Blackrod Project Update and Sir 3 Responses Secured

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

Telephone: 403-215-8313
Fax: 403-262-5123
May 30, 2014
Steve Thomas Claire Classen

Director, In Situ Authorizations Environmental Assessment Coordinator
Alberta Energy Regulator Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Suite 1000, 250 – 5th Street S.W. Main fl, Twin Atria Building
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0R4 4999 – 98th Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3
Dear Sir or Madam:
Re: Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project - Supplemental Information Request (SIR)

OSCA Application No. 1728831
EPEA Application No. 001-301778
Athabasca Oil Sands Area
Supplemental Information Requests (Round 3) regarding the BlackPearl Resources Inc. Blackrod
Commercial SAGD Project Application were received from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) on April 9, 2014. The attached
document (Application for Approval of the Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project – Supplemental
Information Request Round 3 Responses) provides the following in response to the SIRs received:
• Project Update
• AER SIR 3 Responses
• AESRD SIR 3 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: Application for Approval of the Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project – Supplemental
Information Request Round 3 Responses
BlackPearl Resources Inc.
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project
Project Update & Supplemental
Information Request Responses - Round 3
May 2014
Submitted To:
Alberta Energy Regulator &
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Submitted By:
BlackPearl Resources Inc.
Calgary, Alberta
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Project Upate
Project
Update
1.0 General
AER SIR 3
Responses
1.0 Water
2.0 Terrestrial
3.0 References
AESRD SIR 3
Responses
PROJECT UPDATE – SIR ROUND 3
BlackPearl Resources Inc. May 2014/6790
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Project Update – SIR Round 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 PROJECT UPDATE ......................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Revisions to the Project Area .............................................................................................. 1
2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment..................................................................................... 1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1 Comparison of Project Footprints (December 2013 and May 2014) .................................. 2
Page i
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project Project Update – SIR Round 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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) (formerly Alberta Environment and Water) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) (formerly
Energy and Resources Conservation Board) in May 2012 (referred to as the Integrated Application).
Round 1 and Round 2 Supplemental Information Requests (SIRs) were received from AESRD and the
AER in January 2013 and October 2013, respectively. BlackPearl provided responses to SIR Round 1
and Round 2 along with associated Project Updates in April 2013 and December 2013, respectively.
BlackPearl received Round 3 SIRs from AESRD and AER in April 2014. A Project Update and Round 3
SIR responses are provided in the following separate sections of this document:
• Project Update – SIR Round 3;
• AER SIR 3 Reponses; and
• AESRD SIR 3 Responses.
Information on the Project Update and its effect on the environmental assessment conclusions are
provided below.
2.0 PROJECT UPDATE

2.1 Revisions to the Project Area
The revised Project Area is provided in Figure 2.1-1. As a result of further consultation with MEG Energy
Corp. (MEG), the multi-use corridor located in N-8-77-17 W4M has been relocated to S-17-77-17 W4M.
The change results in a 6.2 ha decrease to the Project Area.
2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

The change to the Project Area as described above does not affect the assessment conclusions for Air
Quality, Noise, Hydrogeology, Hydrology, Surface Water Quality, Aquatic Ecology, Vegetation, Wildlife,
Biodiversity, Terrain and Soils, Land Use and Management, Historical Resources, Traditional Ecological
Knowledge and Land Use, the Human Health Risk Assessment or the Socio-Economic Impact
Assessment. The assessments for these components provided in the May 2012 Integrated Application
and as amended in the April 2013 Round 1 SIR Project Update remain unchanged.
Page 1
¯
Athab a sc a R iver RGE.18 W4M RGE.17 W4M
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 31 32 33
TWP.76 27 26 25 30 29 28
22 23 24 19 20 21
Project Footprint (May 2014) SIR Round 2 Footprint (December 2013) FIGURE 2.1-1
Permanent Operations
t6790_Figure_01_Project_Footprints_VS_Sir3_20140109.mxd
Phase 1 Borrow Pit Phase 3B COMPARISON OF PROJECT FOOTPRINTS

Phase 2 Sump Site Camp Site
(DECEMBER 2013 AND MAY 2014)
Phase 3A Log Deck Proposed Blackrod Road Existing Blackrod Road
PROJECT UPDATE SIR ROUND 3 - BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Phase 3B Construction Camp Site Waterbody PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
UTM Zone 12N SCALE: 1: 50,000
Project Area: Altus Geomatics 2012 & Feb 8, 2013, modified by TERA Environmental March 26, 2014; Meters
Hydrography: AltaLIS.Ltd 2011; Roads: IHS Inc. 2011. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
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)
AER SIR 3 RESPONSES
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project AER SIR 3 Responses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................ 1
LIST OF APPENDICES
AER SIR Appendix A Aboriginal Record 0f Engagement Log December 13, 2013 to
May 21, 2014 ......................................................................................................A-1
AER SIR Appendix B Summary of All Consultation With Stakeholders Who Have Filed a
SOC ....................................................................................................................B-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Consultation Since December 13, 2013 With Stakeholders Who
Have Filed a SOC ............................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 Summary of Outstanding SOCs.......................................................................................... 3
Table B-1 Summary of Chard Metis Communications to Date Since Introduction of the
Project ..............................................................................................................................B-2
Table B-2 Summary of Fort McMurray First Nation Communications to Date Since
Introduction of the Project ................................................................................................B-5
Table B-3 Summary of Laricina Communications to Date Since Introduction of the
Project ............................................................................................................................B-10
Page i
1.0 GENERAL
1. Provide an update on the status of stakeholder (public and industry) notification and
consultation associated with the proposed project, including a list of all stakeholders with an
outstanding statement of concern respecting the proposed development, a summary of the key
issues identified in each statement of concern, and the efforts taken to address and resolve the
concerns.
Response:
Summary
BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) began consultation for the Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project
(the Project) in Q3 2010. Information has been openly provided to stakeholders including the Integrated
Application, Project update letters, Round 1 Supplemental Information Request (SIR) Responses and
Round 2 SIR Responses. BlackPearl has hosted four open houses (Fort McMurray, Lac La Biche and
Grasslands on two occasions) to allow stakeholders additional opportunity to discuss the Project directly
with BlackPearl representatives. BlackPearl has met with stakeholders individually who have requested
additional information. The company website also provides information on the Project and a link to the
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) Summary of Environmental
Assessment Activity where current information is posted.
Stakeholder notification and consultation has been conducted in accordance with Alberta Energy
Regulator (AER) (formerly Energy Resources Conservation Board [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 Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, of Volume 1 in the
Integrated Application submitted in May 2012. An update of the public consultation and Aboriginal
engagement activities from application submission to December 2013 is provided in Section 1.0 of the
Rounds 1 and 2 AER SIR Responses. Since the filing of Round 2 SIR Responses on
December 13, 2013, BlackPearl has continued to engage interested stakeholders and Aboriginal
communities. BlackPearl is committed to ongoing engagement with stakeholders and addressing any
concerns with a resolution that will accommodate all parties involved.
Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement Activities (December 13, 2013 to May 21, 2014)
BlackPearl provided identified stakeholders with a Project update letter via mail in March 2014. The
update letter outlined details regarding BlackPearl’s application process, Project timelines, ongoing
commitment to consultation, the Project Footprint and information relating to construction, drilling and
operations. All previously identified stakeholders were sent the update letter, with the exception of
Laricina Energy Inc. (Laricina). BlackPearl has provided AER with a response to Laricina’s Statement of
Concern (SOC) letter separately (refer to Table 1 for communication activities).
On March 12, 2014 MEG Energy Corporation (MEG) sent BlackPearl a letter stating their concern
regarding the location of BlackPearl’s proposed multi-use corridor in 8-77-17 W4M. BlackPearl has
realigned this multi-use corridor to avoid overlap with MEG’s oil sands holdings (refer to the
SIR Round 3 Project Update for more details) and will continue consultation with MEG. To date, no SOC
has been filed.
As part of BlackPearl’s ongoing consultation program, a Geographic Land Information Management
Planning System search was performed on April 24, 2014. This search did not identify any new
stakeholders.
Aboriginal Engagement Activities (December 13, 2013 to May 21, 2014)

BlackPearl strives to conduct consultation with Aboriginal communities in a meaningful way that supports
the spirit of collaboration and will make all attempts to follow the guidelines and activities as set out in the
First Nation Consultation Guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development. To date, not all
communities have participated in the consultation process. In these instances, such as with Beaver Lake
Cree Nation, BlackPearl has implemented the consultation protocols of the community and provided
funding as per their process.
Page 1
A detailed record of ongoing consultation activities with Aboriginal communities from December 13, 2013
to May 21, 2014 is provided in AER SIR Appendix A. BlackPearl will continue to consult with Aboriginal
communities.
Objections and Statements of Concern

There are currently no objections filed with the AER regarding this Project. There have been no additional
SOCs filed with AER and AESRD since BlackPearl filed their response to Round 2 SIRs.
A summary of consultation activities that have occurred since December 13, 2013 with stakeholders who
have filed a SOC is provided in Table 1. A complete record of all consultation activities with Chard Métis
Local No. 214 and Chard Métis Dene Inc. (Chard Métis), Fort McMurray #468 First Nation (Fort McMurray
First Nation) and Laricina from the introduction of the Project to May 21, 2014 is provided in AER SIR
Appendix B.
A summary of concerns identified from Chard Métis, Fort McMurray First Nation and Laricina along with
BlackPearl’s response is provided in Table 2. On May 17, 2013, AESRD issued a letter to Laricina stating
the issues they have raised regarding the Project are outside of AESRD’s mandate and will not be part of
AESRD’s review of the Project application. On July 25, 2013, AESRD issued a letter to Chard Métis
stating AESRD was unable to determine how the individual members of the First Nation are directly
affected by the Project, therefore the Chard Métis will not be considered as directly affected and their
SOC will not be considered a SOC by AESRD.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION SINCE DECEMBER 13, 2013

WITH STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE FILED A SOC
Stakeholder Group Summary of Consultation Activities Since December 13, 2013

Chard Métis BlackPearl provided a Project update letter to Chard Métis on March 10, 2014. BlackPearl met with Chard Métis on
April 23, 2014 to discuss the concerns previously identified and the challenges the Chard Métis community is facing.
Chard Métis are currently focused on other steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) projects in closer proximity to
the Chard Métis community. Due to the distance of BlackPearl’s Project, Chard Métis feels that BlackPearl is not
directly impacting them, with the exception of potential impacts to traditional activities within the Blackrod Project
area.
Chard Métis’ position on the mitigation of concerns and removal of the SOC is that these concerns could be resolved
over time with BlackPearl’s contribution of financial capacity, formation of business relationships and ongoing
consultation. BlackPearl is committed to continue to work directly with Chard Métis to continue to address their
issues regarding the Project.
Fort McMurray First Nation BlackPearl provided a Project update letter to Fort McMurray First Nation on March 10, 2014.
BlackPearl met with Fort McMurray First Nation on April 23, 2014 and initiated a dialogue towards resolving the
concerns identified by Fort McMurray First Nation about the Project.
BlackPearl has completed a Project screening with Fort McMurray First Nation and is in the process of developing a
scope of work and schedule for a Traditional Land Use Occupation Study (TLUOS) to be performed during the 2014
season. BlackPearl will continue discussions on the process of BlackPearl joining the Fort McMurray First Nation
Industry Relation Corporation (IRC) and further consultation on the Project with the Fort McMurray First Nation
community. BlackPearl is committed to continue to work directly with Fort McMurray First Nation to continue to
address any issues regarding the Project.
Laricina BlackPearl submitted a letter to the AER on December 20, 2013 in response to the SOC letter Laricina filed with
AER and AESRD on September 11, 2013. This letter provided a formal response to Laricina’s concerns, outlined the
reasons BlackPearl selected its Central Processing Facility (CPF) location and provided additional information to aid
Laricina’s CPF location study. BlackPearl met with Laricina on March 20, 2014 to discuss the SOC and operations of
respective pilot projects.
BlackPearl has communicated with Laricina through multiple communication activities such as meetings, email and
telephone conversations to discuss Laricina’s outstanding concerns with the Project. These communication activities
have been provided in Appendix B, Table B-3. As of May 21, 2014, BlackPearl has been unable to resolve several of
Laricina’s concerns, despite exhaustive efforts.
Page 2
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING SOCS
Stakeholder
Group Issues or Concerns Raised BlackPearl’s Response Status
Chard Métis Chard Métis are concerned about adverse impacts related An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was completed Ongoing
to wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and the aquatic for the Project as part of the Integrated Application. The EIA
environment of Chard Métis asserted traditional territory included assessments for air quality, hydrogeology,
and to their Aboriginal rights regarding water and rights to hydrology, surface water quality, aquatic ecology, wildlife,
hunt and fish. Potential Project-related effects include: vegetation, human health and Traditional Ecological
• emissions and pollution generated throughout the life Knowledge (TEK) and Land Use, among others. The results
of the Project that will permeate bogs, lakes, rivers of these assessments can be found in the Integrated
and drinking water; Application, which was submitted to AESRD and AER in
May 2012.
• migration of saline water into the fresh water aquifer;
• the sustainability of removing water in the proposed
quantities of this proposed Project and other current
and future projects in the area is questionable;
• loss of pristine wilderness is not conducive to the
Traditional Land Use (TLU) hunting and gathering
traditions of Chard Métis community members and
flora and fauna will diminish through loss of habitat;
• impacts to the water quality in and around the Project
area; and
• impacts on health of wildlife and riparian habitats in
and around the Project area.
Development and production of bitumen threaten to block BlackPearl will consult with Aboriginal communities to Ongoing
current access for animals and Chard Métis hunters and maintain access to hunting, trapping, fishing and plant
subsequently, animals may become less prevalent in the harvesting sites, as well as trails and travelways, habitation
area as a result of blocked access. Potential sites, gathering places and sacred sites, to the extent
Project-related effects include: feasible.
• heavy traffic as a result of the development in the
area may affect safety of wildlife and air quality in and Air quality and wildlife assessments have been completed for
asserted traditional territories; and the Project as part of the Integrated Application. These
• access to the area will be diminished by development, assessments included consideration of Project traffic
construction and increased vehicular traffic and emissions and impacts to wildlife.
become unsuitable for hunting and harvesting food.
The potential cumulative effects of BlackPearl’s application An assessment of potential cumulative effects was Ongoing
when considered with other similar pending and future completed as part of the Integrated Application for all
applications. environmental and socio-economic components of the
Project and was submitted to AER and AESRD in May 2012.
Inadequacy of consultation. BlackPearl will continue to consult with Chard Métis Ongoing
community to provide Chard Métis with updates and to
address any Project-specific concerns Chard Métis may
have.
Fort McMurray The impact on the drainages and aquifers feeding the Hydrogeology and hydrology impact assessments have been Ongoing
First Nation Athabasca River watershed. completed for the Project as part of the Integrated
Application and concluded that there would not be impacts to
the drainages and aquifers feeding the Athabasca River
watershed. BlackPearl informed Fort McMurray First Nation
that only non-drinkable salt water from a deep source will be
used in the SAGD process.
The potential cumulative effects of BlackPearl’s application An assessment of potential cumulative effects was Ongoing
when considered with other similar pending and future completed as part of the Integrated Application for all
applications. environmental and socio-economic components of the
Project and was submitted to AER and AESRD in May 2012.
Page 3
TABLE 2 Cont’d
Stakeholder
Group Issues or Concerns Raised BlackPearl’s Response Status
Laricina Location of the CPF. The location of the CPF will remain as proposed in the Ongoing
Integrated Application. BlackPearl presented several suitable
alternative locations for the Laricina CPF at a meeting on
October 28, 2013. BlackPearl considers these locations to
represent viable alternatives for Laricina’s proposed CPF that
would not have a detrimental incremental financial impact to
Laricina, and instead improve Laricina project economics.
The information presented at this meeting was included in
BlackPearl’s letter of response to the AER submitted on
December 20, 2013.
BlackPearl’s proposed Project infrastructure will not interfere

