. These will include on-the-ground surveys by qualified wildlife biologists
who will examine the area for potential bear dens. In areas where there is potential for denning, pre-
clearing can occur in the fall prior to the period when black bears will den (which is highly variable and
influenced by factors such as the onset of winter). Field personnel will be made aware of the possibility of
black bear dens, and will consult with AESRD to determine appropriate measures in the event that a den
is located.
153. b. Provide a commitment to adhere to the ESRD standard to leave a 100 m buffer around
any known hibernating bear locations (Integrated Standards and Guidelines, 2012).
Response:
In the event that a hibernating black bear is found, BlackPearl will maintain a recommended 100 m
setback. If the recommended setback is not practicable (e.g., a bear dens within 100 m of an operational
facility that requires operation/maintenance activity), BlackPearl will consult with AESRD to determine the
best course of action.
Page 312
The dates described for site preparation and construction activities should work well for most
species of migrating birds, however, may not be sufficient for many early nesting residents and
some migrants. Consider adjusting the exclusion period for clearing and site preparation to
March 1 through August 31 to reduce the risk to breeding birds. The efficacy of pre-clearing
sweeps to detect nesters is not well established.
a. Provide further mitigation or adjust the mitigation proposed to ensure that early nesting
birds, eggs, and nests are not destroyed by project development.
Response:
Vegetation clearing within the migratory bird restricted activity period recommended by Environment
Canada (April 1 to August 31) will be avoided to the extent possible. Appropriate setbacks will also be
maintained for identified wildlife, which may have restricted activity periods beginning prior to April 1 (e.g.,
March 15th for northern goshawk and barred owl). BlackPearl will also prioritize work to reduce clearing
activities between March 1 and the start of the restricted activity period in order to minimize Project effects
on early nesting birds. Site preparation and construction activities will be timed for fall and early winter to
the extent practical, which will reduce disturbance to wildlife. Should active nests be identified prior to or
during clearing or construction, activity will be limited within species-specific setback distances and timing
windows.
Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.1, Page 2-42 to 2-44
BlackPearl states that beavers may be trapped, relocated, or destroyed if their activity obstructs
water flow near linear corridors etc. There was no mitigation listed to prevent damming activity
by beavers along project infrastructure.
a. How will BlackPearl design project roads and culverts to prevent damming activity from
occurring (e.g. perforated pipes, multiple culverts, floating roads etc.)?
Response:
BlackPearl will use a combination of measures (e.g., perforated pipes, screens, multiple culverts and
floating roads) on a site-specific basis to prevent damming.
Page 313
The mitigation provided for above ground pipe is not entirely consistent with the draft
Aboveground Pipelines Wildlife Crossing Design Standards (GOA 2012a). For example,
BlackPearl refers to an exclusion zone (500 m around the central processing facility), yet the
draft standard does not adopt this concept. Further details are required to fully explain how
above ground pipe will be mitigated.
a. Provide a schematic of the proposed over-the-pipe crossing design.
Response:
A conceptual schematic of the proposed over-pipe wildlife crossing structure is provided (Figure 156-1).
The crossing design will be modified on a site-specific basis, if needed, to ensure the structure meets or
exceeds the design standards without creating the need for additional clearing.
156. b. Provide the expected percentage and total distance of project AGP that will have over-
pipe crossings.
Response:
BlackPearl has initiated an evaluation of micro-terrain features and the Project design. The expected
percentage and total distance of AGP that will have over-pipe crossings will be estimated once the terrain
evaluation is complete. The first step of this evaluation is to estimate the length of AGP that is feasible for
implementation of elevated pipeline (i.e., under-pipe) wildlife crossings. This will be the preferred crossing
method for the multi-use corridors on the Project. Over-pipe crossing structures will be constructed along
segments of multi-use corridor where elevated pipe crossings are not feasible. Wildlife crossing
opportunities will be distributed at a maximum distance of 500 m apart, and at a frequency of at least
three crossings per 1,000 m of continuous AGP. BlackPearl will communicate the results of the evaluation
with AESRD once it is complete, and will incorporate the information in the design of the Project.
Prior to final Project siting and design, BlackPearl will conduct an on-site pre-development evaluation of
the above-ground pipeline corridors considering terrain complexity (i.e., changes in microtopography), in
order to more accurately ascertain terrain limitations and opportunities for wildlife crossing locations. The
results will be shared and discussed with AESRD. BlackPearl will solicit input from AESRD on crossing
design and placement.
156. c. Provide the expected percentage, and total distance of project AGP that will have a
clearance of >1.8 m.
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 156b. The project pipeline engineering is not yet completed to the level
where the pipeline heights have been set. BlackPearl will integrate existing ground conditions to ensure a
sufficient percentage of the overall pipeline is >1.8m. Once BlackPearl has a pre-liminary plan in place it
will be submitted to ESRD for approval.
Page 314
Notes:
1. All bridge construction work shall comply with Alberta Transportation bridge
construction general practice;
2. Bridge shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications;
3. All dimensions are shown in millimetres;
4. All dimensions shown are preliminary and will be confirmed during the next phase
of engineering;
5. Wildlife crossing locations and spacing will be determined during detailed
engineering.
Legend
REF Denotes reference

MIN Denotes minimum
THK Denotes thick
SPMDD Denotes standard proctor maximum dry density
CL Denotes centre line
TYP Denotes typical
MTO Denotes material take off
FIGURE 156 - 1
CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF OVER THE PIPE WILDLIFE CROSSING STRUCTURE

PROPOSED BLACKROD
April 2013
156. d. What is total length of AGP expected?
Response:
The total length of AGP planned is approximately 45,735 m.
156. e. Provide an update to the AGP mitigation that includes mitigation for above ground pipe
within 500 m of the CPF.
Response:
BlackPearl will include wildlife crossing opportunities on all segments of the proposed multi-use corridors,
including within 500 m of the CPF, in accordance with the Government of Alberta’s (GOA) design
standards.
The total project footprint is described as 966 ha, 295 ha of which is existing disturbance. The
remainder, 671 ha is new disturbance resulting from the project.
a. Describe opportunities that BlackPearl has to reduce the amount of new clearing
required. For each opportunity, provide the rationale for adjusting or not adjusting the
footprint.
Response:
Since filing of the Integrated Application in May 2012, BlackPearl has re-evaluated several factors,
including drilling orientation, which has reduced the total Project Area from 966.4 ha to 857 ha (total
reduction of 109.4 ha). Refer to Section 1.0 of the Project Update for more details regarding changes to
the Project Area since filing of the Integrated Application. As noted previously in AESRD SIR 83b,
BlackPearl has taken advantage of existing disturbances to reduce the amount of new clearing for the
Project Area.
157. b. Provide an environmental constraints map, or series of maps, that will be used in siting
project infrastructure and which incorporates all of the spatial mitigation measures
provided.
Response:
There are several maps previously provided in the Integrated Application that show environmental
constraints. Examples include the following:
• vegetation community types (wetlands in Figure 1A-5, Volume 4, Appendix 1A; old growth
ecosites in Figure 1A-7, Volume 4, Appendix 1A),
• vegetation communities of limited distribution (Figure 1A-10, Volume 4, Appendix 1A); and
• locations of high to moderate potential for historical resources (Figure 2.5-2, Volume 5, Section
2.0)
Page 316
Information specific to spatial mitigation for the Project will be associated with setback distances. This
includes a 100 m setback for well pads to a watercourse with defined bed and banks, where feasible
(refer to Figure 62-1) and from features such as western toad breeding ponds (refer to Figure 162-1).
Final siting of a location will be determined based on a pre-development site assessment.
This figure illustrates that there is very little high quality moose habitat remaining within the LSA
at baseline. There are two well pads and two roads planned to be located in one of the largest
single patches of high quality moose habitat (34/35-76-18-W4), therefore eroding the intactness
of moose habitat further.
a. Provide at least two alternative layout/designs for infrastructure in this area to reduce
the disturbance to high quality moose habitat while still enabling the recovery of the
bitumen.
Response:
At Baseline Case, over half (50.6%) of the LSA is estimated to be high or moderate suitability habitat for
moose (refer to response to AESRD SIR 164). The areas identified as the highest suitability habitat within
the LSA are located in riparian areas, shrubby wetlands and upland deciduous/mixedwood forests. The
estimated disturbance of moderate and high suitability habitat within the LSA as a result of the Project is
based on a maximum disturbance scenario in which the entire Project Area is cleared and operational at
once. This is an overestimate of actual likely effects, since the Project will be constructed in phases and
reclamation of disturbed sites will be initiated as soon as the work areas are no longer required and will
be carried out progressively over the life of the Project.
BlackPearl is committed to minimizing potential environmental effects of the Project, including disturbance
of suitable moose habitat, by designing the Project to have the least amount of disturbance and new
linear corridor as practical. Since the Integrated Application was filed, BlackPearl has modified the Project
Area to reduce the length of multi-use corridors by approximately 42.2 km, and the Project Area by
approximately 109.3 ha (refer to Project Update for additional information). Sections 34/35-76-18 W4M
are associated with future phases of development. As the design phases for the Project advance,
additional opportunities will be investigated to further reduce disturbance to potentially suitable habitat for
moose.
158. b. Provide a discussion of the trade-offs considered when selecting the location of these
specific well pads and roads in terms of environmental effects on wildlife.
Response:
The largest patches of suitable moose habitat within the LSA occur in the northern and southeastern
portions of the study area (refer to response to AESRD SIR 164). Since the submission of the Integrated
Application, BlackPearl has revised the Project Area in these areas to reduce the overall disturbance
footprint and length of multi-use corridor. Disturbance of habitat suitable for wildlife species cannot be
completely avoided, but BlackPearl is committed to reducing the area of disturbance, avoiding critical or
important site-specific habitat features, and mitigating the effects of the Project on habitat availability for
moose and other wildlife species in the LSA. The Project Area has been designed to utilize existing
disturbance features where practical, and minimize the number of well pads by employing directional
drilling technology to extract the bitumen resource.
Riparian areas are an important habitat feature for moose. BlackPearl is committed to implementing
mitigative measures to reduce disturbance to riparian areas. Refer to the Aquatic Ecology Assessment
Page 317
(Volume 3, Section 4.0) and response to AESRD SIR 62 for a discussion of riparian area minimum
setbacks, and mitigation for crossing construction, operation and reclamation.
Figure 2.6-9 indicates that the CPF is on low and low-moderate habitat at baseline while Figure
2.6-10 indicates it is on moderate-high and high habitat. The variation in habitat value
classification from the LSA to the RSA for moose makes it difficult to interpret the value of the
area to moose at either scale, and therefore makes predictions made regarding effects
questionable.
a. What is the value of the land at the CPF site to moose at baseline?
Response:
Refer to the response to AESRD SIR 164 for a more thorough discussion of moose habitat modeled at
different scales (i.e., LSA vs. RSA) and using different methods (i.e., RSPF vs. HSI models). The moose
LSA and RSA models presented in the Integrated Application are different models that produce outputs
with different interpretations. Direct comparison between the LSA and RSA model is not necessarily
appropriate. An HSI moose model was constructed for the LSA to facilitate comparison with the RSA
model (AESRD SIR 164c). The modeled suitability of moose habitat in the CPF is presented in
Table 159-1. Both HSI models for the LSA and RSA indicate that most of the CPF is within moderate and
high suitability habitat for moose at Baseline Case.
TABLE 159-1
COMPARISON OF BASELINE HSI MOOSE MODEL OUTPUTS FOR THE LSA AND RSA WITHIN THE
AREA OF THE CENTRAL PROCESSING FACILITY
LSA RSA
Habitat Suitability Category Area (ha) % Area (ha) %
Nil 3.5 3% 2.9 2%
Low 14.9 12% 1.4 1%
Low + Nil 18.4 15% 4.4 4%
Moderate 53.0 43% 33.5 27%
High 51.6 42% 85.1 69%
High + Moderate 104.6 85% 118.6 96%
Note: Based on updated CPF footprint and the moose model described in AESRD SIR 164.
159. b. Correct figures, tables and modelling as necessary to ensure accurate representation
of habitat value to VECs at both scales
Response:
A moose HSI model was constructed for the LSA to facilitate comparison with the RSA. Updated tables
and figures are presented in the response to AESRD SIR 164c.
Page 318
There is very little Northern Goshawk habitat in the LSA at baseline. The largest single patch
of this habitat (24/25-76-18-W4) is scheduled to be cleared for use as a borrow pit.
a. Describe options that exist to obtain the necessary borrow material (including reducing
the amount of borrow required) that would not involve disturbing high quality Northern
Goshawk habitat.
Response:
The borrow pit is scheduled for construction in Phase 3A (construction scheduled to begin 2019). Final
borrow pit locations will be determined following additional onsite investigations associated with each
phase of the Project (Volume 1, Section 11.4.1.8, Page 11-19). Pre-disturbance assessments will also be
conducted prior to final siting. There is flexibility to shift the location of the borrow pit if a suitable
alternative is identified.
160. b. Provide a discussion of the trade-offs considered when selecting the location of this
borrow pit in terms of environmental effects on wildlife.
Response:
Borrow pit locations were established to minimize the overall impact, which includes reducing the need for
additional access. Since the location is established adjacent to an existing access corridor, additional
disturbance is anticipated to be minimal. In addition, the borrow pit location is surrounded by other
disturbance, which reduces the creation of additional sensory disturbance. There is flexibility to shift the
location of the borrow pit if a suitable alternative is identified.
3D seismic grids are shown on this figure.
a. When were these seismic grids cleared?
Response:
3D seismic grids were cut during the winter of 2010/2011 (see Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.2.1).
161. b. Why are seismic grids shown on the western toad figure and not on figures for other
valued ecosystem components for which seismic is an influential habitat feature?
Response:
Low impact seismic lines (i.e., 3D seismic grid) were included in models for western toads and all
mammalian indicators since these features were conservatively assumed to potentially alter movement
and forage availability (see Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.2.1). Bayne et al. (2005) found that while
ovenbirds perceived conventional seismic lines as creating a gap in the forest and used it as a territory
boundary, low-impact seismic lines were incorporated within their territory. As a result, 3D seismic lines
were excluded from the data used for the old-forest bird models. Since the low-impact seismic lines have
little change on the overstory structure and cover, and are too narrow to result in changes in understory
Page 319
characteristics that would potentially support foraging habitat for sandhill crane, they were not included in
the data for northern goshawk and sandhill crane models. Conventional seismic lines were included as
inputs for all modelled wildlife species. Recent studies have found that low impact seismic lines are less
likely to affect habitat use relative to conventional seismic lines (Bayne et al. 2005, Latham et al. 2011,
Tigner 2012), suggesting the treatment of low-impact seismic lines separate from conventional seismic
lines is appropriate.
Past disturbances (including 3D seismic grids) are not shown on any of the wildlife habitat figures;
however, because they were an input in the model used to derive habitat ratings, they are typically
evident on the resulting habitat maps. The grey outline on the habitat suitability polygons for the western
toad LSA model figure had the unintended effect of masking the underlying habitat rating and made the
3D seismic lines appear as a separate feature of the map.
161. c. Were these seismic lines hand-cut or mulched? Provide a description for the methods
and schedule of clearing of seismic.
Response:
The 3D seismic grids were cut during the winter of 2010/2011 using minimal disturbance techniques,
which involved a combination of hand cutting and mulching. Source lines are less than 3 m wide, and
receiver lines are less than 2 m wide. Lines meandered to avoid large trees to the extent possible and
were not cut straight. Mulching was avoided near creeks and waterbodies, and instead hand cutting was
used, if necessary. The root-balls of trees were not removed, thereby facilitating regeneration of
deciduous vegetation.
161. d. Indicate where and when these seismic grids will be re-used for further delineation or
to monitor the resource (i.e., 4D seismic).
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 94d.
161. e. Add seismic grids to the figure legend.
Response:
A discussion of why seismic lines appear on the map is provided in the response to AESRD SIR 161b. A
revised figure without the grey polygon outline is provided (Figure 161-1). 3D seismic lines and other past
disturbances are not shown on either the map or legend because it would require the inclusion of a
separate overlay, which would mask the underlying habitat rating. A map depicting 3D seismic lines can
be found in Volume 5, Section 1.5.5.2, Figure 1.5-3, Page 1-18 and in response to AESRD SIR 83a.
Page 320
¯
RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M

27 26 27 26
25 30 25 30
29 28 29 28
April 2013
e r
A t h a b a ca R i v A t h a b a ca R i v e r
FIGURE 161-1
CHANGE IN WESTERN TOAD HABITAT

22 23 24 19
22 23 24 19 AVAILABILITY FROM BASELINE TO
APPLICATION CASE IN THE LSA
20 21 20 21
TWP.77 TWP.77 TWP.77

PROPOSED BLACKROD
15 15
14 13 14 13
18 17 18 17
16 16
Project Area

10 11 10 11
12 7 12 7
8 9 8 9
Hydrography
Waterbody
3 3 Wildlife Local Study Area (1000 m)

2 1 2 1
6 5 6 5
4 4
Habitat Quality:
No Data
34 35 34 35
Nil
36 31 36 31
32 33 32 33
Low
Moderate
High
27 26 27 26
25 30 25 30
29 28 29 28
22 23 22 23
24 19 24 19
20 21 20 21
TWP.76 TWP.76 TWP.76
15 14 15 14
13 18 13 18
17 16 17 16 UTM Zone 12N
t6790_Wildlife_Fig_161_1_western toad.mxd
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011c;

Roads: IHS Inc. 2011c.

associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself,
SCALE: 1: 60,000
km
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
10 10
11 12 7 8
11 12 7 8
One of BlackPearl’s key mitigation measures for western toad is a 100 m set-back from
western toad breeding ponds.
a. Have western toad breeding ponds been identified? If so, provide a figure illustrating
their locations.
Response:
A discussion of western toad observations, including a description of breeding habitat within the LSA, can
be found in Volume 4, Section 2B.3.4.10. Eggs, tadpoles, or young-of-the-year were observed at 12
locations within the LSA (Table 162-1 and Figure 162-1). The majority of western toad breeding locations
were within small pools of water found in depressions along anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., cutblocks,
rights-of-way, ditches along roads), many of which may not contain sufficient water to support western
toad breeding/production of young in drier years (Plate 162-1).
TABLE 162-1
LOCATION OF CONFIRMED WESTERN TOAD BREEDING POOLS
Easting Northing Legal Land Location Approximate Number Habitat Description

392089 6161894 14-15-76-18 W4M 500 tadpoles wet depression on right-of-way
394331 6166314 10-35-76-18 W4M 28 tadpoles graminoid rich fen
395394 6163181 14-24-76-18 W4M 500 tadpoles small pond within cutblock
395735 6163253 15-24-76-18 W4M 300 young of the year ditch adjacent to forestry access road
395778 6163621 2-25-76-18 W4M 1000 tadpoles ditch adjacent to forestry access road
395824 6165471 2-36-76-18 W4M 2 pairs of mating adults; multiple wet depression on right-of-way
egg strings
396129 6169331 9-12-77-18 W4M 100s tadpoles wet depression on right-of-way
397012 6169355 11-7-77-17 W4M 1000 tadpoles cutblock
398015 6168458 1-7-77-17 W4M 7 toad young of the year; 1 marsh
juvenile
Page 322
Plate 162-1 Evidence of western toad breeding was observed during field surveys in small pool in a ditch
alongside a forestry road.
Page 323
TWP.78
31
6
32
5
RGE.18 W4M
4 3 2 1 6 5
RGE.17 W4M
4 3 2
¯
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.77
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
7 8 #
9 10 11 12
#
* * 7 8 9 10 11
#
*
#
*
#
*
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
#
*
31 32
#
*
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35
#
*
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
#
*
#
* #
*
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23
TWP.76
#
*
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
FIGURE 162-1
t6790_Wildlife_Fig_162_1_western toad breeding pools.mxd
Western toad breeding pools with young Existing Blackrod Road