with Laricina’s ability to access their resource. The 2D
seismic data that was jointly acquired with Laricina for 19, 30
and 31-76-17 W4M show the recoverable bitumen resource
volumes in the Grand Rapids Formation of Laricina’s Portage
Lease are considerably less than previously stated by
Laricina (i.e., 100 million barrels) in their January 18, 2013
SOC letter to the AER and AESRD. Based on the 2D seismic
data, Laricina provided an updated resource map in their
September 11, 2013 SOC letter to the AER and AESRD,
however, they did not provide an update of the volume of
recoverable resource within their Portage Lease.
Select well pad locations. BlackPearl has revised their Project Footprint, which includes Complete
the removal of well pads and associated infrastructure in 19,
30 and 31-76-17 W4M on Laricina’s lease holdings in
response to their concerns. There are no well pads located
on Laricina’s lease holdings.
Crossing of production lines. The challenges associated with the hydraulics of moving Ongoing
liquids over an existing pipeline can be overcome through
appropriate design and engineering by Laricina. This was
discussed in BlackPearl’s letter of response to the AER
submitted on December 20, 2013.
SAGD well buffer from lease boundary. There is no data (i.e., from other similar wells or Ongoing
modeling/simulation exercises) that demonstrates a drainage
radius beyond 50 m for a Grand Rapids SAGD well pair.
BlackPearl’s own simulation data has shown a maximum
heat progression of 50 m around a SAGD well pair after
8 years. Recent industry applications for other projects in the
Grand Rapids (e.g., Cenovus Energy Inc., Cavalier Energy
Inc., Laricina) have proposed SAGD well pair spacing from
40 m to 100 m, suggesting that a 50 m buffer is appropriate.
This information was included in BlackPearl’s letter of
response to the AER submitted on December 20, 2013.
Page 4
AER SIR APPENDIX A
ABORIGINAL RECORD OF ENGAGEMENT LOG DECEMBER 13, 2013 TO MAY 21, 2014
Stakeholder Method of Date of Commitments/Follow-Up
Group/Agency Name Contact Name Engagement Engagement Activity Reason for Engagement Issues/Concerns Actions/Comments
Alberta Métis Federation Darryl Shott Letter December 19, 2013 BlackPearl provided a letter containing an information package for the Project. None.
Alberta Métis Federation Darryl Shott Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Beaver Lake Cree Nation Robert Gillis Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Buffalo Lake Métis Stan Delorme Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Settlement Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Chard Métis Raoul Montgrand Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti Email March 21, 2014 BlackPearl received an email stating I. Trewinnard is no longer associated with Require information BlackPearl will set-up a
Chard Métis and confirming there is a SOC on this Project. M. Michetti update due to meeting and introduce the
mentioned he could not find records of communications between Chard Métis executive change. Project to M. Michetti.
and BlackPearl and would like information on previous communications. He
would like the opportunity to meet with BlackPearl and discuss previous
communications and to consult on this Project.
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti Email April 16, 2014 BlackPearl provided a copy of consultation log and the correspondences None. BlackPearl will set-up a
Page A-1
regarding the SOC (including the SOC rejection letter from AESRD). BlackPearl meeting and introduce the
inquired if M. Michetti was available to meet on April 23 or April 24, 2014 to Project to M. Michetti.
discuss the Project and their concerns.
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti Email April 17, 2014 Discussions between BlackPearl and M. Michetti regarding meeting. A meeting None.
Telephone April 22, 2014 was set-up for April 23, 2014 to discuss the Project.
Telephone April 23, 2014
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti In person April 23, 2014 BlackPearl met with M. Michetti. BlackPearl provided a copy of the Aboriginal Capacity funding from BlackPearl committed to
consultation binder and a Project update. M. Michetti provided an outline of the BlackPearl and sending to Chard Métis the
challenges that the Chard Métis and Chard Métis community is experiencing. involvement in the digital files of the
Currently they are registered as the Chard Métis Society and are not affiliated Project through work regulatory application plus
with the Métis Nation Alberta but are working towards rejoining. Chard Métis or contributions to the SIR responses.
requested BlackPearl provide a substantial annual capacity funding to them. community.
Chard Métis acknowledges that the Blackrod Project is not in close proximity to BlackPearl would like to
them and other projects are of higher priority to their community at this juncture, see the SOC removed as it
therefore, an ad hoc basis for accommodation would be acceptable. Removal of has been determined to
the SOC could be achieved over time through providing annual accommodation not have any standing by
as well as continued consultation and forming of business relationships. AESRD.
Pending regulatory
approval, BlackPearl will
send out additional
information on employment
opportunities once they are
closer to the anticipated
construction start date.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene Chris Heavy Shield Email January 10, 2014 BlackPearl provided shapefiles of the Project area. None.
First Nation
Chipewyan Prairie Dene Chris Heavy Shield Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
First Nation Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene Chris Heavy Shield Email April 15, 2014 BlackPearl informed C. Heavy Shield that BlackPearl would be in the Fort None.
First Nation McMurray area and was interested in setting up a meeting. BlackPearl
requested C. Heavy Shield let them know if he had availability on April 23 or
April 24, 2014.
Chipewyan Prairie Dene Chris Heavy Shield Email April 25, 2014 C. Heavy Shield was not able to meet with BlackPearl on April 23 or None. BlackPearl will coordinate
First Nation April 24, 2014, but requested some potential dates when BlackPearl would be a meeting date in June
able to meet in Lac La Biche. when BlackPearl is in the
Lac La Biche area to
provide an update on the
Project as well as further
the discussions on TEK
and the consultation
process with Chipewyan
Prairie Dene First Nation.
Fort McMurray First Nation Andrea Nokelby Email January 6, 2014 Fort McMurray First Nation sent an email to determine whether BlackPearl has None. BlackPearl to provide
any of the information requested to complete the screening of the Project by information to assist Fort
Fort McMurray First Nation. McMurray First Nation in
completing the screening.
Fort McMurray First Nation Andrea Nokelby Email January 10, 2014 BlackPearl provided responses to the information requested and shapefiles of None.
the Project area.
Page A-2
Fort McMurray First Nation Andrea Nokelby Email February 24, 2014 Discussions between BlackPearl and Dillon Consulting Limited (consultant for None. BlackPearl was concerned
(consultant) Email February 24, 2014 Fort McMurray First Nation) regarding the screening report letter deliverable. A with the draft report in that
Telephone February 24, 2014 conference call meeting was set-up for February 26, 2014 to discuss this further. the shapefiles used were
Email February 24, 2014 Conference call occurred on February 26, 2014 to discuss the screening report not specific to the Project
and information within the report. Footprint. The report will
Email February 25, 2014
need to be updated to
Telephone February 26, 2014
reflect the proper scope of
investigation.
BlackPearl provided the

shapefiles of the Project
Footprint. Dillon Consulting
Limited is to provide an
updated document and
notify Fort McMurray First
Nation as to the
discrepancy.
Fort McMurray First Nation Nicholle Louvelle Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Fort McMurray First Nation Nicholle Louvelle Email March 11, 2014 N. Louvelle informed BlackPearl that technical difficulties were preventing None.
access to the email.
Fort McMurray First Nation Andrea Nokelby Email March 26, 2014 Communications regarding providing a shapefile to Dillon Consulting Limited. None.
(consultant) Email March 28, 2014 BlackPearl provided a shapefile on April 1, 2014.
Email April 1, 2014
Email April 1, 2014
Fort McMurray First Nation Harry Cheecham Email April 14, 2014 H. Cheecham inquired if a meeting could be scheduled in the near future to A TLUOS will need to
discuss next steps between BlackPearl and Fort McMurray First Nation. be conducted as the
T. Bochmann (Fort McMurray First Nation new IRC Operations Manager) would screening report
also be attending. Fort McMurray First Nation would like to discuss BlackPearl indicated further
joining Fort McMurray First Nation IRC, conducting a TLUOS for the Project and studies are required.
any questions from BlackPearl’s standpoint.
Fort McMurray First Nation Harry Cheecham Email April 14, 2014 Discussion on scheduling a meeting to discuss SOC and TLUOS studies. A None. BlackPearl wants to
Email April 15, 2014 meeting was set-up for April 23, 2014. discuss a TLUOS as well
Email April 16, 2014 as the SOC submitted by
Email April 17, 2014 Fort McMurray First
Nation.
BlackPearl will set-up a

meeting on April 23, 2014.
Fort McMurray First Nation Nicholle Louvelle Email April 17, 2014 N. Louvelle would be willing to meet with BlackPearl to discuss the SOC after Contact N. Louvelle after
May 7, 2014. May 7, 2014 to arrange for
a meeting to discuss the
SOC.
Fort McMurray First Nation Harry Cheecham In person April 23, 2014 BlackPearl met with Fort McMurray First Nation and provided a Project update. Fort McMurray First BlackPearl is concerned
Tony Bochmann They discussed the initiation of a TLUOS. BlackPearl confirmed they would like Nation is concerned about the amount of
to move forward in their consultation efforts and would like to discuss this that there is limited funding requested
process in more detail. T. Bochmann discussed with BlackPearl the process, TLUOS data for the considering the size of
Page A-3
benefits and capacity required for joining the IRC. Capacity to the IRC would area impacted by the BlackPearl’s operations
only be payable directly to the IRC until January 2015 when the new levy footprint of the currently and that the
system being created by the Alberta Government comes into effect. Project, therefore, a Project has not obtained
study is required. regulatory approval.
BlackPearl will contact

N. Louvelle after
May 7, 2014 to discuss the
SOC. Fort McMurray First
Nation IRC is to provide
BlackPearl with a TEK
agreement in order to
proceed with the TLUOS.
Fort McMurray First Nation Harry Cheecham Email April 30, 2014 H. Cheecham provided the Traditional Knowledge (TK) Sharing Agreement that Sharing Agreement BlackPearl to review the
BlackPearl and Fort McMurray First Nation have to sign before any work is done needs to be signed by Sharing Agreement and
on the TLUOS. Fort McMurray First Nation would like BlackPearl to review the both parties before provide feedback if there
agreement as soon as possible and if there are any questions to contact N. work can proceed. are any concerns.
Louvelle. H. Cheecham will also be emailing Dillon Consulting Limited to begin
work on the budget and work plan for the upcoming TLUOS.
Fort McMurray First Nation Harry Cheecham Email May 2, 2014 H. Cheecham emailed BlackPearl to inform Fort McMurray First Nation’s Band None.
and IRC offices will be closed on May 5, 2014 and will reopen on May 6, 2014.
Heart Lake First Nation Tony Bagga In person January 17, 2014 Meeting to introduce T. Bagga as the new Consultation Director and to discuss None.
John Fleming the results of the draft TEK/TLU report. J. Fleming is in the process of editing
Cameron Knutson the final report and should have it completed soon. Once it is completed it will
need to be reviewed by Heart Lake First Nation Elders before final release.
Heart Lake First Nation Tony Bagga Email January 21, 2014 Heart Lake First Nation reaffirmed the IRC’s commitment to preparing the final None.
TEK/TLU document.
Heart Lake First Nation John Fleming Email January 27, 2014 J. Fleming emailed BlackPearl introducing T. Bagga as the new consultation None. Follow-up with T. Bagga on
director for the Heart Lake First Nation IRC. the status of the final
TEK/TLU report.
Heart Lake First Nation John Fleming Telephone March 28, 2014 BlackPearl inquired about Heart Lake First Nation campsite venture in None.
Wandering River and would like to be included in any updates. BlackPearl would
like to continue discussions and meet with Heart Lake First Nation to review the
final TEK/TLU report. J. Fleming would contact BlackPearl with a date when he
will be in Calgary.
Heart Lake First Nation John Fleming Telephone April 4, 2014 J. Fleming left a voicemail inquiring if BlackPearl was available to meet on April None. A meeting was set-up for
Telephone April 8, 2014 11, 2014 to continue discussions on consultation. BlackPearl confirmed they April 11, 2014.
were available to meet on April 11, 2014.
Heart Lake First Nation John Fleming In person April 11, 2014 BlackPearl provided Heart Lake First Nation IRC with an update on the Project’s None.
Tony Bagga regulatory approval process as well as Project timeline and schedule. Heart
Ken Staples Lake First Nation has formed a Joint Venture with Allnorth Consultants. Allnorth
Allnorth Consultants Consultants provided an introduction of services they can provide and possible
Limited (Allnorth benefits to BlackPearl for current and future projects.
Consultants)
Heart Lake First Nation Tony Bagga Telephone April 17, 2014 BlackPearl inquired if T. Bagga was available to meet on April 23 or None. Meeting on April 24, 2014.
Telephone April 24, 2014 April 24, 2014 to discuss the Project and next steps. Heart Lake First Nation
confirmed they had availability to meet on April 24, 2014.
Heart Lake First Nation Cameron Knutson In person April 24, 2014 BlackPearl met with Heart Lake First Nation and discussed the status of the None. BlackPearl will provide a
Page A-4
Tony Bagga TEK/TLU studies and moving forward with consultation. BlackPearl would like to Project update
begin reviewing the TEK/TLU report to address any concerns. Heart Lake First presentation to the Elders
Nation confirmed it was in the process of being finalized. Heart Lake First Nation in mid-May 2014.
requested that BlackPearl provide a Project update to Elders and provided
available dates of May 13 or May 14, 2014. Heart Lake First Nation mentioned
the possibility of bringing the Elders to the Project site in the summer/fall 2014.
Heart Lake First Nation Tony Bagga Email April 29, 2014 Heart Lake First Nation will work on providing the items discussed during the None.
Email May 5, 2014 meeting on April 24, 2014 and would like to advance the discussion regarding
formalizing a meeting with the Elders on May 13, 2014.
Heart Lake First Nation Alita Friesen Email April 29, 2014 A. Friesen introduced herself as the new Consultation Office Administrator None.
Telephone April 29, 2014 working with T. Bagga, C. Knuston and J. Fleming.
Heart Lake First Nation Tony Bagga Email May 9, 2014 Confirmation email from BlackPearl regarding the meeting with the Heart Lake None.
First Nation Elders on May 13, 2014. BlackPearl requested a telephone
conversation on May 12, 2014 to review what will be presented by BlackPearl
and the presentation methods.
Heart Lake First Nation Alita Friesen Email May 12, 2014 Heart Lake First Nation provided BlackPearl with an agenda for the meeting with None.
Telephone May 12, 2014 the Heart Lake First Nation Elders on May 13, 2014.
Heart Lake First Nation Elder Council In person May 13, 2014 BlackPearl met with Heart Lake First Nation Elders and updated them as to the Concerned about how BlackPearl to write a letter
Tony Bagga regulatory status of the Project, what has been done to date and timelines. BlackPearl would to Heart Lake First Nation
Cameron Knutson BlackPearl provided answers to the questions posed by the Heart Lake First protect the water, IRC summarizing the
Alita Friesen Nation Elders about how BlackPearl would monitor potential effects to the medicinal plants, concerns and responses
surface and groundwater, vegetation, air and medicinal plants/wildlife. wildlife and fish that discussed at the Elders
Heart Lake First meeting.
Nation harvest.
Heart Lake First Nation Tony Bagga Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Kikino Métis Settlement General Delivery Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Métis Local # 1949 Owl Jack Quintal Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
River Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Métis Local #1909 Darcy Ford Email January 7, 2014 D. Ford emailed to confirm a visit to Calgary the week of January 20 to None. Meeting with Métis Local
Lakeland Email January 14, 2014 January 24, 2014 and would like the opportunity to meet with BlackPearl to #1909 Lakeland to receive
Email January 17, 2014 provide an update on gravel operations and opportunities for Métis Local #1909 update on gravel
Email January 20, 2014 Lakeland with BlackPearl. operations and capacities.
A meeting was scheduled