WESTERN TOAD BREEDING POOL LOCATIONS
#
*
Project Area Watercourse
TWP.75 AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Wildlife Local Study Area (1000 m) Waterbody BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Date of Imagery: July 2011 SPOT5 ©2012 CNES, Licensed by BlackBridge Geomatics Corp, www.blackbridge.com km
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2013; Hydrography: AltaLIS 2011.; Road: IHS Inc., 2011. 0 1 2
April 2013
162. b. Provide a general outline as to how western toad breeding ponds will be identified prior
to siting project infrastructure.
Response:
Most western toad breeding ponds identified during baseline surveys were located in portions of the LSA
that are not planned for development until Phase 3A and 3B. Variation in suitability of habitat for breeding
western toads is anticipated to occur between the baseline survey period and the development phase of
the Project. Prior to development, BlackPearl will conduct appropriately timed pre-disturbance
assessments in areas planned for clearing. This assessment will include surveys by a qualified wildlife
biologist, familiar with western toad breeding habitat. Final Project siting and design will include site-
specific measures to avoid and/or mitigate potential effects on western toad breeding habitat.
For the PDC, BlackPearl predicts a 42% decrease in moderate and highly suitable moose
habitat in the LSA and a 7% decrease in the same for the RSA. BlackPearl then states that
this is within the 30% threshold of regional habitat change adopted for moose and therefore
cumulative effects in the RSA are low.
a. Provide an explanation as to how the thresholds adopted by BlackPearl in this

Integrated Application, using moose as the example, relate to the cumulative ratings of
low, moderate and high.
Response:
A threshold of 30% loss of moderate to high suitability habitat change was adopted for most indicator
species (i.e., additive or synergistic negative effects to the wildlife indicator are not expected below 30%
loss of current effective habitat). This threshold is relevant at the landscape (i.e., regional) scale, and was
therefore applied only to change in habitat in the RSA (refer to Volume 4, Section 2.3.6.1 for a discussion
of methods for developing thresholds for habitat availability). When known future development is
considered in combination with the Project and existing developments and activities (i.e., cumulative
effects) for the PDC, moderate and high suitability moose habitat is predicted to decline by 41% in the
LSA (refer to response to AESRD SIR 164c). This is a high magnitude effect at the local scale. However,
at the regional scale, a 7% reduction in moderate and high suitability habitat for moose is expected for the
PDC compared to Baseline Case. This is within the 30% threshold of regional habitat change adopted for
moose and, therefore, cumulative effects in the RSA on habitat availability and effectiveness for moose
are of low magnitude.
Page 325
164. Volume 4, Appendix 1A, Section 1A.2.3.3, Pages 1A-14 and 1A-15
Volume 4, Section 2.6.3.5; Figures 2.6-9 and 2.6.10, Pages 2-64 and 2-65
Black pearl states The LCC scheme is broader in scope than the ELC or AWI classification
systems and therefore there is often no direct comparison between classification systems.
Although, there may be no direct comparison between cover classification systems, the wildlife
model outputs (i.e., predictions of habitat value to VECs) that rely on those classification
systems as inputs should be similar if they are to be trusted. If they are dissimilar, it follows
that at least one of the outputs must be incorrect (e.g. Moose models LSA vs. RSA are very
different, see CPF area in Volume 4, Figures 2.6-9 and Figure 2.6-10 for illustration). This
appears to be the case for several VECs (e.g. moose, fisher, northern goshawk) indicating a
problem with either the RSA or the LSA models, or the inputs to either or both models.
a. Reconcile the differences between the predictions of habitat quality for the VECs made
by the RSA level models and the LSA level models for all species.
Response:
All wildlife habitat models are limited by the spatial resolution and level of detail of available habitat data.
In general, the ability of models to distinguish the suitability at specific sites is reduced as the resolution
and habitat detail decreases (Smith and Burger 2003). Models based on broader habitat detail are
expected to have some level of disagreement with models based on higher resolution or more detailed
habitat information, but are still useful in assessing broad level habitat associations and potential effects
of habitat loss and alteration.
Models built at the LSA scale were based on relatively high resolution ELC data, derived from AVI data
and extensive field sampling. These models have a relatively high ability to discriminate habitat suitability
for species that respond to site-specific habitat properties. Models at the RSA scale are based primarily
on LCC mapping, derived from relatively coarse-resolution Landsat5 reflectance data. As such, the RSA
models are able to identify broad areas where suitable habitat may occur in the context of the larger
landscape, but have a reduced ability to discriminate the suitability of habitat at specific sites. In
particular, models used at the RSA scale do not incorporate structural stage (or the correlate, age), which
is a habitat variable important for fine-scale habitat suitability discrimination of many of the wildlife
indicators. Nonetheless, models at the RSA scale are effective in identifying broad ecosystem units where
suitable habitat may occur.
The LCC habitat data used for the RSA models are derived from a raster-based unsupervised
classification of Landsat data. This system differs conceptually from the polygon-vector based ELC data
used for the LSA. The RSA habitat classification procedure may classify habitat differently for each 30 m
x 30 m section of the RSA, whereas small variations in habitat are generally lumped within a broader
habitat patch for the LSA ELC-based mapping procedure. This difference accounts for some of the
differences between the LSA and RSA models, but does not represent incorrect model specifications.
Both the LSA and RSA habitat models incorporated the same disturbance data (albeit some spatial
resolution was lost at the RSA scale) and the effect of disturbance was modelled similarly for both the
LSA and RSA model. Therefore, these models provide similar conclusions regarding the general effect of
the Project and other disturbances on wildlife habitat. The models at the LSA scale will provide more
precise and accurate site-specific habitat suitability ratings, and are, therefore, more appropriate for
evaluating the placement of Project facilities and infrastructure as well as identifying specific ecosystem
units that are most likely to be effected.
The LSA model and the RSA model for moose and snowshoe hare/lynx in the Integrated Application have
different outputs and are therefore not directly comparable. In particular, the LSA models for these two
indicators are adapted from resource selection probability function (RSPF) type models, whereas the
RSA models are based on habitat suitability index (HSI) models. RSPF models output a value roughly
corresponding to the probability of resource use (for the area and time period for which the model was
developed), while HSI models output a suitability index (not a probability) and is only expected to be
Page 326
correlated with habitat use (provided use is indicative of suitability). Given that RSPF models and HSI
models have different outputs, they are categorized into habitat suitability classes (i.e., nil, low, moderate,
high) using different cut-offs and are not directly comparable (see Volume 4, Section 2C.2.3, Page 2C-5).
164. b. Explain why the models were outputting different predictions of habitat suitability and
how the issue was corrected.
Response:
Refer to response to AESRD SIR 164a. The LSA and RSA models were derived from different habitat
data, preventing complete agreement between the model outputs at the two spatial scales. Anthropogenic
disturbances were treated similarly between the two scales, and the underlying logic of the two models
were similar. Model outputs are used only to reach conclusions on impact magnitude, which represents
one of the criteria used to rate impact significance. Ratings for all other significance criteria depend on
other information sources and are not affected by differing model assumptions. To demonstrate that the
conclusions of the Integrated Application would not change with a different modeling approach that allows
better comparison between the LSA and RSA (e.g., for a species that was initially modeled at the LSA
scale using an RSPF method), a moose model based on a habitat suitability rating scheme (i.e., HSI) was
completed for the LSA to facilitate comparison with the RSA (refer to response to AESRD SIR 164c).
164. c. Update the assessment as necessary.
Response:
Refer to the responses for AESRD SIR 164a and b, above. The LSA and RSA models were based on
habitat data derived from different sources and differ conceptually in how they represent habitat on the
landscape. These data sources differ in their spatial resolution and level of habitat detail. Some
discrepancy between the LSA and RSA model is, therefore, anticipated. While some disagreement
between the RSA and LSA model does occur, in general both the LSA and RSA models perform well for
the indictors where model validation was possible (see response to AESRD SIR 166c). The output of the
LSA and RSA models generally agree for most indicators, especially with regards to the general effects of
anthropogenic disturbances. Model agreement cannot be substantially improved for most indicators
without deriving the LSA and RSA model from the same data sources, which as discussed above, is
either not practical or would result in a reduction in overall model performance at the local scale most
relevant for Project planning, design, and mitigation.
A revised moose model is provided for the LSA based on a habitat suitability rating scheme (i.e., HSI)
similar to the RSA. Since the revised LSA model is the same type of model and uses the same underlying
logic (e.g., based on the same life requisites) as the original RSA model, direct comparison between the
two models is more appropriate. The discrepancy between the original LSA moose model and the RSA
model outputs is largely the result of their being based on different model types and different habitat data.
However, they also differ in the life-requisites being emphasized. Since the original RSPF model was
based on scat-detections (Wasser et al. 2011), detections and habitat associations may have been
biased towards areas where moose move around and defecate (i.e., foraging habitat). In contrast, the
HSI model used in the revised LSA model and RSA model incorporates both foraging and
security/thermal habitat, which are known to be important for moose throughout their range (Westworth
Associates 2002). Although the RSPF model was based on empirical evidence, it may have limitations
when applied to different years or geographic areas that cannot be adequately evaluated using available
moose-observation data for the Project.
Moose HSI Model for the LSA

An HSI model was developed for moose based on the results of Vegetation surveys for the Project and
on a thorough review of available literature on moose habitat associations (Volume 4, Section 2C.7,
Page 327
Pages 2C-25 to 2C-29). The HSI was based on two components known to be important for moose: forage
suitability and security/thermal cover suitability (Westworth Associates 2002). Ratings range from 1 (Nil)
to 4 (High suitability). Final ratings were based on the average of the two suitability ratings.
Model Assumptions:
• Moose feed primarily on deciduous trees and shrubs during the winter. Ecosite phases typically
associated with greater cover of deciduous trees or shrubs known to be consumed by moose (i.e.,
aspen, balsam poplar, birch, willow, alder, saskatoon, beaked hazelnut and low bush cranberry) were
given higher habitat ratings (Westworth Associates 2002). Stands with more diverse species
composition were generally rated higher than stands dominated by a single species (except willow
dominated stands).
• Ecosite phases associated with greater levels of conifer cover were assumed to provide more
suitable security/thermal cover than deciduous dominated forest. Ecosite phases that are typically
more open (e.g., bogs, fens) were given lower suitability ratings for security/thermal habitat than
denser stands. Dense shrub cover was assumed to increase security/thermal suitability relative to
more open habitats.
• Structural stages 5 to 7 were assumed to provide optimal security/thermal cover. Structural stages 3
to 4 were less suitable, but rated up to Moderate if associated with dense shrub cover. Structural
stages 1 to 2 were rated Nil for security/thermal cover.
• Cleared areas and linear corridors were assumed to have no value for either foraging or as
security/thermal cover. Well pads, linear disturbances (e.g., seismic lines, pipelines, primary roads,
secondary roads), gravel pits, oil and gas facilities, oil sands exploration (OSE) wells, the Pilot Project
and most other anthropogenic disturbances other than cutblocks were given a habitat suitability rating
of Nil.
• Cutblocks and regenerating cutblocks were assumed to provide ideal conditions for foraging since
they were associated with high cover of deciduous trees and shrubs, but were considered Nil to Low
value for security/thermal cover.
Rating Adjustments
• Moose are assumed to respond negatively to sensory disturbance arising from anthropogenic
activities (refer to Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.7.1.4). Areas within 250 m of secondary roads,
oil and gas facilities, and the Pilot Project were reduced by one habitat suitability rating category (e.g.
ratings of High were reduced to Moderate within the zone of influence). No highways occur near the
LSA.
• Moose are known to favour riparian areas during the winter. Habitat within 50 m of watercourses was
increased by one habitat suitability rating (e.g., ratings of Moderate were increased to High).
TABLE 164-1
SUITABILITY RATINGS BY ELC FOR THE LSA WINTER MOOSE MODEL
Structural Stage
Ecosite phase Description 1-2 3a 3b 4 5 6-7
b3 Blueberry Aw-Sw Low Low Low
c1 Labrador tea-mesic Pj-Sb Low Low Low
d1 Low-bush cranberry Aw Moderate Moderate Moderate
d2 Low-bush cranberry Aw-Sw High High High
d3 Low-bush cranberry Sw Moderate Moderate Moderate
e1 Dogwood Pb-Aw Moderate High High
e2 Dogwood Pb-Sw High High High
e3 Dogwood Sw Moderate Moderate Moderate
f1 Horsetail Pb-Aw Moderate High High
Page 328
Structural Stage
Ecosite phase Description 1-2 3a 3b 4 5 6-7
f2 Horsetail Pb-Sw Moderate High High
f3 Horsetail Sw Moderate Moderate Moderate
g1 Labrador tea-subhygric Sb-Pj Low Low Moderate
h1 Labrador tea/horsetail Sw-Sb Low Low Low
i1 Treed bog Low Low Low
i2 Shrubby bog Low Low
j1 Treed poor fen Low Low Low
j2 Shrubby poor fen Low Moderate
k1 Treed rich fen Low Low Low
k2 Shrubby rich fen Moderate High
k3 Graminoid rich fen Low
l1 Marsh Low
Meadow Meadow Nil
SONS Shrubby Wetland Moderate High
Disturbed Regenerating Burn Moderate
Regenerating Cutblock (11-30 years) Moderate
Cutblock (0-10 years) Low
Other Anthropogenic (tertiary roads, pipelines,
seismic lines, well sites, etc.) Nil
Outputs
The moose HSI model for the LSA is consistent with the results of the RSA scale HSI model. Based on
the RSA model, moderate and high suitability habitat within the LSA is predicted to be reduced by 1,831
ha from Baseline to Application Case, whereas moderate and high suitability habitat is predicted to be
reduced by 1,366 ha based on the LSA scale HSI model (Table 164-2). Habitat suitability ratings for the
moose HSI model are shown in Figures 164-1 and 164-2. The RSA model likely overestimates the
reduction of suitable habitat because it is based on lower detail habitat information, and therefore is not
as efficient at separating out lower suitability habitat from higher suitability habitat units. The assessment
conclusions would not change, since model outputs are used only to reach conclusions on impact
magnitude. The RSA model is expected to result in conservative estimations of the magnitude of effects,
as demonstrated by the comparison of moose LSA and RSA models. Ratings for all other significance
criteria depend on other information sources and are not affected by differing model assumptions.
TABLE 164-2
MOOSE HABITAT SUITABILITY WITHIN THE 1 KM LSA

BASED ON THE LSA HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODEL
Habitat Change Change

Suitability Application (Baseline vs. Application Case) (Baseline vs. PDC)
Category Baseline Case Area (ha) % PDC Area (ha) %
Nil 600.2 2501.4 1901.2 317% 2585.6 1985.4 331%
Low 3557.6 3022.0 -535.6 -15% 3318.5 -239.1 -7%
Moderate 2957.5 2010.0 -947.5 -32% 1832.9 -1124.6 -38%
High 1296.3 878.1 -418.2 -32% 674.6 -621.7 -48%
Total Mod + High 4253.8 2888.1 -1365.7 -32% 2507.5 -1746.3 -41%
Page 329
¯

27 26 27 26
25 30 25 30
29 28 29 28
April 2013
e r
A t h a b a ca R i v A t h a b a ca R i v e r
FIGURE 164-1
CHANGE IN MOOSE HABITAT AVAILABILITY

22 23 24 19 20
22 23 24 19 20
FROM BASELINE TO APPLICATION CASE
IN THE LSA HSI MOOSE MODEL
21 21
TWP.77 TWP.77
AESRD SIR1 RESPONSES -
PROPOSED BLACKROD
15 15
14 13 14 13
18 17 18 17
16 16
Project Area

10 11 10 11
12 7 12 7
8 9 8 9
Hydrography
Waterbody

2 1 2 1
6 5 6 5
4 4
Habitat Quality:
Nil
34 35 34 35
Low
36 31 36 31
32 33 32 33
Moderate
High
27 26 27 26
25 30 25 30
29 28 29 28
22 23 22 23
24 19 24 19
20 21 20 21
TWP.76 TWP.76
15 14 15 14
13 18 13 18
17 16 17 16 UTM Zone 12N
t6790_Wildlife_Figure_164_1_Moose.mxd

SCALE: 1: 60,000
km
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
10 10
11 12 7 8
11 12 7 8
¯
Baseline Case PDC

27 26 27 26
25 30 25 30
29 28 29 28
April 2013
er A t h a b a ca R i v e r
A t h a b a ca R i v
FIGURE 164-2
CHANGE IN MOOSE HABITAT

22 23 24
22 23 24 AVAILABILITY FROM BASELINE
CASE TO PDC IN THE LSA
19 20 19 20
21 21
HSI MOOSE MODEL

TWP.77 TWP.77
ERCB SIR1 - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD
15 14 15 14
13 18 13 18
17 16 17 16
Project Area

10 11 10 11
12 7 12 7
8 9 8 9
Watercourse
Waterbody

2 1 2 1
6 5 6 5
4 4
Habitat Quality:
Nil
34 35 34 35
Low
36 31 36 31
32 33 32 33
Moderate
High
27 26 27 26
25 30 25 30
29 28 29 28
22 23 22 23
24 19 24 19
20 21 20 21
TWP.76 TWP.76
15 14 15 14
13 18 13 18
17 16 17 16 UTM Zone 12N
t6790_Wildlife_Figure_164_2_Moose.mxd

SCALE: 1: 60,000
km
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
10 10
11 12 7 8
11 12 7 8
165. Volume 4, Appendix 2B, Table 2B-33, Page 2B-68
This table shows several interesting incidental observations of wildlife, including 3 wolverine
sightings and an elk.
a. Provide a discussion as to why there were so many wolverine sightings, particularly

given the rarity of this species.
Response:
Wolverine occur in low density (i.e., approximately 5 individuals/1,000 km² in good habitat) and have very
large home ranges (COSEWIC 2003). Males and females have home ranges that are approximately 50
km² to 400 km², and 230 km² to 580 km², respectively. The three observations of scat within the LSA and
the single observation of tracks outside the LSA encompass an area of 27.0 km², which is substantially
smaller than the typical home-range size of a single wolverine. The number of wolverine using the LSA
cannot be determined from the data collected. The observations suggest that at least one wolverine was
present and likely has a home-range that extends throughout a portion of the LSA.
165. b. Provide a discussion regarding the abundance of elk in the area including a description
of the availability of habitat and other features which may support this population.
Response:
Evidence of elk was infrequently observed during baseline field studies for the Project. Aboriginal
participants identified signs of elk during TEK field surveys in the RSA. Elk tracks were observed during
snow tracking surveys along four track transects in early seral (structural stage 4 [pole/sapling] or 5
[young forest]) upland aspen, white spruce and mixedwood forest habitats (d1, d3 and e2 ecosite
phases). In addition, anecdotal reports of a small group (approximately 8 individuals) of elk were recorded
from BlackPearl personnel working at the Pilot Project during winter 2011/2012.
AESRD communicated that elk are present in the BlackPearl RSA in small numbers, but larger herds
occur further south along the Athabasca River (Chapman pers. comm.). Elk appear to be uncommon in
northeast Alberta; however, scat and track observations reported by the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring
Institute (ABMI) suggest that they may occur in low density throughout the southern portion of the central
mixedwoods. The nearest ABMI records of elk to the Project LSA report incidental observations of elk
sign (scat), approximately 65 km southeast of the LSA (on the east side of the Athabasca River) and 30
km southwest (on the west side of the Athabasca River). The nearest elk observation recorded during
ABMI winter track surveys is approximately 146 km southeast of the LSA (ABMI 2013).
The ecosite phases where elk tracks were recorded during snow tracking surveys for the Project are
relatively common in the LSA (the 3 ecosite phases combined comprise approximately 15.4% of the
LSA). Early seral forests (i.e., structural stages 4 and 5) comprise approximately half of the LSA.
Page 332
166. Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.3.4, Figures 2C-1 and 2C-2, Page 2C-10
The expected:actual ratios for several of the wildlife models (e.g. beavers, snowshoe hare, etc.)
do not appear to indicate strong model fit, yet BlackPearl repeatedly indicates that the models
fit well.
a. How did BlackPearl account for availability of habitat types and survey/observation
effort in the assessment of the model fit?
Response:
Survey effort (used to calculate expected counts) was based on the proportion of the area or linear
distance surveyed in each of the different habitat rating categories. This proportion was then multiplied by
total count of actual observations (including only those within the study area). For example, if 20% of the
surveyed area was considered High suitability habitat, then the expected proportion of observations
associated with High suitability habitat would be 20% based on random chance. In general, higher
suitability habitat is predicted to be used relatively more often than random chance, while lower suitability
habitat is predicted to be used relatively less often than random chance. Intermediate categories are
more likely to be used in proportion to their availability. Search time was assumed to be consistent
between surveys, so would not influence expected values. Details on how expected values or proportions
for different indicators were determined are summarized below.
TABLE 166-1
METHOD USED TO ASSESS MODEL FIT
Species Methods
Old-forest birds Actual data was based on birds detected during the 2010 and 2011 point-count surveys, including only those observations
within the 50 m radius point count survey area. Expected observations were based on the proportion of habitat rating
classes included in the point counts. For example, if 16% of point count surveys were within ‘High’ suitability habitat, then
16% of the observations are expected to occur in that rating class based on random chance.
Beaver For the evaluation of the beaver models, it was assumed that there was full coverage of the 1 km LSA. Areas without
beaver observations were considered unused habitat. Actual values represent the proportion of habitat within 90 m of
observed beaver locations. Expected values represent the proportion of habitat within the entire 1 km LSA. For the RSA
model, only the portion within the 1 km LSA could be evaluated since this was the area where survey effort was
concentrated.
Snowshoe Hare Based on winter tracking data. Expected proportions were based on the proportion of habitat ratings found along the
surveyed linear transects. Specifically, a single suitability rating was assigned to each 25 m survey segment, and the
proportion of the 25 m segments in each habitat suitability category was used as the ‘expected’ proportion of observation.
Moose Actual data were based on the aerial ungulate survey (i.e., the number in each habitat rating category). The expected
proportion of observations was based on the proportion of the aerial ungulate survey area in each habitat rating category,
assuming a 400 m observation window along linear transect routes. For example, if 43% of the survey area is Low
suitability, then the expected value is 43% of the observations.
166. b. Provide further explanation as to how model fit was assessed. What statistical tests
were used to measure fit?
Response:
Model fit was not assessed statistically due to several limitations in the data that affects its
appropriateness for use in model evaluation. Instead, models were compared qualitatively. When
possible, a figure was included to aid in the qualitative assessment of model fit. All models were based on
the best available scientific information and were constructed by biologists that are highly familiar with the
ecology of boreal ecosystems. In many cases, inputs of the model were based on peer-reviewed
publications that specify habitat relationships. Therefore, models without statistical validation are likely to
still be valid for habitat evaluation, albeit with a lower level of confidence.
Page 333
Some of the potential limitations of using field data to statistically validate the models include:
(1) Model validation using statistical techniques requires a large sample size to ensure adequate
statistical power. An inadequate sample size may result in incorrect conclusions regarding the
strength of the habitat model. Many species do not occur in sufficient abundance to obtain the
necessary sample size. This is especially true of animals with large home ranges or those that
are locally rare.
(2) Habitat models evaluate habitat suitability while most wildlife surveys are only able to evaluate
habitat use. These measures are not necessarily consistently correlated. For example, ecological
sinks often have high use but low suitability.
(3) Wildlife surveys may have inherent biases that result in violations of statistical assumptions. This
is especially true when a species is easier to detect in certain habitat types. In addition, field data
are often collected with competing objectives. One objective is to maximize the likelihood of
detecting species, especially those species that are of concern for wildlife management. This
requires that high quality habitat be preferentially targeted (or stratified and then randomly
sampled). This is inconsistent with preferred statistical method for evaluating model fit, which
favours a randomized design (or randomly sampled within habitat suitability categories).
(4) Wildlife suitability models encompass a broader time span than field surveys; consequently,
model validation may only reflect the time frame when field data were collected. In addition, many
species exhibit both inter-annual and intra-annual variation in habitat use, which may not be fully
captured in wildlife field surveys.
166. c. Provide the results of an appropriate statistical test of model fit for every wildlife model
used.
Response:
A statistical test of model fit is presented below for old-forest birds, beaver, and moose. The field data
used for validation is believed to be acceptable for statistical analysis; nonetheless, these results should
be interpreted with consideration of the limitations discussed previously (AESRD SIR 166b).
Other indicators were not statistically validated for the reasons identified below:
(1) Sandhill crane, black bear, fisher, northern goshawk: Insufficient field observations were obtained
to attempt statistical validation. These species are wide-ranging and it is unlikely that a sufficient
number of individuals occur in the study area to obtain a statistically valid sample size.
(2) Western toad: Field observations are unlikely to be representative of habitat suitability. The
majority of western toad breeding locations were within small pools of water found in depressions
along anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., cutblocks, rights-of-way, ditches along roads), many of
which may not contain sufficient water to support western toad breeding/production of young in
drier years and are potential ecological sinks (refer to Volume 4, Section 2.5.4.9).
(3) Lynx/snowshoe hare: There were not a sufficient number of lynx tracks observed to attempt
statistical validation. Both snowshoe hare and lynx track data likely have a high degree of
pseudoreplication (i.e., the same individual making multiple tracks). As a result, the field data
would result in substantial violations of statistical assumptions if used for statistical validation.
Model Validation Methods

Logistic models (generalized linear model with binomial error distribution) were used to compare the
probability of (or a probability proportional to) occupancy in habitat included in different suitability
categories (Nil, Low, Moderate, High). Suitability categories were combined for some analyses because
the sample size of field observations was too small to examine separately.
Page 334
Old-forest birds were assessed using a presence/absence response variable for ‘old-forest birds’ at the
point-count stations. The mean response predicted by the old-forest birds statistical validation procedure
represented the probability that an old-forest bird would be detected in a 50 m radius point-count circle.
Moose and beaver data are based on an area search, with locations only recorded for areas where they
were present; they are assumed to be absent (during the survey period) in areas where they were not
detected. For the beaver and moose analyses, random locations representing absences were generated
in the study area at a 10:1 ratio (10 random for each actual observation). The study area used for the
beaver analysis was restricted to the 1 km LSA (including for the RSA analysis), since this was the only
area where beaver presence or absence can confidently be determined. The study area for the moose
analysis was restricted to the area covered by aerial surveys, assuming a 400 m detection window; areas
outside the modelled area were also excluded. Used beaver habitat was assumed to extend in a 90 m
radius around the point feature (e.g., 90 m from a dam or lodge). The suitability rating was then based on
the average HSI value in that radius, and then converted into suitability categories. If the buffered beaver
observations overlapped (such as would occur if a lodge and dam were recorded as separate locations)
then they were combined into a single observation to avoid pseudoreplication. Since the moose and
beaver statistical validation required an arbitrary number of random absence locations, the output of the
statistical procedure is not the probability of occupancy, but rather is proportional to the probability of
occupancy (the reported probability represents the probability that it is a used location rather than one of
the random locations).
A graphical representation of the statistical procedure is presented, and also includes a standardized
scale, where probabilities are standardized by dividing values by the predicted mean probability for high-
suitability habitat. Models that are deemed to “fit” the field data must meet two expectations. First, the
model has predictive value; in particular, it should perform significantly better than an intercept only
model. Second, the relative probability of individuals using a habitat unit should be consistent with
hypothesized suitability categories. As a general guideline, Moderate suitability habitat is ideally within
26% to 75% of optimal habitat, Low suitability habitat is ideally within 1% to 25% of optimal habitat, and
Nil suitability habitat is not expected to be used (e.g., see Resources Inventory Committee 1999). A
positive correlation between the frequency of detections (per unit area) and the numeric habitat suitability
index score is expected to indicate good model fit. However, some deviation is expected because of
reasons outlined in the response to AESRD SIR 166b. Model fit significance was assessed by using a
likelihood ratio test to compare the statistical model containing the habitat suitability rating to an intercept
only model, and compared to a significance threshold of α = 0.05. Non-significant results or overlapping
confidence intervals do not necessarily imply a poor fitting model, since in most cases non-significance is
the result of a small sample size.
Validation Results
Old-Forest Birds
Habitat ratings based on both the old-forest bird LSA (χ2 = 56.43, df = 3, P < 0.0001) and RSA (χ2 =
44.75, df = 3, P < 0.0001) habitat suitability models explained a significant portion of the variation in
habitat use by old-forest birds surveyed in the LSA. As expected, there was a greater probability of
detecting an old-forest bird in successively higher suitability habitat classes (Figure 166-1). The
probability of detecting an old-forest bird is consistent with expected differences between suitability
ratings for both the LSA and RSA model. Survey data for old-forest birds suggests a strong fit for both the
LSA and RSA models.
Page 335
Figure 166-1 Results for the old-forest bird habitat suitability model validation showing mean
probabilities and 95% confidence limits
LSA Model RSA Model
Page 336
Beaver
Average habitat ratings explained a significant portion of the variation in beaver locations (based only on
data within the LSA) based on both the LSA (χ2 = 59.33, df = 2, P < 0.0001) and RSA (χ2 = 46.21, df = 2,
P < 0.0001) models. As expected, beaver were significantly more likely to be in areas with a greater
average suitability rating. Moreover, the relative probability of an area being actual beaver habitat is
consistent with expected differences among the suitability classes (Figure 166-2). Survey data for
beavers suggests a strong fit for both the LSA and RSA models.
Figure 166-2 Results for the beaver habitat suitability model validation showing mean probabilities
and 95% confidence limits
LSA Model RSA Model
Moose
There were 14 independent moose observations (i.e., excluding multiple moose) in the LSA detected
within the 400 m aerial transect window detected during the aerial ungulate surveys. This was deemed
inadequate to assess the moose LSA HSI model fit. However, there were 44 independent moose
observations with the 400 m transect window that occurred within the area covered by the RSA HSI
model. Therefore, only the moose RSA HSI model was included in the statistical validation. No moose we
observed using “Nil” habitat at either the LSA or RSA scale. However, due to the limited availability of “Nil”
habitat at Baseline Case it was unlikely that moose would be found using this habitat regardless of its
actual habitat value. As a result, Low and Nil habitat ratings were combined into a single rating for
analysis of model fit. The results of the statistical validation show that the model explains a significant
portion of the variation in observed habitat use (χ2 = 6.77, df = 2, P = 0.03). Inspection of the results of
the statistical validation indicates that the model performs very well at differentiating Nil and Low
suitability habitat from Moderate and High suitability habitat. We are unable to assess whether the model
performs adequately at differentiating Moderate from High suitability habitat (wide confidence intervals
suggests a larger sample is required). The relatively common occurrence of moose in Moderate suitability
habitat is likely the result of the frequent occurrence of moose in regenerating cutblocks. However, it is
uncertain whether their occurrence in this habitat is the result of their being easier to detect, or if it
indicates that cutblock and regenerating cutblock are of higher suitability for moose. The rating of
moderate for regenerating cutblocks should be viewed as conservative.
Page 337
Figure 166-3 Results for the moose habitat suitability model validation based on the RSA HSI
model, showing mean probabilities and 95% confidence limits
167. Volume 4, Appendix 2C, Section 2C.7, Page 2C-25
BlackPearl states that at the RSA scale The ability of the model to discriminate between low
suitability and high suitability habitat was reduced relative to the LSA model.
a. If the model does not discriminate well between low and high suitability habitat explain
its value to the predictions made, and to the conclusions drawn.
Response:
The model validation presented in AESRD SIR 166c indicates that the RSA model performs well at
differentiating Nil/Low suitability habitat from Moderate or High suitability habitat. The reduced ability of
the model to discriminate between low and high suitability habitat was the result of lower detail/resolution
land cover data at the RSA scale compared to the LSA scale. However, land cover data for both the LSA
and RSA scale was modified using a common disturbance data set. Therefore, both models were able to
discriminate changes in habitat suitability that resulted from anthropogenic disturbance. The reduced
performance of the RSA model applies primarily to natural vegetated ecosystem units. The RSA models
are still of value for assessing Project and cumulative effects, which are primarily concerned with
anthropogenic disturbances.
Page 338
167. b. Provide an explanation as to how credible the RSA model is for moose given the
reduced ability of that model to discriminate between low and high suitability habitat.
Response:
A statistical validation of the moose model is provided in the response to AESRD SIR 166c. Although
there was a reduction in the performance of the moose model between the LSA and RSA scale, the RSA
model was still effective in differentiating Nil/Low suitability habitat from Moderate and High suitability
habitat, and the habitat ratings were a significant predictor of habitat use. The distribution of observations
among the different suitability ratings is consistent with expectations of an appropriate fitting model. The
lower perceived performance of the RSA model may have been due to a relatively small number of
detections used to assess fit. Additional observations would be needed to more thoroughly assess model
fit for both the LSA and RSA scale, especially regarding the models adequacy at distinguishing moderate
from high suitability habitat. As discussed in the response to AESRD SIR 167a, disturbances were
modelled in a similar manner for both the LSA and RSA models and, therefore, both have similar
credibility in how they model the effect of anthropogenic disturbances.
Page 339
5.0 HEALTH
Table 4.2-1 outlines the TOR for the HHRA and the SLWRA. The TOR has not been met.
a. Provide a discussion within the HHRA on aspects of the Project that may have
implications on the delivery of regional health services.
Response:
Aspects of the Project that may have implications on the delivery of regional health services include the
following:
• potential increase in demand for regional health services as a result of incremental

population growth;
• potential increase in incidence of accident and injury due to Project-related traffic

and worker injury;
• potential decrease in emergency service response times due to increased Project-

related traffic volumes; and
• potential increase in adverse health effects as a result of project emissions.
The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) (Volume 5, Section 5.0 of the Integrated Application)
discusses current health services available in Lac La Biche County, Athabasca County and the Edmonton
CMA, the potential increase in demand for regional health services as a result of incremental population
growth from the Project and proposed mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts to regional health
services as a result of Project-related population growth (Volume 5, Sections 5.4.6, 5.5.4.1 and 5.6.4.1 of
the Integrated Application). The Project is not expected to generate a substantial increase in demand for
regional health services and recruiting efforts by many regional health care centres are already underway
(Volume 5, Section 5.5.4.1 of the Integrated Application). Refer to Volume 5, Section 5.4.6, Policing and
Emergency Services, and Section 5.5.4.4 of the Integrated Application for a discussion of current
emergency services available in the region, an assessment of the impact of a potential increase in
incidence of accidents and injuries and proposed mitigation to reduce any potential adverse effects to
emergency services as a result of a potential increase in incidence of accidents and injuries. The residual
effect of construction and operation of the Project on emergency services within the Socio-Economic RSA
is considered to be not significant. Project incremental population growth and potential increase in
incidence of accidents and injury are not expected to adversely affect the delivery of regional health
services.
Refer to the Traffic Impact Assessment (Volume 5, Section 5.0, Appendix 5A of the Integrated
Application) and Volume 5, Section 5.5.5 of the Integrated Application for an assessment of the effects of
Project-related traffic during the construction and operations phases. The effect of the construction and
operation of the Project on transportation infrastructure within the Socio-Economic RSA is considered to
be not significant. As such, Project-related traffic is not expected to adversely affect emergency service
response times.
The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) assessed the nature and significance of potential short-
term (i.e., acute) and long-term (i.e., chronic) health risks to humans associated with exposure to the
Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) emitted or released from the Project. The results of the HHRA
(Volume 5, Section 4.0 of the Integrated Application) and the HHRA Update (Section 2.16 of the Project
Update) indicate that chemical emissions from the Project are not expected to result in adverse health
effects in the region. For most of the COPC, the magnitude of the differences in predicted health risks
between the Baseline and Application Case is negligible. In most instances, potential long-term health
risks associated with exposure to the COPC via multiple pathways of exposure were determined to be
negligible. All incremental lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure via multiple pathways of
exposure were predicted to be less than 1.0 in 10,000, suggesting that the cancer risks associated with
Page 340
the Project and Future Scenarios are negligible. As such, an increase in demand for health services
associated with exposure to COPC from the Project is not expected.
168. b. Provide a discussion within the HHRA on the potential health impacts resulting from
higher regional traffic volumes and the increased risk of accidental leaks and spills.
Response:
Refer to the response for AESRD SIR 168a. Emissions associated with Project on-road and off-road
vehicle traffic and heavy construction equipment were included in the air quality data used in the
Integrated Application (Volume 2, Section 3.4.2.4) and Project Update (Appendix B), which were then
used in the assessment of health risks in the HHRA.
BlackPearl will implement HSE Management programs, which will include an Emergency Response Plan
(Volume 1, Section 9.0 of the Integrated Application; see also AESRD SIR 4b) for accidental leaks and
spills. Although the potential for accidental leaks and spills does exist, they are not anticipated in the
Project Area. Chemical releases associated with leaks and/or spills will be contained to an extent where
they will not result in exposure to members of the public.
BlackPearl states The HHRA assessed both short and long term health risks to people
associated with the chemicals emitted from the Project assuming full production and including
construction.
a. Provide more detail on how construction-related exposures were addressed in the

HHRA.
Response:
Volume 2, Section 3.4.2.4 of the Integrated Application provides the details as to how the construction-
related emissions were evaluated. The predicted ground level air concentrations were based on a
combination of construction and operations emissions data and were used as input for the HHRA.
Specifically, construction activities are associated with activities at the CPF and in the well pad area. The
CPF activities are of limited duration and are associated with the construction of respective facilities
associated with each phase. The construction activities in the well pad area occur over the whole life of
the Project due to progressive well pad development and reclamation activities. Emissions associated
with these activities include on-road and off-road vehicle traffic, heavy equipment, heaters and temporary
power generation. The maximum construction emissions occur during the period between the start-up of
Phase 3 and the end of Project operations (i.e., September 2021 to December 2042), and,for the Air
Quality Assessment, these maximum emissions were assumed to occur.
The associated parameters and emissions for the construction and operations fleet sources are provided
in Volume 2, Appendix 3A, Section A.7 of the Integrated Application.
Page 341
BlackPearl states Maximum predicted ground-level air concentrations provided by the Air
Quality Assessment were compared to regulatory-endorsed exposure limits protective of
human health in order to quantify the potential risks.
a. Complete any necessary updates to the HHRA and SLWRA as a result of changes to
the Air Quality Assessment following ERCB SIR 1 responses.
Response:
Refer to Appendix B of the Project Update for the Updated Air Quality Assessment.
Mercaptans and thiophenes are not included in Table 4.4-1.
a. Provide an assessment of the human health risks associated with these chemicals for
the applicable assessment cases, or provide detailed rationale as to why they were
excluded from the HHRA.
Response:
A chemical was assessed in the HHRA if:
• sufficient toxicological information was available to assess its potential health risks, either as an
individual chemical or as part of a chemical group; or
• a surrogate chemical could be identified for which sufficient toxicological information was available.
The adequacy of the toxicological information was determined by whether or not an exposure limit was
available and, if there was, whether or not the exposure limit met the criteria described in Volume 5,
Appendix 4A, Section 4A-1.1 of the Integrated Application. To be used in the HHRA, an exposure limit
needs to be supported by adequate documentation. There were no exposure limits identified for
mercaptans or thiophenes that met this criterion and no suitable surrogates were identified; therefore,
mercaptans and thiophenes were not assessed in the HHRA. An attempt was made to retrieve additional
exposure limits to assess the potential health risks associated with these chemicals not considered in the
HHRA due to a lack of supporting documentation.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ 2013) provides effects screening levels (ESLs)
for a number of different mercaptans and thiophenes. ESLs are developed by the TCEQ for use in the air
permitting process to determine the protectiveness of emission rate limits for facilities undergoing air
permit reviews (TCEQ 2013). The TCEQ (2013) notes that ESLs are “comparison levels, not ambient air
standards”. Short-term (acute) ESLs are based on information pertaining to acute health effects, odour
potential, and/or vegetation effects, while long-term (chronic) ESLs are based on chronic health and/or
vegetation effects information (TCEQ 2013). Because supporting documentation is not available for any
of these ESLs, the specific basis and scientific merit of these limits remains unknown.
Mercaptan concentrations were based on the following chemical constituents:
• 1-Butanethiol, 3-methyl-
• Butyl mercaptan
• Heptyl mercaptan
Page 342
• Hexyl mercaptan
• Isobutyl mercaptan
• Isopropyl mercaptan
• Methyl mercaptan
• Pentyl mercaptan
• Propyl mercaptan
• sec-Butyl mercaptan
• tert-Butyl mercaptan
• tert-Pentyl mercaptan
Thiophene concentrations were based on the following chemical constituents:
• 2,5-dimethyl Thiophene
• 2-methyl Thiophene
• 3-methyl Thiophene
• Dibenzothiophene
• Tetrahydro thiphene
• Thiophene
• Thiophene, 2-ethyl-
Potential health risks associated with the mercaptans and thiophenes were characterized using the
lowest (i.e., most conservative) of the TCEQ ESLs for the individual constituents of the chemical groups.
The exposure limits had to be identified as being health-based to be considered in the current exercise.
The maximum predicted 1-hour and annual average air concentrations were then compared against the
acute and chronic TCEQ ESLs, respectively (Table 171-1).
TABLE 171-1
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED AIR CONCENTRATIONS TO EXPOSURE LIMITS
Exposure Limit Maximum Predicted Air Concentrations at the LSA-MPOI [µg/m³]