for January 22, 2014.
Métis Local #1909 Darcy Ford In person January 22, 2014 Meeting between BlackPearl and Métis Local #1909 Lakeland. D. Ford and A. None. BlackPearl will continue to
Lakeland Allan Scoville Scoville provided an update regarding gravel operations and capacities. discuss the gravel
BlackPearl provided an update on the timeline for the Project and regulatory opportunities with Métis
status. Local #1909 Lakeland.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email March 23, 2014 Métis Local #1909 Lakeland received the information update from BlackPearl None. BlackPearl to set-up
Lakeland Email April 1, 2014 and inquired about scheduling a meeting in Fort McMurray in April 2014. Métis meeting with Métis Local
Email April 2, 2014 Local #1909 Lakeland has dissolved its relationship with D. Ford and has #1909 Lakeland in Fort
established a First Nation partnership and signed a Memorandum of McMurray.
Understanding with Al’s Contracting. Métis Local #1909 Lakeland is looking
forward to planning future socio-economic opportunities with BlackPearl.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email April 17, 2014 BlackPearl advised M. Scoville that BlackPearl will be in Fort McMurray on April None. BlackPearl to set-up
Page A-5
Lakeland Email April 22, 2014 23 and April 24, 2014 and inquired if a meeting could be held on either of those meeting with Métis
dates. M. Scoville was unable to meet on either date and inquired when Local #1909 Lakeland in
BlackPearl would be back in Fort McMurray. Fort McMurray
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Lakeland Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email March 23, 2014 M. Scoville emailed inquiring if BlackPearl was available to meet during the None.
Lakeland month of April 2014.
Métis Local #1909 Melina Scoville Email April 4, 2014 BlackPearl informed M. Scoville that G. Currie will be in the area and would like None.
Lakeland to meet. BlackPearl inquired about Métis Local #1909 Lakeland availability.
Métis Local #2010 Ron Donald Letter February 28, 2014 BlackPearl received a letter informing them of the new executive for Métis None Métis Local #2010
Athabasca Landing Local #2010 Athabasca Landing. Métis Local #2010 Athabasca Landing would Athabasca Landing to set-
like to re-open discussions and communication with BlackPearl. They would like up a meeting with
to set-up a meeting over the upcoming weeks. BlackPearl in March 2014.
Métis Local #2010 Ron Donald Email March 10, 2014 BlackPearl emailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Athabasca Landing Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Métis Local #2010 Ron Donald Email April 17, 2014 BlackPearl provided the Project update letter, fact sheet and anticipated year of None.
Athabasca Landing Email April 19, 2014 construction figure to R. Donald (interim executive). BlackPearl requested to
Telephone April 24, 2014 meet on April 23 or April 24, 2014.
Métis Local #2010 Ron Donald In person April 24, 2014 BlackPearl introduced the Project and provided a Project update to Métis Local Require information BlackPearl will send digital
Athabasca Landing Gill William #2010 Athabasca Landing. BlackPearl provided a copy of the consultation update due to copies of the regulatory
binder. BlackPearl discussed previous work completed regarding the TEK/TLU executive change. No application and SIR
studies by previous executives along with a discussion of any concerns. concerns regarding responses.
the Project were
discussed. Pending regulatory
approval, BlackPearl will
send out additional
information on employment
opportunities once they are
closer to the anticipated
construction start date.
Métis Nation of Alberta Diane Scoville Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Region 1 Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Métis Nation of Alberta William Landstrom Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with information on None.
Region 1 Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any additional feedback.
Page A-6
AER SIR APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF ALL CONSULTATION WITH

STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE FILED A SOC
Page B-1
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF CHARD METIS COMMUNICATIONS TO DATE SINCE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT

Chard Métis L. Douglas Rae Letter December 17, 2012 L. Rae, Legal Counsel for Chard Metis, provided a Chard Métis were concerned about negative BlackPearl is in contact with
SOC on behalf of the Chard Métis Local No. 214 impacts related to wildlife habitat, riparian the Métis Nation of Alberta
and Chard Métis identified several concerns habitat and aquatic environment of Chard Region 1 to determine a
regarding the Integrated Application. Métis traditional territory and to their Aboriginal path forward.
rights relating to water and to hunt and fish,
development and 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 the Project when
considered with other similar pending and
future applications and inadequacy of
consultation.
Chard Métis L. Douglas Rae Letter March 25, 2013 A letter from BlackPearl was sent to the legal firm None. BlackPearl will continue to
(Rae and Company) who provided the SOC on consult with the Métis
behalf of the Chard Métis indicating that BlackPearl Nation of Alberta Region 1
has been in contact with the President of the Métis and the Métis community to
Page B-2
Nation of Alberta Region 1 who advised that the address any concerns
Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 is the official regarding the Project.
representative for the community and that Chard
Métis was no longer a local within the Métis.
Chard Métis L. Douglas Rae Letter April 30, 2013 L. Rae, Legal Counsel of Chard Métis, provided the None.
AESRD further information to support the SOC
submitted on December 17, 2012.
Chard Métis William Landstrom, Letter May 10, 2013 Stakeholder acknowledged receipt of letter dated None.
Raoul Montgrand March 25, 2013. Stakeholder provided a copy of the
Certificate of Incorporation (dated March 12, 2013)
of the Chard Métis Society.
Chard Métis Raoul Montgrand c/o Letter July 19, 2013 BlackPearl sent a Project update letter. BlackPearl None. BlackPearl will hold an open
William Landstrom would like to arrange a meeting with Chard Métis as house to continue
well as W. Landstrom of the Métis Nation of Alberta discussions.
to discuss the concerns of the Chard Métis as well
as provide an introduction and overview of the
scope of the Project. BlackPearl included a digital
copy of the Integrated Application.
Chard Métis N/A Letter July 25, 2013 AESRD issued a letter in response to the SOC letter None.
dated April 30, 2013. AESRD was unable to
determine how the individual members of Chard
Métis are directly affected by the Project. On this
basis, the SOC will not be considered.
TABLE B-1 Cont’d
Chard Métis L. Douglas Rae, Yoki Ho Letter August 7, 2013 Stakeholder requested a meeting with BlackPearl None.
for August 14, 2013.
Chard Métis Yoki Ho Email August 13, 2013 BlackPearl sent confirmation of attendance at None.
meeting on August 14, 2013. BlackPearl requested
a brief agenda for this meeting.
Chard Métis L. Douglas Rae In person August 14, 2013 L. Rae represents the Chard Métis. Chard Métis None.
wants to have their members employed and/or
services used for BlackPearl’s Project. Most of their
membership have limited education and training
would be required; stated that it would be a good
thing to have the Chard Métis like BlackPearl rather
than the opposite. Their membership includes Métis
and First Nations that are not local but do not have
an association with another membership/band.
BlackPearl should expect a package which will
contain a co-operation and benefits agreement. It is
up to BlackPearl if they wish to sign it.
Chard Métis L. Douglas Rae, Yoki Ho Email September 13, 2013 Email received from legal counsel for Chard Métis None.
containing the draft co-operation and benefits
Page B-3
agreement and draft appendix. If BlackPearl has

any questions regarding the agreement L. Rae
should be contacted.
Chard Métis Ian Trewinnard Telephone November 13, 2013 BlackPearl requested to meet with I. Trewinnard to None. Meeting confirmed for
introduce the Project and discuss any feedback. November 14, 2013.
Discussed briefly BlackPearl’s policy for
employment and procurement of services. A
meeting was set-up for November 14, 2013.
Chard Métis Ian Trewinnard In person November 14, 2013 BlackPearl met with I. Trewinnard and provided a None. Meeting to be held in
brief overview of the Project and a consultation December 2013.
binder containing an electronic copy of the
Integrated Application and the SIR 1 responses as
well as historical air photo mosaics from 1949 to
2011 and a plain language information package.
Advised I. Trewinnard that BlackPearl will be
hosting another open house on
December 11, 2013. They discussed holding
another meeting at this time.
Chard Métis Ian Trewinnard Telephone December 5, 2013 I. Trewinnard was unable to attend the meeting on None.
December 11, 2013. They discussed the anticipated
construction date and requested that BlackPearl
keep Chard Métis in mind for employment
opportunities.
Chard Métis Raoul Montgrand Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to None.
stakeholder with information on Project
modifications, timeline, regulatory process and any
additional feedback.
TABLE B-1 Cont’d
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti Email March 21, 2014 BlackPearl received an email stating I. Trewinnard Require information update due to executive BlackPearl will set-up a
is no longer associated with Chard Métis and change. meeting and introduce the
confirming there is a SOC on this Project. Project to M. Michetti.
M. Michetti mentioned he could not find records of
communications between Chard Métis and
BlackPearl and would like information on previous
communications. He would like the opportunity to
meet with BlackPearl and discuss previous
communications and to consult on this Project.
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti Email April 16, 2014 BlackPearl provided a copy of consultation log and None. BlackPearl will set-up a
the correspondences regarding the SOC (including meeting and introduce the
the SOC rejection letter from AESRD). BlackPearl Project to M. Michetti.
inquired if M. Michetti was available to meet on
April 23 or April 24, 2014 to discuss the Project and
their concerns.
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti Email April 17, 2014 Discussions between BlackPearl and M. Michetti None.
Telephone April 22, 2014 regarding meeting. A meeting was set-up for
Telephone April 23, 2014 April 23, 2014 to discuss the Project.
Chard Métis Matthew Michetti In person April 23, 2014 BlackPearl met with M. Michetti. BlackPearl Capacity funding from BlackPearl and BlackPearl committed to
Page B-4
provided a copy of the Aboriginal consultation involvement in the Project through work or sending to Chard Métis the
binder and a Project update. M. Michetti provided contributions to the community. digital files of the regulatory
an outline of the challenges that the Chard Métis application plus SIR
Local No. 214 and Chard Métis community is responses.
experiencing. Currently they are registered as the
Chard Métis Society and are not affiliated with the BlackPearl would like to see
Métis Nation Alberta but are working towards the SOC removed as it has
rejoining. Chard Métis requested BlackPearl provide been determined to not
a substantial annual capacity funding to them. have any standing by
Chard Métis acknowledges that the Blackrod AESRD.
Project is not in close proximity to them and other
projects are of higher priority to their community at Pending regulatory
this juncture, therefore, an ad hoc basis for approval, BlackPearl will
accommodation would be acceptable. Removal of send out additional
the SOC could be achieved over time through information on employment
providing annual accommodation as well as opportunities once they are
continued consultation and forming of business closer to the anticipated
relationships. construction start date.
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF FORT MCMURRAY FIRST NATION COMMUNICATIONS TO DATE SINCE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT

Fort McMurray First Fort McMurray First Letter August 27, 2010 Provide engagement package and notification of engagement. None. None.
Nation Nation Band Office
Albert Cree, Chief
Fort McMurray First Albert Cree Letter February 14, 2011 AESRD sent a letter outlining the need for possible First Nations None. None.
Nation Morris Monias consultation.
Fort McMurray First Executive Assistant Telephone May 2, 2011 Establish a meeting for the introduction to the Project. None. None.
Nation Jim Cardinal, Robert Telephone May 3, 2011
Cree Telephone May 4, 2011
Fort McMurray First Robert Cree, Priscilla Meeting May 13, 2011 Introduction of TEK/TLU work plan for BlackPearl Project. Stated that Elders use Fort McMurray First Nation is
Nation Cree Project area for hunting. encouraged to have Elders out to
see Project area.
Fort McMurray First Priscilla Cree, Jim Email May 18, 2011 Provide TEK schedule, logistics and participant request for TEK None. None.
Nation Cardinal, Ron Kreutzer, Telephone May 19, 2011 studies.
Rebecca Korzenosk Telephone May 20, 2011
Email May 24, 2011
Telephone/ June 21 to 24, 2011
Page B-5
Email
Telephone/ June 28 to 30, 2011
Email
Telephone July 4, 2011
Email July 22, 2011
Email July 28, 2011
Telephone November 1, 2011
Email November 1, 2011
Telephone November 2, 2011
Email November 2, 2011
Fort McMurray First TEK Participant In person May 25 to June 6, 2011 Participate in the TEK – aquatics field survey. Project None. None.
Nation information shared. Animal trails identified.
Fort McMurray First TEK Participant In person July 6 to July 10, 2011 Participate in the TEK – wildlife field survey. Project information Concerns noted were Discussed recommended
Nation shared. displacement of animals and mitigation measures in the field.
caribou routes.
Fort McMurray First TEK Participant In person July 27 to Participate in the TEK – vegetation/wetland field survey. None. None.
Nation August 2, 2011
Fort McMurray First Jim Cardinal, Telephone October 5, 2011 IRC Engagement Agreement. None. None.
Nation Priscilla Cree
Fort McMurray First TEK Participant In person November 7 to12, 2011 Participate in the TEK – archaeology field survey. No concerns. None. None.
Nation
Fort McMurray First Priscilla Cree Email November 14, 2011 Organize a meeting to discuss the Project and results from the None. None.
Nation summer/fall field surveys.
Fort McMurray First Jim Cardinal, Telephone November 17, 2011 IRC Engagement Agreement. None. None.
Nation Priscilla Cree
TABLE B-2 Cont’d
Fort McMurray First Priscilla Cree Email November 21, 2011 Organize a meeting to discuss the Project and results from the None. None.
Nation Email November 23, 2011 summer/fall field surveys.
Fort McMurray First Jim Cardinal, Paulette Meeting November 24, 2011 Review Project results from the summer/fall TEK surveys. Potential employment BlackPearl to confirm meeting
Nation Bird, Harry Cheecham, opportunities including date with Fort McMurray First
Brad Calihoo post-construction. Nation IRC to discuss further
TLU study participation. aspects of the Project.
Fort McMurray First Priscilla Cree Telephone November 29, 2011 Discuss logistics about potential winter wildlife field surveys. None. None.
Nation
Fort McMurray First Jim Cardinal Telephone December 2, 2011 Fort McMurray First Nation IRC agreement. Chief directed IRC to have BlackPearl to send a draft
Nation all their agreements to be agreement that outlines
completed for all their commitments for the Project.
industry players.
Fort McMurray First Paulette Bird Telephone December 7, 2011 Discuss logistics about potential winter wildlife field surveys. None.
Nation Email December 9, 2011
Fort McMurray First FMFN Band Office Print media December 22, 2011 Provide engagement package and notification of engagement. None. None.
Nation McMurray Albert Cree, Chief
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham, Telephone January 31, 2012 Arrange meeting for February 14, 2012 to discuss Project and Discuss Project and address Fort McMurray First Nation
Nation Jim Cardinal address concerns from the November 24, 2011 meeting. concerns from the Meeting date to be confirmed.
Page B-6
November 24, 2011

meeting.
Fort McMurray First Jim Cardinal Telephone February 2, 2012 Discussion of questions posed in TLU study review meeting. None. None.
Nation
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham, Telephone February 13, 2012 Arrange meeting for February 14, 2012 to discuss Project and Discuss Project and address Meeting confirmed for
Nation Jim Cardinal address concerns from the November 24, 2011 meeting. concerns from the February 14, 2012 in Fort
November 24, 2011 McMurray First Nation.
meeting.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham, Telephone February 10, 2012 Staffing changes and direction from Chief that consultation will None. None.
Nation Jim Cardinal Telephone February 13, 2012 be on hold until further notice.
Meeting February 14, 2012
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham, Email February 15, 2012 Follow-up from the meeting held on February 14, 2012 and Confirmed consultation will None.
Nation Brad Calihoo provided information on the upcoming open hose. not begin until April 2012.
Fort McMurray First H. Cheecham Email April 17, 2012 An update to the consultation logs was emailed. None. BlackPearl will continue to provide
Nation McMurray Consultation Log updates.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Print media April 18, 2012 A Project update letter was mailed out to stakeholders to inform None. None.
Nation them that BlackPearl is planning to submit an Integrated
Application to the AER and AESRD in May 2012. Enclosed with
the letter was additional information about the AER process.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email August 1, 2012 BlackPearl emailed to set-up a meeting to discuss the Project None.
Nation and engagement of the community.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Letter August 6, 2012 BlackPearl sent a letter with the electronic copy of the Integrated None.
Nation Application.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email August 24, 2012 BlackPearl emailed to set-up a meeting. Indicated they would be None.
Nation willing to meet in a location convenient for Fort McMurray First
Nation.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Telephone September 10, 2012 Contact attempt. Was unable to leave a message. None.
Nation
TABLE B-2 Cont’d
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Letter September 20, 2012 BlackPearl sent an electronic copy of the Integrated Application. None.
Nation Package was picked up and signed for on October 5, 2012.
Fort McMurray First W.L. (Bill) McElhanney Email June 7,2013 BlackPearl received a copy of the SOC. None.
Nation
Fort McMurray First W.L. (Bill) McElhanney Letter June 17, 2013 AER sent a letter to B. McElhanney acknowledging receipt of the None.
Nation letter sent on June 7, 2013 on behalf of the Fort McMurray First
Nation indication their SOC (Objection) No. 28125.
Fort McMurray First Nicholle Louvelle Letter July 19, 2013 BlackPearl sent a Project update letter and thanked the None. BlackPearl will hold an open
Nation stakeholder for their involvement in the Project to date. house to continue discussions.
BlackPearl would like to arrange a meeting with stakeholder to
discuss the Project. A digital copy of the Integrated Application
was provided. BlackPearl acknowledged they received the
stakeholder’s SOC and would like to meet to discuss the issues
raised in the SOC.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Telephone October 15, 2013 BlackPearl followed up and requested to continue consultation None.
Nation on the Project. H. Cheecham advised they were undergoing
internal restructuring and this required all consultation activities
to stop.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham, In person October 17, 2013 BlackPearl attempted to meet stakeholder at their office. They None.
Page B-7
Nation Nicholle Louvelle were not available to meet.

Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Telephone October 30, 2013 BlackPearl left a voicemail requesting a phone call back to None.
Nation continue discussions.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Telephone November 7, 2013 BlackPearl contacted H. Cheecham and requested a meeting to None.
Nation discuss the Project and discuss items in the SOC.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Telephone November 7, 2013 Discussion regarding an appropriate meeting time. None. Meeting confirmed for
Nation November 13, 2013.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham In person November 13, 2013 BlackPearl met with H. Cheecham to discuss the Project. None.
Nation BlackPearl provided an overview of the Project, discussed the
SOCs and capacity funding. BlackPearl requested more
information on their concerns. BlackPearl advised that they
would be holding another open house on December 11, 2013.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email November 25, 2013 Email from H. Cheecham requesting G. Currie’s contact None.
Nation information. BlackPearl provided H. Cheecham with the
information.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham, Email November 26, 2013 Discussed beginning the screening process. Fort McMurray First None. BlackPearl will compile a
Nation Nicholle Louvelle Email November 27, 2013 Nation contracts Dillon Consultants Limited. They will provide a response to their information
list of the information required to complete the screening. The request and should have it to
list provides proponents with a summary of the information them by November 29, 2013.
required by Fort McMurray First Nation in order to conduct a
TEK/TLU screening.
TABLE B-2 Cont’d
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email December 4, 2013 BlackPearl provided a copy of the open house advertisement None.
Nation and requested if they could forward the information to any of
their community who would be interested in attending.
Fort McMurray First Andrea Nokelby Email January 6, 2014 Fort McMurray First Nation sent an email to determine whether None. BlackPearl to provide information
Nation BlackPearl has any of the information requested to complete the to assist Fort McMurray First
screening of the Project by Fort McMurray First Nation. Nation in completing the
screening.
Fort McMurray First Andrea Nokelby Email January 10, 2014 BlackPearl provided responses to the information requested and None.
Nation shapefiles of the Project area.
Fort McMurray First Andrea Nokelby Email February 24, 2014 Discussions between BlackPearl and Dillon Consulting Limited None. BlackPearl was concerned with
Nation (consultant) Email February 24, 2014 (consultant for Fort McMurray First Nation) regarding the the draft report in that the
Telephone February 24, 2014 screening report letter deliverable. A conference call meeting shapefiles used were not specific
Email February 24, 2014 was set-up for February 26, 2014 to discuss this further. to the Project Footprint. The report
Email February 25, 2014 Conference call occurred on February 26, 2014 to discuss the will need to be updated to reflect
screening report and information within the report. the proper scope of investigation.
Telephone February 26, 2014
BlackPearl provided the
shapefiles of the Project Footprint.
Dillon Consulting Limited is to
Page B-8
provide an updated document and

notify Fort McMurray First Nation
as to the discrepancy.
Fort McMurray First Nicholle Louvelle Letter March 10, 2014 BlackPearl mailed a Project update letter to stakeholder with None.
Nation information on Project modifications, timeline, regulatory process
and any additional feedback.
Fort McMurray First Nicholle Louvelle Email March 11, 2014 N. Louvelle informed BlackPearl that technical difficulties were None.
Nation preventing access to the email.
Fort McMurray First Andrea Nokelby Email March 26, 2014 Communications regarding providing a shapefile to Dillon None.
Nation (consultant) Email March 28, 2014 Consulting Limited. BlackPearl provided a shapefile on
Email April 1, 2014 April 1, 2014.
Email April 1, 2014
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email April 14, 2014 H. Cheecham inquired if a meeting could be scheduled in the A TLUOS will need to be
Nation near future to discuss next steps between BlackPearl and Fort conducted as the screening
McMurray First Nation. T. Bochmann (Fort McMurray First report indicated further
Nation new IRC Operations Manager) would also be attending. studies are required.
Fort McMurray First Nation would like to discuss BlackPearl
joining Fort McMurray First Nation IRC, conducting a TLUOS for
the Project and any questions from BlackPearl’s standpoint.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email April 14, 2014 Discussion on scheduling a meeting to discuss SOC and None. BlackPearl wants to discuss a
Nation Email April 15, 2014 TLUOS studies. A meeting was set-up for April 23, 2014. TLUOS as well as the SOC
Email April 16, 2014 submitted by Fort McMurray First
Email April 17, 2014 Nation.
BlackPearl will set-up a meeting

on April 23, 2014.
Fort McMurray First Nicholle Louvelle Email April 17, 2014 N. Louvelle would be willing to meet with BlackPearl to discuss Contact N. Louvelle after
Nation the SOC after May 7, 2014. May 7, 2014 to arrange for a
meeting to discuss the SOC.
TABLE B-2 Cont’d
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham In person April 23, 2014 BlackPearl met with Fort McMurray First Nation and provided a Fort McMurray First Nation BlackPearl is concerned about the
Nation Tony Bochmann Project update. They discussed the initiation of a TLUOS. is concerned that there is amount of funding requested
BlackPearl confirmed they would like to move forward in their limited TLUOS data for the considering the size of
consultation efforts and would like to discuss this process in area impacted by the BlackPearl’s operations currently
more detail. T. Bochmann discussed with BlackPearl the footprint of the Project, and that the Project has not
process, benefits and capacity required for joining the IRC. therefore, a study is obtained regulatory approval.
Capacity to the IRC would only be payable directly to the IRC required.
until January 2015 when the new levy system being created by BlackPearl will contact N. Louvelle
the Alberta Government comes into effect. after May 7, 2014 to discuss the
SOC. Fort McMurray First Nation
IRC is to provide BlackPearl with
a TEK agreement in order to
proceed with the TLUOS.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email April 30, 2014 H. Cheecham provided the Traditional Knowledge Sharing Sharing Agreement needs to BlackPearl to review the Sharing
Nation Agreement that BlackPearl and Fort McMurray First Nation have be signed by both parties Agreement and provide feedback
to sign before any work is done on the TLUOS. Fort McMurray before work can proceed. if there are any concerns.
First Nation would like BlackPearl to review the agreement as
soon as possible and if there are any questions to contact
N. Louvelle. H. Cheecham will also be emailing Dillon Consulting
Limited to begin work on the budget and work plan for the
Page B-9
upcoming TLUOS.
Fort McMurray First Harry Cheecham Email May 2, 2014 H. Cheecham emailed BlackPearl to inform Fort McMurray First None.
Nation Nation’s Band and IRC offices will be closed on May 5, 2014
and will reopen on May 6, 2014.
TABLE B-3
SUMMARY OF LARICINA COMMUNICATIONS TO DATE SINCE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT
Stakeholder Method of Date of Engagement Commitments/Follow-Up

Group/Agency Name Contact Name Engagement Activity Reason for Engagement Issues/Concerns Actions/Comments
Laricina N/A Letter December 1, 2011 BlackPearl provided a Project introductory letter. None.
Laricina Al Murray Telephone December 2, 2011 BlackPearl contacted reception and was forwarded to the Land None.
Manager, A. Murray. A voicemail was left for A. Murray inquiring
whether Laricina has any planned development activities in
BlackPearl’s Project area.
Laricina Deepa Thomas Telephone December 5, 2011 D. Thomas indicated the project area was north and west of Laricina None.
and they do not have any planned development activities in the near
term for this area. Laricina have development activities planned near
Wabasca, Alberta.
Laricina Deepa Thomas Letter April 17, 2012 A Project update letter was mailed out to stakeholders to inform them None.
that BlackPearl planned to submit an Integrated Application to the
AER and AESRD in May 2012. Enclosed with the letter was additional
information about the AER process including: A Letter from the
Chairman of the ERCB, ERCB Brochure: Understanding Oil and Gas
Development in Alberta; EnerFAQs 7: Proposed Oil and Gas
Development: A Landowner’s Guide; EnerFAQs 12: Oil Sands; and
EnerFAQs 15: Objecting to an Energy Resource Project.
Page B-10
Laricina Al Murray Telephone May 7, 2012 BlackPearl called A. Murray at Laricina to set-up a meeting to discuss None.
BlackPearl’s proposed CPF location.
Laricina Derek Kendle Telephone June 5, 2012 Laricina called BlackPearl and requested a meeting to discuss None.
BlackPearl’s proposed CPF location.
Laricina Al Murray In person June 10, 2012 BlackPearl met with A. Murray to discuss location of proposed CPF. BlackPearl’s proposed Laricina would like to meet
CPF Miscellaneous Lease to discuss CPF MLL
(MLL) location. location.
Laricina Derek Kendle Telephone June 11, 2012 Laricina indicated their concern over the location of BlackPearl’s CPF BlackPearl’s proposed BlackPearl will continue to
MLL and proposed a meeting to further discuss the concerns. CPF MLL location. work with Laricina regarding
BlackPearl’s CPF MLL
location.
Laricina Al Murray Email July 5, 2012 A. Murray sent an email to set-up a meeting to discuss Laricina’s None.
concerns with the Project.
Laricina Derek Kendle Email July 19, 2012 BlackPearl sent an email to D. Keller and provided additional figures None.
for the Project. BlackPearl inquired about Laricina’s surface access
and mineral holdings.
Laricina Al Murray, In person July 26, 2012 BlackPearl met with Laricina to discuss BlackPearl’s proposed CPF BlackPearl’s proposed
Kendall Dilling, and well pad located on Laricina’s mineral leaseholder land. CPF and well pad
Marnie Connelly locations.
Laricina Al Murray, Email September 24, 2012 BlackPearl emailed K. Dilling with a summary of the July 26, 2012 None.
Kendall Dilling meeting and requested another meeting to work with Laricina to come
to a solution.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email October 29, 2012 M. Montemurro contacted BlackPearl to get an update on current None.
discussions.
TABLE B-3 Cont’d
Laricina Mark Montemurro In person November 2, 2012 M. Montemurro and BlackPearl met to discuss Laricina’s concerns. BlackPearl’s CPF location
will reduce size of
Laricina’s resource,
impede efficient planning
of development and result
in sterilized oil.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email November 12, 2012 Laricina followed up on the November 2, 2012 meeting and provided Location of proposed Laricina indicated a need to
Email November 14, 2012 additional information regarding the potential degree of surface heave Blackrod surface facilities formally express their
Email November 14, 2012 and/or subsidence resulting from SAGD operations. and infrastructure concerns if these issues are
locations. Potential liability not able to be reconciled.
risk to Laricina should
Laricina SAGD wells be
drilled below BlackPearl’s
CPF MLL.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Telephone December 4, 2012 Discussed concerns regarding the CPF MLL location, resources and BlackPearl’s proposed BlackPearl indicated they
Email December 4, 2012 well pad locations. The interpretation of seismic lines and extent of the CPF MLL location, would be open to
shale channel was discussed. resources and well pad coordinating the placement
locations. of Laricina’s stratigraphic
well within BlackPearl’s CPF
Page B-11
MLL.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email December 10, 2012 BlackPearl emailed M. Montemurro to set-up a meeting with Laricina’s None.
Geologists to discuss winter 2013 drilling locations.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email December 12, 2012 M. Connelly emailed that Laricina was considering two stratigraphy Location of BlackPearl’s
Email December 12, 2012 well locations within BlackPearl’s CPF MLL and were interested in proposed CPF MLL and
discussing the possibility of moving the CPF location so it will not potential impact to
impact Laricina’s resource recovery. Laricina’s resource
recovery.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email December 18, 2012 BlackPearl sent an email to M. Montemurro and mentioned they had None. BlackPearl inquired about
been in discussions with Laricina’s Geologist (M. Connelly). A meeting Laricina’s stratigraphy well
will be planned for early 2013 to discuss the eastern geological limits drilling locations for
of the Grand Rapids Formation. winter 2013.
BlackPearl to meet with

Laricina in early 2013.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email December 19, 2012 M. Montemurro provided BlackPearl with Laricina’s draft SOC letter. Location of BlackPearl’s Laricina indicated interest in
CPF MLL, location of working together to come to
proposed well pads, a resolution.
pipelines and other surface
facilities, location of the
proposed water source
and disposal wells, ground
heave due to steam
injection process and
extraction of the resource,
and surface access
restrictions.
TABLE B-3 Cont’d
Laricina Marnie Connelly Telephone January 7, 2013 BlackPearl and M. Connelly discussed a date and time for a meeting. None. BlackPearl to meet with
Email January 7, 2013 Laricina on
Email January 7, 2013 January 10, 2013.
Email January 10, 2013
Laricina Marnie Connelly In person January 10, 2013 BlackPearl met with M. Connelly to discuss the 2D seismic lines and BlackPearl’s CPF MLL and BlackPearl notified Laricina
shale channel in relation to BlackPearl’s CPF MLL. In addition, well pad locations. of the relocation of the two
discussed the draft SOC and provided Laricina with an updated proposed BlackPearl well
Project Footprint. pads off of Laricina’s mineral
leaseholder land.
BlackPearl will provide

Laricina with a response to
their draft SOC.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email January 11, 2013 BlackPearl requested another meeting to discuss Laricina’s None. BlackPearl will continue to
outstanding concerns. work with Laricina to come
to a solution.
Page B-12
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email January 14, 2013 M. Connelly emailed BlackPearl with a list of available dates to meet Interpretation of the shale BlackPearl and Laricina to
Email January 14, 2013 to discuss acquiring seismic data. data. jointly acquire 2D seismic
data through 19, 30 and
31-76-17 W4M.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email January 16, 2013 Discussion of intent to submit a SOC and BlackPearl input on the draft Laricina will submit a SOC BlackPearl will provide
Telephone January 16, 2013 SOC. listing their concerns. Laricina with a response to
Email January 17, 2013 the draft SOC.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email January 17, 2013 BlackPearl sent Laricina their response to the draft SOC. None.
Laricina Deepa Thomas, Email January 18, 2013 Laricina provided a copy of the SOC that was submitted to the AER. Locations of BlackPearl’s
Marnie Connelly, CPF MLL, select wells,
Mark Montemurro well pads, pipelines and
roads proposed on
Laricina’s Portage lease.
Laricina Marnie Connelly, Email January 22, 2013 Discussion to follow up on jointly acquiring the 2D seismic data. None.
Mark Montemurro
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email January 31, 2013 BlackPearl emailed regarding Laricina’s notification of drilling two Consent for Crown surface BlackPearl committed to
Email January 31, 2013 stratigraphy wells, one of which was proposed within BlackPearl’s dispositions for Laricina jointly acquire the 2D
Email January 31, 2013 CPF MLL. Laricina confirmed they had planned to drill two stratigraphy facilities located on the seismic data.
Email February 1, 2013 wells and indicated it would not be included in their program this year. BlackPearl CPF MLL
location. BlackPearl requested
Laricina contact them to
review and mutually agree to
the most applicable drilling
location within BlackPearl’s
MLL.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email January 31, 2013 BlackPearl emailed regarding Laricina’s notification of drilling two
Email February 3, 2013 stratigraphy wells, one of which was proposed within BlackPearl’s
CPF MLL.
TABLE B-3 Cont’d
Laricina Al Murray Email February 5, 2013 BlackPearl forwarded the above email to A. Murray to ensure all Consent for Crown surface BlackPearl indicated they
parties were aware of the recent discussions. disposition for Laricina are still open to discussing
facilities located on the applicable drilling locations
BlackPearl CPF MLL in the future.
location.
Laricina Jason Nycz Email February 28, 2013 Laricina and BlackPearl mutually agreed to the location of the shale Based on the 2D seismic
channel running through 19, 30 and 31-76-17 W4M. date, BlackPearl determined
the CPF MLL is located
above a shale channel and
there is no oil sands
resource below BlackPearl’s
CPF site.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email March 8, 2013 Laricina and BlackPearl to set-up a meeting to discuss BlackPearl’s BlackPearl’s CPF MLL
new surface plans and potential locations for a Laricina CPF in the location.
area.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email March 21, 2013 Discussions regarding BlackPearl well pad and CPF MLL locations in Well pad and BlackPearl’s BlackPearl sent Laricina
Email March 21, 2013 30-76-17 W4M. CPF MLL location. conceptual plans. BlackPearl
Email March 22, 2013 will send final directional
Email March 27, 2013 drilling plans for BlackPearl’s
Page B-13
Email March 27, 2013 well pad located in