Chemical Averaging-Time Value [µg/m³] Baseline Case Application Case PDC
Mercaptans Acute 0.8 1.4E-03 1.3E+00 1.3E+00
Chronic 0.08 1.7E-05 6.5E-02 6.5E-02
Thiophenes Acute 100 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.4E+00
Chronic 10 7.7E-03 2.4E-02 2.5E-02
As shown in Table 171-1, the maximum predicted air concentrations of mercaptans exceed the lowest of
the relevant ESLs (i.e., isopropyl mercaptan) on an acute basis only and predicted air concentrations on a
chronic basis were below the chronic TCEQ ESLs.
As shown in Table 171-1, the maximum predicted air concentrations of thiophenes do not exceed the
lowest of the relevant ESLs. This suggests that thiophenes emitted by the Project are not expected to
result in adverse human health effects.
Page 343
Again, due to a lack of supporting scientific documentation, the relevance of these exceedances is
unclear. The acute ESL for isopropyl mercaptan was used to represent the chemical group as it is the
lowest health-based ESL developed by the TCEQ for the mercaptans included in the HHRA. Another
mercaptan, hexyl mercaptan, has an acute ESL of 30 ug/m3 and the maximum predicted air
concentrations of mercaptans did not exceed this ESL.
The HHRA receptor groups do not include a non-aboriginal resident.
a. Complete an assessment for a non-aboriginal resident.
Response:
The exposure for the Aboriginal receptor as modelled in the HHRA includes longer exposure times,
increased consumptions and lifestyle values that are all greater than would be experienced by a non-
Aboriginal resident.
The Aboriginal resident that was modelled was assumed to live all 80 years of their life in the LSA and
consume food sourced locally in the vicinity of the Project. As the characteristics of the non-Aboriginal
residents reflect lower exposure than the Aboriginal residents, and as the HHRA is protective of the
Aboriginal residents, then non-Aboriginal residents are also protected.
The HHRA receptor groups do not include an agriculture receptor.
a. Confirm that there are no agricultural receptors within the RSA and that land will not be
used for agricultural purposes during the lifetime of the Project.
Response:
As described in Volume 4, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.3.2.2 of the Integrated Application, land within the
RSA is not suitable for agricultural purposes because the soils are mostly very poorly to imperfectly
drained (not suited for agricultural production) with only 6.3% of the LSA being well drained.
173. b. If land could be used for agricultural purposes during the lifetime of the Project, include
an evaluation of human health risks for agricultural receptors.
Response:
There is no need to update the HHRA with an agricultural receptor. Please see AESRD SIR 173a.
Page 344
BlackPearl states The HHRA assumed that people may be exposed at the MPOIs on an
infrequent basis. As people will not be living at these locations, the MPOI was evaluated only
for inhalation exposure, and only on an acute basis.
a. Confirm whether the receptor locations selected for the multi-media assessment were
located at or close to the MPOI for deposition.
Response:
As the metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are primarily associated with particulate
matter (PM) emissions from the Project, the Maximum Point of Impingement (MPOI) for these compounds
is anticipated to be associated with the location of the highest PM concentrations. Figure 174-1 shows the
isopleths associated with the annual PM2.5 concentrations for the Application Case. The location of the
maximum concentration is located to the southeast of the Project. As shown in Figure 4.4-1 (Volume 5,
Section 4.4 of the Integrated Application) there are two Aboriginal resident receptor locations in the
immediate vicinity of the PM2.5 MPOI. The concentrations used in the multipathway assessment for the
HHRA were the maxima associated with all of the receptor locations. The maximum PM2.5 concentration
predicted at the Aboriginal location in the application case was 0.9 ug/m3, which is lower than the value of
the 1.5 ug/m3 predicted at the MPOI.
Page 345
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
0.6
6210000
6210000
0 .5
0.5
Mariana Lake
6200000
6200000
0. 0.6
5
63
6190000
6190000
Sandy
Lake
Sandy Lake
Pelican
Lake
6180000
6180000
0.5
0.4
6170000
6170000
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
6160000
6160000
0.5
0.3
5
0.5
6150000
6150000
0.5
McMillan
Lake
0.
4
6140000
6140000
Athabasca
6130000
6130000
Calling
Lake
0.4
Calling Lake
6120000
6120000
0.35
Lyle
Lake
Wandering River
350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
174. b. If the designated receptor locations are not located at or close to the MPOI, provide an
assessment of the potential risks for a receptor who obtains food from locations with
higher deposition, such as the MPOI or the project fenceline, or provide rationale as to
why such an assessment is not required.
Response:
The MPOI concentrations were used in the HHRA to predict wildlife tissue concentrations only, therefore,
the HHRA was rerun using the predicted air concentrations at the MPOI. The results for the non-
carcinogens are summarized in Table 174-1, the results for the carcinogens are summarized in Table
174-2 and the results for the mixtures are summarized in Table 174-3. The results for the HHRA based
on the predicted air concentrations at the MPOI are similar to those presented in the Integrated
Application; therefore, no changes in the conclusions of the HHRA are predicted.
TABLE 174-1
CHRONIC MULTIPLE PATHWAY EXPOSURE RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

(NON-CARCINOGENS)
Chemical Baseline Application PDC

Aluminum 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01
Antimony 9.8E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+00
Barium 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01
Cadmium 3.4E-01 3.4E-01 3.4E-01
Chromium 3.1E-03 3.1E-03 3.1E-03
Chromium VI 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.2E-01
Cobalt 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 3.5E-01
Copper 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01
Lead 7.4E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01
Manganese 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Nickel 5.1E-02 5.1E-02 5.1E-02
Silver 6.5E-04 6.8E-04 6.9E-04
Strontium 2.7E-01 2.7E-01 2.7E-01
Tin 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02
Vanadium 6.9E-01 6.9E-01 6.9E-01
Zinc 9.2E-01 9.2E-01 9.2E-01
Pyrene 7.1E-07 4.6E-06 4.6E-06
Aniline 4.5E-09 1.6E-05 1.6E-05
Aromatic C17-C34 chronic 5.9E-07 3.6E-06 3.7E-06
Aromatic C9-C16 chronic 1.5E-05 7.1E-05 7.1E-05
predicted exposures were less than the exposure limit; whereas, a value expressed to the positive power (i.e., E+x) shows exposure estimates
exceeded the exposure limit.
Page 347
TABLE 174-2
CHRONIC MULTIPLE PATHWAY EXPOSURE ILCR VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP
(CARCINOGENS)
Chemical Project Scenario Future Scenario

Arsenic 2.3E-02 2.0E-02
Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalent 1.0E+00 1.0E+00
TABLE 174-3
CHRONIC MULTIPLE PATHWAY EXPOSURE RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

(MIXTURES)
Chemical Baseline Application PDC

Hepatotoxicants (Liver Effects) 2.1E+00 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Renal toxicants (Kidney Effects) 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00
Neurotoxicants 3.8E+00 3.8E+00 3.8E+00
Hematotoxicants 8.0E-03 4.9E-02 5.0E-02
Reproductive and developmental toxicants 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00
Notes: (1) Values in bold indicate an RQ greater than 1.0. With scientific notation, any value expressed to the negative power (i.e., E-x) shows that
175. Volume 5, Section 4.5.1, page 4-18
BlackPearl states Inhalation exposure estimates were based on the results of the air dispersion
modeling that was described in the Air Quality Assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.0). Predicted
air concentrations were presented over different averaging periods (e.g., 10-minute, 1-hour, 8-
hour, 24-hour and annual) to allow for the assessment of both acute and chronic health risks. In
addition, predicted air concentrations were presented for various assessment cases (i.e., Base
Case, Application Case and PDC) to characterize risks from the Project in combination with
existing and proposed sources.
a. Provide specific reference to the tables that summarize the air concentrations used to
calculate RQ values for the HHRA.
Response:
The air concentrations used in the calculation of the inhalation risk quoteient (RQ) values are summarized
in Tables 175-1 to 175-7.
TABLE 175-1
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE MPOI [UG/M3]

1,3-Butadiene 24hr-max 5.3E-02 5.7E-02 5.9E-02
Acetaldehyde 1hr-max 9.9E-01 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Acrolein group 1hr-max 2.0E-01 3.4E-01 3.4E-01
Aliphatic alcohol group 1hr-max 7.7E-01 6.1E+00 6.1E+00
Aliphatic aldehyde group 1hr-max 5.1E+00 1.4E+01 1.5E+01
Aliphatic C2 to C4 group 1hr-max 6.6E+00 1.8E+03 1.8E+03
Aliphatic C5-C8 1hr-max 5.6E+01 1.2E+03 1.2E+03
Page 348
TABLE 175-1 Cont'd

Aliphatic ketones 1hr-max 2.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.4E-01
Aromatic C9-C16 acute group 1hr-max 1.8E+00 4.2E+00 4.2E+00
Benzene 1hr-max 8.1E-01 1.1E+01 1.1E+01
Carbon disulphide group 1hr-max 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00
CO 1hr-max 8.3E+02 2.4E+03 2.4E+03
CO 8hr-max 4.7E+02 5.9E+02 5.9E+02
Copper 1hr-max 1.3E-03 1.4E-02 1.4E-02
Ethylbenzene 1hr-max 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 1.5E+00
Formaldehyde 1hr-max 7.6E-01 4.8E+00 4.8E+00
Hydrogen Sulphide 1hr-max 7.5E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+00
Methanol 1hr-max 6.8E-01 5.7E+00 5.7E+00
Naphthalene 1hr-max 4.5E-02 2.0E+00 2.0E+00
Nickel 1hr-max 5.8E-03 1.4E-02 1.4E-02
NO2 1hr-EPA Stat 9.4E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+02
PM2.5 24hr-8th 3.8E+00 6.0E+00 6.7E+00
SO2 10min-max 8.3E+01 1.1E+02 1.1E+02
SO2 1hr-EPA Stat 2.5E+01 3.7E+01 3.9E+01
Styrene group 1hr-max 3.7E-03 2.0E-02 2.0E-02
Toluene 1hr-max 4.6E+00 7.7E+00 7.7E+00
Xylenes 1hr-max 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00
Zinc 1hr-max 1.4E-02 2.4E-02 2.4E-02
TABLE 175-2
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP [UG/M3]
COPC Averaging Period Baseline Application PDC

Acetaldehyde 1hr-max 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 3.0E+00
Aliphatic alcohol group 1hr-max 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00
Benzene 1hr-max 1.4E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00
CO 1hr-max 2.3E+02 1.1E+03 1.1E+03
CO 8hr-max 1.4E+02 2.6E+02 2.6E+02
Copper 1hr-max 1.4E-03 6.7E-03 6.7E-03
Page 349
TABLE 175-2 Cont'd

Ethylbenzene 1hr-max 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.6E+00
Formaldehyde 1hr-max 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.8E+00
Hydrogen Sulphide 1hr-max 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00
Methanol 1hr-max 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 1.6E+00
Nickel 1hr-max 7.0E-03 7.0E-03 7.8E-03
NO2 1hr-EPA Stat 5.0E+01 8.1E+01 8.1E+01
PM2.5 24hr-8th 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 5.2E+00
SO2 10min-max 9.2E+01 9.2E+01 1.0E+02
SO2 1hr-EPA Stat 4.0E+01 4.0E+01 4.3E+01
Zinc 1hr-max 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.9E-02
TABLE 175-3
MAXIMUM ACUTE INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE WORKER GROUP [UG/M3]

Acetaldehyde 1hr-max 1.3E+00 2.0E+00 2.0E+00
Benzene 1hr-max 7.4E-01 3.2E+00 3.2E+00
CO 1hr-max 2.7E+02 1.4E+03 1.4E+03
CO 8hr-max 1.5E+02 3.2E+02 3.2E+02
Copper 1hr-max 1.1E-03 8.3E-03 8.4E-03
Formaldehyde 1hr-max 7.7E-01 1.3E+00 1.3E+00
Nickel 1hr-max 5.8E-03 8.3E-03 8.4E-03
NO2 1hr-EPA Stat 5.9E+01 8.9E+01 8.9E+01
PM2.5 24hr-8th 3.6E+00 4.5E+00 4.8E+00
Page 350
TABLE 175-3 Cont'd

SO2 10min-max 8.3E+01 8.3E+01 9.3E+01
SO2 1hr-EPA Stat 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 3.4E+01
Zinc 1hr-max 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.6E-02
TABLE 175-4
MAXIMUM CHRONIC INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

(NON-CARCINOGENS) [UG/M3]

1,3-Dioxolane 2.0E-08 4.2E-06 4.2E-06
Acrolein 5.3E-03 5.4E-03 5.8E-03
Aliphatic C5-C8 2.4E-01 5.8E+00 5.9E+00
Aliphatic C9-C16 2.0E+00 5.8E+00 6.1E+00
Aluminum 6.8E-03 7.3E-03 8.2E-03
Aniline 1.6E-04 3.1E-04 3.4E-04
Barium 3.7E-02 3.8E-02 3.9E-02
Aliphatic C2 to C4 2.7E-05 3.9E-05 4.2E-05
Chromium 4.4E-05 4.4E-05 4.9E-05
Cobalt 1.5E-05 6.1E-05 6.6E-05
Copper 3.0E-05 1.1E-04 1.2E-04
Hexane 2.6E-01 5.3E-01 5.6E-01
Lead 1.8E-05 2.0E-05 2.2E-05
Manganese 5.1E-06 2.2E-05 2.3E-05
Methanol 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 2.1E-02
NO2 3.6E+00 7.3E+00 7.8E+00
PM2.5 6.3E-01 8.8E-01 1.0E+00
Silver 3.6E-05 3.6E-05 3.7E-05
Styrene 3.3E-04 3.3E-04 3.3E-04
Toluene 7.3E-02 7.3E-02 7.4E-02
Vanadium 4.0E-05 5.8E-05 6.3E-05
Xylenes 9.7E-02 9.7E-02 9.8E-02
Page 351
TABLE 175-5
MAXIMUM CHRONIC INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE WORKER GROUP (NON-
CARCINOGENS) [UG/M3]

1,3-Dioxolane 1.2E-08 1.5E-05 1.5E-05
Acrolein 2.7E-03 1.4E-02 1.4E-02
Aliphatic C5-C8 1.6E-01 2.0E+01 2.0E+01
Aliphatic C9-C16 1.2E+00 1.6E+01 1.7E+01
Aluminum 4.3E-03 3.1E-02 3.2E-02
Aniline 1.2E-04 3.5E-04 3.7E-04
Barium 2.3E-02 7.0E-02 7.1E-02
Aliphatic C2 to C4 2.0E-05 7.8E-05 8.0E-05
Chromium 3.4E-05 3.4E-05 3.7E-05
Cobalt 1.2E-05 5.8E-05 6.3E-05
Copper 2.4E-05 1.1E-04 1.2E-04
Hexane 1.5E-01 1.3E+00 1.3E+00
Lead 1.3E-05 5.6E-05 5.7E-05
Manganese 4.6E-06 2.1E-05 2.3E-05
Methanol 7.9E-03 1.6E-02 1.6E-02
NO2 3.9E+00 9.6E+00 9.9E+00
PM2.5 5.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.1E+00
Silver 2.6E-05 3.4E-05 3.5E-05
Styrene 1.4E-04 3.2E-04 3.2E-04
Toluene 4.5E-02 1.5E-01 1.5E-01
Vanadium 3.0E-05 5.6E-05 6.1E-05
Xylenes 5.8E-02 6.6E-02 6.7E-02
TABLE 175-6
CHRONIC INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

(CARCINOGENS) [UG/M3]

1,3-butadiene 1.3E-04 1.9E-04
Arsenic 7.5E-06 7.8E-06
Benzene 4.9E-02 4.8E-02
Cadmium 3.8E-06 4.0E-06
Page 352
TABLE 175-6 Cont'd

Nickel 9.2E-05 9.2E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
and phenanthrene.
TABLE 175-7
CHRONIC INHALATION AIR CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE WORKER GROUP

(CARCINOGENS) [UG/M3]

1,3-butadiene 9.4E-04 1.0E-03
Arsenic 8.1E-06 8.3E-06
Benzene 1.5E-01 1.5E-01
Cadmium 1.3E-05 1.3E-05
Nickel 8.5E-05 8.4E-05
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3cd) pyrene
and phenanthrene.
BlackPearl states Surface water concentrations were measured in various water bodies and
watercourses within the Surface Water Quality LSA. Average concentrations of surface water
samples were used to characterize background concentrations of the COPCs in surface water
for Aboriginal receptors since the dataset consists of samples collected seasonally and across
multiple years. The surface water concentrations were used in the ERA model for wildlife
ingestion and predicting aquatic plant concentrations (i.e., component of moose diet). The
surface water concentrations were used in the HHRA model for drinking water ingestion,
swimming exposures, and fish uptake of COPCs in water.
a. The assessment does not appear to consider deposition of air contaminants to surface
water.
Response:
The HHRA did not include the prediction of deposition of air contaminants to surface water. Based on the
planned mitigation measures, the nature of the emissions from the Project, the emission rates and the
conclusions of the Surface Water Quality Assessment (Volume 3, Section 3.0), changes in surface water
quality were not expected.
Page 353
176. b. Provide a detailed assessment of the potential deposition of air contaminants to

surface water.
Response:
An assessment of the potential deposition of air contaminants to surface water was completed based on
methods provided by the US EPA OSW (2005). A single water body that is representative of the LSA
(Site D2-1) was selected to estimate human and wildlife exposures to surface water based on the
predicted highest annual average air concentrations of chemical emissions. The location of Site D2-1 is
presented in Volume 3, Section 3.0, Figure 3.3-2. The waterbody was used to predict human exposures
for the following pathways of exposure:
• Surface water ingestion as a drinking water source;
• Surface water ingestion through swimming;
• Dermal uptake during swimming; and
• Fish consumption.
The waterbody was also used to predict wildlife exposures for the following pathways:
• Surface water ingestion; and
• Consumption of aquatic plants by moose.
According to the US EPA OSW (2005), COPC emissions to the atmosphere can impact surface
waterbased on the following mechanisms of mass transfer or loading:
• Direct deposition from the atmosphere;
• Runoff from impervious surfaces (e.g., concrete or asphalt);
• Runoff from pervious surfaces (e.g., grasslands or forests);
• Soil erosion;
• Vapour diffusion; and
• Transformation of chemicals via chemical or biological mechanisms.
As recommended by the US EPA OSW (2005), the transformation of COPC via chemical or biological
mechanisms was assumed to be zero; surface water loading from runoff from impervious surfaces was
assumed to be zero since the LSA consists primarily of pervious surfaces; and, vapour diffusion was not
predicted explicitly since vapour deposition was included within the direct deposition calculations.
Therefore, atmospheric deposition to surface water was based on the following:
• Direct deposition from the atmosphere;
• Runoff from pervious surfaces (e.g., grasslands or forests); and
• Soil erosion.
Tables 176-1 to 176-3 summarize the physical, runoff and soil erosion parameters assumed for Site D2-1,
respectively, and Table 176-4 presents the surface water loss constants assumed for each COPC
assessed in the multiple pathway exposure assessment. The results of the air deposition to surface water
modelling are presented in Table 176-5 for each COPC and assessment case in the multiple pathway
exposure assessment and a worked example is presented for benzo(a)pyrene in the Baseline Case.
Page 354
TABLE 176-1
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS FOR LAKE D2-1
Description Value Units Comment/Reference

Lake Area 56,600 m2 Surface Water Assessment
Lake Depth 2 m Assumed
Lake Volume 113,200 m3 Area x depth
Flow Rate 1,608,336 m3/year Mean annual flow rate; Surface Water Quality assessment; Table 2.7-1
Fraction of Water Column Available for 100% % Assumed entire water column available for mixing
Mixing
TABLE 176-2
RUNOFF LOAD PARAMETERS
Description Units Value Reference / Comment

Average annual surface runoff from pervious cm/yr 10 ESRD 2005
surfaces areas
Pervious watershed area m2 1.69E+07 Drainage area for Site D2-1; Surface Water Quality
assessment
Bulk density g/cm3 1.5 US EPA OSW 2005
Soil volumetric water content mL-water / cm3-soil 0.2 US EPA OSW 2005
TABLE 176-3
PARAMETERS FOR SOIL EROSION
Description Units Value Reference / Comment

Unit soil loss kg / m2-yr 6.82E-01 Based on Terrain and Soil Assessment; Water erosion risk low
for soils near site D2-1
Sediment delivery ratio Unitless 1.75E-01 US EPA OSW 2005
Soil enrichment ratio Unitless 3 or 1 Default value = 3 for organics and 1 for inorganics; US EPA
OSW 2005
TABLE 176-4
SURFACE WATER LOSS CONSTANT ASSUMED FOR COPC [YEARS-1]
Chemical Value Half-life [Days] Comment / Reference

Aluminum 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Antimony 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Arsenic 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Barium 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Cadmium 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Chromium 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Chromium VI 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Cobalt 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Copper 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Lead 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Manganese 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Nickel 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Silver 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Strontium 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Tin 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Vanadium 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
Page 355
TABLE 176-4 Cont'd

Chemical Value Half-life [Days] Comment / Reference
Zinc 8.67E-03 2.92E+04 Assumed = 80 years
2-Methylnaphthalene 1.69E+01 1.50E+01 EPA (2011)
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Mackay & Hickie 2000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.10E+01 2.30E+01 Mackay & Hickie 2000
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.21E+01 2.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Mackay & Hickie 2000
Cyclopenta(cd)pyrene 6.75E+00 3.75E+01 EPA (2011)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Fluoranthene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Mackay & Hickie 2000
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Mackay & Hickie 2000
Pyrene 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Mackay & Hickie 2000
Aliphatic alcohol group 1.69E+01 1.50E+01 EPA (2011); Based on cyclohexaneethanol
Aliphatic aldehyde group 1.69E+01 1.50E+01 EPA (2011); Based on cyclohexaneethanol
Aliphatic C17-C34 group 2.92E+01 8.67E+00 EPA (2011); Based on heptadecane
Aniline 1.69E+01 1.50E+01 EPA (2011)
Aromatic C17-C34 3.57E+00 7.10E+01 Assumed = benzo(a)pyrene
Aromatic C9-C16 4.22E+00 6.00E+01 EPA (2011); Based on anthracene
Aromatic ketones 1.69E+01 1.50E+01 EPA (2011); Based on acetophenone
Hexachloro-1,3 butadiene 1.69E+01 1.50E+01 EPA (2011)
Phenothiazine 6.75E+00 3.75E+01 EPA (2011)
TABLE 176-5
PREDICTED SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON CONTRIBUTION OF

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION, RUNOFF AND SOIL EROSION FOR EACH ASSESSMENT CASE
[MG/L]
Chemical Baseline Application PDC Project Case Future Case

Aluminum 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 3.1E-01 3.8E-03 3.1E-03
Antimony 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 4.7E-05 4.2E-05
Arsenic 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 9.9E-06 8.6E-06
Barium 4.1E-02 4.1E-02 4.1E-02 3.1E-04 2.5E-04
Cadmium 7.7E-05 9.3E-05 9.2E-05 1.6E-05 1.5E-05
Chromium 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 1.5E-05 2.4E-06
Chromium VI 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 2.6E-03 1.6E-05 2.6E-06
Cobalt 1.5E-03 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 3.0E-04 2.7E-04
Copper 2.2E-03 2.5E-03 2.4E-03 2.7E-04 2.4E-04
Lead 7.9E-04 8.2E-04 8.1E-04 2.8E-05 2.4E-05
Manganese 5.7E-01 5.7E-01 5.7E-01 2.0E-04 1.7E-04
Nickel 4.3E-03 4.5E-03 4.4E-03 1.7E-04 1.3E-04
Silver 3.8E-05 3.9E-05 4.0E-05 4.0E-05 1.7E-05
Strontium 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 3.2E-06 2.6E-06
Tin 7.6E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.0E-05 6.0E-06
Vanadium 3.2E-03 3.8E-03 3.6E-03 5.7E-04 4.1E-04
Zinc 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.2E-02 5.0E-04 3.6E-04
2-Methylnaphthalene 4.8E-06 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 2.8E-05
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 4.6E-09 4.8E-08 5.1E-08 5.1E-08 4.7E-08
Benz(a)anthracene 8.4E-08 1.9E-06 1.9E-06 1.9E-06 1.8E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.1E-08 2.4E-06 2.4E-06 2.4E-06 2.4E-06
Page 356
TABLE 176-5 Cont'd

Chemical Baseline Application PDC Project Case Future Case
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.9E-08 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.1E-08 2.6E-06 2.6E-06 2.6E-06 2.6E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.4E-08 3.4E-06 3.4E-06 3.4E-06 3.4E-06
Chrysene 1.4E-07 2.9E-06 2.9E-06 2.9E-06 2.8E-06
Cyclopenta(cd)pyrene 2.9E-08 1.8E-07 1.8E-07 1.8E-07 1.7E-07
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.6E-05 1.9E-05 1.9E-05 3.4E-06 3.4E-06
Fluoranthene 8.1E-07 5.4E-06 5.5E-06 5.5E-06 5.0E-06
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 1.8E-05 3.0E-06 2.9E-06
Phenanthrene 1.7E-06 9.1E-06 9.2E-06 9.2E-06 7.9E-06
Pyrene 1.1E-06 7.1E-06 7.2E-06 7.2E-06 6.5E-06
Aliphatic alcohol group 4.5E-03 5.3E-02 5.3E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02
Aliphatic aldehyde group 1.8E-03 1.1E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.0E-02
Aliphatic C17-C34 group 6.3E-05 1.4E-04 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 1.2E-04
Aniline 6.2E-08 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 2.2E-04
Aromatic C17-C34 chronic 8.2E-08 5.1E-07 5.1E-07 5.1E-07 4.7E-07
Aromatic C9-C16 chronic 7.3E-04 3.5E-03 3.5E-03 3.5E-03 3.1E-03
Aromatic ketones 4.2E-05 2.6E-04 2.7E-04 2.7E-04 2.5E-04
Hexachloro-1,3 butadiene 9.8E-09 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 3.0E-05
Phenothiazine 4.7E-06 2.9E-05 2.9E-05 2.9E-05 2.7E-05
RQ values for the non-carcinogenic COPC are provided for the most sensitive life stage for the Aboriginal
group (Table 176-6). All multiple pathway RQ values for the Baseline, Application and PDC for the
Aboriginal group were less than 1.0, with the exception of manganese, which is identical to the RQ values
presented in the HHRA. For all of the COPC, negligible changes in RQ values were predicted between
the Baseline and Application Cases, indicating that the incremental change associated with the Project is
negligible. Overall, the potential for adverse non-carcinogenic health effects is anticipated to be low.
Further discussion of the manganese risks was provided in the HHRA (Volume 5, Section 4.8.6).
TABLE 176-6
CHRONIC MULTIPLE EXPOSURE PATHWAY RQ VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP

(NON-CARCINOGENS)

Aluminum 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01
Antimony 9.8E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+00
Barium 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01
Cadmium 3.4E-01 3.5E-01 3.5E-01
Chromium 3.1E-03 3.1E-03 3.1E-03
Chromium VI 5.2E-01 5.2E-01 5.2E-01
Cobalt 3.5E-01 3.8E-01 3.8E-01
Copper 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01
Lead 7.4E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01
Manganese 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Nickel 5.1E-02 5.1E-02 5.1E-02
Silver 5.3E-03 5.6E-03 5.7E-03
Strontium 2.7E-01 2.7E-01 2.7E-01
Tin 1.8E-02 1.9E-02 1.9E-02
Vanadium 6.9E-01 7.7E-01 7.4E-01
Zinc 9.2E-01 9.2E-01 9.2E-01
Pyrene 1.6E-04 9.8E-04 9.9E-04
Page 357
TABLE 176-6 Cont'd

Aniline 3.7E-07 1.3E-03 1.3E-03
Aromatic C17-C34 1.4E-06 6.1E-06 6.2E-06
Aromatic C9-C16 3.4E-03 1.6E-02 1.6E-02
The estimated ILCR values for the Aboriginal group are presented in Table 176-7. Results are presented
only for the incremental Project (Application minus Baseline) and Future (PDC minus Baseline) scenarios
in the HHRA and all values represent ILCR per 100,000 people. All ILCR values were less than 1.0,
indicating that the Project and Future scenarios are associated with negligible incremental cancer risks
(i.e., less than 1 in 100,000) for the Aboriginal group.
TABLE 176-7
CHRONIC MULTIPLE EXPOSURE PATHWAY ILCR VALUES FOR THE ABORIGINAL GROUP
(CARCINOGENS)

Arsenic 5.9E-02 5.4E-02
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, Cyclopenta(c,d)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene
and phenanthrene.
Worked Example for Benzo(a)pyrene in the Baseline Case
A worked example was provided below to demonstrate how the predicted surface water concentrations
were calculated based on atmospheric deposition, run off and soil erosion.
Mass Loading onto Surface Water
Mass loading of a chemical onto a surface water body is assumed equal to the total deposition of the
chemical emitted into air by the Project and deposited onto surface water. The following equation was
used to predict the mass loading of COPC to a water body:
Ld=MLswxLA
Where:
Ld = total annual mass loaded to surface water (mg/yr)
MLsw = mass of chemical loaded to water body on an annual basis (mg/m2/yr)
LA = lake area of water body (m2)
Example 1 Mass loading of benzo(a)pyrene to surface water
Page 358
Ld = 8.9E – 04 x 56,600
Ld = 50mg/yr
Runoff from Pervious Surfaces
The following equation is recommended by US EPA OSW (2005) to predict the runoff load of dissolved
COPC to a water body from pervious soil surfaces within the watershed:
Lr = R0 x Ap x Cs x BD x CF
Өsw + kd x BD
Where:
Lr = runoff load from pervious surfaces (mg/yr)
RO = average annual surface water runoff from pervious areas (cm/yr)
Ap = pervious watershed area (m2)
Cs = soil concentration (mg/kg)
BD = bulk density of soil (g/cm3)
θsw = soil volumetric water content (ml-water / cm3-soil)
Kd = soil-water partition coefficient (cm3-water / g-soil or L/kg)
CF = conversion factor 10 (kg-cm2 / g-m2)
Example 2 Runoff load of benzo(a)pyrene to surface water
Lr = 10 x 16,930,000 x 5.2E – 06 x 1.5 x 10

0.2 + 9,464 x 1.5
Lr = 9.4E – 01mg/yr
Soil Erosion
The following equation is recommended by US EPA OSW (2005) to predict the soil erosion load of COPC
to a water body from pervious soil surfaces within the watershed:
Le = Xe x Ap x SD x ER x Cs x Kd x BD
Өsw + Kd x BD
Where:
Le = soil erosion load (mg/yr)
Xe = unit soil loss (kg / m2-yr)
Ap = pervious watershed area (m2)
SD = sediment delivery ratio (unitless)
ER = soil enrichment ratio (unitless)
Cs = soil concentration (mg/kg)
BD = bulk density of soil (g/cm3)
Osw = soil volumetric water content (ml-water / cm3-soil)
Page 359
Kd = soil-water partition coefficient (cm3-water / g-soil or L/kg)
Example 3 Soil erosion load of benzo(a)pyrene to surface water
Le = 0.68 x 16,930,000 x 0.17 x 3 x 5.2E – 06 x 9,464 x 1.5

0.2 + 9,464 x 1.5
Le = 3.2E + 01mg/yr
Total COPC Loading to Surface Water
Total water body load was based on the following equation:
L t = Ld + Lr + L e
Where:
Lt = total COPC water load (mg/yr)
Ld = deposition loading onto surface water (mg/yr)
Lr = runoff load (mg/yr)
Le = erosion load (mg/yr)
Example 4 Total loading of benzo(a)pyrene to surface water
Lt = 50 + 0.94 + 32
Lt = 82mg/yr
Predicted Surface Water Concentration
The predicted surface water concentration was based on the following equation (US EPA OSW 2005):
Csw = Lt x CF
Vf x Fwc x ksw x Vsw
Where:
Csw = water body COPC concentration (mg/L)
Lt = total COPC load to the water body (mg /yr)
Vf = average volumetric flow rate through the water body (m3/yr)
Fwc = fraction of water body COPC concentration in the water column (unitless)
ksw = COPC dissipation rate constant (yr-1)
Vsw = volume of water body (m3)
CF = conversion factor 0.001 (m3/L)
Example 5 Concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in surface water
Csw = 83 x 0.001
1,608,336 x 1 + 3,6 x 113,200
Csw = 4.1E – 08mg/L
Page 360
176. c. If deposition to surface water is not shown to be negligible, provide an assessment of

potential human health impacts associated with consumption of surface water and fish.
Response:
Please refer to AESRD SIR 176b.
Chronic inhalation exposure limits based on carcinogenic effects have been identified by
reputable agencies for formaldehyde and naphthalene.
a. Provide an evaluation of the potential carcinogenic effects from chronic inhalation

exposure to formaldehyde and naphthalene.
Response:
The naphthalene toxicity profile (Volume 5, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.53.1.2 of the Integrated Application)
indicates that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) cancer unit risk
value was not selected for the HHRA on the basis that the US EPA and other agencies have not derived
cancer-based values, suggesting that the weight of evidence in support of human carcinogenicity in
association with naphthalene exposure is currently limited. In addition, the formaldehyde toxicity profile
(Volume 5, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.46.1.2 of the Integrate Application) indicates that a cancer unit risk
value was not selected for the HHRA based on the weight of evidence. Eye, nasal and respiratory
irritation in humans are more sensitive endpoints than cell proliferation and carcinogenicity in rats
(Volume 5, Appendix 4A, Section 4A.46.1.2 of the Integrated Application).
Table 177-1 summarizes the maximum chronic inhalation incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) values
for formaldehyde and naphthalene for each receptor group. The ILCR values are based on the exposure
limits presented in Table 177-2.
TABLE 177-1
MAXIMUM CHRONIC MPOI, ABORIGINAL, WORKER AND RSA RECEPTOR INHALATION ILCR
VALUES FOR FORMALDEHYDE AND NAPHTHALENE

Receptor Group Chemical Project Scenario Future Scenario
Aboriginal Formaldehyde 3.7E-02 4.0E-02
Worker Formaldehyde 1.2E-01 1.2E-01
MPOI Formaldehyde 2.1E-01 1.9E-01
RSA Formaldehyde 7.6E-04 2.2E-01
Aboriginal Naphthalene 2.1E-02 2.2E-02
Worker Naphthalene 5.6E-02 5.6E-02
MPOI Naphthalene 2.3E-01 2.2E-01
RSA Naphthalene 2.6E-04 1.3E-02
TABLE 177-2
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC EXPOSURE LIMITS FOR FORMALDEHYDE AND NAPHTHALENE
Chemical Type Value Units Endpoint Reference

Formaldehyde RsC 0.8 µg/m³ Squamous cell carcinomas US EPA 2012
Naphthalene RsC 0.3 µg/m³ Respiratory epithelial adenoma and OEHHA 2009
olfactory epithelial blastoma
Page 361
All ILCR values represent predicted ILCR per 100,000 individuals in the population. All predicted ILCR
values for inhalation exposures were predicted to be less than 1 in 100,000, indicating that the
incremental contributions from the Project and future emission sources are negligible.
178. Volume 5, Section 4.6.1, Table 4.6-3 and 4.6-5, Pages 4-32 and 4-34
The chronic inhalation and oral exposure limits reported for carcinogenic PAH in these tables
do not appear to be adjusted by the TEF values reported for these chemicals in Appendix 4A.
a. Describe how TEF values were applied in the assessment of carcinogens in the B(a)P
equivalent group.
Response:
For the inhalation assessment, a B(a)P equivalent concentration was calculated for each receptor
location. All of the PAH at each location were multiplied by their respective toxic equivalency factor (TEF)
and summed to get the B(a)P equivalent concentration. The maximum B(a)P equivalent concentration
within the receptor groups was then used to calculate the annual average concentrations for the Project
and future scenarios.
As shown in Table 4D-3 (Volume 5, Section 4.0, Appendix 4D of the Integrated Application) for the
multiple pathway assessment, the TEF was applied to the RQ value. These values were then summed to
generate a lifetime cancer risk for the B(a)P equivalent concentration for each receptor classification.
The TEFs used in the current assessment of PAHs via the toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) approach are
shown in Table 178-1, which was presented in the HHRA (Volume 5, Section 4.0, Appendix 4A, Table
4A-77 of the Integrated Application).
TABLE 178-1
RELATIVE POTENCY OF INDIVIDUAL PAHS COMPARED WITH BENZO(A)PYRENE
Compound Toxic Equivalency Factor (a)

7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene 10
Benz(a)anthracene 0.1
Benzo(a)pyrene 1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.01
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.1
Chrysene 0.01
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene 0.1
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1
Fluoranthene 0.001
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.1
Phenanthrene 0.001
Note: (a) Health Canada 2009a
The TEQ approach is consistent with the relative potency approach described by the US EPA (2002) and
Health Canada (2009a), in which the carcinogenic potencies of PAHs are scaled to an index compound
(benzo(a)pyrene) using TEFs (which are analogous to PEFs) and then added together to calculate the
total cancer risk for the mixture. This approach permits the evaluation of the mixture when limited data are
available for most of the mixture components.
Page 362
Table 4.6-6 illustrates the potential additive interactions of the chemicals of potential concern.
Chemicals are grouped according to exposure duration and pathway, i.e., acute inhalation,
chronic inhalation, and chronic oral exposure.
a. Explain how the HHRA accounted for potential additive effects for chemicals acting on
the same target organ via more than one exposure pathway? For example, liver and
kidney effects have been reported following inhalation and oral exposure to the
aromatic C9-C16 group and neurological effects have been reported following
inhalation and oral exposure to manganese.
Response:
Predicted RQ values for different routes of exposure (e.g., inhalation, oral and dermal) should not be
summed to calculate a total RQ value without consideration of the basis of the exposure limit. Route-
specific toxicity reference values (TRVs) should only be summed if the basis of the TRVs are similar or
target the same organ or tissue with similar adverse effects (Health Canada 2009b). Table 179-1
presents the basis of the route-specific TRVs used in the HHRA to add risks from multiple routes. For
most COPCs the route-specific RQ values cannot be added on the basis that a TRV is missing for one of
the routes or the basis of the route-specific TRVs are not the same. Only the inhalation and oral route-
specific RQ values for the aromatic C9-C18 group and the neurotoxicants aluminium, lead and manganese
are considered additive.
TABLE 179-1
SUMMARY OF ROUTE-SPECIFIC TRVS FOR COPCS ASSESSED IN THE MULTIPLE PATHWAY