30-76-17 W4M when the
Email March 28, 2013
plan is available.
Laricina Mark Montemurro Email March 21, 2013 Discussions regarding the location of BlackPearl’s CPF MLL. Well pad locations in 19, BlackPearl indicated the
Email March 22, 2013 30 and 31-76-17 W4M. location of BlackPearl’s CPF
MLL will not prevent any
access to bitumen on
Laricina’s leases based on
the seismic data.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email April 2, 2013 Discussions regarding directional drilling and issues with 50 m well Drainage radius of
Email April 2, 2013 buffer. BlackPearl’s SAGD pairs
Email April 4, 2013 could drain Laricina’s
resource if only a 50 m
buffer is used.
Laricina N/A N/A April 5, 2013 BlackPearl submitted SIR Round 1 Responses to AER and AESRD N/A
with an updated Project Footprint that shows BlackPearl removed four
well pads and access roads in 19, 30 and 31-76-17 W4M. This was
done to accommodate Laricina. One well pad was left in
30-76-17 W4M since it is the only location from which BlackPearl can
place north/south SAGD pairs on the east side on 36-76-17 W4M due
to drilling constraints.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email April 9, 2013 BlackPearl provided directional drilling plans that illustrated sufficient None.
well clearance.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email April 22, 2013 Discussion regarding Laricina’s concerns with BlackPearl SAGD well Well pad location and
Email April 24, 2013 pairs being drilled from 30-76-17 W4M and the proximity of proximity of BlackPearl’s
Email April 24, 2013 BlackPearl’s horizontal build section to future Laricina SAGD well pairs horizontal build section to
on the west side of 30-76-17 W4M. future Laricina SAGD well
pairs.
TABLE B-3 Cont’d
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email May 9, 2013 Discussion of concerns regarding location of proposed BlackPearl well BlackPearl’s proposed well BlackPearl informed Laricina
Email May 9, 2013 pad. pad location. of their recent purchase of
Chinook Energy’s Petroleum
and Natural Gas (P&NG)
and Oil Sands leases in the
Portage area. BlackPearl
now owns the P&NG rights
above Laricina’s Oil Sands
leases.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email May 21, 2013 Discussion of Laricina’s concerns regarding BlackPearl drilling SAGD BlackPearl’s SAGD wells
Email May 21, 2013 well pairs from 30-76-17 W4M. could potentially
compromise caprock,
proximity of BlackPearl’s
proposed SAGD producer
wells to Laricina’s
proposed SAGD wells,
BlackPearl’s operation of
wells drilled though the
caprock above Laricina’s
Page B-14
bitumen resource and

location of BlackPearl’s
CPF.
Laricina Marnie Connelly, Email May 23, 2013 Laricina provided the draft second SOC letter for BlackPearl to review Location of BlackPearl well
Darcy Ries, prior to the regulatory submission. pad in 30-76-17 W4M,
Deepa Thomas proximity of BlackPearl’s
proposed SAGD wells
pairs to Laricina’s potential
SAGD well pairs, the cost
for Laricina to locate their
CPF at another site,
crossing steam lines and
drilling buffer.
Laricina Marnie Connelly Email May 28, 2013 Discussion regarding the second SOC letter. Location of BlackPearl well Laricina and BlackPearl will
Email May 30, 2013 pad in 30-76-17 W4M; set-up a meeting if concerns
Email May 30, 2013 proximity of BlackPearl’s cannot be addressed.
Email May 30, 2013 proposed SAGD wells
pairs to Laricina’s potential
SAGD well pairs; the cost
for Laricina to locate their
CPF at another site;
crossing steam lines and
drilling buffer.
Laricina Jim Hand In person July 8, 2013 BlackPearl met with J. Hand, Chief Operating Officer, to discuss Location of BlackPearl’s Laricina requested
Laricina’s concern regarding BlackPearl’s CPF MLL location. CPF MLL, Laricina’s BlackPearl move their CPF
additional expense to to accommodate Laricina’s
relocate their proposed development and/or that
CPF to another location. they be allowed to use some
capacity of BlackPearl’s CPF
steam generation and
emulsion treating facilities.
TABLE B-3 Cont’d
Laricina Jim Hand Email July 8, 2013 J. Hand followed up mentioning Laricina would like to work together to None.
resolve the issues.
Laricina Darcy Ries In person July 26, 2013 BlackPearl met with D. Ries, Director of Assets, to discuss Laricina’s Location of BlackPearl’s Laricina indicated additional
concerns regarding filing of the second SOC letter and assessment of CPF. Project details are required
siting process for BlackPearl’s CPF MLL. and inquired about access to
BlackPearl’s CPF.
BlackPearl and Laricina will

set-up a meeting to address
Laricina’s concerns.
Laricina Darcy Ries Letter August 7, 2013 BlackPearl sent a letter to D. Ries regarding providing Laricina the None.
option to participate in facility expansions.
Laricina Deepa Thomas Letter September 13, 2013 Laricina provided BlackPearl with the letter, dated Location of BlackPearl’s
Email September 13, 2013 September 11, 2013, sent to AER and AESRD summarizing proposed well pad,
outstanding concerns regarding the location of BlackPearl’s proposed potential for reduced
well pad, potential for reduced caprock and wellbore integrity, potential caprock and wellbore
for wellbore collision, the location of BlackPearl’s CPF, crossing of integrity, potential for
production lines and SAGD well offset from Laricina’s lease boundary. wellbore collision, location
of BlackPearl’s CPF,
Page B-15
crossing of production
lines and SAGD well offset
from Laricina’s lease
boundary.
Laricina Jim Hand, Darcy Ries Email September 30, 2013 BlackPearl emailed Laricina stating they would be willing to remove None. BlackPearl confirmed the
the remaining well pad (1A) off of 30-76-17 W4M. BlackPearl would CPF location would remain
consider a 100 m buffer to BlackPearl’s section boundary and stated in its original location.
that BlackPearl’s offer to participate in facility expansion is still BlackPearl, in an effort to
available. work with Laricina, offered to
maintain a 100 m buffer.
BlackPearl offered Laricina

the option to participate in
facility expansion phases, as
per Laricina’s request on
July 8, 2013 and is willing to
discuss the siting process for
the CPF location.
Laricina Jim Hand, Darcy Ries, Email October 11, 2013 J. Hand requested a meeting with BlackPearl to discuss the CPF BlackPearl’s proposed BlackPearl and Laricina will
Derek Keller location. CPF location. set-up a meeting to address
Laricina’s concerns.
Laricina Jim Hand, Email October 17, 2013 Discussions to set-up a meeting to discuss Laricina’s outstanding BlackPearl’s CPF site A meeting was set-up for
Darcy Ries, Email October 22, 2013 concerns. selection constraints and October 29, 2013.
Derek Keller possible locations for a
Laricina CPF that would
not incrementally impact
Laricina’s project costs.
Laricina Darcy Ries Email October 25, 2013 BlackPearl provided a draft SOC response letter for Laricina to review. None.
TABLE B-3 Cont’d
Laricina Darcy Ries, In person October 28, 2013 BlackPearl presented all Blackrod CPF locations that were evaluated Location of BlackPearl’s Laricina requested to see
Marnie Connelly, by BlackPearl. BlackPearl also presented Laricina with a detailed CPF proposed CPF. the potential locations for
Deepa Thomas location study for a Laricina development outlining several suitable BlackPearl’s power, fuel gas,
options for Laricina to place a CPF that would also be less expensive diluents and diluent-bitumen
than placing a CPF on the proposed BlackPearl CPF site. infrastructure in relation to
the potential Laricina CPF
sites.
Laricina Darcy Ries Email November 5, 2013 BlackPearl provided maps outlining the general routing of the power, None.
fuel gas, diluent and diluent-bitumen infrastructure within BlackPearl’s
CPF area.
Laricina N/A N/A December 13, 2013 BlackPearl submitted SIR Round 2 Responses to AER and AESRD N/A N/A
with an updated Project Footprint showing the removal of BlackPearl
well pads in 19, 30 and 31-76-17 W4M. BlackPearl made this final
Project Footprint change to accommodate Laricina. By removing
BlackPearl’s pad from 30-76-17 W4M, BlackPearl can no longer place
two SAGD well pairs on the east side of 36-76-17 W4M.
Laricina Darcy Ries, Email December 20, 2013 BlackPearl provided a copy of the letter submitted on None.
Marnie Connelly, December 20, 2013 to the AER in response to the SOC letter that
Deepa Thomas Laricina submitted on September 11, 2013.
Page B-16
Laricina Derek Keller In person March 20, 2014 BlackPearl met with D. Keller, Vice President of Productions, to BlackPearl’s proposed BlackPearl indicated the
discuss the SOC and operations of respective pilot projects. CPF location. CPF location cannot be
relocated.
AESRD SIR 3 RESPONSES
Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project AESRD SIR 3 Responses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 WATER ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Aquatics .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 TERRESTRIAL ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Conservation and Reclamation ........................................................................................... 8
2.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 6-1 Conceptual Well Pad Construction & Reclamation: Upland & Wetland Soils..................... 9
Figure 7-1 Conceptual Borrow Pit Construction and Reclamation: Upland and Wetland
Soils Borrow Pit ................................................................................................................. 10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 9-1 Rationale for Habitat Change Thresholds for Wildlife Indicators ...................................... 12
NOTE: In the Supplemental Information Request (SIR) 3 document received from Alberta Energy
Regulator and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) on April 9 2014,
AESRD SIR question numbers start at 2. In this document, question numbers start at 1 (i.e., SIR
question 2 in the April 9, 2014 SIR document is the same as SIR question 1 in this document).
Page i
1.0 WATER
1.1 Hydrology
1. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 22, Page 42
BlackPearl describes a conceptual monitoring program to ensure drainage management is

functioning as planned. As noted in the pre-amble to the question, “Roads, pads and other
infrastructure can interrupt the surface and shallow sub-surface flow resulting in changes to
wetlands, upland habitat, and headwater flow to watercourses.” BlackPearl’s conceptual
monitoring plan focuses on water and flows and is a solid foundation for monitoring. However,
changes in drainage often manifest more subtly, appearing as vegetation stress or changes in
species composition or relative abundance.
a. How will BlackPearl monitor for changes in vegetation associated with drainage
effects?
Response:
In addition to the monitoring program noted in Round 2 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development (AESRD) Supplemental Information Request (SIR) 22 (AESRD SIR 2 Responses,
Section 3.3, Page 42), BlackPearl Resources Inc. (BlackPearl) will include in the program an inspection
and visual record (e.g., photographs) of the vegetation on either side of the culvert in order to document
vegetation stress or changes in species composition or relative abundance. It is expected that these
changes will be most notable in closest proximity to the culvert, however, areas upstream and
downstream of the culverts will also be assessed.
If evidence of vegetation stress or changes in species composition or relative abundance are observed,
further investigation will be carried out by qualified professionals to identify the cause of the drainage
problem (e.g., insufficiencies in drainage/ditch design), if not already apparent. An appropriate
remediation plan will then be developed and implemented, as required.
1. b. At what frequency will this monitoring occur?
Response:
Visual inspection will be undertaken during the spring runoff every year, concurrent with annual ditch and
culvert inspections. In addition, late-season visitation to these sites (i.e., late summer/early fall) to monitor
vegetation will be incorporated in the development of other Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project (the
Project) monitoring programs.
1.2 Aquatics
2. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 25, Page 45 to 46
BlackPearl lists the named watercourses which will require crossings for bitumen, diluent, and
fuel gas pipelines, and confirms appropriate guidance materials (e.g., Codes of Practice) will be
followed. Several of these watercourses and the contributing watersheds provide habitat for
listed fish species.
a. Confirm whether recommended restricted activity period timing windows will be

followed.
Page 1
Response:
As stated in the response to Round 2 AESRD SIR 25 (AESRD SIR 2 Responses, Section 3.5, SIR 25,
Page 45), the exact route for the natural gas and bitumen-diluent pipelines has not been finalized and a
general region in which the pipeline may occur was presented (AESRD Round 2 SIR 25, Figure 25-1),
which may include proposed crossings of the House, May and Logan rivers, as well as Sunday Creek.
Routing alignment of the pipelines will be determined by the company selected to construct the pipelines
and will consider a number of factors, including: fish species and life stages; fish habitat potential;
hydrotechnical considerations; geotechnical concerns; constructability concerns; operational concerns;
and stakeholder input and/or concerns. The pipelines will be built in adherence to applicable federal and
provincial regulatory requirements, including compliance with the restricted activity periods as specified in
the Code of Practice for Pipeline and Telecommunication Lines for Crossing a Waterbody (Alberta
Government 2013).
2. b. Identify any additional mitigation to be implemented to address the heightened need to

protect these species.
Response:
Site-specific mitigation measures cannot be identified at this time, pending the selection of preliminary
pipeline routing, the completion of field studies and confirmation of crossing methodology, timing and
habitat sensitivity. However, additional mitigation that can be implemented to address the heightened
need to protect provincially-listed species can include: elimination or reduction of instream work; timing of
instream work to occur outside restricted activity periods; water quality monitoring; and facilitation of fish
passage during construction as well as other site-specific mitigation measures recommended by the
on-site Qualified Aquatic Environment Specialist (i.e., site-specific restoration plan) to ensure the
productive capacity of the aquatic environment is maintained.
Selection of pipeline watercourse crossing methods consider a number of factors including:
• fish species and life stages anticipated to be present within the zone of influence (ZOI)
of the watercourse crossing and construction timing;
• fish habitat potential within the ZOI of the watercourse crossing;
• hydrotechnical concerns such as stream flow, volume, depth of scour and lateral
channel stability;
• geotechnical concerns including crossing method feasibility and bank and approach
slope stability;
• constructability concerns, including safety, risk, complexity, access, schedule, timing