ASSESSMENT
COPC in the Multiple Pathway Basis of Exposure Limit for the Route of Exposure
Assessment Inhalation Oral (including dermal contact) Comment
Aromatic C9-C16 group NOAEL (i.e., increased liver and NOAEL (i.e., increased liver and Routes are considered additive
kidney weights) kidney weights)
Aluminum USEPA PPRTV based on WHO TDI based on potential Routes are considered additive
neurological effects reproductive and developmental
effects, neurological effects, as well
as kidney and liver effects.
Lead RfC based on nervous system Intake of Concern Level due to Routes are considered additive
effects potential as a developmental
neurotoxicant.
Manganese Health Canada RfC (i.e., neurological USEPA RfD (i.e., CNS effects) Routes are considered additive
effects)
Table 179-2 presents the summed RQ values for the aromatic C9-C16 group, Table 179-3 presents the
summed RQ values for aluminium, Table 179-4 presents the summed RQ values for lead, and
Table 179-5 presents the summed RQ values for manganese. Total RQ values for the aromatic C9-C16
group, aluminium and lead were less than 1.0, suggesting a low probability of adverse effects attributable
to total exposures (i.e., inhalation plus oral). As shown, the inclusion of the inhalation risks did not have
an appreciable impact on the risks associated with the non-inhalation exposure pathways.
Page 363
TABLE 179-2
PREDICTED ROUTE-SPECIFIC AND TOTAL RQ VALUES FOR THE AROMATIC C9-C16 GROUP FOR
THE RESIDENT AND WORKER GROUP
Assessment Case
Route-specific RQ Value Baseline Application PDC
Resident Group
Inhalation 3.5E-04 3.5E-04 5.4E-04
Oral (including dermal contact) 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 4.0E-03
Total 3.0E-03 3.0E-03 4.5E-03
Worker Group
Inhalation 3.5E-06 1.5E-05 1.7E-05
Total 3.5E-06 1.5E-05 1.7E-05
TABLE 179-3
PREDICTED ROUTE-SPECIFIC AND TOTAL RQ VALUES FOR ALUMINUM FOR THE RESIDENT
AND WORKER GROUP
Assessment Case
Aboriginal Resident Group
Inhalation 3.2E-05 6.2E-05 4.6E-05
Total 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01
Worker Group
Inhalation 2.4E-05 6.9E-05 5.1E-05
Total 4.3E-01 4.3E-01 4.3E-01
TABLE 179-4
PREDICTED ROUTE-SPECIFIC AND TOTAL RQ VALUES FOR LEAD FOR THE RESIDENT AND
WORKER GROUP
Assessment Case
Inhalation 3.6E-05 4.1E-05 2.1E-05
Total 7.4E-01 7.5E-01 7.5E-01
Worker Group
Inhalation 2.6E-05 1.1E-04 9.2E-05
Total 6.2E-03 6.4E-03 6.4E-03
Page 364
TABLE 179-5
PREDICTED ROUTE-SPECIFIC AND TOTAL RQ VALUES FOR MANGANESE FOR THE RESIDENT
AND WORKER GROUP
Assessment Case
Inhalation 1.0E-04 4.4E-04 3.9E-04
Oral (including dermal contact) 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Total 2.2E+00 2.2E+00 2.2E+00
Worker Group
Inhalation 9.1E-05 4.3E-04 3.6E-04
Total 6.9E-02 6.9E-02 6.9E-02
Total RQ values for manganese (Table 179-3) exceed 1.0 and are equivalent to the RQ associated with
the chronic oral pathway. As discussed in Volume 5.0, Section 4.8.6 of the Integrated Application, the
estimated intake levels of manganese in the assessment are predominantly associated with the
consumption of local vegetation. The estimated intake levels fall below the recognized no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 10 mg/day and at levels which adverse effects have not been observed.
The predicted manganese RQ values for oral exposures are not expected to be associated with adverse
health effects, which are not expected to be associated with total exposures.
180. Volume 5, Section 4.8.1, Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, Page 4-40 and 4-41
a. Define EPA Statistic, as referred to several times in Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2.
Response:
The two EPA statistics referred to in Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 are for the Maximum 98th percentile of the
annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average NO2 concentrations and for the Maximum 99th
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour SO2 average concentrations.
The Air Quality Assessment provided emission rate estimates for NOx, SO2, PM2.5, CO and
VOC during the upset scenarios described here (i.e., Volume 2, Appendix 3A, Tables 3A-31
and 3A-32, pages 3A-55 and 3A-56) where SO2, NO2 and PM2.5 are considered.
a. Provide the rationale for considering only SO2, NO2 and PM2.5 for the upset scenarios
assessment or complete an assessment of all COPCs released during the upset
scenarios.
Response:
As discussed in Volume 2, Section 3.4.2.2 of the Integrated Application the three upset flaring conditions
and operation of the emergency power generator are expected to have a low frequency of occurrence
and a short duration.
• Inlet Produced Gas: This scenario is expected to occur about one time per two years,
with each event expected to be less than one hour in duration.
Page 365
• Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) Compressor Outage Event: This scenario is expected to
occur approximately one time per two years with duration of 6 hours per event.
• Inlet Fuel Gas Control Failure Event: This scenario is expected to be rare, approximately
one time per 10 years, with each event expected to be less than one hour in duration.
• The diesel-fired emergency generators will be used during periods of electrical outage
and will typically be tested on a monthly basis for a nominal 1 hour period.
Maximum predicted SO2, NO2 and PM2.5 for the upset scenarios are evaluated consistent with the key
issues selected for the Air Quality Assessment (Volume 2, Section 3.2.5, Table 3.2-7 of the Integrated
Application) which focussed on maximum NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations. The described upset
events represent intermittent acute exposure scenarios and previous applications have typically
evaluated criteria air contaminants (CACs) only for upset events with SAGD operations, usually for only
SO2. Professional judgement of the air quality and human health assessment experts were used to focus
the assessment on chemicals with the greatest potential for a health effect.
182. Volume 5, Appendix 4C, Section 4C.4, Page 4C-33
BlackPearl states Risk quotient (RQ) values for non–carcinogens and incremental lifetime
cancer risks (ILCRs) for carcinogens were estimated using the following equations and the
calculated exposure estimates. Only one equation is provided for calculating hazard quotients.
a. Provide the equation used to calculate ILCRs for carcinogens.
Response:
The ILCR values presented in the HHRA are based on the following equation:
Where,
ILCR = Incremental lifetime cancer risk (unitless)
RQi = Risk quotient value for the ith life stage (unitless)
LAFi = Lifetime adjustment factor for the ith lifestage (unitless)
182. b. Provide a sample calculation for carcinogens.
Response:
An example of the ILCR calculation is presented below for hexachloro-1,3 butadiene for an Aboriginal
receptor under the Project Case (Table 182-1).
The estimated daily intake values are taken from Volume 5, Appendix 4D, Table 4D-16 of the Integrated
Application. The RsD for hexachloro-1,3 butadiene used in the calculation is 0.1 µg/kg bw/day.
Page 366
TABLE 182-1
EXAMPLE OF ILCR CALCULATION FOR HEXACHLORO-1,3 BUTADIENE
Body weight Duration Fraction of total EDI lifestage EDI ILCR ILCR lifestage
Lifestage (kg) (years) life µg/day µg/kg bw/day =EDI/RsD fraction
Infant 8.2 0.5 6.3E-03 1.2E-05 1.5E-06 1.5E-05 9.2E-08
Toddler 16.5 4.5 5.6E-02 4.8E-04 2.9E-05 2.9E-04 1.6E-05
Child 32.9 7 8.8E-02 7.0E-04 2.1E-05 2.1E-04 1.9E-05
Adolescent 59.7 8 1.0E-01 9.8E-04 1.6E-05 1.6E-04 1.6E-05
Adult 70.7 60 7.5E-01 1.5E-03 2.1E-05 2.1E-04 1.6E-04
Total 80 1.0E+00 2.1E-04
The ILCR calculated in Table 182-1 is 2.1E-04, which corresponds to the ILCR value for hexachloro-1,3
butadiene shown in Volume 5, Section 4.0, Table 4.8-21 of the Integrated Application.
183. Volume 5, Appendix 4D
This Appendix provides the exposure point concentrations, including air concentrations, for
COPC identified for multiple pathway analyses.
a. Provide a summary of the exposure point concentrations selected for COPC not
considered in multiple pathway analyses or provide a reference to where these
concentrations may be found.
Response:
AESRD SIR 175 presents the predicted maximum annual average air concentrations for all COPCs
assessed in the chronic inhalation assessment for each receptor group, including all the COPCs
assessed in the multiple pathway assessment.
Page 367
6.0 APPROVALS
The responses to questions in this Approvals section will not be considered as part of the Integrated
Application completeness decision made by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development.
6.1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

6.1.1 General
184. EPEA Application, Section B, Figure B.2-1, Page 5
BlackPearl provides an overview of the project boundaries and phases in Figure 1.2-1. Several
project components are situated outside of the BlackPearl Oil Sand Holdings on other oil sand
leases (as shown on Figure 1.9-1). This includes the CPF, camp, 9 well pads, sump site and 3
borrow pits, and 3 log decks located on Laricina, Scott, Canadian Coastal and Integrity oil sand
leases.
On Page 4-4, BlackPearl states There are no known plans for future developments within the
Soils LSA or Soils RSA over the life of the Project that will physically disturb the terrain or soils
resources.
a. Provide justification for siting the project development outside the BlackPearl oil sand
leases.
Response:
The only oil sands companies directly impacted by BlackPearl infrastructure being placed outside of our
oil sands leases are MEG and Laricina and we have directly consulted with both companies. MEG has
expressed no concerns based on the updated Project Footprint, as shown in Figure 1.1-1 of the Project
Update. Laricina has issued a Statement of Concern (SOC) based on the original Project Footprint of the
Project infrastructure above their oil sands leases. BlackPearl continues to work with Laricina and
maintains that infrastructure will not sterilize any Laricina resources as it will not infringe on Laricina’s right
to access resources as mineral ownership does not imply surface ownership.
184. b. Discuss whether BlackPearl had obtained formal agreements from all affected lease
holders and other stakeholders in order to develop project components on these lands.
Please provide documents for existing agreements.
Response:
No formal agreements are required from stakeholders to place infrastructure on lands outside of
BlackPearl mineral holds.
Page 368
184. c. Provide a contingency plan in the event that BlackPearl is unable to reach an
agreement with one or more lease holders for development on these lands.
Response:
When it comes to the location of the CPF there are no contingency plans. There are no other upland
locations to place the CPF unless it was broken up into three respective CPF’s for each phase. This
would substantially increase the Project Footprint as each CPF site would require at least 75-80 ha, as
opposed to 124ha for a single CPF.. If BlackPearl were to be forced to break the CPF into three separate
locations, the CPF for Phase 1 would sitll be in the proposed location.
185. EPEA Application, Section B, Figure B.2-1, Page 5
BlackPearl has placed the Central Processing Facility, well pads and borrow pits outside of
BlackPearl’s Oil Sands Holdings.
a. Does BlackPearl have any agreements with the stakeholders that may be affected by
this? If so, provide documents.
Response:
Refer to AESRD SIR184 b.
186. EPEA Application, Appendix C-1, Process Flow Diagram
The Steam inlet, Instrument Air ad Vent Stack diagram, shows a 13A-FL-010 vent stack.
a. Where is this stack located?
Response:
Refer to Appendix C-6 in the EPEA Application for pad vent stack locations.
186. b. Has it been incorporated into the air dispersion modelling? If not, explain.
Response:
The vent stack has not been incorporated into the modelling because, in the event of an upset conduction
on the steam line where a pressure safety valve (PSV) lifts, it would be steam that goes to the pop tank
connected to the vent stack. In an upset condition where the PSV lifts on the group or test separator,
emulsion and gas would go to the pop tank and the vapours are vented through the vent stack.
Upset conditions on the group or test separator are rare and assumed to occur once in a five year cycle.
The time period of venting would be 30 to 60 minutes if fluid is in the pop tank (this is the initial flashing of
fluid into the tank before it settles) and the fluids would be trucked out within eight hours. As a result of
frequency of occurrence it was not incorporated into the dispersion modeling.
Page 369
186. The Water Treatment Process Pond and start-up BD Tank diagrams has an equipment 11- T-
465.
c. What equipment is this?
Response:
11-T-465 is a tank that is used during startup processes. Blowdown from the steam generators and steam
separators are diverted to the tank and then transferred to the process pond where the water is recycled.
187. Comment: EPEA Application, CPF Plot Plan
According CPF plot plan, there will be two process ponds built. However, BlackPearl indicated
that there will be a third process pond that will be built in Phase 3 of the Project. Note that an
amendment may be required when BlackPearl decides to place this pond into the Project.
Response:
Two process ponds are required for Phase 1: a primary pond and a secondary pond used when lime
cleaning occurs. All process water will be diverted into the secondary pond during cleaning cycles. The
third process pond is currently shown on the CPF plot plan and is needed as a result of the increased
water volumes being cycled through the process ponds. BlackPearl included this third process pond as
part of the EPEA application.
6.1.2 Air
188. EPEA Application
Throughout the application, BlackPearl mentioned that Sulphur inlet is 0.33 t/d; however, this is
inconsistent with other areas of the project which states the Project contributed 0.5 t/d of SO2.
a. Clarify this discrepancy.
Response:
The sulphur inlet of 0.33 t/d (as sulphur) is stated in Table 6.6-3 Sulphur Production Calculations in
Volume 1, page 6-18 of the Integrated Application. The sulphur inlet was calculated based upon the
produced gas analysis from the Pilot Project and a conservative estimate of the produced gas to oil ratio
(GOR) at full Project production. To incorporate a factor of safety, a conservative GOR of 12 was used to
estimate the sulphur inlet rather than the expected GOR of 5 presented in Section 6.3.8 of the Integrated
Application.
The emission estimates developed for purpose of the Air Quality Assessment were completed
independently using a different slightly less conservative safety factor assumption. The Air Quality
Assessment was completed assuming 0.502 t/d of SO2 emitted. This equates to emissions of 0.126,
0.188 and 0.188 t/d of SO2 from Phase 1, 2 and 3, respectively. This is equivalent to an assumed sulphur
inlet of 0.25 t/d (as sulphur).
BlackPearl believes that both the sulphur inlet estimated in Section 6.3.9 of the Integrated Application and
the SO2 emissions used in the Air Quality Assessment are both conservative estimates of actually sulphur
emissions.
Page 370
a. The NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations sections included tables which indicated that
“Outside LSA and inside RSA” had several exceedances as compared to the AAAQO.
Discuss the exceedances.
Response:
Maximum NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 concentrations that are predicted to occur outside of the LSA but are within
the RSA are predicted to occur near the northeast corner of the RSA in the region north of Fort
McMurray. There are a number of large oil sands mine and upgrader projects in this region contributing to
predicted exceedances.
Emissions associated with the Project contribute negligibly at these locations.
189. b. Isopleths are included for the LSA and not the RSA. Please include them.
Response:
The 100 x 100 km LSA is established to focus on the region where the Project, in combination with other
emission sources in the region, have the potential to result in a measurable effect on air quality. The LSA
was selected such that it encloses the concentration contours due to the Project that are 10% of the
AAAQO in accordance with the AENV (2009a) air quality model guideline. The LSA was extended further
to include the communities of Sandy Lake to the west, Pelican Portage to the north, Wandering River to
the south, Calling Lake to the southwest, and Mariana Lake to the northeast.
Beyond the LSA, the Project results in negligible change in maximum predicted concentrations. The
Project does not contribute to exceedances of the AAAQO. As the Project results in a negligible change
in air quality beyond the LSA, it is not necessary to include NO2, SO2 and PM2.5 isopleths over the RSA to
determine the effect of the Project on air quality.
6.1.3 Conservation and Reclamation

190. EPEA Application, Section I.6, Page 71
a. During the rare plant survey, one rare ecological community was identified. Indicate on
a map where the rare ecological community is located?
Response:
Please refer to Figure 1A-16 of the Vegetation Baseline Report Appendix to the Integrated Application
(Volume 4.0, Appendix 1A) for the location of the rare ecological community in relation to the original
Project Area. Please refer to Figure 2.8-7 of the Project Update (Section 2.8) for the location of the rare
ecological community in relation to the updated Project Area.
190. b. How does the presence of the rare plant community effect the construction of the site?
Response:
Neither the original Project Area nor the updated Project Area interacts directly with the rare ecological
community. As stated in the Integrated Application (Volume 4.0, Section 1.6, Table 1.6-11), these
Page 371
communities were observed during the baseline surveys and based on their predicted extent and the
Project Area, it is not expected that the Project will have any impact on these communities. Therefore,
there will not be any change to these communities at the Application Case and Closure Phase (as a result
of the Project).
191. EPEA Application, Section P.3.1.1, Page 124
Regarding anthropogenic disturbances, the Company has made all efforts to minimize the
project area by incorporating factors including the use of existing disturbances (linear and non-
linear) to limit the use of new disturbances.
a. Indicate if the existing well pads have been reclaimed
Response:
BlackPearl has not reclaimed any wellpads currently utilized for its pilot operations. These sites will be
incorporated into the commercial footprint upon commencement of the Project and decommissioning of
the Pilot facility.
BlackPearl`s OSE sites and recent seismic program were reclaimed upon completion of the programs.
Reclamation certificate applications for the previous OSE and seismic will be submitted in spring 2013.
191. b. If well sites have not been reclaimed provide details on the status and background of
the reclamation material available for those well pads.
Response:
TABLE 191-1
EXISTING BLACKPEARL LEASE SITES AND RECLAMATION STATUS
Location Status Reclamation Material Available

14-24-76-18 W4M Active wellsite – Water source well Stripped location soils stored on non operational areas. No borrow
MSL 0900385 material was utilized for the site construction.
12-25-076-18 W4M Drilled winter only. No soils disturbance All reclamation material is present on site.
MSL 090384
10-25-076-18 W4M Active wellsite - gas well Upland site. Winter construction. All reclamation material is present on
MSL 97642 site.
15-25-076-18 W4M Pilot wellpad site Upland site. Salvaged soils stockpiled on lease site.
MSL 120431
14-25-076-18 W4M Active wellsite – observation well. Stripped salvage soils stockpiled.
MSL 091738
13-25-076-18 W4M Active padded wellsite – observation well. Small Padded site on peatland. Reclamation materials present on lease site.
MSL 091364 pad surrounding observation well
02-36-076-18 W4M Observation well Upland site transitional site. Stripped and salvaged soil material on site.
MSL 091738 No borrow material utilized for site
02-36-076-18 W4M Pilot Facility - active Salvage soils stockpiled on west and north boundaries of site.
MSL 083210
MSL113110
MLP 080097
MLL 090122
07-36-076-18 W4M Active wellsite. Shallow peat (<40cm) All salvaged soils from access road stored at pilot facility. All soils
MSL 120976 salvaged from lease stockpiled at lease site. No borrow materials utilized.
02-25-076-18 W4M Injection well – upland site All salvage soils stockpiled on lease site.
Page 372
192. EPEA Application, Section 4.1.1, Page 132
a. Based on proposed methods for removal and disposal of woody debris, will the
equipment or methods ensure appropriate separation of LFH/A horizon from the woody
debris?
Response:
Woody debris removal and disposal will be conducted and monitored to ensure minimal disturbance to
LFH and A horizons and ensure appropriate separation of material. Logging operations will be managed
to ensure that areas are not heavily raked and grubbed to minimize disruption and mixing of surface soil
with woody debris. Clearing and logging activities will leave 10 to 20% of coarse woody debris (CWD)
remaining on the surface to be captured with salvage of surface soil as per specification in the BMP’s for
the Mineable Oil Sands (AEW 2012b). Additionally, clean-up of log decks by logging crews will be
monitored to ensure that some CWD will remain on the surface soil to be salvaged with the surface soil or
set aside for CWD placement with reclamation activities. Wherever practicable, BlackPearl will use CWD
for interim reclamation.
192. b. Can the woody debris be incorporated into the interim reclamation instead of being
disposed of through burning?
Response:
As mentioned AESRD SIR 192a, interim reclamation can incorporate CWD and tree clearing and logging
activities will leave CWD and fine woody debris on surface soil.
193. EPEA Application, Section P.4.1.9, Table P.4-3, Page 140
BlackPearl states that Replacement depths of upland mineral surface soil will be equivalent to
the salvage depths encountered on each component of the project.
a. Provide a Baseline Soils Map showing the:
i. soil density inspection points and

ii. indicate at each inspection point the soil series
iii. the average soil depth and
iv. the soil depth ranges.
Response:
Figure 193-1 provides a 1:10,000 scale map showing the soil map units, soil inspection sites, soil series
and topsoil depth at each inspection site. The soil legend includes the average topsoil depth and range of
each soil map unit. The map is shown on a colour orthophoto background and includes the proposed
Project Area.
Page 373
¯
Athabasca River
PAGE 2 PAGE 3
PAGE 6 PAGE 5 PAGE 4
PAGE 7 PAGE 8 PAGE 9
Legend FIGURE 193-1 PAGE 1 OF 13
Page Extent SOIL INSPECTION SITES,

SOIL MAP UNITS AND
Project Area PROJECT FOOTPRINT
WITHIN THE SOILS LSA
Hydrography
SCALE: 1:45,000 AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Soils Local Study Area km BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC
0 0.1 0.2
PROPOSED BLACKROD
UTM Zone 12N