and cost;
• operational concerns, including pipeline integrity, maintenance and accessibility;
• input from regulators, Aboriginal groups, community members and stakeholders; and
• reliability, robustness, cost and maintenance concerns over the life of the pipelines.
Trenchless crossing methods are typically used at watercourses with high fish and fish habitat sensitivity,
construction concerns, channel stability concerns or technical considerations that preclude the use of
trenched crossing methods. Alternately, trenched crossing methods are generally used at watercourses
that, based on the results of site-specific field studies, have a low sensitivity to instream construction with
the implementation of mitigation measures and can be constructed in compliance to current federal and
provincial regulatory requirements, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Measures to Protect
Fish and Fish Habitat (DFO 2013).
Page 2
3. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 29a, Page 50 to 51
BlackPearl stated “Since the residual effect of increased fishing pressure associated with the
project, future developments and estimated future regional population increases (as discussed
above) is not expected to threaten the integrity of fishing resources and be within manageable
levels, it is considered not significant.
a. How did BlackPearl determine that the effect of regional fishing pressure was not
expected to threaten the integrity of fishing resources? Put the determination in the
context of the increased number of anglers expected to access regional fisheries
resources and the current management approaches for significant regional fisheries.
For example, do the regional fisheries currently have management strategies
suggestive of limited allocation opportunities (e.g., tags, catch and release, bag limits)?
b. How did BlackPearl determine the expected increased fishing pressure would be within
‘manageable levels’?
Response:
AESRD has requested further clarity regarding BlackPearl’s calculation of the residual effect of increased
fishing pressure associated with the Project, future developments and estimated future regional
population increases, and its application to current and future fish resources. Black Pearl has also been
asked to further clarify how the change in number of anglers, in context of the current management
approaches for significant regional fisheries, was translated into a determination that there would be no
cumulative impact on the integrity of fishing resources and why that increase was concluded to be within
manageable levels.
When addressing AESRD Round 1 SIR 76 (SIR Round 1) and AESRD Round 2 SIR 29 (SIR Round 2),
BlackPearl utilized two conservative approaches to consider the residual effects of increased fishing
pressure. Estimated population growth rates and the predicted increase in number of anglers were
considered for two scenarios: the Project and future developments (i.e., Planned Development Case
[PDC]; SIR Round 1); and anticipated natural population growth within the Socio-Economic Regional
Study Area (RSA) (SIR Round 2). By using the current provincial angling rate (6-9%) (Zwickel 2012) and
the proportion of anglers per watershed unit that overlap the Socio-Economic RSA (i.e., Watershed Unit
PP2 [37.8%], NB1 [6.1%] and NB4 [1.5%]) (Zwickel 2012), a predicted increase in the proportion of
anglers was presented for both of the scenarios described above.
To further clarify the predicted increase in number of anglers in the PDC case (SIR Round 1) and the
broader socio-economic scope (SIR Round 2), BlackPearl has taken the current proportion of provincial
anglers (9%) (Zwickel 2012) and the predicted population growth presented in SIR Round 1 and SIR
Round 2 respectively, and presented these percentages as anticipated number of anglers, as suggested
by the AESRD reviewer. The current angler population in the Socio-Economic RSA can be estimated to
be 84,938 people (i.e., current Socio-Economic RSA population of 943,750 x 9% provincial angling rate).
Since a 1% population growth due to Project and future developments is anticipated in the
Socio-Economic RSA (see Volume 5, Section 5.6.2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA]),
BlackPearl has predicted an increase of 850 anglers within the PDC case (i.e., current Socio-Economic
RSA population of 943,750 x provincial angling rate of 9% x 1% expected increase due to future and
planned developments within the Socio-Economic RSA). The average annual angler growth rate from
2011 to 2050 in the Socio-Economic RSA due to PDC case is estimated to be 0.026% or approximately
22 anglers per year for every year of the period. Likewise, BlackPearl has predicted an increase of
22,083 anglers in the Socio-Economic RSA within the scope of overall population growth (i.e., current
Socio-Economic RSA population of 943,750 x 9% provincial angling rate x 26% expected population
increase within the Socio-Economic RSA). The average annual angler growth rate from 2011 to 2050 in
the Socio-Economic RSA due to overall population growth rate is estimated to be approximately 0.59% or
ranging from approximately 500 anglers per year in the first year of the period to 627 anglers in the last
year of the period.
Page 3
The effect of the population growth on fishing resources is dependent on factors such as population
density nearby a fishery, characteristics of the fishery, access to the fishery, mobility of the anglers,
proportion of the population engaged in angling activities, etc. An increase in population, whether it is due
to a PDC case (SIR Round 1 approach) or an overall population growth (SIR Round 2 approach), is not
uniform throughout any given geographic area and thus will affect fishing resources in different locations
differently. For instance, an estimated 26% overall increase in the Socio-Economic RSA is comprised of
local population growth rates that range from 8-34% depending on location. The subsequent proportion of
angler and angling pressure is also variable spatially and temporally. BlackPearl also notes that the
proportion of the population currently engaged in angling is also not static; Zwickel (2012) indicates that
although there is some variability, the proportion of the population engaging in angling has generally
experienced a decreasing trend since the mid-1980s. The scenarios discussed above, and in SIR
Round 1 and SIR Round 2 responses, are efforts to quantify increases in fishing pressures, as requested
by AESRD.
AESRD has suggested that the current status of regional fisheries can be inferred from current regulatory
restrictions. Under its current management regime, all lakes, reservoirs, ponds and streams have some
level of restrictive regulations as AESRD sets maximum province-wide possession limits for game fish
species as well as general sport fishing regulations and restrictions (Government of Alberta 2014). In
addition, limits and size restrictions for specific lakes and streams can be specified for each Watershed
Unit section of the three distinct management Fisheries Management zones (i.e., Northern Boreal Zone,
Eastern Slopes Zone and Parkland-Prairie Zone).
A review of the fishing regulations within the vicinity of the Project Area indicate current management
approaches include seasonal closures, species-specific daily catch and size limits as well as catch and
release for specific watercourses and species (i.e., zero bag limit for Arctic grayling in the House River)
(Government of Alberta 2014). AERSD has also suggested that where restrictive regulations are currently
in place (i.e., limited harvest limits and/or catch and release regulations), unrestricted harvest is
unsustainable with current fishing pressure. BlackPearl understands restrictive regulations are
implemented in Alberta to protect sensitive species and reduce the potential for overharvest by anglers
and unlimited harvest is mitigated with restrictive regulations. As such, BlackPearl assumes the fishing
regulations AESRD currently has in place account for current angling pressure as well as other influences
on the sustainability of fish populations including environmental factors (e.g., recruitment, population
demographics, temperature and flow regimes) and other users of fisheries’ resources (i.e., commercial
guiding operations and Aboriginal subsistence).
The goals of the angling pressure effects assessment at the PDC case were to determine whether the
Project would be incrementally responsible for adversely affecting the integrity of fishing resources and to
ensure that BlackPearl will implement mitigation measures that address regional issues as appropriate.
The impact to the integrity of fishing resources attributable to the Project was determined to be of low
magnitude and, therefore, not significant and manageable at the PDC case. This conclusion assumed
that the incremental increases in angler pressure (i.e., 0.026% or approximately 22 anglers per year for
every year of the period) and the potential associated impact on the future fish resource by this increase
will be effectively mitigated by the measures implemented by BlackPearl as stated in Volume 3,
Section 4.7.1 of the EIA as well as the implementation of AESRD management approaches, as
referenced above (i.e., seasonal closures, daily catch and size limits as well as catch and release for
specific watercourses and species, enforcement actions, increased education, etc.).
To put this in context of overall cumulative effects of angling pressure within the Socio-Economic RSA,
BlackPearl has similarly considered potential proportional increases in angling pressure attributed to
natural population growth. BlackPearl has assumed that the incremental rate of increased angler
pressure attributed with natural population growth (i.e., 0.059% or approximately 500 to 627 anglers per
year from 2011 to 2050) would be addressed by AESRD and/or other regional use planning initiatives
with or without the Project, and that the Project’s contribution would not specifically require
implementation of additional mitigation or monitoring measures. Therefore, the impact to the integrity of
future fishing resources was assumed by BlackPearl to be manageable, although BlackPearl
acknowledges that AESRD has the responsibility and expertise to manage Alberta’s fish resources in the
region. Although BlackPearl’s cumulative effect assessment is limited to the Project contribution
(i.e., PDC case), BlackPearl’s predictions of increased angling pressure associated with PDC case and
natural population increases may assist AESRD and other authorities in additional management planning,
monitoring or mitigation that is beyond the direct control of BlackPearl.
Page 4
4. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 31, Page 52 to 54
BlackPearl provided rationale for not expanding the RSA. To better understand how cumulative
effects have been considered:
a. Confirm whether land use disturbance was considered in the PDC including forestry,
utilities, and past, present and expected exploration. If not, update the assessment and
conclusions to include all land use disturbance.
Response:
Yes, land disturbance was considered in the PDC. As stated in Volume 2, Section 1.2.1.4, Page 1-8 of
the EIA:
“The PDC assesses the cumulative effects of known future developments that will potentially
interact with the Project and existing/approved (i.e., Baseline) developments and activities. The
potential cumulative effects for the PDC are assessed by comparing the PDC to the Baseline
Case. The assessment period for the PDC includes the construction, operation, decommissioning
and reclamation, and closure phases for existing and approved developments and activities (as in
the Baseline Case), the Project (as in the Application Case), and planned projects and activities
(i.e., publicly disclosed as of February 2012).”
The PDC considered all existing/approved developments known as of February 2012 (Appendix 1B of
Volume 2 of the EIA) and all known future developments publicly disclosed as of February 2012
(Appendix 1C of Volume 2 of the EIA). Refer to Volume 3, Section 4.8, Page 4-35 to 4-36 of the EIA for
an explanation of how these activities were considered in the PDC assessment for Aquatic Ecology.
Within the Aquatic Ecology RSA, known future developments consisted only of future forestry cutblocks.
A conceptual future 3D and 4D seismic program for the Project was described in Round 2 AESRD SIR 36
(AESRD SIR 2 Responses, Section 4.2, Pages 58-69). BlackPearl anticipates that any future 4D seismic
program would be limited to the footprint of the existing 3D seismic program. BlackPearl is committed to
conducting any future seismic programs using low-impact techniques and in accordance with applicable
provincial and industry Best Management Practices. The potential interaction of future Project-related
seismic with Aquatic Ecology resources is expected to be limited to change or loss of riparian habitat.
Riparian Habitat Loss and Alteration - Application Case

Approximately 270.6 ha of riparian habitat (defined as the area within a 50 m buffer around watercourses
and waterbodies) has been affected at Baseline Case through surface disturbance associated with
existing activities (e.g., cutblocks, roads) in the Aquatic Ecology RSA. This equates to approximately
8.3% of the riparian habitat within the Aquatic Ecology RSA. The Project (including the revised Project
Footprint [see Project Updates for Rounds 1, 2 and 3 SIR Responses], seismic and conceptual seismic
programs), increases riparian habitat disturbance from Baseline Case in the Aquatic Ecology RSA by
11.6 ha (4.3% increase in riparian disturbance from Baseline Case). The combined riparian habitat
disturbance in the RSA at Application Case is approximately 282.2 ha (8.7% of the riparian habitat in the
RSA), which is less than 1% increase in riparian disturbance from Baseline Case at the regional scale.
Implementation of Best Management Practices for seismic lines, including narrowing of seismic line width
within riparian areas, is expected to reduce the potential residual effect of potential future seismic on
riparian habitat loss and alteration. The difference in estimated residual Project disturbance within riparian
habitat (11.6 ha) is marginal compared to that reported in the Application (10.2 ha) and does not change
the characterization of effects criteria. The assessment conclusions provided in the EIA for riparian
habitat loss and alteration remains valid.
The conceptual seismic program will be conducted as part of the construction phase of the Project.
BlackPearl anticipates that any future 4D seismic program would be limited to the footprint of the existing
3D seismic program. As such, the conceptual seismic program does not change the assessment
conclusions for riparian habitat loss and alteration during operation.
Page 5
Riparian Habitat Loss and Alteration – Planned Development Case

As noted above, any future seismic program for the Project is considered part of the Project Footprint and
included in the Application Case described above. Known future developments within riparian areas in the
Aquatic Ecology RSA included in the PDC consist of future forest harvest cutblocks (approximately
196.2 ha). When existing activities are combined with the Project and known future developments, the
total cumulative riparian habitat disturbance in the Aquatic Ecology RSA is predicted to be approximately
478.4 ha and increases the percentage of disturbed riparian habitat in the RSA to 14.8%, compared to
8.3% at Baseline conditions (i.e., 6.5% increase in riparian disturbance). The Project contributes
approximately 2.4% (11.6 ha) to the total cumulative area of riparian habitat disturbance for the PDC.
Implementation of Best Management Practices for seismic lines, including narrowing of seismic line width
within riparian areas, is expected to reduce the potential residual effect of potential future seismic on
riparian habitat loss and alteration. In addition, it is expected that timber harvest operators will implement
measures to reduce impacts on riparian habitat in accordance with provincial guidelines, such as AESRD
Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules Framework for Renewal (AESRD 2012).
The assessment conclusions provided in the EIA for PDC riparian habitat loss and alteration remains
valid.
4. b. Discuss whether BlackPearl’s cumulative effects conclusions are consistent with

modelling undertaken for regional land use planning (Lower Athabasca Regional Plan),
and the CEMA Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Framework.
Response:
A source of ongoing confusion is the difference between Cumulative Effects Assessments (CEAs)
conducted for projects (like the Blackrod Project) and those conducted for regional planning or resource
management purposes. The goal of a project-specific CEA is to determine whether the project is
incrementally responsible for adversely affecting a given resource and to ensure that the project has
considered, and is incorporating, mitigation measures that address regional issues as appropriate. A
project-specific CEA may also assist municipal and provincial authorities by identifying requirements for
additional planning, monitoring or mitigation that is beyond the direct control of the proponent and needs
to be implemented or led by others. Therefore, the focus of a project-specific CEA should be on the
project and its contribution to cumulative effects, however, it should also put this in context of overall
cumulative effects and the key pathways contributing to those effects. The differences, and links between,
regional cumulative effects work conducted for land use planning and BlackPearl’s Aquatic Resources
Project-specific and CEA conclusions show how these approaches can be complementary.
The Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association
(CEMA) modelled indicators that can trigger a management response (Wilson and Stelfox 2008). One of
these indicators was an Index of Native Fish Integrity (INFI). ALCES was used to model INFI, using a
back-casted dataset. Results indicated that cumulative disturbance, including watershed discontinuity
associated with linear features, has caused the current INFI to be 50% below the modelled lower limit of
the natural range of variation. The model results indicate that access management is the key
management strategy by which future effects on INFI can be mitigated. Models showed that INFI
performance is sensitive to human activity levels (e.g., angling), linear features, hanging culverts and
watershed discontinuity. Results also indicated that angling pressure and activities causing watershed
discontinuity can affect INFI beyond the location where these activities occur. These model results are
relevant to the study area for which they were derived, the boundary of which is not clearly stated in the
document. Given the document was prepared for CEMA, the study area is assumed to correspond
roughly to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. The Blackrod Project is outside this area.
Therefore, it is unclear whether conclusions of the CEMA modelling are directly relevant to the Project
Area.
Modelling information specific to the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) is not readily available. A
preliminary report prepared in support of the LARP development was obtained, which describes the
rationale for selection of proposed fish and fish habitat indicators, and provides response curves and
coefficients for conducting landscape modelling (Lagimodiere and Eaton 2009). This document describes
Page 6
the INFI as a fish community indicator developed through expert opinion and literature, which identifies
four key parameters: water use; linear density; human population; and watershed fragmentation due to
hanging culverts. Alternative fish habitat indicators described by Lagimodiere and Eaton (2009) include
aquatic habitat loss, aquatic habitat fragmentation and water quality index. BlackPearl was unable to
obtain model results or conclusions of modelling conducted for the LARP.
The objectives for the CEMA and LARP modelling initiatives relate to evaluation of land use and
management scenarios (Lagimodiere and Eaton 2009), with a goal of guiding management of resources
through actions such as improvement initiatives, legislative or policy change, public communication and
standard certification procedures (Wilson and Stelfox 2008). The CEA undertaken for the Project was
completed in accordance with the Project Terms of Reference to enable reviewing regulatory agencies to
draw conclusions about the potential effects of the Project in context with existing and future
developments. Although different methods and goals are apparent and warranted between the
higher-level landscape-level regulatory tools for CEMA and LARP and the Project-specific CEA for the
Project, parallels can be drawn between them. The parameters used to develop the INFI and identified
indicators of fish habitat for the LARP are generally consistent with many of the issues and assessment
parameters evaluated in the EIA (refer to Volume 3, Section 4.4, Table 4.4-1), including instream habitat
loss, habitat fragmentation, barriers to movement, water quality and angling pressure. Wilson and Stelfox
(2008) indicate that access management is a key management strategy for mitigating effects on INFI.
Similarly, the metrics used in the INFI reinforce the importance of utilizing and restoring existing
disturbance features where feasible to minimize creation of new access, along with proper culvert design,
construction and maintenance. BlackPearl has outlined several environmental management and
mitigation measures specific to the Project that reflect INFI guidance, specifically: minimizing new linear
developments to the extent feasible, minimizing human access on Project corridors, preventing barriers to
fish movement, restoring existing linear disturbance within the Project Area and Local Study Area (LSA)
to reduce cumulative impacts, and progressively reclaiming and restoring Project disturbances as the
phases of the Project progress (Volume 3, Section 4.7 of the EIA).
Page 7
2.0 TERRESTRIAL
2.1 Conservation and Reclamation
5. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Appendix A, Updated C&R,
Section 11.4.1.5, Page 11-21
BlackPearl states that Subsoil shall be salvaged from all upland soils to a maximum thickness
of 30 cm.
a. Confirm whether B horizon will be salvaged from all proposed disturbances.
Response:
Subsoil will be salvaged on all proposed and shallow peat disturbances. Table 11.4-3 of the Conservation
and Reclamation Plan provided the general subsoil salvage guidelines for Project developments within
the LSA. This table specified that salvage of a minimum of 30 cm of subsoil will be required within the
Central Processing Facility, well pads and borrow areas. The conceptual construction and reclamation
diagrams for access roads within upland environments, well pads (upland and wetland environments) and
borrow pits all illustrate that subsoil will be salvaged and stockpiled.
6. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Appendix A, Updated C&R, Section 11.4,
Figure 11.4-3, Page 11-26
In the Figure 11.4-3 Soil Salvage and Storage cross-section, BlackPearl states that 40 cm of
peat will be salvaged with equal amounts of underlying mineral soil (1:1 ratio).
a. Confirm that there will be no admixing of topsoil and subsoil materials during soil
salvage and storage.
Response:
Topsoil will be salvaged separately from the upper subsoil of shallow organic soils. There will be no
admixing of peat and mineral subsoil.
Figure 11.4-3 has been revised to reflect this and is presented as Figure 6-1.
7. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Appendix A, Updated C&R, Section 11.4,
Figure 11.4-8, Page 11-31
BlackPearl states that topsoil and peat will be salvaged and stored in the upland area of the pit.
The stockpiles will be separate and segregated. However, the Constructed cross-section does
not depict this.
a. Provide an updated cross-section that shows segregated topsoil and peat stockpiles.
Response:
The note associated with the constructed cross section for Figure 11.4-8 specified that the salvaged
topsoil and peat will be stockpiled in the upland area of the pit and that topsoil and peat will be
segregated. As the diagram is a cross sectional view and the topsoil and peat materials will be stockpiled
in separated piles along the same linear line with separation between each stockpiled material it was felt
that the notes below the cross section were sufficient. BlackPearl has provided a revision to the overhead
view of the conceptual borrow pit construction and reclamation diagram for upland and wetland soils to
illustrate the segregation of the salvaged topsoil and peat materials as stated in the accompanying notes
for the cross section view (Figure 7-1).
Page 8
Original Landscape
c1 Existing Wetland Vegetation (g1, STNN)
Organic
Parent Material (C Horizon) Material
(Peat
< 40cm)
Soil Salvage & Storage
Existing
Mineral Soil Peat Wetland
Stockpile Working Area Stockpile Vegetation
Woody Debris
Original Ground or Mulch
(5cm Thick)
Surface
Peat
Parent Material (C Horizon)
1. Remove all available peat material. 2. Stockpile peat in storage area. 3. Salvage topsoil and subsoil, stockpile separately.
Construction Pad Peat Mineral

Stockpile
Mineral Soil Existing

Peat Wetland
Stockpile
Working Area Stockpile Vegetation
Woody Debris
or Mulch
Berm
(5cm Thick)
Berm
Cut & Fill
Material
Peat
Parent Material (C Horizon)

Rows of Wells
1. Construct well pad with cut and fill material (import borrow material where required). 2. Cover working area with gravel.
Reclaimed Pad Existing

Wetland
Target Ecosite Phase (c1) Target Ecosite Phase (g1) Vegetation Reclaimed Pad
Peat
Replaced Peat
g1 Target
Ecosite Phase
c1 Target
Ecosite Phase
Replaced Upper
Subsoil Replaced Topsoil
Transitional Wetland
Parent Material (C Horizon) Abandoned Wells
1. Remove gravel and borrow material where applicable. 2. Decompact and recontour subsoil material. 3. Replace uppper subsoil
and topsoil in c1 area. 4. Place surface peat on g1 area. 5. Revegetate as per C&R Plan
Note: c1 = Labrador tea - mesic - jack pine - black spruce. g1 = Labrador tea - subhygric black spruce - jack pine
Legend Upper Subsoil (B Horizon) Woody Debris or Mulch

FIGURE 6-1
CONCEPTUAL WELL PAD CONSTRUCTION &
RECLAMATION: UPLAND & WETLAND SOILS
Salvaged Peat
BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
Former Constructed Pad PROPOSED BLACKROD
Peat Black Spruce (Sb) COMMERICAL SAGD PROJECT
Parent Material Original Ground Surface

(C Horizon)
Replaced Salvaged Peat Jack Pine (Pj)
Topsoil (A Horizon) (Fill & Geotextile Removed)
Cross Sections
FIGURE 7-1
CONCEPTUAL BORROW PIT CONSTRUCTION AND
Pre-Development RECLAMATION: UPLAND AND WETLAND SOILS BORROW PIT
AESRD SIR 3 RESPONSES BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.
PROPOSED BLACKROD COMMERCIAL SAGD PROJECT
Topsoil
Subsoil
Peat
< 40cm
C Horizon
Overhead View
A A1
Pre-Development
A A1
Topsoil or Peat
Constructed Subsoil
Overburden
Constructed Extent of Excavation
Peat Undisturbed Buffer

< 40cm
C Horizon Peat
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
Topsoil
Reclaimed
Extent of Excavation
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.
8. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Appendix A, Updated C&R,

Section 11.4.1.10, Page 11-54
BlackPearl states that Topsoil and subsoil materials salvaged from well pads will be stockpiled
separately with a minimum of 1 m separation between the toe of each stockpile.
a. Verify that 1 m separation between stockpiles is sufficient for equipment traffic for
maintenance of the stockpiles (i.e., weed control, sediment control, erosion control and
revegetation).
Response:
BlackPearl will commit to a minimum 3 m separation between the toe of each soil stockpile in order to
allow large equipment access for maintenance of the stockpiles.
2.2 Wildlife
9. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 40, Page 72
BlackPearl states that Few thresholds or standards for habitat change are explicitly identified
by regulators or the scientific community as accepted or established. In lieu of this, BlackPearl
used a precautionary approach to define thresholds that could be used to inform the
characterization of the magnitude if residual adverse Project effects on wildlife habitat […].
BlackPearl proceeds to list numerous sources.
The intention of the question was to list, for each species, the sources used to determine the
specific threshold used, and how that source justifies the use of that specific threshold.
a. Complete the following table, using one line for each species/source combination:
Interpretation of
threshold
presented in
source, and
justification for
Threshold threshold used
Threshold presented in in review
Species used in review Source source
Response:
The headings provided in the table for SIR 9(a) related to “used in review” are ambiguous. The response
has been compiled in Table 9-1 using headings modified slightly to provide the “threshold used in
assessment” where “assessment” is referring to the threshold of acceptable change from Baseline
conditions adopted to characterize the magnitude of the predicted Project effect at the regional scale.
For clarity, BlackPearl reiterates that the thresholds provided are thresholds of acceptable habitat change,
which influenced the rating of magnitude for the predicted Project effect on each indicator. The ecological
context relevant for each indicator (provided in EIA Volume 4, Sections 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7) also influences
the characterization of magnitude. The thresholds are not “significance thresholds” in the sense that
exceeding these thresholds would result in a significant effect. All assessment criteria were considered for
the determination of significance for each residual effect.
Note that several sources listed in the response to AESRD Round 2 SIR 40 do not refer to explicit
threshold values and as a result, were not included in Table 9-1 because they do not fit the format. Those
references were used for context, methodology in applying thresholds to CEAs and an indication of what
magnitude of habitat change has been deemed acceptable by recent regulatory decisions for projects
with similar scope and regulatory processes.
Page 11
TABLE 9-1
RATIONALE FOR HABITAT CHANGE THRESHOLDS FOR WILDLIFE INDICATORS
Threshold Used in
Wildlife Indicator Assessment Source Threshold Presented in Source Interpretation of Threshold Presented in Source, and Justification for Threshold Used in Assessment
Beaver 30% habitat change from Antoniuk et al. 2009 For most species, habitat Thresholds of habitat loss and cumulative effects risk are based on regional (landscape) scale habitat
Black bear baseline conditions for fragmentation effects do not occur availability, and indicate change from conditions in absence of disturbance (sometimes referred to as pristine
Fisher indicators not listed under when less than 10% of available or pre-settlement conditions). Baseline conditions for the Project are defined as the existing conditions at the
Lynx/snowshoe hare Species at Risk Act regional habitat is lost. Cumulative time of assessment. Baseline conditions include natural and anthropogenic disturbances that have affected
Northern goshawk (SARA) Schedule 1 effects risk increases at intermediate wildlife habitat. Habitat change from Baseline conditions is the metric used to evaluate potential Project effects.
levels of habitat loss (30-40%) and
Old-forest bird
20% habitat change from increases dramatically when 70-90% Old forest dependent species may be particularly sensitive to cumulative changes in habitat that reset forested
community
baseline conditions for of functional habitat in a region is lost. ecosystems to early seral stages and fragment habitat. As described in Volume 4, Section 2.4.4.2 of the EIA,
Moose Habitat Specialists associated with
SARA-listed species an analysis was completed to determine levels of cumulative habitat loss for old forest dependent bird
Sandhill crane localized or uncommon habitats or
(except caribou) indicators, specifically northern goshawk and old-forest birds. The analysis determined the proportion of
Western toad features (e.g., riparian shrub lands), moderate and high suitability habitat that is disturbed at Baseline, Application and Planned Development cases
and species with large area relative to estimated pre-development (i.e., no anthropogenic disturbance) habitat availability in the RSA. The
requirements or low resilience are proportions of disturbance for all three scenarios (Baseline Case, Application Case and PDC) were evaluated
more sensitive (various sources cited relative to the levels identified in the available literature.
within).
As detailed in Volume 4, Sections 2.5.4.6 and 2.5.4.7 of the EIA, results of this analysis indicate that at
Baseline Case, the existing disturbances in the RSA have resulted in approximately 10-12% loss of effective
habitat for northern goshawk and old-forest birds, compared to estimated pre-development conditions. This
Page 12
information was considered when developing the acceptable thresholds of habitat change used to characterize
the magnitude of potential Project effects at the regional scale. Changes in habitat in the range of 20-30% of
available effective habitat in the RSA is expected to provide a precautionary threshold, since the overall
change in habitat from pre-disturbance conditions would be below thresholds where cumulative effects risk is
considered moderate (e.g., 30-40% habitat loss) or high (e.g., > 70% habitat loss).
A threshold of 30% habitat change from Baseline conditions was adopted for most indicator species where
additive or synergistic negative effects to the wildlife indicator are not expected to threaten the integrity or
sustainability of the population. A more conservative threshold of 20% was adopted for SARA-listed indicators
(e.g., western toad), with the exception of woodland caribou. Please refer to information provided specifically
for woodland caribou below for an explanation of the thresholds and how they are interpreted.
Beaver 30% habitat change from Antoniuk and > 10-30% of landscape in suitable A threshold of 30% habitat change at the regional scale for most species and 20% for SARA-listed species, is
Black bear baseline conditions for Ainslie 2003 habitat for birds and mammals. precautionary, relative to the identified threshold of 10-30% habitat remaining (i.e., 70-90% habitat loss).
Fisher most indicators;
Lynx/snowshoe hare 20% habitat loss for
Northern goshawk SARA-listed species
Old-forest bird (except caribou)
community
Moose
Sandhill crane
TABLE 9-1 Cont'd
Threshold Used in
Beaver 30% habitat change from Andrén 1994 In landscapes with more than 30% of The source describes results of a meta-analysis completed for bird and mammal species, which identifies
Black bear baseline conditions original habitat remaining (i.e., < 70% thresholds of regional habitat loss at which fragmentation effects become evident (i.e., population response is
Fisher habitat loss), small patches will have not simply a mechanism of habitat loss). This source is widely used in effects assessment for wildlife habitat for
Lynx/snowshoe hare larger patches very close and hence provincially and federally-regulated development projects. Effects approaching a level where severe species
Northern goshawk will not suffer severe species loss. loss may occur is not acceptable. Therefore, a much lower threshold of acceptable habitat change was
adopted to characterize the magnitude of predicted effects. A threshold of 30% habitat change at the regional
Old-forest bird
scale for most species is precautionary, relative to the identified threshold of > 70% habitat loss.
community
Moose
Sandhill crane
Beaver 30% habitat change from Swift and Meta-analysis found that most See interpretation and rationale above for Andrén 1994.
Black bear baseline conditions Hannon 2010 empirical thresholds for birds and
Fisher mammals fell within Andrén’s (1994)
Lynx/snowshoe hare proposed range of 10-30% habitat
cover.
Northern goshawk
Old-forest bird
community
Moose
Sandhill crane
Page 13
Black bear 30% habitat change from Rompré et al. 2010 30-40% habitat remaining for species A threshold of 30% habitat change at the regional scale for species with large home ranges is precautionary,
Fisher baseline conditions with large home ranges. relative to the identified threshold of 30-40% habitat remaining (i.e., 60-70% habitat loss).
Lynx/snowshoe hare
Northern goshawk
Moose
Western toad 20% habitat change from Rompré et al. 2010 40% residual habitat remaining for Lower thresholds of habitat change are appropriate for species at risk. Western toad is listed under Schedule 1
baseline conditions sensitive species. of SARA, therefore, a lower threshold of acceptable habitat change at the regional scale was adopted to
characterize the magnitude of predicted effects.
Beaver 30% habitat change from Fahrig 1997 More than 20% breeding habitat Effects approaching a level where species extirpation may occur is not acceptable. Therefore, a much lower
Black bear baseline conditions for remaining at the landscape scale to threshold of acceptable habitat change was adopted to characterize the magnitude of predicted effects. A
Fisher indicators not listed under ensure persistence of hypothetical threshold of 30% habitat change at the regional scale for most species and 20% for SARA-listed species, is
Lynx/snowshoe hare SARA Schedule 1 species. precautionary, relative to the identified threshold of 20% suitable habitat remaining (i.e., 80% habitat loss).
Northern goshawk
Old-forest bird 20% habitat change from
community baseline conditions for
Moose SARA-listed species
(except caribou)
Sandhill crane
Western toad
Old-forest bird 30% habitat change from Flather and 40-50% habitat remaining affects Effects approaching a level where species persistence may be affected is not acceptable. A threshold of 30%
community baseline conditions Bevers 2002 persistence of forest passerines. habitat change at the regional scale for old-forest birds, when considered with the estimated 10-12% habitat
loss from pre-development conditions to Baseline conditions, is approaching but below the reported threshold
where passerine persistence may be affected. This was considered in project design, mitigation and
reclamation planning, to ensure that disturbed forest habitat is reclaimed as the phases of the Project progress.
TABLE 9-1 Cont'd
Threshold Used in
Black bear 30% habitat change from Dykstra 2004 Literature review of thresholds in Substantial variation in the reported thresholds is evident, which range from 10-80% forest cover or habitat
Fisher baseline conditions habitat supply summarizes numerous remaining. The identified thresholds of remaining forest cover necessary are highest for forest furbearers
Lynx/snowshoe hare thresholds derived from empirical and (marten) and northern goshawk. The weight of evidence from the sources summarized in Dykstra 2004 and the
Northern goshawk model-based studies. Relevant references above, suggests that the threshold of remaining habitat necessary to support sustainable
Old-forest bird examples include: populations for most species is somewhere between 30% and 50%.
community • 30% old forest cover remaining
Moose for moose;
Western toad • 55% forest cover at the
landscape scale for
bay-breasted warbler;
• 30-50% habitat remaining for
amphibian species (wood frog
and spotted salamander);
• 75% forest cover for American
marten in Utah and 70-80%
forest cover or 50-70% canopy
cover for marten in boreal
forests of Ontario;
• 15-70% forest cover remaining
Page 14
for woodpeckers;
• 50% forest cover remaining for
brown bear, wolf, lynx and
moose;
• 70% forest cover remaining for
northern goshawk; and
• 10-50% forest cover for forest
birds in boreal Ontario.
Woodland caribou 35% habitat disturbance Environment 65% undisturbed habitat in a range is Environment Canada’s scientific assessment to inform the identification of critical habitat for woodland caribou
Canada 2012 identified as the threshold that (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada: 2011 update (Environment Canada 2011) reports
provides a measurable probability for the current non-overlapping habitat disturbance of the East Side Athabasca River (ESAR) Caribou Range at
a local population to be 81%, which exceeds levels that would allow the caribou population to persist in the area. The threshold
self-sustaining. presented for caribou in the EIA is not a threshold of acceptable habitat change; rather it is the threshold as set
out by the federal Recovery Strategy. As such, because the current level of cumulative habitat loss has
exceeded the identified threshold of 65% undisturbed habitat, any activity that causes a residual adverse effect
on habitat within the ESAR caribou range will further contribute to the already exceeded threshold, having a
high magnitude effect without additional mitigation/offsets to address the residual effect. The Project does not
have a residual increase in disturbed habitat within the ESAR caribou range.
Woodland caribou 35% habitat disturbance Sorensen et al. (2007) Caribou populations in Alberta are The threshold reported by Sorensen et al. (2007) is in line with the thresholds set out by the federal Recovery
not sustainable if the industrial Strategy. Refer to interpretation and rationale above, for Environment Canada 2012.
footprint within a caribou range is
greater than 61%.
Woodland caribou 35% habitat disturbance Antoniuk and > 60% core area remains Core areas are not identified for caribou herds in Alberta. The threshold reported for direct disturbance in core
Ainslie 2003 undisturbed. areas is below the federal Recovery Strategy threshold for undisturbed habitat in a given range. Refer to
interpretation and rationale above, for Environment Canada 2012.
TABLE 9-1 Cont'd
Threshold Used in
Beaver 30% habitat change from Golder Associates Magnitude ratings: Thresholds of habitat change are relevant for regional or landscape scale assessments. Results can vary
Black bear baseline conditions for Ltd. (Golder) 2009 • negligible: no measurable effect; drastically with substantial differences in study area and methodology. The criteria used to characterize
Fisher indicators not listed under [Cenovus Energy Inc. • low: < 10% change in magnitude of habitat change effects for the Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Expansion Project indicate lower
Lynx/snowshoe hare SARA Schedule 1 {Cenovus} Christina measurement endpoint; percent change in measurement endpoint (equates to a threshold of acceptable change) than the thresholds
Old-forest bird Lake Thermal considered for the Blackrod Project. However, the RSA for the Cenovus project is considerably larger in
• moderate: 10-20% change in
20% habitat change from Expansion Project] comparison to the Blackrod Project Wildlife RSA. The ratings thresholds were considered, but not adopted for
community measurement endpoint; and
baseline conditions for the Blackrod Project, given differences in study methods.
Moose • high: > 20% change in
Western toad SARA-listed species
measurement endpoint.
(except caribou)
Beaver 30% habitat change from Golder 2010a Magnitude ratings: Thresholds of habitat change are relevant for regional or landscape scale assessments. Results can vary
Black bear baseline conditions for [Cenovus Narrows • negligible: no measurable effect; drastically with substantial differences in study area and methodology. The criteria used to characterize
Fisher indicators not listed under Lake Project] • low: < 10% change in magnitude of habitat change effects for the Cenovus Narrows Lake Project indicate lower percent change in
Lynx/snowshoe hare SARA Schedule 1 measurement endpoint; measurement endpoint (equates to a threshold of acceptable change) than the thresholds considered for the
Old-forest bird Blackrod Project. However, the RSA for the Cenovus project is considerably larger in comparison to the
20% habitat change from Blackrod Project Wildlife RSA. The ratings thresholds were considered, but not adopted for the Blackrod
community measurement endpoint; and
baseline conditions for Project, given differences in study methods.
Moose • high: > 20% change in
Western toad SARA-listed species
(except caribou)
Fisher 30% habitat change from Golder 2011a Magnitude ratings: Thresholds of habitat change are relevant for regional or landscape scale assessments. Results can vary
Page 15
Moose baseline conditions for [Cenovus Pelican • negligible: no measurable effect; drastically with substantial differences in study area and methodology. The criteria used to characterize
Western toad indicators not listed under Lake Grand Rapids • low: < 10% change in magnitude of habitat change effects for the Cenovus Pelican Lake Grand Rapids Project indicate lower percent
SARA Schedule 1 Project] measurement endpoint; change in measurement endpoint (equates to a threshold of acceptable change) than the thresholds
considered for the Blackrod Project. However, the RSA for the Cenovus project is considerably larger in
20% habitat change from comparison to the Blackrod Project Wildlife RSA. The ratings thresholds were considered, but not adopted for
measurement endpoint; and
baseline conditions for the Blackrod Project, given differences in study methods.
• high: > 20% change in
SARA-listed species
(except caribou)
Beaver 30% habitat change from Golder 2011b Magnitude ratings: Thresholds of habitat change are relevant for regional or landscape scale assessments. Results can vary
Lynx/snowshoe hare baseline conditions for [Canadian Natural • negligible: no measurable effect drastically with substantial differences in study area and methodology. The criteria used to characterize
Old-forest bird indicators not listed under Resources Limited to < 1%; magnitude of habitat change effects for the CNRL Kirby In Situ Project indicate lower percent change in
community SARA Schedule 1 {CNRL} Kirby In Situ • low: 1% to < 10% change in measurement endpoint (equates to a threshold of acceptable change) than the thresholds considered for the
Moose Expansion Project] measurement endpoint; Blackrod Project. However, the RSA for the CNRL project is considerably larger in comparison to the Blackrod
Western toad 20% habitat change from Project Wildlife RSA. The ratings thresholds were considered, but not adopted for the Blackrod Project, given
baseline conditions for differences in study methods.
measurement endpoint; and
SARA-listed species
• high: > 20% change in
(except caribou)
Beaver 30% habitat change from Golder 2010b Magnitude ratings: Thresholds of habitat change are relevant for regional or landscape scale assessments. Results can vary
Black bear baseline conditions for [Dover Corporation • negligible: no measurable effect; drastically with substantial differences in study area and methodology. The criteria used to characterize
Fisher indicators not listed under {Dover} Commercial • low: < 10% change in magnitude of habitat change effects for the Dover Commercial Project indicate lower percent change in
Lynx/snowshoe hare SARA Schedule 1 Project] measurement endpoint; measurement endpoint (equates to a threshold of acceptable change) than the thresholds considered for the
Blackrod Project. However, the RSA for the Dover project is considerably larger in comparison to the Blackrod
Northern goshawk • moderate: 10-20% change in
20% habitat change from Project Wildlife RSA. The ratings thresholds were considered, but not adopted for the Blackrod Project, given
Old-forest bird measurement endpoint; and
baseline conditions for differences in study methods.
community • high: >2 0% change in
SARA-listed species
Moose measurement endpoint.
(except caribou)
Sandhill crane
Western toad
TABLE 9-1 Cont'd
Threshold Used in
Beaver 30% habitat change from Stantec Consulting Adopted a precautionary approach Thresholds of habitat change are comparable to those adopted for the Blackrod Project to characterize the
Fisher baseline conditions for Ltd. 2011 for assessing habitat change, and magnitude of predicted effects.
Lynx/snowshoe hare indicators not listed under [Laricina Energy Ltd. used a habitat change threshold of
Old-forest bird SARA Schedule 1 Germain Project] 30% (i.e., wildlife are assumed to
community tolerate up to 30% loss of effective
20% habitat change from habitat or 70% effective habitat
Moose
baseline conditions for remaining) for valued species. An
Western toad
SARA-listed species even more conservative threshold of
(except caribou) 20% effective habitat change was
adopted for most wildlife species at
risk.
Black bear 30% habitat change from Devon NEC Three levels of magnitude: The magnitude ratings for changes in habitat for the Devon NEC Corporation Jackfish 3 EIA utilized project
Fisher baseline conditions for Corporation 2010 • low: measured or estimated impacts to very high and high suitability habitats for the identified indicators in the LSA, whereas the evaluation
Lynx/snowshoe hare indicators not listed under [Jackfish 3 Project] impact represents a 1% or less of habitat change for indicators in the Blackrod Wildlife RSA considered cumulative changes from Baseline
Northern goshawk SARA Schedule 1 change in the receptor from Case to Application and Planned Development cases for habitats rated moderate to high suitability. The ratings
Old-forest bird baseline conditions; thresholds were considered, but not adopted for the Blackrod Project, given differences in study methods.
community 20% habitat change from • moderate: measured or
Moose baseline conditions for estimated impact represents a
SARA-listed species 1-10% change in the receptor
Western toad
(except caribou) from baseline conditions; and
Page 16
• high: measured or estimated