KV201
! STPzz
TS 26 cm
¯
KV202
! HRR
TS 21 cm
RB
KV207 KV209 5-8
! STPptzz KV204 KV203 ! HRR
TS 10 cm ! STPptzz ! HRR TS 26 cm
TS 23 cm TS 41 cm
KV205
! STPptzz KV212
TS 25 cm ! MRN
P 75 cm
KV211
! STPptzz
TS 19 cm
KV219
! HRR
KV208 KV206 TS 17 cm
! STPptzz ! HRR
TS 30 cm TS 21 cm HRR
3 HRR HRR
MRN 2 2
1 KV210
KV213 ! HRR
BA2004 ! HZMaa TS 44 cm
! STPptzz ELS TS 22 cm
P 40 cm 2 SM214
BA2005
BA2008 HZMaa
! ELSpt KV214
BA2003 TS 30 cm
! WNFdkgl SM202 TS 15 cm
! TS 14 cm ! STPzz !
! HZMaa BA2006 TS 14 cm
! HRR
TS 16 cm MRN TS 18 cm
P 45 cm
SM201
! HZMaa
MRN BA2007 HZMaa HZMaa TS 24 cm
BA2009 BA2002 1 ! HZMaapt
! MUSxc 2-3 2-3
! HZMaa TS 27 cm Phase 3B - Pads
TS 22 cm P 100 cm Phase 3B - Pads
STPpt 3BDD 3BCC
2 ELSpt
BA2010 2
! HZMaa HZMaa
TS 23 cm HZMaa ELSpt HZMaa Phase 3B - RoW 2-3
2-3 2 2-3
BA2011
! ELSpt SM203
BA2013 TS 20 cm ! ELSpt
HRR TS 35 cm
TS 16 cm MRN HZMaa HZMaa
! ! BA201 1 2-3 2-3
STPptzz
TS 30 cm
ELSpt
2 KV220
HZMaa ! HZMptaa ELSpt
2-3 TS 22 cm 2
BA2014 Borrow Pit
MRN
BA2015 ! STPptzz 1
MRN B3B13
! HZMdkaa TS 15 cm BA2012 1 MRN
TS 33 cm ! HZMaa 1
MRN TS 14 cm
1 HZMaa
2-3 HZMaa RB
2-3 5-8
Phase 3B - Pads
3BBB Phase 3B - Pads
3BAA HZMaa
STPpt KV215 2-3
1-2 ! HZMdkaa
TS 23 cm
BA2016 RB RB
HZMaa
2
! STPzz MRN
KV217
5-8 5-8
TS 17 cm 1
! HZMaa
TS 19 cm
KV218 KV216
BA2017 ! MRN
! STPzz ! LVK
P 43 cm TS 25 cm
TS 23 cm MRN SM207
1 HZMaa ! HLY
KV223 2-3 P 42 cm
! HZMaa
STPpt TS 14 cm HLY
1-2 RB 1
STPpt HZMaa KV221
HZMaa 5-8 KV222
2 1-2 2-3 ! HZMdkaa
TS 16 cm ! STPptzz
KV224 STPpt STPpt P 35 cm
! HZMaa 1 2
MLDxt TS 16 cm
1
SM206
STPpt ! HZMaa
STPpt HZMaa HZMaa STPpt TS 13 cm
STPpt STPpt STPpt 2
1-2 2-3 2-3 1 1 1 HZMaa HZMaa
STPpt HZMaa Phase 3B - RoW HZMaa 1 HZMaa 2-3
HZMaa Phase 3B - Pads 2-3
1-2 2 2-3 Phase 3B - Pads 2-3 HZMaa RB
2-3 3BY
Phase 3B - Pads 3BZ 2-3 5-8
STPpt KV225 HZMaa HZMaa
STPpt Borrow Pit HZMaa 3BX 2-3 HZMaa
1-2 WNFgl 2-3
1-2 B3B11 2-3 2-3
! TS 13 cm
Legend Map Unit Legend Mineral Soils:

Inspection Point Legend: Soil Map FIGURE 193-1 PAGE 2 OF 13
Map Unit Legend Organic Soils: Dominant Soil Topsoil Thickness (cm)
Soil Map Dominant Soil Peat Thickness (cm) Unit Map Units Average Range
! Soil Inspection Points SM251 Site ID ELS Ells River 16 5-31
SOIL INSPECTION SITES,
Unit Map Units Average Range SOIL MAP UNITS AND
MLD Soil Series
ELS-pt Ells River-pt 30 15-55
LSA Soil Map Units HLY Hartley 51 40-70
270cm Topsoil (TS)
FIR -xt Firebag-xt 24 13-33 PROJECT FOOTPRINT
or Peat (P) HLY-zz Hartley-zz 82 41-190
Project Area
Thickness
MLD McLelland 238 160-390 HRR Horse River 20 10-44 WITHIN THE SOILS LSA
MLD-xt McLelland-xt 86 42-150 HZM Hazelmere 21 10-39
LSA Soil Map Units Legend: AESRD SIR 1 RESPONSES -
Disturbed Land MLD-zz McLelland-zz 209 165-330 HZM-pt Hazelmere-pt 32 22-49 SCALE: 1: 10,000
Soil Unit MRN Mariana 82 43-150 LVK Livock 21 18-25 km BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC
Hydrography HZM-zz Modifier
MUS Muskeg 222 160-320 STP Steepbank 12 4-26 0 0.1 0.2 PROPOSED BLACKROD
2-3 Slope Class STP-pt Steepbank-pt 26 15-50
Soils Local Study Area STP-zz Steepbank-zz 18 9-25
Index
UTM Zone 12N
Data Sources: AltaLIS Ltd. (2011), Altus Geomatics (2013), Valtus Imagery Services (2013), Map
SM216
! ALGptzz
P 50 cm
SM233
! HRR
TS 19 cm
¯
SM234
SM215
! ALG ! HRR
TS 19 cm
TS 19 cm
SM235
! HRR
TS 15 cm
SM232
! STP
TS 5 cm
KV209 RB RB
! HRR 5-8 SM231 4-7
ELSpt ! HZMaa
TS 26 cm
3 SM217 TS 29 cm
! HZMaadk MRN
TS 19 cm HZMaa
1
2-3
HZMaa Phase 3B - Pads SM230
2-3 3BHH ! HLY
HLY P 45 cm
ELSpt
ELSpt HZMaa 1
3
3 2-3
ELSpt
ELSpt
3
3
HZMaa Borrow Pit SM229
2-3 B3B16 ! HZMdkaa SM236
TS 20 cm ! DL
HZMaa TS 14 cm
ELSpt SM218 2-3 HZMaa
3 ! HZMaa 2-3
TS 19 cmELSpt
HRR ELSpt ELSpt HZMaa
2 3 3 3 2-3
SM219 RB
Water ! ELS 4-7
TS 5 cmPhase 3B - Pads RB
SM237 5-8
ELSpt 3BGG ! HZMaa
SM202 SM214 3 HZMaa
! HZMaa TS 20 cm
! HRR SM228 2-3
TS 18 cm TS 15 cm
SM213 ! STP
RB HZMaa TS 5 cm
SM201
! HZMaa 5-8 ! TS 16 cm ! SM212
HZMaa
TS 24 cm 2-3
HZMaa SM238
TS 18 cm ! HRR
TS 19 cm STPpt
HZMaa 3
2-3 HZMaa Water SM241
2-3 SM242 STP
SM211 HZMaa ! STP ! TS 10 cm SM240
ELSpt 2-3 TS 16 cm ! HLYzz
! P 40 cm Water P 55 cm SM239
SM210 Borrow Pit
B3B15 ! STPptzz
! ELSpt TS 15 cm
TS 30 cm
HLYzz
ELSpt 2
3
HZMaa ELSpt
2-3 3
HZMaa Phase 3B - RoW ELSpt HZMaa ELSpt
2-3 2-3 3
3
STPpt
ELSpt 3
ELSpt 2 HZMaa
2 SM209 2-3
! ELSpt
TS 20 cm ELSpt
2 HZMaa
2-3 ELSpt
ELSpt
3
2
Phase 3B - Pads
3BFF
MRN
MRN 1
1
HZMaa Water
HZMaa Log Decks
L3B2 2-3
2-3
SM245
! ELS Water
Water TS 5 cm
HZMaa
SM208 2-3 SM246
! ELS HZMaa ! SUT
SM207 TS 22 cm SM220
! HLY 2-3 TS 19 cm
! ELS
P 42 cm TS 5 cm
SM244
HLY HZMaa
1
! STP 2-3
TS 10 cm HZMaa
2-3 ELS
STP HZMaa 2-3
2-3 2-3
STP MLDxt STP STP

1-2 STP
2 2-3 2-3
2-3
SM206 MLDxt STP
! HZMaa 1-2 2-3
TS 13 cm
SM243
Phase 3B - Pads MLDxt !
STPptzz SM221
3BEE 1-2 TS 20 cm
RB
STPpt STPpt MLDxt ! ELSpt
5-8 MUS ELS
1-2 STP Borrow Pit TS 20 cm
1 2 2 2-3
HZMaa MRN 2-3 B3B14
2-3 1

MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
¯
SM209 HZMaa HZMaa HLYzz
STPpt
! ELSpt 2-3 2-3 2
3
TS 20 cm
ELSpt HZMaa
2 2-3
ELSpt ELSpt
ELSpt
2 3
2 Phase 3B - Pads
3BFF
HZMaa MRN
2-3 MRN 1
1 HZMaa
2-3
HZMaa HZMaa Water
2-3 HZMaa Log Decks
L3B2 2-3
2-3
SM245
! ELS Water
Water TS 5 cm
HZMaa
SM208 2-3 SM246
! ELS HZMaa ! SUT
SM207 TS 22 cm SM220
! HLY 2-3 TS 19 cm
! ELS
P 42 cm TS 5 cm
SM244
HLY HZMaa
1
! STP 2-3
TS 10 cm HZMaa
2-3 ELS
STP HZMaa
2-3
2-3 2-3
STP MLDxt STP STP

2 1-2 2-3 2-3
SM206 MLDxt STP
! HZMaa 1-2 2-3
TS 13 cm STPpt
2 SM243
Phase 3B - Pads ! STPptzz SM221
3BEE TS 20 cm ! ELSpt
MLDxt STP Borrow Pit TS 20 cm
1-2 2-3 B3B14
MRN
MUS
1 MLDxt
1
1-2 STP
RB
MLDxt 2-3
5-8 MRN
SM204 MRN 1-2
1
! HZMaa 1
TS 23 cm SM247
! STP ELS
TS 8 cm STPpt STPpt MRN
1 2-3
2 2
MRN SM222
1 ! STP
HZMaa STPpt TS 7 cm
2-3 2 MLD
STPpt
STPpt 1
2
2
KV229
! HZMaa MRN
TS 15 cm SM205
1 KV243
! HZMaa ! MLD3
TS 23 cm MRN
MLD
HZMaa RB STPpt 1 P 250 cm
HZMaa Phase 3B - RoW 1
2-3 5-8 2-3 2 SM223
HZMaa ! FIRglxt
HZMaa KV242
2-3 TS 13 cm
2-3
HZMaa
! MRN
P 105 cm
2-3 SM226
STPpt ! HLY
RB
2 P 70 cm
5-8
HZMaa
HZMaa 2-3
HZMaa 2-3
2-3 KV237
KV241
! SUT ! HZMaa
TS 16 cm RB
5-8 TS 24 cm
MUS
1
SM225
! MLD2
P 160 cm
KV244
! MUS4
P 315 cm
KV240
! HZMaa
TS 21 cm
SM224
! ELSpt
TS 20 cm
SM250
KV239 ! MRNzz
! HZMaa P 90 cm
TS 23 cm
SM251
! MLD3
P 270 cm

MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
¯
BA2015 ! BA2014 MRN MRN HZMaa
! HZMdkaa STPptzz BA2012 1 ELSpt 1 Borrow Pit 2-3
TS 33 cm TS 15 cm ! HZMaa 2 B3B13
MRN TS 14 cm
HZMaa
1 HZMaa 2-3
2-3 HZMaa RB
STP
HZMaa 2-3 5-8
2 Phase 3B - Pads
2-3 Phase 3B - Pads
BA2019 3BBB
! STPptzz 3BAA
TS 39 cm KV215
STPpt ! HZMdkaa
1-2 HZMaa TS 23 cm
BA2016 2-3 RB RB
HZMaa
2
! STPzz MRN
KV217
5-8 5-8
BA2018 TS 17 cm 1
! HZMaa
! HZMaa TS 19 cm
TS 17 cm HZMaa
KV218 KV216 2-3
BA2017 ! MRN
! STPzz ! LVK SM207
P 43 cm TS 25 cm
TS 23 cm HLY
MRN
HZMaa P 42 cm
1 HZMaa !
2
KV223 2-3 HLY
! HZMaa 1
TS 14 cm
STPpt KV221 RB
HZMaa HZMaa 5-8 KV222
2 1-2 2-3 ! HZMdkaa
TS 16 cm ! STPptzz
MLDxt KV224 STPpt P 35 cm
STPpt
2 ! HZMaa 2
MLDxt 1
STPpt 1 TS 16 cm SM206
RB HZMaa
1-2
STPpt HZMaa 5-8 TS 13 cm
STPpt
1-2
STPpt
MLDxt
1 2-3 STPpt !
1-2 HZMaa Phase 3B - RoW STPpt
1 STPpt STPpt 2
Phase 3B - Pads 2-3 1
STPpt HZMaa 1 1 HZMaa
3BW STPpt Phase 3B - Pads
1-2 2 Phase 3B - Pads 2-3
1-2 3BY
HZMaa HZMaa STPpt STPpt 3BZ
Phase 3B - Pads STPpt HZMaa
2-3 2 1-2 HZMaa
STPpt STPpt 1-2 3BX KV225 1 2-3 2-3
1-2 1-2 Borrow Pit HZMaa ! WNFgl STPpt HZMaa
STPpt B3B11 2-3 TS 13 cm 1 STPpt HZMaa
2-3 2-3 SM204
1-2 STPpt 2
KV227 HZMaa
1 STPpt TS 23 cm
! HRRdk 2 !
HZMaa TS 23 cm
2-3 LW001
! HZMaa Sumps HZMaa
TS 14 cm S3B1 2-3 HZMaa
HZMaa DT002
2-3
2-3 ! DL
TS 28 cm
HZMaa HZMaa HZMaa

KV226 KV229
2-3 STPpt 2-3 KV228 2-3
! LVK HZMaa
TS 24 cm 1 ! HZMaa TS 15 cm
TS 19 cm !
BA2034
! HZMptaa
TS 40 cm
HZMaa
2-3
Phase 3B - Pads HZMaa

3BV DT001 2-3
STPpt MRN ! ELSpt
1-2 1 P 32 cm
STPpt STP
HZMaa MRN
1-2 1-2
2-3 1
HZMaa HZMaa
2-3 STPpt SM001
2-3 STPpt STP
1-2 SM002 ! MRN1zz
HZMaa 1-2 1-2 MRN
HZMaa ! STPpt P 80 cm MRN
2-3 1 HZMaa
2-3 TS 15 cm 1
Borrow Pit 2-3
KV237
STPpt B3B10
HZMaa ! SUT
1-2 STPpt HZMaa TS 16 cm
2-3
HZMaa 1-2 2-3
2-3 HZMaa
SM004 2-3
! ELSptxszz
TS 25 cm
STPpt
STPpt
1-2
1-2
KV236
STPpt ! HZMaa
Phase 3B - Pads 1-2 TS 27 cm
3BO HZMaa
STPpt 2-3 HZMaa
1-2 2-3 DT055
! FIRxt
STP TS 32 cm
HZMaa 1-2
2-3 Borrow Pit HZMaa
STPpt B3B9 2-3
1-2 HZMaa
2-3
DT057
! STP
DT056 TS 8 cm KV239
STPpt ! STP HZMaa
1-2 TS 20 cm TS 23 cm
STPpt !
STPpt 1-2 LVK
1-2 2-3
DT052
! BMTptxtzz
TS 33 cm
HZMaa
2
KV235
HZMaa
2
! LVK
TS 19 cm
STPpt
1 STPpt MLD
DT060
STPpt STPzz 1 1
1 TS 17 cm
!
!
MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
BA2025
BA2029
! MLDxc
P 120 cm
HZMaa
2
MLDxt
1
MUS
MLDxt
1
BA2031
! MLDxczz
P 80 cm
HZMaa
2
HZMaa 2
2
¯
STP
BA2019
! STPptzz
TS 39 cm
! HZMaa
TS 24 cm MLDxt 1 BA2018
MLDxt 1
HZMaa
1
! HZMaa
2 BA2021 BA2020 TS 17 cm
BA2028
MLDxt MRN ! MLD ! MLDyt ! MUS3
1 MLDxt 1 MLDxt P 120 cm P 220 cm
P 230 cm
BA2026 1 2
HZMaa
! MLDxt 2 HZMaa
HZMaa P 42 cm
3 2 STPpt
MRN 1-2
MRN 1 MLDxt
HZMaa BA2027
STPpt 1
3 ! ALGzz MUS Borrow Pit 1
2 TS 10 cm 1 B3B12
STPpt
2 MLDxt
1
HZMaa
STPpt SM023
MRN SM020 BA2033 2-3
2 ! FIRxt
TS 14 cm 1 ! MRN1zz BA2032 ! MUSxczz STPpt STPpt
MUS ! MLDxczz P 90 cm 1-2
Phase 3B - Pads P 60 cm 1-2
1 Phase 3B - Pads P 110 cm
3BU MRN 3BT HZMaa Phase 3B - Pads
1 MUS 2 3BW
MUS 1 HZMaa HZMaa
1 2 2-3
SM025 MUS SM021

MLD3zz SM024 1 ! MUS3
P 280 cm ! HZMaa P 230 cm
! TS 18 cm
MUS
1
! MLD
MLD
1
1
DT003
SM026 ! STPpt
! MLDxt STPpt TS 18 cm
MLDxt P 60 cm 1-2
1 SM022 Phase 3B - RoW
! MLDxtzz
P 90 cm HZMaa
2-3 BA2034
HZMptaa
SM027 MLDxt TS 40 cm
! MLDxt 1 !
P 70 cm MLDxt
HZMaa
1
MLDxt 2-3
MLDxt 1 MLDxt MUS
1 1 1 Phase 3B - Pads
STPpt STPpt
Phase 3B - Pads HZMaa 3BV
1 STPpt STPpt 1-2 Phase 3B - Pads
3BS 2-3
1 1-2 3BR
STPpt HZMaa STPpt HZMaa Phase 3B - RoW MLDxt STPpt MLDxt STPpt
HZMaa 1 2-3 1 1 1
SM028 2-3 1-2 1-2 HZMaa
2-3 STPpt STPpt
! MLDxt MLD SM029 STPpt SM006 2-3
P 45 cm 1 1-2 1-2 ! STP SM005
1 ! STPpt STPpt STPpt
TS 14 cm ! HZMaa HZMaa
STPpt TS 19 cm 1 1-2 STPpt
TS 16 cm 2-3
HZMaa 1 STPpt STPpt 1-2
2-3 HZMaa 1 1
SM032 Borrow Pit
2-3 SM031 HZMaa B3B8 HZMaa
! STP ! HZMaa 2-3 STPpt
2-3 STPpt
TS 15 cm 1-2
TS 16 cm STPpt 1-2
STPpt 1-2
MLD 1 MLD
1 1 LW061 STPpt
! STPpt 1-2 LW062
TS 30 cm ! BMTpt STPpt
HZMaa STPpt 1-2
TS 28 cm
HRR 2-3 1-2 HZMaa
1 2-3
HZMaa
2-3
MLD STPpt
1 MLD STPpt 1-2
MLD 1 STPpt HZMaa 1-2 Phase 3B - Pads
1 1-2 2 3BO
Phase 3B - Pads
3BQ Phase 3B - Pads
MLD 3BP
1 LW060 MLD HZMaa
MLD LW059 1 2
1 ! MLD2zz MLD 1
! MLDxszz DT058
! STP STPpt
P 180 cm P 85 cm
TS 15 cm 1-2
MLD Borrow Pit
MLD 1 B3B7
1 STPpt
LW056 1-2
! MLD3
P 180 cm STPpt
MLDxt MLD 1-2
1 1
MLD STPpt
LW057 1 1-2
! MLDxtzz
P 75 cm LW058
! MLD3 Phase 3B - RoW
MLD
P 205 cm 1
LW055 LW054 STPpt
! MLDys ! MLDxsxt HZMaa 1-2
P 122 cm P 60 cm MLDxt 2
1 DT059 HZMaa
MLDxt ! HLYzz 2
1 MLD P 190 cm HZMaa
MLD MLD 1 STPpt STPpt MLD
Phase 3B - Pads 2
1 1 Phase 3B - Pads 1 1 1
3BN
LW053 3BM Phase 3A - Pads DT060
MLD 3AC STPzz
HZMaa Log Decks 1 ! MLD3zz MLDxt
2 L3B1 P 220 cm 1 TS 17 cm
!

MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
!
!
¯
BA2046
! MRNzz
P 90 cm
MLD
1
BA2047 HZMaa
! STPptzz 2
TS 22 cm
MLD
1
ELSpt
BA2057 BA2058 1 BA2059 ELSpt ELSpt
! STPpt ! SUT ! ELSpt 1 1
P 40 cm TS 7 cm TS 40 cm
! HZMaa
FIRxt 2
HZMaa
2 BA2060 1-2
! HLY
P 55 cm
HZMaa
STPpt
1-2 HZMaa
MLDxt 1
2 STPpt
1
HZMaa 1
1-2
BA2048
! HZMaa
HZMaa Borrow Pit TS 23 cm
1-2 B3A1 HZMaa STPpt
2 1 STP
Phase 3A - Pads HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa Phase 3A - Pads 1
3AB 1-2
1-2 1-2 3AA
BA2055 MLDxt MLDxt
STPzz STPpt
! MLDxc 3 1 1
P 50 cm 1
MLDxt HZMaa STPpt Phase 3A - RoW STPpt
1 1-2 1 1 HZMaa
HRR
STPpt 2 STP
3 STPpt
1 HZMaa 1
MLDxt 1
MLDxt HZMaa 1-2
BA2051
1 1 1-2
! STPptzz DT007 STP
TS 26 cm BA2050 ! LVKgldk STPpt 1
! MUSxc HZMaa TS 24 cm 1
P 90 cm 1-2 MLD
BA2052 HZMaa 1
! STPptzz HZMaa 1-2
TS 36 cm 1-2 HZMaa HZMaa
MLDxt 1-2 1-2
1 HZMaa DT006
1-2 Borrow Pit ! BMTzz
STPzz B3B1
TS 9 cm SM009
3 HZMaa ! MLDxt
1-2 P 80 cm
HZMaa STPpt
HZMaa 1-2 1
1-2
MLDxt BA2061 HZMaa
1 ! WNF MLDxt 1-2 MLD
Phase 3B - Pads MLDxt TS 19 cm 1 1
3BB 1 Phase 3B - Pads
3BA
Phase 3B - RoW MLDxt MLDxt
HZMaa
STPpt 1 1-2 1
2 MLDxt BA2063
1 ! HZMaa
HZMaa HZMaa TS 11 cm
STPpt 1-2 1-2
2
SM011
MLDxt HZMaa ! MLDxt
1 1-2 P 60 cm
MLDxt
1
MLDxt
BA2068 1
BA2067
! HZMaa ! STP BA2062
TS 15 cm
TS 12 cm ! MLDxc
P 65 cm HZMaa
MLDxt 1-2
1
SM012
BA2066 ! STP
STPzz Borrow Pit MLDxt
3 B3B3 ! SUTglxc STPzz
3 1
TS 11 cm
STPzz TS 24 cm SM013
3 ! MLDxt
MLDxt STP P 65 cm
1 BA2064 3
Phase 3B - Pads ! HRRpt STP
3BD TS 37 cm 3
MLDxt BA2065
1 STPzz ! MUSxczz Phase 3B - Pads
SM267 MLDxt STP
BA2078 3 P 90 cm 3BC
! ! HZMaa 1 3
SM268 ! STPzz
TS 22 cm MLDxt MLDxt MLDxt STP Borrow Pit
! ELSpt TS 22 cm
1 1 3
P 45 cm 1 B3B2

MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
! !
¯
MLDxt DT059HZMaa
1 MLD ! HLYzz 2
MLDxt MLDxt 1 P 190 cm HZMaa
1 1
MLD MLD STPpt 2
Phase 3B - Pads Phase 3B - RoW
1 1 Phase 3B - Pads 1
3BN
LW053 3BM STPpt DT060
MLD STPzz
! MLD3zz MLD 1
1 MLDxt TS 17 cm
P 220 cm 1 MLD
Log Decks 1 Phase 3A - Pads STPpt !
MLD 1
L3B1 MLDxt 3AC
1 MLD 1
1 MLD STPpt
1 MLD
MLD MLD 1 1
1 1
1
STPpt
STPpt Phase 3A - RoW 1
DT048 1 DT049
! MUS2zz MLD MLD
P 110 cm MLD MLD STP
HZMaa 1 1 1 MLD 1 TS 11 cm
2 MLD 1 STPpt !
1 STPpt
1
DT047 STPpt DT046 1
! MLD2zz 1 STPpt
MLDxt P 16 cm DT046 STPpt
LW050 P 200 cm
1 ! STPpt 1
! MLDxtzz MLD Borrow Pit
TS 16 cm
P 60 cm 1 B3B6
BA2049 STPpt
! MLD2zz STP 1 !
MLD
P 165 cm Phase 3B - RoW 1
1
MUS Phase 2 - Pads
HZMaa Phase 3B - Pads 1 2A
2 3BL Phase 3B - Pads
3BK STP
1
HZMaa
MUS MUS 2
STP
LW048 1 LW049 1 HZMaa
1
! MLD4 ! MUS2 2
P 350 cm MUS P 190 cm MLDxt DT042
1 1 MLDxt
P 85 cm
MLDxt !
HZMaa 1
2 HZMaa
HZMaa 2
MLD 2-3
Water 1 MLD
MLD
HZMaa
1 1
MUS 2 HZMaa
1 LW046 2
! MLDytzz DT041
STP ! MRN2 HZMaa
P 130 cm 1 P 150 cm 2-3
STPpt STP STP HZMaa
1 1 1 2 HZMaa
STP STP
MRN MRN 2-3
1 1
LW052 Borrow Pit
1 MRN 1
! STPzz B13 STP Phase 2 - RoW
STP 1 LW044 STP
TS 13 cm 1 MRN ! 1
ELSpt 1
Phase 3A - Pads ! DT069 1 P 38 cm STP
MUS MLD 1
3AA STPzz STP MRN STP
MUS 1 1 MUS STP STP STP MUS
TS 20 cm 1 1 LW043 MUS
1 STP 1 1 1 1
MUS ! STP 1 1
STP 1
1 MUS 1 STP
1 1 STP TS 4 cm
STPpt Phase 2 - Pads 1 1 STP MUS
HZMaa MUS 1 STP MUS 1 MUS
1 2B STP
2 1 MUS STP STP 1 1 1
Phase 3A - RoW MLD 1 1 STP
1 1 DT040
STPpt STP 1 1 STPzz
Phase 1 - Pads Phase 1 - RoW MUS ! MUS3
1 1 MLD MUS 2
LW009 MLD 1D 1 P 240 cmSTPzz STPzz
1 1 MUS
! STPpt 1 MLD MUS STP STP STP MUS 2
1 2
TS 19 cm 1 1 1 1 1 1
STP MUS DT039
1 1 STPzz STPzz MUS2zz
2 2 P 170 cm
MLD LW042 !
1 STPzz
MLD STPzz ! MRN1 MRN
DT006 MLD 1 MLD 2 P 52 cm 2 1
MLD 1
! BMTzz 1 1 Phase 1 - Pads
TS 9 cm SM009 Borrow Pit LW041 1C
! MLDxt B21 ! STPzz
STPzz TS 9 cm STPzz Borrow Pit
P 80 cm B11
STPpt 2 MRN 2
DT005 MRN MRN
1 1
SM008 ! MLD4 1 1
MRN
! MUSys P 370 cm
MRN 1
P 140 cm
MRN MLD Phase 2 - RoW 1 HZMaa HZMaa
1 HZMaa 2-3
Phase 3B - Pads MRN 1 2-3
MRN 2-3
3BA 1 Phase 2 - Pads
1 HZMaa
2C
2-3
SM010 MRN DT004 HZMaa
! MLD3 1 ! MRN1 HZMaa !
MLDxt MRN 2-3 KV266
P 250 cm MLD
1 P 45 cm 1 2-3 ! HZMaa
SM019 1 MLD TS 24 cm
! MLD4 1 SM007
SM011 P 390 cm ! STP
HZMaa ! MLDxt TS 18 cm
1-2 P 60 cm
HZMaa
2-3 MRN
MLD MLD 1
MLD 1 HZMaa
1
1 2-3 HZMaa
HZMaa MLD HZMaa HZMaa 2-3 HZMaa
1-2 1 2-3 2-3 HZMaa
KV267 2-3
MLDxt 2-3
Phase 1 - Pads ! WNF HZMaa
1
SM012 1E TS 19 cm 2-3
Phase 1 - Pads
! STP MLD 1B 2G !
TS 11 cm 1 Borrow Pit
SM013 B12 DT066
! MLDxt KV268
HZMaa DT067 HRRdk HRR
STP P 65 cm TS 23 cm! TS 17 cm
MLD 2-3 ! HZMaa
3 TS 24 cm !
1 HZMaa HZMaa SM034
2-3 2-3 ! STP
HZMaa TS 7 cm
2-3
HZMaa
MLDzz KV269
2-3
1 MUS
! HZMdkaa
Phase 2 - Pads TS 21 cm
2D 1

MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
¯
DT059 HZMaa KV235
! HLYzz HZMaa STPpt
2-3 ! LVK
P 190 cm 2 1-2
HZMaa TS 19 cm
Phase 3B - RoW 2-3
LVK
STPpt 2-3
1
DT060
Phase 3A - Pads ! STPzz DT051
3AC TS 17 cm ! FIRxt
MLD HZMaa TS 16 cm
MLD MLD 2 MLD
1 STPpt
1 1 STPpt 1
1
1
Log Decks DT035
STPpt
L3A2 MUSxs
1
MLD ! P 50 cm DT036 IL310
MLD 1 DT049 DT034 ! MLDxt ! HZMaa
1 STPpt ! STP ! ELSpt MLD P 75 cm TS 25 cm
1 STPpt TS 11 cm TS 20 cm 1
HZMaa STPpt
1 MLD
2 2
STPpt 1 KV234
STPpt STPpt
1
STPpt ! HRR
! 1 1
1 TS 24 cm
KV233
DT032 DT033 ! HRRdkpt
! STP ! MRN1cuxcyt TS 26 cm
STPpt DT045 P 85 cm
TS 17 cm
1 STP ! STPpt HRR
1 P 36 cm 2
STP
Phase 2 - Pads HZMaa DT050
1
2A 2 HZMaa ! FIRst
KV232
HZMaa 2 MRN TS 20 cm
STP ! HRRdkpt
2 1 TS 31 cm
1
MLDxt HZMaa STP HRR
1 2 1 3
STP
1 Phase 3A - RoW
MLDxt HZMaa STP

1 2 HZMaa
HZMaa 1
MLDxt DT042 DT031 2
2
1 ! MLDxt ! MRN2
P 85 cm P 140 cm
HZMaa MLDxt MRN STPpt
2 HZMaa 1 1 2
2-3
HZMaa HZMaa DT030

MRN
2 ! STPpt 1
2 P 39 cm
! HZMaa HRR
2-3 3
STP
1 STP HZMaa
2-3
1
Phase 2 - RoW HZMaa
2
STP
1
STP STP MUS HRR
1 1 1 3
MUS HZMaa
1 2-3 STP
MUS 2
1 MUS
MUS
1 1
DT037
! STPzz ! HZMdkaa DT026
HRR ! HZMaa
2 STPzz TS 14 cm
MUS 3 TS 18 cm
STPzz 2
1
2 HZMaa DT028
DT039 2 ! LVKpt
STPzz
2 ! MUS2zz TS 24 cm
HRR
! Phase 1 - Pads
P 170 cm
3
MRN
1C
1
MRN MRN
1 1
STPzz MRN Borrow Pit MRN
2 1 HZMaa
B11 1 HRR
2-3 DT029
HZMaa 2
2-3 ! HZMaadkpt HRR
MRN TS 25 cm
1 2
HZMaa
2-3
KV263 KV262
! HZMaa ! HZMaa HZMaa
KV264 TS 26 cm TS 18 cm 2-3
KV265 KV257 KV278
! HZMaa ! HLY KV261 KV260 KV259 KV277
HZMaa KV266 P 40 cm ! HZMaa ! HRR KV258 ! HRR ! HRRdk ! HRRdk
2-3 ! HZMaa TS 20 cm DT038
! HZMaa ! HRR TS 18 cm TS 17 cm
TS 22 cm TS 28 cm TS 14 cm
TS 21 cm
TS 24 cm ! LVKdk TS 19 cm
TS 18 cm HZMaa
DT027 HRR
2
MRN
! HZMaadkpt 2
TS 30 cm
1
KV276
! HZMaa
TS 16 cm
Phase 1 - RoW KV275

SM033 HZMaa HZMaa ! HZMaa
! HZMaa 2-3 HZMaa 2-3 TS 19 cm
TS 17 cm 2-3
Phase 1 - Pads DT068 HRR
1A ! HZMaa 2-3
TS 25 cm
SM034 KV274
! STP DT065
! HRRdk ! LVKdk
TS 7 cm TS 22 cm
TS 18 cm
KV273
HRR HRRdk
2 TS 20 cm
!

MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
¯
HRR
2-3 KV274
! LVKdk
TS 22 cm
KV273
! HRRdk SM316
TS 20 cm ! HRR
TS 16 cm
HRR
2
HZMaa
2-3 KV272
HRR
! HRR 2
TS 13 cm
HZMaa
2
HRR
KV271
2
HRR
! HRRdk
TS 12 cm
2
HZMaa STP
2 2
HRR KV270
HZMaa HRR 2 ! HRR
2-3 2 HRR
Phase 1 - RoW TS 17 cm
SM035 HZMaa 2 HRR
SM036 SM037
HZMaa
! STPpt 2-3 HRR 2
! STPpt HRR
TS 36 cm 2 ! HRR HRR
2-3 TS 15 cm Sumps TS 22 cm STP 2 2 SM038
HZMaa Constuction Camp
S12 1 ! ELSzz
2-3 CON CAMP HRR
2 STP HRR TS 31 cm
STP 1 2
2
HZMaa STP HRR
2-3 2
STP 2
1
SM039
HRR
2
! HZMaa
HRR TS 22 cm
2
HRR HRR
HRR
2 2
2
HZMaa
2
HZMaa
3 HRR
2 CPF HRR
CPF 2
STP
HZMaapt 2 HRR
2-3 2
STP
2 SM040
HLY
1 LW020 ! STPzz
! HLYzz TS 21 cm
P 61 cm STP
1 HZMaapt HZMaapt STP
STP 2 2 2
STP
2 HZMaa
2
2
HRR
HZMaapt CPF Access Road 2
2 CPF ACCESS HRR
HZMaapt 2
HZMaapt HZMaapt 2
2-3 HZMaapt 2
HZMaa 2 SM041
HZMaapt 2
! HZMaa
2-3 HZMaapt HRR TS 16 cm
2-3 STP HRR 2
2 2
Per Operations Camp

PER CAMP
STPpt
HZMaapt
1
2
HZMaapt STPpt
HZMaapt 2 2 SM042
2-3 ! STP
STPpt TS 11 cm
2
STP
2-3 STP
2
SM043
! HRR
TS 11 cm
SM315
! DOVglxt !
TS 19 cm
HZMaapt
2-3
SM044
! STP
TS 11 cm
!
MLD Soil Series
270cm Topsoil (TS)
Project Area
Thickness
Index
UTM Zone 12N
!
¯
! DT067 ! HZMaa Phase 1 - Pads
HZMaa HZMaa ! 2-3 1A
2-3 Borrow Pit TS 24 cm DT066 SM034
MLD DT065
B12 ! STP
1 Phase 1 - Pads HRRdk ! HRRdk
1B 2G TS 23 cm TS 7 cm TS 18 cm
KV269 HZMaa
! HZMdkaa 2-3
TS 21 cm
HZMaa MUS HZMaa
2-3 1 2-3
HZMaa
HZMaa 2-3
2-3 DT064
LW029
! HZMaa
LW030 TS 19 cm
! STPpt ! STP LW039
! TS 21 cm TS 11 cm ! HZMaa
HZMaa TS 29 cm
2-3 STPpt
HZMaa 2
Borrow Pit MLD 2-3

B22 1
DT025 HZMaa Sumps
MLD STPpt
HRR 2-3
1 S11 2
TS 17 cm DT063
HZMaa ! LW040
2-3 ! HRR HZMaa
TS 24 cm ! STPzz 2-3
STPpt
HZMaa STPpt Phase 1 - RoW 2
TS 21 cm HZMaa HZMaa SM035
MLD HZMaa
2-3 2 2-3 LW038 2-3 ! STPpt
1 2-3 LW063 ! HZMaa
! FIRyt TS 36 cm
LW034 STPpt TS 27 cm HZMaa HRR
Phase 2 - Pads TS 33 cm ! STPpt
2E 2 2-3 2
TS 27 cm
HLY LW037
1 ! STPpt
HZMaa TS 28 cm
2-3 HZMaa
HZMaa HLY Phase 3A - RoW HZMaa
2-3 2-3
1 2-3
LW017 LW036
HLY LW028
HLYzz
! ELSpt ! HZMaapt
1
!! P 70 cm TS 29 cm
TS 22 cm
DT062 HZMaa
HLY 2-3 HRR
P 60 cm HLY HLY 2
HRR
1 Borrow Pit 1 Log Decks LW033 2
MLDzz B3A2 L3A1
HLY ! ELSpt
1 HLY P 51 cm
1 HLY HZMaa HRR
1
1 2-3 2
MLD LW027 HLY LW035
STPpt HLY ! HRR
1 ! HLYzz 1 HZMaa
STPpt 2-3 1 TS 17 cm
P 41 cm 3
STPpt 2-3 STPpt Phase 3A - Pads HZMaa
2-3 CPF
STPpt 2-3 3AD 3
Phase 3A - Pads 2-3 CPF
3AF STPpt STPpt
2-3 STPpt 2-3 STPpt
MLD
DT014 2-3 2-3
1
! WNFglpt STPpt
TS 41 cm 2-3
MLD HZMaapt HLY LW020
1 STPpt HZMaa
2-3 1 ! HLYzz
2-3 3 P 61 cm
LW018
LW019
STPpt STPpt DT015 ! HZMaapt ! HZMaa
TS 33 cm STP
STPpt 2-3 2-3 ! STPpt TS 26 cm DT017 2
2-3 TS 30 cm ! HZMaa
Phase 3A - Pads
STPpt 3AE TS 18 cm HZMaa
STPpt 2 HZMaapt HZMaapt 2
STP
2 2-3 2-3 2
STPpt
2-3 HZMaapt HZMaapt
DT024 DT016 2-3
Borrow Pit ! HZMaapt 2-3 ! HZMdkaa
B3A3 TS 49 cm TS 29 cm
HZMaapt
HZMaapt HZMaapt
2-3
2-3 2-3
HZMaapt
HZMaapt 2-3
2-3
STP STP
2 2
HZMaapt DT018
STPpt 2-3 ! HZMaa
2-3 HZMaapt
TS 30 cm 2
STPpt
2-3
MLD MLD STP
DT022 2-3 STP
1 1

Blackrod Project Update and Sir 1 Responses Secured

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Blackrod Project Update and Sir 1 Responses Secured

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

700, 444 – 7th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, AB T2P 0X8

Steve Thomas Claire Classen

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project - Supplemental Information Request (SIR)

BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.

ERCB SIR 1 5.0

2.14.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 80

Table 2.15-1 Maximum Acute Inhalation RQ Values for the MPOI........................................................ 87

1.0 PROJECT UPDATE

• ERCB SIR 1 Reponses; and

• AESRD SIR 1 Responses.

1.1 Revisions to the Project Area

• allow for longer wells to be drilled on the initial drainage patterns;

• reduce of the number of well pads required to develop Phase 1;

• reduce the overall Project Footprint and associated disturbance; and

TWP.77 3BBB 3BAA 3BFF

3BU 3BT 3BW 3BEE

3BS 3BR 3BV

Project Footprint FIGURE 1.1-1

1.1.2 Reduced Area of Disturbance

• removal of 14 well pads over the three Phases;

• relocation of 3 borrow pits;

• removal of 3 log decks;

• addition of a CPF access road; and

• relocation of the Operations Camp.

1.2 Central Processing Facility

1.3 Water Use

BLACKROD WATER SOURCE AND USE FLOW CHART

Refer to ESRD Figure 7-1 for detailed CPF 100%

Blackrod Commercial CPF Water Steam

Surface Water a) TDL required for use

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT UPDATE

2.2 Air Quality

2.3.1 Baseline Case

2.3.2 Application Case

APPLICATION CASE MODELED SOUND LEVELS

ASL-Night Application Case LeqNight ASL + Application PSL-Night

April 2013 FIGURE 2.3-1

Although there is no reason to believe that PROJECT UPDATE

APPLICATION CASE MODELED dBA AND dBC SOUND LEVELS

Application Case Application Case

2.3.3 Planned Development Case

2.3.4 Mitigation and Monitoring

• advise nearby residents of significant noise-causing activities and schedule these

Project Footprint FIGURE 2.4-1

Camp Site GROSMONT WATER SOURCE AND DISPOSAL WELLS

3-36 (Existing - directional) !

Project Footprint FIGURE 2.4-2

EXISTING AND PROPOSED

2.5.2 Updated Baseline Case

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN RUNOFF VOLUMES AND STREAMFLOWS FOR BASELINE CASE

2.5.3 Updated Application Case

2.5.3.1 Updated Project Area

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION CASE DISTURBANCE

Land Type A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 C D1 D2 E1 E2 Total

Central Processing Facility

Multi-Use Corridors (Access Corridors)

CPF Access Road (Access Corridors)

SUMMARY OF STREAM CROSSINGS

Phase 1 Drilling Program

Phase 1 Hydrostatic Testing

Winter Road Construction

2.5.3.2 Hydrologic Impact