impact represents a 10% or
greater change in the receptor
from baseline conditions.
3.0 REFERENCES
Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. 2012. Alberta Timber Harvest Planning
and Operating Ground Rules Framework for Renewal. Forestry Division, Forest Management
Branch. Edmonton, AB. 98 pp.
Alberta Government. 2013. Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings. Edmonton, AB. 44 pp.
Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different
proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355-366.
Antoniuk, T., and B. Ainslie. 2003. Cumulative effects: Sources, indicators, and thresholds. Appendix 1 in
Volume 2, Cumulative Effects Indicators, Thresholds, and Case Studies of the Cumulative Effects
Assessment and Management for Northeast British Columbia project. Prepared for Oil and Gas
Science Commission Science and Community Knowledge Fund and Muskwa-Kechika
Management Area by Salmo Consulting Inc.
Antoniuk, T., S. Kennett, C. Aumann, M. Weber, S. Davis Schuetz, R. McManus, K. McKinnon and
K. Manuel. 2009. Valued Component Thresholds (Management Objectives) Project.
Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 172. Calgary, AB. 164 p.
Devon NEC Corporation. 2010. Application for Approval of the Devon Jackfish 3 Project, Volume 2 –
Environmental Impact Assessment. Devon NEC Corporation. Calgary, AB. 1228 pp.
Dykstra, P.R. 2004. Thresholds in Habitat Supply: A Review of the Literature. BC Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management Ecosystem Conservation Section, and BC Ministry of Water, Land and
Air Protection Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildlife Report No. R-27.
Environment Canada. 2011. Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for
Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada. 2011 update.
Ottawa, ON. 102 pp. + Appendices.
Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou),
Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment
Canada. Ottawa, ON. xi + 138 pp.
Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of
Wildlife Management 61: 603-610.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013. Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat.
Website: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures/index-eng.html. Accessed:
April 2014.
Flather, C.H., and M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: The relative
importance of habitat amount and arrangement. The American Naturalist. 159(1):40-56.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment for the EnCana Foster Creek and
Christina Lakes Ltd. Christina Lake Thermal Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1F and 1G.
Volume 2 (Introduction to the Environmental Impact Assessment) and Volume 5 (Terrestrial
Resources Assessment). October 2009.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2010a. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Cenovus Foster Creek and
Christina Lakes Ltd. Narrows Lake Project. Volume 2 (Introduction to the Environmental Impact
Assessment) and Volume 5 (Terrestrial Resources Assessment). June 2010.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2010b. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Dover Operating Corporation
Dover Commercial Project. Volume 3 (Introduction to the Environmental Impact Assessment) and
Volume 5 (Terrestrial Resources Assessment). December 2010.
Page 17
Golder Associates Ltd. 2011a. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Cenovus Energy Inc. Pelican
Lake Grand Rapids Project. Volume 3 (Introduction to the Environmental Impact Assessment)
and Volume 5 (Terrestrial Resources Assessment). December 2011.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2011b. Environmental Impact Assessment for the Canadian Natural Resources
Limited Kirby In Situ Oil Sands Expansion Project. Volume 2 (Introduction to the Environmental
Impact Assessment) and Volume 5 (Terrestrial Resources Assessment). December 2011.
Government of Alberta. 2014. Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations. Website:

http://albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/. Accessed: April 2014.
Lagimodiere, M. and B. Eaton. 2009. Fish and Fish Habitat Indicators for the Lower Athabasca Regional
Plan (LARP): Description, Rationale and Modelling Coefficients. Fish Element Team, Lower
Athabasca Regional Plan. March 31, 2009.
Rompré, G., Y. Boucher, L. Bélanger, S. Côté and W.D. Robinson. 2010. Conserving biodiversity in
managed forest landscapes: The use of critical thresholds for habitat. The Forestry
Chronicle 85(5): 589-596.
Sorensen, T., P. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan and S. Boutin. 2007. Determining
Sustainable Levels of Cumulative Effects for Boreal Caribou. Journal of Wildlife
Management 72: 900-905.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2011. Wildlife Assessment Report for the Laricina Energy Ltd. Germain Project
Expansion. Prepared for Millenium EMS Solutions Ltd. Calgary, AB. 190 pp.
Swift, T.L. and S.J. Hannon. 2010. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the
concepts, evidence, and applications. Biological Reviews 85: 35-53.
Wilson, B. and B. Stelfox. 2008. Indicator Synthesis: Selection Rationale, Modelling Results and
Monitoring Considerations for Key Indicators of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Management
Framework. Prepared for Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group of the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association. Calgary, AB. 63 pp.
Zwickel, H. 2012. Sport fishing in Alberta 2010: summary report from the eighth survey of recreational
fishing in Canada. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch.
Edmonton, Alberta. 46 pp.
Page 18

Blackrod Project Update and Sir 3 Responses Secured

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blackrod Project Update and Sir 3 Responses Secured

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

700, 444 – 7th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, AB T2P 0X8

May 30, 2014

Steve Thomas Claire Classen

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Blackrod Commercial SAGD Project - Supplemental Information Request (SIR)

BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC.

• Project Update – SIR Round 3;

• AER SIR 3 Reponses; and

• AESRD SIR 3 Responses.

2.0 PROJECT UPDATE

2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

Phase 1 Borrow Pit Phase 3B COMPARISON OF PROJECT FOOTPRINTS

Aboriginal Engagement Activities (December 13, 2013 to May 21, 2014)

Objections and Statements of Concern

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION SINCE DECEMBER 13, 2013

Stakeholder Group Summary of Consultation Activities Since December 13, 2013

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING SOCS

BlackPearl’s proposed Project infrastructure will not interfere

BlackPearl provided the

BlackPearl will set-up a

BlackPearl will contact

A meeting was scheduled

AER SIR APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF ALL CONSULTATION WITH

SUMMARY OF CHARD METIS COMMUNICATIONS TO DATE SINCE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT

Stakeholder Method of Date of Commitments/Follow-Up

agreement and draft appendix. If BlackPearl has

Stakeholder Method of Date of Commitments/Follow-Up

November 24, 2011

Nation Nicholle Louvelle were not available to meet.

provide an updated document and

BlackPearl will set-up a meeting

SUMMARY OF LARICINA COMMUNICATIONS TO DATE SINCE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROJECT

Stakeholder Method of Date of Engagement Commitments/Follow-Up

BlackPearl to meet with

BlackPearl will provide

Email March 27, 2013 well pad located in

bitumen resource and

BlackPearl and Laricina will

BlackPearl offered Laricina

BlackPearl describes a conceptual monitoring program to ensure drainage management is

1. b. At what frequency will this monitoring occur?

a. Confirm whether recommended restricted activity period timing windows will be

2. b. Identify any additional mitigation to be implemented to address the heightened need to

Selection of pipeline watercourse crossing methods consider a number of factors including:

• fish habitat potential within the ZOI of the watercourse crossing;

• constructability concerns, including safety, risk, complexity, access, schedule, timing

• operational concerns, including pipeline integrity, maintenance and accessibility;

3. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 29a, Page 50 to 51

4. Project Update and SIR Responses Round 2, Response 31, Page 52 to 54

Riparian Habitat Loss and Alteration - Application Case

Riparian Habitat Loss and Alteration – Planned Development Case

4. b. Discuss whether BlackPearl’s cumulative effects conclusions are consistent with

a. Confirm whether B horizon will be salvaged from all proposed disturbances.

Parent Material (C Horizon)

Construction Pad Peat Mineral

Mineral Soil Existing

Parent Material (C Horizon)

Reclaimed Pad Existing

Legend Upper Subsoil (B Horizon) Woody Debris or Mulch

Parent Material Original Ground Surface

Peat Undisturbed Buffer